U.S. Climate Action Report

2010

Fifth National Communication 

of the United States of America 

Under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change
U.S. Climate Action Report

2010

Fifth National Communication 

of the United States of America 

Under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change

You may electronically download or order 

a hard copy of this document from the 

following U.S. Department of State Web site:

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/car/index.htm

This document may be cited as follows: 

United States Department of State. 

U.S. Climate Action Report 2010.

Washington: Global Publishing Services, June 2010.
ii U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

1Executive Summary 2

National Circumstances 4

Greenhouse Gas Inventory 5

Policies and Measures 5

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5

Impacts and Adaptation 6

Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology 7

Research and Systematic Observation 8

Education, Training, and Outreach 8

2 National Circumstances 9

Government Structure 9

 Executive Branch 9

 Legislative Branch 10

 Judicial Branch 10

 Governance of Energy and Climate Change Policy 10

Population Profile 10

Geographic Profile 11

Climate Profile 11

Economic Profile 12 

Energy Reserves and Production 12

 Fossil Fuels 13

 Nuclear Energy 13

 Renewable Energy 13

 Electricity 14

Energy Consumption 14

 Residential Sector 15

 Commercial Sector 16

 Industrial Sector 16

 Transportation Sector 16

 Federal Government 17

Transportation 17

 Highway Vehicles 18

 Air Carriers 18

 Freight 18

Industry 18

Waste 19

Building Stock and Urban Structure 19

 Residential Buildings 19

 Commercial Buildings 19

Agriculture and Grazing 20

Forests 20
Table of Contents iii

3Greenhouse Gas Inventory 22

4 Policies and Measures 39

Federal Policies and Measures 41

 New Initiatives Since the 2006 CAR 41

 Progress and Projections for Reducing U.S. GHG Emissions 44

 Energy: Residential and Commercial Sectors 44

 Energy: Industrial Sector 47

 Energy: Supply 48

 Transportation 51

 Industry: Non-CO2 54

 Agriculture 56

 Forestry 58

 Waste Management 58

 Cross-Sectoral 59

 Federal Government Programs 61

Nonfederal Policies and Measures 61

 Direct Greenhouse Gas Policies and Measures 61

 Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Policies and Measures 62

Background Information 23

Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 23

 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 24

 Methane Emissions 30

 Nitrous Oxide Emissions 31

 HFC, PFC, and SF6 Emissions 31

Overview of Sector Emissions and Trends 32

 Energy 32

 Industrial Processes 33

 Solvent and Other Product Use 33

 Agriculture 33

 Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry 33

 Waste 34

Emissions by Economic Sector 34

Indirect Greenhouse Gases 36
iv U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Projected Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions 76

Vulnerability Assessment, 

Climate Change Impacts, 

and Adaptation Measures 86

5

6

Administration Policy and Goals 76

Chapter Overview 77

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020 77

 Trends in Total Greenhouse Gases 77

 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 78

 Non-Carbon Dioxide Emissions 79

 Bunker Fuels 80

 Sequestration 80

 Adjustments 80

 Sectoral Carbon Dioxide Emissions 80

Assumptions Used to Estimate Future GHG Emissions 82

 Changes Between the 2006 CAR and the 2010 CAR,

 Including the Effects of New Policies and Measures 82

 Description of NEMS and Methodology 83

 Key Uncertainties Affecting Projected GHG Emissions 84

Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections to 2050 85

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 87

Some Key U.S. Vulnerabilities 88

 Water and Energy 88

 Transportation 89

 Public Health 89

 Ecosystems 90

 Coasts 90

Sample Research, Assessments, and Activities Pertaining

 to Vulnerability, Impacts, and Adaptation 90

 International Activities 90

 Activities at Local to National Scales 91

 Regional Activities 93

 State Activities 93

Sample U.S. Assessment and Adaptation Activities in Specific Sectors 93

 Water Resources 93

 Ecosystems 95

 Public Health 95

 Coasts 96

 Transportation 97

 Energy 97
Table of Contents v

Financial Resources 7and Technology Transfer 98

U.S. Financial and Technical Assistance by Agency 99

 U.S. Agency for International Development 99

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 101

 U.S. Department of Energy 101

 U.S. Department of State 101

 U.S. Department of Agriculture 101

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 102

 U.S. Department of Commerce 102

 Millennium Challenge Corporation 102

Major U.S. Cross-Cutting Initiatives 103

 USAID Global Change Program 103

 World Bank Climate Investment Funds 103

 Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative 103

 Global Earth Observation System of Systems 103

U.S. Mitigation Programs, Excluding Forest Programs 104

 Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate 104

 Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate 104

 Methane to Markets Partnership 104

 Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 105

 U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center 105

 U.S.–India Clean Energy Research Center 105

 U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway 105

 EPA Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles—

 International Diesel Retrofit Projects 105

 EPA Programs for Energy Efficiency 106

 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Improvement Project 106

 ECO-Asia 106

 DOE National Laboratory Expert Technical Support 107

 Global Bioenergy Partnership 107

 International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation 107

 International Renewable Energy Agency 107

 Climate Technology Initiative 107

 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership 108

U.S. Forest Programs and Partnerships 108

 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility 108

 Tropical Forest Conservation Act 108

 Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon 109

 Forest, Climate & Community Alliance 109

 International Small Group and Tree Planting Program 109

 Center for International Forestry Project 109

 Forest Carbon Calculator 109

 USAID/USFS Interagency Agreement 110

 Illegal Logging and Forest Trade 110

 Standing Forest Conservation Markets Initiative 110

U.S. Vulnerability and Adaptation Programs 110

 Adaptation Guidance Manuals 110

 Earth Observations for Decision Support 111

 Climate One Stop 111

 Regional Climate Outlook Forums 111

 Resource-Sharing Partnerships for Sustained 

 Ocean-Climate Observations 111

 International Research Institute for Climate and Society 112

 Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security 112

 Famine Early Warning System Network 112

 RANET Program 113

 Disaster Preparedness Activities 113

 International Technical Assistance Program 113

U.S. Trade and Development Financing 113

 Overseas Private Investment Corporation 114

 Export-Import Bank 114

 USAID Development Credit Authority 115

 USAID Global Development Alliance 115

 U.S. Trade and Development Agency 115

U.S. Private-Sector Assistance 116
vi U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Education, Training, 

and Outreach 139

Research and 8 Systematic Observation 121

9

Appendices 161 

A: Emission Trends 162

B: Bibliography 173

Updates Since the 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report 140

 Federal Programmatic Coordination 140

Overview of National Efforts to Engage the United States

 on Climate Change 140

Federal Agency Education, Training, and Outreach 

 Program Overviews 141

 U.S. Global Change Research Program 141

 U.S. Department of Commerce 142

 U.S. Department of Energy 142

 U.S. Department of the Interior 142

 U.S. Department of Transportation 143

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 143

 U.S. National Science Foundation 143

 Smithsonian Institution 143

 U.S. Agency for International Development 144

 U.S. Department of Agriculture 144

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 144

Research on Global Change 121

 U.S. Global Change Research Program 122

Systematic Observations 123

 Documentation of U.S. Climate Observations 125

 Data Management 132

Technology for Global Change 134

 U.S. Climate Change Technology Program 134

 Energy End Use and Infrastructure 134

 Energy Supply 135

 Carbon Capture and Sequestration 136

 Other Greenhouse Gases 136

 Measuring and Monitoring 137

 Basic Science 137

 Multilateral Research and Collaboration 137
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

3D-VIEW three-dimensional Virtual Interactive 

Environmental Worlds 

AAVP ARM Aerial Vehicles Program 

AAVSHTO American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials 

ac acre

ACRF Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 

Climate Research Facility 

ADAGE Applied Dynamic Analysis of the 

Global Economy 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

AERONET AErosol RObotic NETwork

AFCI Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

AGAGE Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases 

Experiment 

AIRS Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder

ALU agriculture and land use 

AMS American Meteorological Society 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory 

AON Arctic Observing Network 

APP Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean 

Development and Climate 

ARM Atmospheric Radiation Measurement

ARPA-E Advanced Research and Projects 

Agency–Energy

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009

ARS Agricultural Research Service

A-Train Afternoon Train

AZA Association of Zoos and Aquariums

BCF billion cubic feet

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BER Office of Biological and Environmental 

Research 

BFI Biofuels Initiative

BIE Bureau of Indian Education 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation 

BRDI Biomass Research and Development 

Initiative

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Btu British thermal unit

oC degree Centigrade

C2F6 hexafluoroethane

C4F10 perfluorobutane

C6F14 perfluorohexane

C&D commercialization and deployment 

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels 

Initiative 

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CALIPSO Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared 

Pathfinder Satellite Observation

CAR U.S. Climate Action Report

CATHALAC Water Center for the Humid Tropics 

of Latin America and the Caribbean

CBI Net-Zero Energy Commercial 

Building Initiative

CBM coalbed methane 

CCCSTI Committee on Climate Change 

Science and Technology Integration

CCD Climate Change Division

CCLI Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory 

Improvement

CCPI Clean Coal Power Initiative

CCRI Climate Change Research Initiative

CCS carbon capture and sequestration 

CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program
viii U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

CCTP Climate Change Technology Program

CDCP Clean Development and Climate 

Program 

CEA Council of Economic Advisers

CENR Committee on Environment and 

Natural Resources

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERES Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy 

System 

CESN Climate Effects Science Network 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CFP Climate Friendly Parks 

CH4 methane

CHE NSF Division of Chemistry

CHECK Climate Change Emission Calculator 

Kit 

CHP combined heat and power

CIFs Climate Investment Funds 

CIG Climate Impacts Group 

CIWG Communications Interagency Working 

Group 

CLASS Comprehensive Large Array-data 

Stewardship System 

CLD Climate and Large-scale Dynamics

CLIMAS Climate Assessment for the Southwest

CLIP Climate Leadership In Parks

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

CMG Collaboration in Mathematical 

Geosciences 

CMOP Coalbed Methane Outreach Program

CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales

CNRS Centre Nationale de Recherche 

Scientifique 

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2 Eq. carbon dioxide equivalents

COL combined license

CommEd Communications and Education

COP Conference of the Parties

CPO Climate Program Office 

CPT Climate Process and Modeling Teams 

CRC–URI The Coastal Resources Center at the 

University of Rhode Island

CrIS Cross-track Infrared Sounder

CRN Climate Reference Network

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSLF Carbon Sequestration Leadership 

Forum 

CSP Conservation Stewardship Program 

CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service

CTA conservation technical assistance 

CTI Climate Technology Initiative

CTI Coral Triangle Initiative

CTIC Conservation Technology Information 

Center

DAAC Distributed Active Archive Center 

DCA Development Credit Authority

DEP Department of Environmental 

Protection

DERA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 

DMR NSF Division of Materials Research

DMS NSF Division of Mathematical Science

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DOS U.S. Department of State

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

ECO-Asia Environmental Cooperation–Asia 

ECV essential climate variable

EDA Economic Development Administration

EDG EOS Data Gateway 

EECBG Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix

EEP Environmental Exports Program 

EFRC Energy Frontier Research Center 

EFRI Emerging Frontiers in Research and 

Innovation 

EGS enhanced geothermal systems 

EHE excessive heat event

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007

EOS Earth Observing System 

EOSDIS Earth Observing System Data and 

Information System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005

Eq. equivalents

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program

ESP early site permit 

ESSEA Earth System Science Education 

Alliance

ETBC Emerging Topics in Biogeochemical 

Cycles 

EUGENE Ecological Understanding as a Guideline 

for Evaluation of Nonformal Education 

EUMETSAT European Organisation for the 

Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

Ex-Im Export-Import Bank 

oF degree Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCCA Forest, Climate & Community Alliance 

FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network

FHA Federal Housing Administration

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FM frequency modulation

FRPP Farm and Ranchlands Protection 

Program

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY fiscal year 

G8 Group of Eight 

GAW Global Atmospheric Watch 

GBEP Global Bioenergy Partnership 

GCCE Global Climate Change Education 

GCCI Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States

GCEP Global Change Education Program 

GCOS Global Climate Observing System

GCRA Global Change Research Act 

GDA Global Development Alliance

GDP gross domestic product

GEF Global Environment Facility

Gen IV Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

GEO Intergovernmental Group on Earth 

Observations 

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of 

Systems 

Gg gigagram

GHG greenhouse gas

GIF Generation IV International Forum

GIS geographic information system

GLOBE Global Learning and Observations to 

Benefit the Environment

GLOBEC Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics

GLOSS Global Sea Level Observing System 

GOES Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System 

GOSIC Global Observing System Information 

Center

GPS global positioning system 
x U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate 

Experiment 

GRACEnet Greenhouse Gas Reduction through 

Agricultural Carbon Enhancement 

Network 

GRP Grassland Reserve Program 

GRUAN GCOS Reference Upper-Air Network 

GTOS Global Terrestrial Observing System

GWP global warming potential

ha hectare

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HD high definition 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

HFC-23 fluoroform

HFEs hydrofluorinated ethers 

HIV/AIDS human immunodeficiency virus/ 

acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program–Fortran 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

IAC Industrial Assessment Center 

IASI Infrared Atmospheric Sounding 

Interferometer

ICAA Initiative for Conservation in the 

Andean Amazon 

ICO Integration and Coordination Office 

ICS Incident Command System 

IDEA Integrated Data and Environmental 

Applications

IEA International Energy Agency

IGEM Intertemporal General Equilibrium 

Model

IGLO International Action on Global 

Warming

in inch

IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change

IPHE International Partnership for the 

Hydrogen Economy

IPY International Polar Year

IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency 

IRG International Resources Group

IRI International Research Institute for 

Climate and Society 

ISE Informal Science Education 

ITAP International Technical Assistance 

Program 

ITEST Innovative Technology Experiences for 

Students and Teachers

ITP Industrial Technologies Program 

IWGEO Interagency Working Group on Earth 

Observations

JAXA Japanese Exploration Space Agency

K–12 kindergarten through grade 12

kg kilogram

km kilometer

km2 square kilometers

kWh kilowatt-hour 

LDCM Landsat Data Continuity Mission 

LIDAR light detection and ranging 

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

M2M Methane to Markets 

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation 

MEF Major Economies Forum on Energy 

and Climate 

MERITO Multicultural Education for Resource 

Issues Threatening Oceans

MetOp Meteorological Operational

mi mile

mi2 square miles

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

mm millimeter

MMT million metric tons

MMTCO2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 
Acronyms and Abbreviations xi

MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging 

Spectroradiometer 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPL Micro Pulse Lidar 

MPLNET Micro Pulse Lidar Network 

MPG miles per gallon

MPO metropolitan planning organization 

MSM Multi-Scale Modeling

MSW municipal solid waste

MW megawatt

MWe megawatts electric

MWh megawatt-hour

MY model year

N2O nitrous oxide

NACP North American Carbon Program

NAS National Academies of Science

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NAST National Assessment Synthesis Team

NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NEMS National Energy Modeling System

NEON National Ecological Observatory 

Network

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 

NGO nongovernmental organization

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

NIDIS National Integrated Drought 

Information System

NIFA National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture

NMVOC non-methane volatile organic compound

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOx oxides of nitrogen

NP nuclear power

NPOESS National Polar-orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System

NPS National Park Service 

NRC National Research Council 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSF U.S. National Science Foundation

NSTA National Science Teachers Association

NSDL National STEM Education Distributed 

Learning

NSTC National Science and Technology 

Council

NTI National Transit Institute

NWCC National Water and Climate Center

O3 ozone

OAP Office of Atmospheric Programs

OAS Organization of American States

OCO Orbiting Carbon Observatory 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

ODS ozone-depleting substance

OECC White House Office of Energy and 

Climate Change 

OECD Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

OPEC Organization of the Petroleum 

Exporting Countries

OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

OSVW ocean surface vector winds

P2C2 Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change

PAA Price-Anderson Act

PaCIS Pacific Climate Information System 

PANGEA Partnerships for New GEOSS 

Applications 

PARTNER Partnership for AiR Transportation 

Noise and Emissions Reduction

PES payment for ecosystem services 

PFAN Private Financing Advisory Network 
xii U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

PFC perfluorocarbon

PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 

PIH plug-in hybrid

PL Public Law

PM particulate matter

POES Polar Operational Environmental 

Satellites 

PRICIP Pacific Region Integrated Climatology 

Information Products 

PTC production tax credit 

QuickSCAT Quick Scatterometer

R&D research and development

RAMA Research Moored Array for AfricanAsian-Australian Monsoon Analysis 

and Prediction 

RANET Radio and Internet for the 

Communication of HydroMeteorological and Climate-Related 

Information for Development

RCMRD Regional Center for Mapping of 

Resources for Development

RD&D research, development, and 

demonstration

REC renewable energy credit 

REDD reducing emissions from deforestation 

and degradation 

REDI Renewables and Efficiency Deployment 

Initiative

REEEP Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Partnership

REPI Renewable Energy Production Incentive

RES renewable energy standard 

RFS renewable fuels standard 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

RISA Regional Integrated Science and 

Assessments Program 

RPS renewable portfolio standard 

S&A synthesis and assessment 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users

SAPs Synthesis and Assessment Products 

SAR Second Assessment Report 

SCAN Soil Climate Analysis Network

S’COOL Students’ Cloud Observations On-Line

SeaWiFS Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor

SEN Save Energy Now 

SEP State Energy Program 

SERVIR Regional Visualization and Monitoring 

System 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride

SFR Sodium Fast Reactor 

SGCR Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research

SHADOZ Southern Hemisphere ADditional 

OZonesondes 

SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy 

program 

SNOTEL SNOpack TELemetry

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOARS Significant Opportunities in 

Atmospheric Research and Science 

SORCE Solar Radiation and Climate 

Experiment

SOS Science On a Sphere

STAR Science To Achieve Results

STEM science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics 

SUV sport utility vehicle

SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool

SWiM System-Wide Monitoring

T&D transmission and distribution

TAO Tropical–Atmosphere–Ocean 

TBtus trillion British thermal units

TFCA Tropical Forest Conservation Act

Tg teragram

®
Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii

Tg CO2 Eq. teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents 

TIGGER Transit Investment for Greenhouse Gas 

and Energy Reduction 

TIST International Small Group and Tree 

Planting Program 

UBM Undergraduates in Biological and 

Mathematical Sciences 

UN United Nations 

UNEP United Nations Environment 

Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for 

Women

UNPEPP University-National Park Energy 

Partnership Program 

USAID U.S. Agency for International 

Development

USCRN U.S. Climate Reference Network 

US-CTC U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDP U.S. Drought Portal 

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

USGEO U.S. Group on Earth Observation

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USTDA U.S. Trade and Development Agency 

VCOP Voluntary Code of Practice for the 

Reduction of Emissions of HFC & 

PFC Fire Protection Agents 

VHTR Very-High-Temperature Reactor 

WAP Weatherization Assistance Program 

WCI Western Climate Initiative 

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

WMO World Meteorological Organization

WRP Wetland Reserve Program
Executive Summary

1

“T he threat from climate change is serious, it 

is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be 

judged by history, for if we fail to meet it—boldly, 

swiftly, and together—we risk consigning future 

generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

President Barack Obama 

September 22, 2009 

United Nations Summit on Climate Change

Throughout the United States, Americans are taking 

action to address the grave challenge of climate 

change, and to promote a sustainable and prosperous 

clean energy future. These efforts are occurring at all 

levels of government, in the private sector, and 

through the everyday decisions of individual citizens. 

This U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 (2010 CAR) 

sets out the major actions the U.S. government is 

taking at the federal level, highlights examples of state 

and local actions, and outlines U.S. efforts to assist 

other countries’ efforts to address climate change.

At the federal level, since assuming office in January 

2009, President Obama has renewed the U.S. 

commitment to lead in combating climate change. 

The Obama administration, together with the U.S. 

Congress, has taken major steps to enhance the 

domestic effort to promote clean energy solutions and 

tackle climate change.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA), signed into law in February 2009, the 

United States allocated over $90 billion for invest-
Chapter 1 | Executive Summary 3

engagement with other countries through the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) and through complementary efforts in 

support of a successful global climate agreement. 

In April 2009, President Obama launched the Major 

Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF), 

establishing an enhanced dialogue among 17 developed 

and developing economies representing 80 percent of 

global emissions to help support the multilateral 

negotiating process and devise new ways to advance the 

development and deployment of clean energy technologies. Leaders of these nations met in July 2009, 

and agreed on ways to further consensus on an 

enhanced future climate regime under the UNFCCC. 

These leaders also announced the establishment of a 

new Global Partnership to speed clean energy 

technology deployment. Experts from these countries 

have since developed action plans covering 10 key 

technologies. In December 2009 in Copenhagen, as 

part of this effort, the United States and other 

partners announced a new, five-year $350-million 

Climate Renewables and Deployment Initiative.

In June 2009, the President announced a new 

Partnership on Clean Energy and Climate of the 

Americas to promote clean energy technologies across 

the Western Hemisphere. The United States has 

accelerated collaboration with key partners, such as 

China, India, the European Union, Canada, Brazil, 

Mexico, Russia, and others, to combat climate change, 

coordinate clean energy research and development, 

and support efforts to achieve a successful agreement 

under the UNFCCC. 

In September, at the 2009 Group of Twenty (G-20) 

summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, President Obama 

joined other G-20 leaders in committing to phase out 

fossil fuel subsidies.

In December 2009, at the Fifteenth Conference of the 

Parties of the UNFCCC, as part of a Copenhagen 

Accord involving robust GHG mitigation contributions by developed and key developing countries, the 

Obama administration proposed a U.S. GHG 

emissions reduction target in the range of 17 percent 

below 2005 levels by 2020 and approximately 83 

percent below 2005 levels by 2050, ultimately aligned 

with final U.S. legislation. In January 2010, the 

United States inscribed its near-term proposal—to 

reduce emissions in the range of 17 percent from 2005 

levels by 2020—in the Copenhagen Accord, formally 

associating itself with the Accord. 

The United States announced in Copenhagen that it 

would increase U.S. climate assistance to ensure a fast 

start to post-Copenhagen efforts, contributing its 

share to developed country financing approaching $30 

billion for 2010–2012. Also, in the context of 

meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on 

ments in clean energy technologies to create green 

jobs, speed the transformation to a clean, diverse, and 

energy-independent economy, and help combat 

climate change. 

In May 2009, President Obama announced a 

commitment to develop the first-ever joint fuel 

economy and carbon dioxide (CO2

)tailpipe emission 

standards for cars and light-duty trucks in the United 

States. These standards will boost fuel efficiency on 

average 4.3 percent annually and approximately 21.5 

percent over the term of the standards, starting in 

2012 and ending in 2016. 

In September 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plan to collect 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates from 

facilities responsible for 82.5 percent of the GHG 

emissions across diverse sectors of the economy, 

including power generation and manufacturing. 

In October 2009, the President issued an Executive 

Order requiring federal agencies to set and meet strict 

GHG reduction targets by 2020. President Obama 

also called for more aggressive efficiency standards for 

common household appliances and put in motion a 

program to open the outer continental shelf to 

renewable energy production. 

In December 2009, following an extensive comment 

and review period, the EPA Administrator issued 

findings under the U.S. Clean Air Act that the current 

and projected GHG concentrations in the atmosphere 

threaten the health and welfare of current and future 

generations.

The United States is engaged in crafting new laws to 

provide a comprehensive long-term framework for 

combating climate change over the coming decades. In 

February 2009, President Obama announced his 

intent to work with Congress in seeking new legislation on energy and climate change that would 

establish a mandatory economy-wide cap on emissions, with emission reductions beginning in 2012 and 

becoming more stringent annually thereafter, leading 

to GHG reductions of approximately 83 percent 

below 2005 levels by 2050. In June 2009, the U.S. 

House of Representatives took a significant step 

toward realizing this goal by passing the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act. The legislation 

includes major new investments in clean energy 

technologies that will be needed to achieve a prosperous transformation to a low-carbon economy, help the 

United States adapt to the effects of climate change, 

and establish the United States as a leader in creating 

the skilled green jobs that will help drive economic 

growth in coming decades.

Leadership involves effective cooperation with 

countries from all regions of the world. Since entering 

office, the Obama administration has ramped up U.S. 
4 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

implementation, developed countries committed to a 

goal of mobilizing $100 billion globally by 2020 for 

countries in need, from various public- and privatesector sources. The fast-start effort will begin in 2010, 

with U.S. financing increased approximately three 

times that of 2009, including a substantial increase in 

adaptation financing for the most vulnerable countries 

and communities.

This 2010 CAR, submitted as a formal national 

communication, in accordance with Articles 4 and 12 

of the UNFCCC, documents the actions the United 

States is taking to address climate change. This review 

accounts for current and proposed activities up to 

2010. This report cites information and data available 

through 2009, except under very special circumstances, where more recent data were available. It explains 

how U.S. social, economic, and geographic circumstances affect U.S. GHG emissions, summarizes U.S. 

GHG emission trends from 1990 through 2007, 

identifies existing and planned U.S. policies and 

measures to reduce GHGs, and reports, wherever 

possible, measurable and verifiable emission reduction 

estimates for those policies and measures. The report 

also indicates future trends for U.S. GHG emissions, 

outlines the impacts of climate change on the United 

States and the adaptation measures the nation is 

taking to address those impacts, provides information 

on climate-related financial resources and technology 

transfer, details U.S. research and systematic observation efforts, and describes U.S. climate education, 

training, and outreach initiatives. 

The activities in this report outline a set of initiatives 

in an ambitious, sustained effort that will be required 

to fully address climate change. The United States, in 

close cooperation with other nations of the world, is 

ready to build on its actions to date and assume a 

leadership role in this effort. The United States will 

continue to vigorously develop and build on its 

domestic and international efforts in coming months 

and years. 

National Circumstances

Chapter 2 of this report outlines the national 

circumstances of the United States and how they 

affect U.S. GHG emissions. The United States is a 

large country with a diverse geography that encompasses a full range of tropical, temperate, and Arctic 

ecosystems, stretching across seven time zones, from 

the Atlantic seaboard to the Hawaiian Islands. The 

total U.S. land area is 3,548,112 square miles (mi2) 

(9,192,000 square kilometers [km2]); about 28 

percent of that land is owned and managed by the 

federal government in a system of parks, forests, 

wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and other public 

lands. 

The United States is a federal republic, and its 

government is divided into three distinct branches: 

executive, legislative, and judicial. Each branch plays a 

distinct role in the creation, implementation, and 

adjudication of America’s laws. In addition, the 

governments of U.S. states and localities are responsible for developing environmental and energy laws 

and policies that collectively have a substantial 

influence on the U.S. climate response. 

As of 2009, the United States is the third most 

populous country in the world, with an estimated 

population of 308 million. From 1990 to 2009, the 

U.S. population grew by about 59 million, at an 

annual rate of about 1 percent. This growth rate is 

relatively high compared to the approximately 0.4 

percent annual growth rates of Organisation of 

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 

member countries.

The United States has the highest real gross domestic 

product (GDP) in the world. Between 1990 and 2008, 

U.S. GDP grew by over $5.78 trillion (in constant 2008 

dollars) or 66.9 percent, to reach $14.4 trillion (2008 

dollars). Per capita income on a purchasing power 

parity basis was $46,716 in 2008—the fourth highest in 

the world behind Luxembourg, Norway, and Singapore.

The United States is the world’s largest producer and 

consumer of energy. The nation currently consumes 

energy from petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear, 

conventional hydropower, and other renewable energy 

sources. For baseload electricity and most energy needs 

in the transportation sector, the fuels used most often 

are fossil fuels, accounting for approximately 79 

percent of all U.S. energy consumption from 2005 

through 2008. Petroleum remains the largest single 

source of U.S. energy consumption; in 2008 it 

accounted for 37.7 percent of total U.S. energy 

demand, down from 41 percent in 2005. Natural gas 

accounts for 24.4 percent, coal for 22.4 percent, 

nuclear for 8.1 percent, conventional hydro for 2 

percent, and other renewables for 3 percent (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2009d).

Annual U.S. energy consumption has been variable 

over the last decade, closely tracking economic growth 

rates and trends in energy efficiency in the residential, 

commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. 

Between 2005 and 2007, total U.S. primary energy 

consumption grew by slightly over 1 percent. However, total primary energy consumption fell by 2.2 

percent in 2008, as the economy weakened. Also, 

overall U.S. energy intensity has continually decreased, 

indicating an overall trend toward increasing energy 

efficiency in the economy. The decline of the U.S. 

economy’s energy intensity has a direct effect on U.S. 

CO2

 emissions, 94 percent of which derive directly 

from the burning of fossil fuels according to 2007 data 

(U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). 
Chapter 1 | Executive Summary 5

The U.S. transportation system has evolved to meet 

the needs of a highly mobile, dispersed population and 

a large economy. Automobiles and light trucks 

dominate the passenger transportation system, and 

the highway share of passenger miles traveled by these 

vehicles in 2006 (the most recent year of available 

data) was 89 percent of total passenger miles. Air 

travel accounted for slightly over 10 percent, and mass 

transit and rail travel combined accounted for only 

about 1 percent of passenger miles traveled. 

Many of the long-term trends identified in the 2006 

U.S. Climate Action Report (2006 CAR) continue 

today, but recent events have significantly affected U.S. 

national circumstances. In particular, the economic 

slowdown in 2008 and early 2009 had a substantial 

impact on energy use and, correspondingly, GHG 

emissions. Technological change, energy efficiency 

improvements in transportation, buildings, and other 

sectors, private and public investment in low-carbon 

energy infrastructure, and a shift to less energy-intensive economic activity have continued to slow the 

growth of energy demand. 

Greenhouse Gas Inventory 

Chapter 3 summarizes U.S. anthropogenic GHG 

emission trends from 1990 through 2007. The 

estimates presented in the report were calculated using 

methodologies consistent with those recommended by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC). A complete accounting of GHGs in the 

United States is referenced in Chapter 3 of this report 

in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2. In 2007, total U.S. GHG 

emissions were 7,150.1 teragrams of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). Overall, total U.S. emissions rose by 17 percent from 1990 through 2007. 

Over that same time period, the U.S. GDP increased 

by 65 percent and population increased by 21 percent. 

CO2 accounted for approximately 85 percent of total 

U.S. GHG emissions in 2007. 

As the largest source of U.S. GHG emissions, CO2

from fossil fuel combustion has accounted for approximately 79 percent of global warming potential-weighted 

emissions since 1990. Emissions of CO2

 from fossil 

fuel combustion increased at an average annual rate of 

1.3 percent from 1990 through 2007. The fundamental factors influencing this trend include general 

domestic economic growth over the last 17 years, and 

significant growth in emissions from transportation 

activities and electricity generation. Between 1990 and 

2007, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion 

increased from 4,708.9 Tg CO2

 Eq. to 5,735.8 Tg 

CO2 Eq., a 21.8 percent total increase over the 17-year 

period. Historically, changes in emissions from fossil 

fuel combustion have been the dominant factor 

affecting U.S. emission trends. 

Methane (CH4) accounted for approximately 8 percent 

of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2007, with enteric 

fermentation (methane produced by livestock) being 

the largest source of CH4 emissions. U.S. emissions of 

CH4 declined by 5 percent from 1990 through 2007, 

mostly due to increased collection and combustion of 

landfill gas, as well as improvements in technology and 

management practices at natural gas plants. 

Nitrous oxide (N2

O) accounted for approximately 4.4 

percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2007. The 

main U.S. anthropogenic activities producing N2O are 

agricultural soil management and fuel combustion in 

motor vehicles. Overall, U.S. emissions of N2O 

declined by 1 percent from 1990 to 2007, largely due 

to the installation of newer N2O control technologies 

in motor vehicles throughout the past decade. 

Fluorinated substances—hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6

)—accounted for 2 percent of total 

U.S. GHG emissions in 2007. The increasing use of 

these compounds since 1995 as substitutes for 

ozone-depleting substances has been largely responsible for their upward emission trends. 

 Net CO2 sequestration from land use, land-use 

change, and forestry increased by 221.1 Tg CO2 Eq. 

(26 percent) from 1990 through 2007. This increase 

was primarily due to growth in the rate of net carbon 

accumulation in forest carbon stocks, particularly in 

above-ground and below-ground tree biomass.

Policies and Measures

Chapter 4 of this report outlines near-term policies 

and measures undertaken by the U.S. government to 

mitigate GHG emissions. In addition to the major 

new 2009 initiatives highlighted earlier in this 

chapter, the U.S. government is making important 

progress toward reducing GHG emissions through 

some 80 energy policies and measures that promote 

increased investment in end-use efficiency, clean 

energy development, and reductions in agricultural 

GHG emissions. The U.S. government is also 

committed to reducing emissions from the most 

potent GHGs; more than a dozen initiatives across 

five executive agencies target these potent gases. These 

activities form a foundation for a comprehensive 

approach for achieving a transformation in the way 

the United States will use energy over coming decades. 

In addition, a large number of U.S. states and localities 

are implementing clean energy incentives and clean 

energy targets—from voluntary emission goals and 

green building standards to mandatory cap-and-trade 

laws. 

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Chapter 5 provides projections of U.S. GHG 

emissions through 2020 and beyond. These projec-
6 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

tions incorporate national estimates of population 

growth, economic growth, technology improvement, 

and normal weather patterns. Based on anticipated 

trends in technology development and adaptation, 

demand-side efficiency gains, and fuel switching, the 

projections represent a “business-as-usual” scenario 

that incorporates major policies in place as of March 

31, 2009, including the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and ARRA, as well as a 

number of other federal and state measures outlined 

in Chapter 4. In this sense, the “business-as-usual” 

projections equal the “with measures” scenario called 

for under the UNFCCC Guidelines for Annex 1 

Communications. 

Despite the recent global economic turmoil, the U.S. 

economy is expected to recover and emissions are 

expected to grow in the long term in a business-asusual/“with measures” case. Though absolute emissions are expected to grow in a “with measures” 

scenario, emissions per unit of GDP are expected to 

decline. 

Projected GHG emissions under the “with measures” 

scenario presented in this report are significantly lower 

than emission estimates in the 2006 CAR. This shift is 

a result of changes in expectations regarding energy 

prices and economic growth and new policies taken 

since 2006, including EISA and ARRA, as well as 

various actions at the state level. 

Projections are provided by gas and by sector from the 

present to 2020. Gases included in this report are 

CO2

, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Sectors 

reported include electric power generation and 

residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation 

end use. Proposed or planned policies that had not 

been implemented as of March 31, 2009, as well as 

sections of existing legislation that require implementing regulations or funds that have not been appropriated, are not included in the projections. The projections include ARRA provisions, but do not include, 

for example, the vehicle fuel economy and emission 

standards announced by the President in May 2009.

The GHG emission projections in this chapter 

generally extend to 2020. Because of the extensive 

discussion of 2050 emission reduction goals in the 

United States and internationally, this chapter also 

includes a brief discussion of projected GHG 

emissions out to 2050. 

Additional measures will be needed beyond those 

currently in place to ensure that the United States 

plays its part in the global effort to avoid the most 

damaging effects of climate change. The Obama 

administration supports the implementation of a 

market-based cap-and-trade program to spur growth 

in a low-carbon economy and reduce GHG emissions 

to approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 

2050. In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the landmark American Clean Energy and 

Security Act, which includes economy-wide GHG 

reduction goals of 3 percent below 2005 levels in 

2012, 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 83 

percent below 2005 levels in 2050. 

As this report was finalized, the U.S. Senate was 

considering its own legislation, with similarly bold 

targets to promote clean energy and reduce GHG 

emissions. The target trajectories stipulated in those 

bills—aligned with the Obama administration’s goals 

and with the U.S. inscription in the Copenhagen 

Accord—are presented against a long-term business-asusual/“with measures” reference scenario in Figure 5-1. 

From 2005 through 2020, total GHG emissions are 

projected to rise by 4 percent under a “with measures” 

scenario, from 7,109 Tg CO2Eq. to 7,416 Tg CO2

Eq., while the U.S. GDP is projected to grow by 40 

percent. Over that period, CO2

 emissions in the 

baseline projection are estimated to increase by 1.5 

percent, although CH4, N2O, and PFC emissions are 

expected to grow more rapidly by 8 percent, 5 percent, 

and 4 percent, respectively. A large portion of 

emissions growth is driven by HFCs, which are 

projected to more than double between 2005 and 

2020, as they are more extensively used as a substitute 

for ozone-depleting substances. The relatively slow 

growth forecast for CO2 emissions is attributable to 

increasing use of renewable energy and policies 

implemented to increase efficiency.

With additional mitigation measures, such as those 

that would be implemented under the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the United 

States would have a GHG reduction goal of 17 

percent by 2020, though U.S. GDP is projected to 

grow by 40 percent in that time. Over that period, 

with additional mitigation measures, CO2, CH4, N2O, 

and PFC emissions would decrease significantly, and 

HFCs—among the most potent of GHGs—would be 

subject to a targeted cap and phase-down process.

More rapid improvements in technologies that emit 

fewer GHGs, new GHG mitigation requirements, or 

more rapid adoption of voluntary GHG emission 

reduction programs could result in lower GHG 

emission levels than in the baseline scenario projection.

Impacts and Adaptation

Chapter 6 of this report highlights actions taken in 

the United States to better understand and respond to 

vulnerabilities and impacts associated with climate 

change. The U.S. government is involved in a wide 

array of climate assessments, research, and other 

activities to understand the potential impacts of 

climate change on the environment and the economy, 

and to develop methods and tools to enhance 

adaptation options. The U.S. government sponsors 
Chapter 1 | Executive Summary 7

and adheres to some of the world’s most advanced 

scientific research on climate change. 

Chapter 6 outlines a set of studies by the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States, released in July 2009, 

which highlight key vulnerabilities in the United States 

associated with climate change (Karl et al. 2009). These 

key vulnerabilities, shared by the United States and 

many nations around the world, include the potential 

for water scarcity, unreliable energy production and 

transmission, damage to transportation infrastructure, 

public health problems, damage to ecosystems, and catastrophic harm to coasts and coastal communities. 

Through the creation of special funds and programs 

related to climate adaptation, the U.S. government is 

working to address these vulnerabilities. States and 

localities have a major role to play in vulnerability 

assessment and adaptation. Chapter 6 includes 

examples of these efforts. The United States is 

committed to establishing and maintaining climate 

adaptation assistance for both domestic and international communities. 

Financial Resources and Transfer of

Technology 

Chapter 7 outlines U.S. government initiatives and 

partnerships and U.S. agency roles in climate-related 

international assistance and technology transfer. 

Chapter 7 also notes the U.S. offer of contributing to 

total developed country climate financing approaching $30 billion by 2012, with a goal of mobilizing 

$100 billion by 2020, in the context of robust 

mitigation efforts by all Parties to the UNFCCC. 

The United States is committed to helping countries 

in need of addressing climate change, and is scaling up 

its efforts to promote clean energy, reduce emissions in 

the land-use sector, and adapt to climate change in a 

manner consistent with intellectual property rights. 

The fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget provides more than a 

threefold increase in bilateral and multilateral funding 

for climate-related activities, relative to the enacted 

funding provided in the previous fiscal year. It 

increases U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) climate programs by 70 percent, with 

significant new investments in mitigation and 

adaptation strategies that will build on extensive 

USAID experience in promoting clean and climateresilient development. It also provides first-ever 

contributions to multilateral climate funds, including 

$375 million to the World Bank Climate Investment 

Funds, and $50 million total to the UNFCCC Special 

Climate Change Fund and the UNFCCC Least 

Developed Country Fund. The President’s FY 2011 

budget, submitted to Congress in February 2010, 

proposes a further increase in core climate change 

funding of almost 40 percent, as well as substantial 

increases in funding for activities in such areas as food 

security, water, and health that will have significant 

climate co-benefits. 

These investments—combined with U.S.-based 

foundation grants, nongovernmental organization 

(NGO) resources, private-sector commercial sales, 

commercial lending, foreign direct investment, 

market-enabled GHG reductions, private equity 

investment, and dozens of already-existing government 

programs that distribute aid, fund clean energy research, 

and conserve natural resources—support a robust 

contribution by the United States in organizing and 

supporting the world’s response to climate change. 

The U.S. government leads or is involved in a number 

of bilateral and multilateral clean energy partnerships, 

including new partnerships established in 2009. The 

United States will join a number of other countries in 

the Climate Renewables and Efficiency Deployment 

Initiative (Climate REDI), which will channel $350 

million to fund programs over five years, including 

$85 million in U.S. funding. The United States 

announced in Copenhagen that it will partner with 

other key donors to channel $3.5 billion, including $1 

billion in U.S. funding, to reduce emissions from 

deforestation, land degradation, and other activities 

through 2012. The United States will also join 

member countries of the Arctic Council to advance 

efforts to reduce black carbon from sources leading to 

reduced albedo in Arctic polar ice. The United States 

has made combating climate change a central part of 

its bilateral and regional strategic relationships, and 

recent climate partnerships have followed from leader 

summits with China, India, and countries across the 

Western Hemisphere. 

U.S. agencies are engaged in extensive cooperative 

activities at the technical level. The National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Energy, EPA, and other agencies lead U.S. 

engagement in specific climate partnerships, such as the 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems, the 

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, and the 

Methane to Markets Partnership. These agencies also 

have extensive bilateral relationships designed to further 

climate protection in their areas of responsibility. 

Agencies that promote international trade, including 

the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the U.S. 

Export-Import Bank, and the Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation, are also enhancing efforts to 

promote clean investments. These and other U.S. 

government efforts will be ramped up over time as 

part of a successful global agreement on climate 

change. 

Research and systematic Observation

Chapter 8 describes how the United States is laying a 

strong scientific and technological foundation to 
8 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

reduce uncertainties, clarify risks and benefits, and 

develop effective mitigation options for addressing the 

impacts of climate change. It outlines the lead role of 

the interagency U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP, formerly known as the Climate 

Change Science Program) in U.S. climate research. 

The chapter describes U.S. efforts to collect scientific 

observations about climate, archive climate-related 

data, and provide access to the data. This chapter also 

details how the U.S. government is supporting clean 

energy technology and climate change mitigation 

technologies. 

The essential capacities for research and observations 

are widely distributed across U.S. government 

agencies, and are brought together into a single 

interagency program through the USGCRP. Growing 

out of interagency activities and planning that began 

in 1988, the creation of the USGCRP energized 

cooperative interagency activities, with each agency 

bringing its strengths to the collaborative effort. The 

FY 2010 budget provides over $2 billion for programs 

under the USGCRP—an increase of $46 million, or 

about 3 percent, over the 2009 level (excluding ARRA 

funds) (OMB 2009). The Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and Office of Management and 

Budget work closely with the Integration and 

Coordination Office and the working groups to 

establish research priorities and funding plans to 

ensure the program is aligned with the Obama 

administration’s priorities and reflects agency 

planning. 

The USGCRP helps organize and analyze critical 

climate data, which form the foundation of climate 

science. Long-term, high-quality observations of the 

global environmental system are essential for defining 

the current state of the Earth’s system, its history, and 

its variability. This task requires both space- and 

surface-based observation systems. 

The United States has committed not only to improving the scientific understanding of global climate 

change, but also to accelerating the development and 

deployment of technologies to reduce GHG emissions. 

These efforts are targeted at increasing energy end-use 

efficiency and supplying energy with greatly reduced 

GHG emissions to meet the nation’s goals of reducing 

GHG emissions and stabilizing GHG atmospheric 

concentrations at a level that avoids dangerous human 

interference with the climate system. To address these 

challenges, the Obama administration and Congress are 

working together to spur a revolution in clean energy 

technologies. An example of that commitment is the 

creation of the Advanced Research and Projects 

Agency–Energy (ARPA-E). Modeled on the Defense 

Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, which produced the predecessor to the 

Internet, ARPA-E was brought to life in 2009 by 

Congress with funding from the federal stimulus bill 

for the purpose of overcoming the long-term, high-risk 

technological barriers to the development of clean 

energy technologies.

Education, Training, and Outreach 

Chapter 9 outlines how U.S. climate change education, training, and outreach efforts have expanded 

significantly since the publication of the 2006 CAR. 

U.S. federal agencies—including USAID; the 

Departments of Agriculture, Energy, the Interior, and 

Transportation; EPA; the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration; NOAA; and the National 

Science Foundation—work on a wide range of climate 

change education, training, and outreach programs. A 

Climate Change Education Interagency Working 

Group was formed in 2008 to coordinate these efforts 

and develop an integrated national approach to 

climate change. Efforts by industry, states, local 

governments, universities, schools, and NGOs are 

essential complements to more than 100 federal 

programs that educate industry and the public 

regarding climate change. The combined efforts of the 

U.S. federal, state, and local governments and private 

entities are ensuring that the American public is better 

informed about climate change and more aware of the 

impact the nation’s choices may have on the sustainability of the planet. 
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United 

States are influenced by a multitude of factors. 

These include population and density trends, 

economic growth, energy production and consumption, technological development, use of land and natural resources, as well as climate and geographic conditions. This chapter focuses on both current 

circumstances and departures from historical trends 

since the 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report (2006 

CAR) was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 

2007, and the impact of these changes on GHG emissions and removals (U.S. DOS 2007).

Government Structure

The United States is a federal republic. As such, local, 

state, and federal governments share responsibility for 

the nation’s economic development, energy, natural 

resources, and many other issues. At the federal government level, a number of federal agencies, commissions, and advisory offices to the President are involved in developing, coordinating, and implementing 

nationwide policies to act on climate change. 

The United States government is divided into three 

distinct branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. 

Each branch possesses distinct powers, but each also 

affects the other two, which creates a system of 

“checks and balances” and separates the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws. 

Executive Branch

The executive branch is charged with implementing 

and enforcing the laws of the United States. The President of the United States is the U.S. Head of State and 

National Circumstances

2
oversees the executive branch. The President is advised 

by a Cabinet that includes a Vice President and the 

heads of 15 executive agencies—the Departments of 

State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, 

Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, 

Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. 

Other positions with Cabinet rank include the President’s Chief of Staff, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, 

and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The 

Executive Office of the President, overseen by the President’s Chief of Staff, includes a number of offices that 

play important roles in U.S. climate policy, such as the 

the Office of Energy and Climate Change, the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Security Council. 

The executive branch also includes a number of independent commissions, boards, and agencies, such as the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the 

Export-Import Bank. Collectively, executive branch 

institutions cover a wide range of responsibilities, such 

as serving America’s interests overseas, developing and 

maintaining the federal highway and air transit systems, 

researching the next generation of energy technologies, 

and managing the nation’s abundant public lands. 

Legislative Branch

The legislative branch consists of the two bodies in the 

U.S. Congress—the House of Representatives and the 

Senate—which are the primary lawmaking bodies of 

the government. This branch represents the U.S. citizenry through a bicameral system intended to balance 

power between representation based on population 

and representation based on statehood. The Senate is 

composed of 100 members, two from each of the 50 

U.S. states. The House is composed of 435 members; 

each represents a single congressional district of approximately 650,000 people. In Congress, climate 

change is addressed by committees that are charged 

with developing legislation on energy and other relevant issues. In the House, the Committees on Agriculture, Labor, Ways and Means, and Energy and 

Commerce, among others, play vital roles in developing legislation. In the Senate, the Committees on Environment and Public Works; Finance; Foreign Relations; Agriculture; Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation; and Energy and Natural Resources 

are critical venues for debate. 

Each body of Congress has the authority to develop 

legislation. A completed bill must receive a majority of 

votes in both the House and the Senate, and any differences between the House and the Senate versions 

must be reconciled before that bill can be sent to the 

President to be signed into law. The legislation becomes effective upon the President’s signature. 

Because the legislative process requires the support of 

both chambers of Congress and also involves the executive branch, a strong base of support is necessary to 

enact new legislation. As climate legislation is developed, this high threshold will remain very relevant. 

Judicial Branch

The third branch, the judicial branch, serves as the 

government’s court system responsible for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. It includes the Supreme 

Court, which is the highest court in the United States. 

The judicial branch in particular plays a significant 

role in defining the jurisdiction of the executive departments and interpreting the application of climate 

and energy policies under existing laws. 

Governance of Energy and Climate Change 

Policy

Jurisdiction for addressing climate change within the 

federal government cuts across each of the three 

branches. Within the executive branch alone, some 

two dozen federal agencies and executive offices work 

together to advise, develop, and implement policies 

that help the U.S. government understand the workings of the Earth’s climate system, reduce GHG emissions and U.S. dependence on oil, promote a clean 

energy economy, and assess and respond to the adverse 

effects of climate change. Chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of 

this report describe the activities of these agencies related to these policies.

As with many other policy areas, jurisdiction for energy 

policy is shared by federal and state governments. Economic regulation of the energy distribution segment is 

a state responsibility, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulating wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas and electricity. In the absence 

of comprehensive federal climate change legislation, 

U.S. states have increasingly enacted climate change 

legislation or other policies designed to promote clean 

energy. Examples of these policies are described in 

Chapter 4 of this report. Similarly, land-use oversight is 

subject to mixed jurisdiction, with localities playing 

strong roles as well, and many areas related to adaptation policy are taken up by state and local entities. Examples of these activities are provided in Chapter 6.

Population Profile

Population changes and growth patterns are fundamental drivers of trends in energy consumption, land 

use, housing density, and transportation, all of which 

have a significant effect on U.S. GHG emissions. The 

United States is the third most populous country in 

the world, with an estimated population of 308 million. From 1990 to 2009, the U.S. population grew by 

55.3 million, at an average annual rate of just over 1 

percent, for a total growth of approximately 22 percent since 1990. This growth rate is one of the highest 

among advanced economies, and is more than three 

10 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010
times that of the European Union during this time 

period. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the annual growth rate will remain relatively constant at 

nearly 1 percent through 2020, when the U.S. population is projected to be 341 million. Compared to 2008 

levels, the U.S. population is expected to grow to 373 

million (22 percent) in 2030 and to 439 million (44 

percent) in 2050. Although the projections show increasing population, between 2020 and 2050, the 

steady increase of immigration is expected to be balanced by decreasing U.S. population growth rates. 

Overall, U.S. population growth will slow slightly to 

0.87 percent in 2030 and will decline to 0.79 percent 

in 2050 (U.S. DOC/Census 2008b). 

Population density trends show that more Americans 

are moving into cities and metropolitan areas. From 

2000 to 2007, the U.S. population living in metropolitan areas grew from 80.2 percent to 83.5 percent. In 

general, increasing urbanization changes commuter 

patterns and reduces GHG emissions from the transportation sector. However, compared to cities in many 

other industrialized countries, major U.S. cities have 

relatively low population densities, and U.S. urban 

commuters use more energy for transportation and 

generate higher GHG emissions per person (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2009c).

In addition, within any metropolitan region, the population density, walkability of neighborhoods, and 

access to public transit vary substantially. As a result, 

the average GHG emissions from household transportation vary significantly. For example, monitoring surveys at Atlantic Station, a redeveloped steel mill in 

midtown Atlanta, Georgia, reveal residents drive 14 

miles per day compared to the regional average of 33 

miles per day (U.S. EPA and Jacoby 2008).

Geographic Profile

The United States is one of the largest countries in the 

world, with a total area of 9,192,000 square kilometers 

(km2) (3,548,112 square miles [mi2]) stretching over 

seven time zones. The topography is diverse, featuring 

deserts, lakes, mountains, plains, and forests. The federal government owns and manages the natural resources on about 28 percent of U.S. land, most of 

which is managed as part of the national systems of 

parks, forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and 

other public lands. More than 60 percent of land area 

is privately owned, 9 percent is owned by state and 

local governments, and 2 percent is held in trust by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Lubowski et al. 2006b). 

Climate Profile

The climate of the United States is highly diverse, 

ranging from tropical conditions in south Florida and 

Hawaii to arctic and alpine conditions in Alaska and 

across the Rocky Mountains. Temperatures for the 

continental United States show a strong gradient 

across regions and seasons, from very high temperatures in southern coastal states where the annual average temperatures exceed 21oC (70oF), to much cooler 

conditions in the northern parts of the country along 

the Canadian border, and from seasonal differences as 

great as 50oC (90oF) between summer and winter in 

the northern Great Plains. Similarly, precipitation also 

varies across the country and by seasons, measuring 

more than 127 centimeters (50 inches) per year along 

the Gulf of Mexico, while annual precipitation can be 

less than 30 cm (12 in) in the Intermountain West 

and Southwest (Figure 2-1). The peak rainfall season 

also varies by region. Many parts of the Great Plains 

and Midwest experience late-spring peaks, West Coast 

Source: Karl et al. 2009.

Chapter 2 | National Circumstances 11

Figure 2-1 Observed Change in Annual Average Precipitation: 1958–2008

While U.S. annual average precipitation has increased about 5 percent over the past 50 years, there 

have been important regional differences.

Percent Change

<–40 –35 –30 –25 –20 –15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 >40
states have a distinct rainy season during winter, the 

Desert Southwest is influenced by summer’s North 

American Monsoon, and many Gulf and Atlantic 

coastal regions experience summertime peaks.

The United States is subject to almost every kind of 

weather extreme, including severe thunderstorms, 

almost 1,500 tornadoes per year, and an average of 17 

hurricanes that make landfall along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts each decade. At any given time, approximately 20 percent of the country experiences drought 

conditions. Differing U.S. climate conditions can be 

expressed by the number of annual heating and cooling degree-days.1

 Heating and cooling degree-days 

represent the number of degrees that the daily average 

temperature—the mean of the maximum and the 

minimum temperatures for a 24-hour period—is 

below (heating) or above (cooling) 18.3oC (65oF). For 

example, a weather station reporting a mean daily 

temperature of 4oC (40oF) would report 25 heating 

degree-days. From 2001 to 2008, the number of heating degree-days averaged 4,259, which was 3.8 percent 

below the 20th-century average. Over the same period, 

the annual number of cooling degree-days averaged 1,335, 

which was 5.4 percent above the long-term average.

Economic Profile

The U.S. economy is the largest national economy in 

the world, with a nominal gross domestic product 

(GDP) of $14.4 trillion in 2008, slightly smaller than 

that of the European Union (U.S. DOC/BEA 2009e; 

Eurostat 2009). The U.S. per capita GDP in 2007 was 

just over $47,000. Between 1990 and 2008, the U.S. 

economy grew by over 60 percent (in constant 2005 

dollars), one of the highest growth rates among advanced economies in this time frame. Economic growth 

had a significant impact on GHG emissions during this 

period, though declining energy intensity in the U.S. 

economy resulted in significantly lower GHG emission 

increases in the past decade than in the 1990s.

Between 2005 and 2008, the U.S. GDP grew by $674 

billion (in constant 2005 dollars), or 5.3 percent (U.S. 

DOC/BEA 2009e). Much of this growth was driven 

by strong consumer demand related to asset appreciation and easy credit. In the second half of 2008, substantial imbalances in the financial sector and in the 

economy generally gave rise to a deep global recession. 

The U.S. economy contracted 3.8 percent from the 

second quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of 

2009 (U.S. DOC/BEA 2009e), and unemployment 

rose precipitously as a result, making job retention and 

creation the highest domestic policy priority. As one 

of his first acts, President Obama worked with Congress to enact the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), designed to save or create 

about 3.5 million jobs, while making long-term investments to put the U.S. economy on a sound footing in 

coming years and decades. ARRA incorporates measures to increase production of alternative energy, 

modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology across the country, and 

create a more efficient health care system.1

Energy Reserves and Production

The United States is the world’s largest producer and 

consumer of energy. The United States has large reserves of energy sources currently used for energy production, including fossil fuels, uranium ore, renewable 

biomass, and hydropower. Other renewable energy 

sources like solar and wind power, though currently a 

small portion of the energy resources used in the United States, are growing rapidly, with wind energy in the 

lead of other non-hydro renewable resources. 

Figure 2-2 provides an overview of energy flows 

through the U.S. economy in 2008. This section focuses on changes in U.S. energy supply and demand since 

the 2006 CAR, which covered changes through 2005.

Fossil Fuels

The current base of U.S. energy resources used is fossil 

fuels, accounting for approximately 79 percent of all 

U.S. energy production from 2005 through 2008 

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009d).

1

 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/

issues/economy. 

12 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Figure 2-2 Energy Flow Through the U.S. Economy in 2008 (Quadrillion Btus)

The U.S. energy system is the world’s largest, and it uses a diverse array of fuels from many 

different sources. The United States is largely self-sufficient in most fuels, except for petroleum. 

In 2008, net imports of crude oil and refined products accounted for about 57 percent of U.S. 

petroleum consumption on a Btu basis (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009m).

1

 Includes lease condensate.

2

 Natural gas plant liquids.

3

 Conventional hydroelectric power, biomass, geothermal, 

solar/photovoltaic, and wind.

4

 Crude oil and petroleum products. Includes imports into 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

5

 Natural gas, coal, coal coke, fuel ethanol, and electricity.

6

 Adjustments, losses, and unaccounted for.

7

 Coal, natural gas, coal coke, and electricity.

8

 Natural gas only; excludes supplemental gaseous fuels.

9

 Petroleum products, including natural gas plant liquids, 

and crude oil burned as fuel.

10 Includes 0.04 quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) of 

coal coke net imports.

11 Includes 0.11 quadrillion Btus of electricity net imports.

12 Primary consumption, electricity retail sales, and 

electrical system energy losses, which are allocated to the 

end-use sectors in proportion to each sector’s share of 

total electricity retail sales. 

See Note, “Electrical Systems Energy Losses,” at end of 

Section 2 of U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b.

Notes:

• Data are preliminary. 

• Values are derived from source data prior to rounding 

for publication. 

• Totals may not equal sum of components due to 

independent rounding.

Sources: U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b, Tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 

and 2.1a.
Coal

Coal, the fuel most frequently used for power generation and supplying over 48 percent of the total electricity generated in the United States, also has the 

highest emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) per unit of 

energy. The United States uses around 1.1 billion tons 

of coal per year. Current recoverable coal reserves 

would supply the U.S. demand for energy, assuming 

constant 2007 rates of consumption, for approximately 232 years (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009f). Coal is particularly plentiful, yet due to property rights, land-use conflicts, and physical and environmental restrictions, 

only about 50 percent of the world’s coal reserves 

(equal to about 489 billion short tons) may be available or accessible for mining. Of the estimated recoverable coal reserves, the United States holds the 

world’s largest share (27 percent), followed by Russia 

(17 percent), China (13 percent), and Australia (9 

percent) (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009e).

Oil

The trends in oil reserves and production identified in 

the 2006 CAR have changed very little. Both peaked in 

1970, when Alaskan North Slope oil fields were discovered and developed, and generally have declined since 

then. Proven domestic reserves of crude oil stand at 

about 21.3 billion barrels. U.S. domestic crude oil production at the end of 2008 was estimated at 4.95 million barrels per day, of which only 0.5 percent was exported. Crude oil imports in 2008 actually averaged 

9.95 million barrels per day, with another 3.18 million 

barrels of petroleum products imported.2 Since around 

1985, net crude oil imports have generally increased, 

while U.S. production has declined and consumption 

has grown. The United States relies on net petroleum 

imports to meet 56.9 percent of its petroleum needs, a 

decrease of 3.1 percent since the 2006 CAR, but an 

increase of 3.9 percent since 2000. The countries from 

which the United States imports the largest shares of 

crude oil and petroleum products include Canada (18.2 

percent), Mexico (11.4 percent), Saudi Arabia (11.0 

percent), Venezuela (10.1 percent), and Nigeria (8.4 

percent) (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009g).

Natural Gas

Natural gas, the fossil fuel with the lowest emissions of 

CO2 per unit of energy, has become an increasingly 

prominent fuel source in the United States in recent 

years. The increase in natural gas use for electricity 

generation, which has grown from 17.8 percent of 

total electricity generation in 2004 to 21.3 percent in 

2008, has boosted demand for natural gas resources. 

Proven U.S. reserves of dry natural gas are rapidly increasing, growing by 33.6 percent from 177,427 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 237,726 billion cubic feet in 

2007. Notably, the 2007 increase in proven dry natural gas reserves represented 237 percent of the total 

dry gas production for that year. 

In 2008, the United States produced 20,561 billion 

cubic feet of dry natural gas. Imports totaled 3,980 

billion cubic feet, of which 91.1 percent was imported 

by pipeline and 8.9 percent by liquid natural gas terminal. The United States imports natural gas by pipeline from Mexico and Canada, and by liquid natural 

gas terminal from Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia. 

Since 2004, pipeline imports from Mexico have grown 

from 0 percent to 1.2 percent, with the remainder of 

pipeline imports coming from Canada.

Nuclear Energy

In 2008, nuclear energy from 104 operating reactor 

units accounted for 19.6 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. The U.S. supply of uranium, the fuel used for nuclear fission, is mostly imported from other countries, with only 14.5 percent of the 

uranium used in 2008 being supplied by the United 

States. Most of these reserves can be found in Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas(U.S. DOE/

EIA 2004). The average yearly U.S. uranium concentrate production in 2006–2008 was 4 million pounds, 

up from an average yearly production of 2 million 

pounds during 2003–2005. 

In July 2007, the first application in over three decades 

was filed to build and operate a commercial nuclear 

reactor in the United States. By the end of 2007, 5 

combined license (COL) applications were on file 

with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In 

2008, the number of COL applications doubled; and 

as of November 2009, 17 applications were on file 

with the NRC.3

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy represents a rapidly growing source 

of U.S. energy production, currently accounting for 3 

percent of U.S. electric generation excluding conventional hydro, or 9 percent including conventional 

hydro(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009i). Though there is currently no federally mandated standard for the use of 

renewable energy sources, as of 2009, 35 states and the 

District of Columbia had legislatively mandated a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS 

requirements vary by state, though many states have 

mandated that 15–25 percent of electricity sales come 

from renewable sources by 2020 or 2025. With the 

passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), 

federally mandated investment tax credits were established for those investing in residential, commercial, 

and industrial renewable energy, and the production 

tax credit for renewable energy electricity generation 

was extended. These provisions were extended until 

2016 with the Energy Improvement and Extension 

Act of 2008. 

These policies have played a primary role in the rapid 

expansion of electricity generated from renewable resources, such as wind, from 2006 to 2009. Conven2

 U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information 

Adminnistration. See http://tonto.

eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH

andler.x?n=PET&s=MPEIMU

S1&f=M 

3

 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct) provides a production 

tax credit for new nuclear reactors 

brought on line through 2020. The 

credit will pay producers 1.8 cents 

per kilowatt-hour of nucleargenerated electricity during the 

first 8 years of operation (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2005). In addition, 

EPAct authorizes the Department 

of Energy (DOE) to provide up 

to $18.5 billion in loan guarantees 

for new reactors. DOE has selected 

four projects for final due diligence 

and detailed negotiations to receive 

the loan guarantees. 

Chapter 2 | National Circumstances 13
tional hydro remains by far the largest renewable 

source of electricity generation, generating 248 billion 

kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2008, slightly more than 

double that of all other renewable sources combined. 

However, due to drought conditions on the West 

Coast that began in 2006 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2008d), this 

represents an 8 percent decrease from generation levels 

in 2005. Electricity production from renewable sources, excluding conventional hydro, totaled 123 billion 

kWh in 2008, which represents a 41 percent increase 

in production from 2005. Major growth is visible in 

the wind power industry alone, with electricity generation from wind increasing by 192 percent from 2005 

levels to reach 52 billion kWh in 2008 (U.S. DOE/

EIA 2009j). Notably, between 2004 and 2008, total 

installed wind capacity increased by 369 percent to 

reach 23,847 megawatts(U.S. DOE/EIA 2008d).

Electricity

Total U.S. electricity generation reached 4,110 billion 

kWh in 2008, up by 8.1 percent compared to generation levels in 2000 and 1.3 percent compared to levels 

in 2005(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009i). The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that U.S. electricity demand will continue to rise by 26 percent between 2007 and 2030 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009k).4

In 2009, U.S. electricity generation was largely powered by coal-fired power plants, at 48 percent of total 

generation. Compared to previous years, the share of 

electricity generated from coal is declining, down from 

51.7 percent in 2000 and 49.6 percent in 2005. This 

trend is due to rapid growth in natural gas-fired generation, which has risen from 15 percent of total electric generation in 2000 to 21 percent in 2008 (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2009k). Figure 2-3 shows electricity flow 

through the U.S. economy in 2008.

Energy Consumption

The United States currently consumes energy from 

petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear, conventional 

hydro, and renewables. Petroleum remains the largest 

single source of U.S. primary energy consumption; in 

2008 it accounted for 37.7 percent of total U.S. energy 

demand, down from 41 percent in 2005. Natural gas 

accounts for 24.4 percent, coal for 22.4 percent, nuclear for 8.1 percent, conventional hydro for 2 percent, 

and other renewables for 3 percent.

U.S. energy consumption has shifted over the last decade with economic growth rates and trends in energy 

efficiency in the residential, commercial, industrial, 

and transportation sectors. Between 2005 and 2007, 

total U.S. primary energy consumption grew by slightly over 1 percent. However, along with the current 

decrease in economic growth, total primary energy 

consumption fell by 2.2 percent in 2008 alone. The 

99.3 quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) of energy 

consumed in 2008 represent a 1.1 percent decrease in 

consumption from 2005 levels and a 0.3 percent increase from 2000 levels. 

The effects of the economic crisis on energy consumption are visible on a per capita basis as well. With an 

annual population growth rate of around 1 percent, 

per capita energy consumption between 2000 and 

2007 declined to nearly 0.3 percent per year (Figure 

2-4). In 2008, however, per capita energy use dropped 

sharply, down by 2.9 percent to 327 million Btus per 

person (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b). EIA projects that 

high oil prices, increasing energy efficiency due to fuel 

efficiency standards, and increasing regulations on 

carbon intensity between 2008 and 2020 will contribute to declining per capita energy use, which is expected to reach 310 million Btus per person in 2020 and 

decline thereafter(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h).5

In addition to the trend of decreasing energy consumption in recent years, overall energy intensity in 

the United States has decreased, indicating an overall 

trend toward increasing energy efficiency in the economy. Between 2000 and 2005, the energy intensity 

(energy consumed per dollar of GDP) of the U.S. 

economy declined on average by 1.9 percent per year. 

Between 2006 and 2008, energy intensity fell by 2.3 

percent per year, from 9,140 Btus per dollar in 2005 

4

 It is important to note that 

EIA projections used here and 

elsewhere in this report represent 

"business as usual" and do not 

include climate change and 

energy legislation or other policies 

currently under consideration. 

5

 All EIA projections assume a 

business-as-usual scenario and do 

not incorporate any changes from 

current or future legislative action 

to curb GHGs supported strongly 

by the Obama administration. 

Figure 2-3 Electricity Flow Through the U.S. Economy in 2008 (Quadrillion Btus)

In 2008, U.S. electricity generation was mostly powered by coal-fired power plants, at 48.5 percent 

of total generation.

1

 Blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured 

and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.

2

 Batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, 

sulfur, miscellaneous technologies, and non-renewable 

waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, 

and tire-derived fuels).

3

 Data collection frame differences and nonsampling 

error. Derived for the diagram by subtracting the “T&D 

(transmission and distribution) Losses” estimate from “T&D 

Losses and Unaccounted for” derived from Table 8.1.

4

 Electric energy used in the operation of power plants.

5

 Transmission and distribution losses (electricity losses 

that occur between the point of generation and delivery 

to the customer) are estimated as 7 percent of gross 

generation.

6

 Use of electricity that is (1) self-generated, (2) produced 

by either the same entity that consumes the power or 

an affiliate, and (3) used in direct support of a service or 

industrial process located within the same facility or group 

of facilities that house the generating equipment. Direct 

use is exclusive of station use.

Notes: 

• Data are preliminary. 

• See Note, “Electrical System Energy Losses,” at the end 

of Section 2 of U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b. 

• Values are derived from source data prior to rounding 

for publication. 

• Totals may not equal sum of components due to 

independent rounding.

Sources: U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b, Tables 8.1, 8.4a, 8.9, A6 

(column 4), and U.S. DOE/EIA 2008c. 

14 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010
to 8,520 Btus per dollar in 2008 (U.S. DOE/EIA 

2009b). These data reflect a trend of advances in energy technologies and efficiency, and the growing importance of service industries and declining contribution of energy-intensive industries to the GDP.

The decline of the U.S. economy’s energy intensity has 

a direct effect on U.S. CO2

 emissions, 94 percent of 

which derived directly from the burning of fossil fuels 

in 2007 (U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). As a result, the carbon intensity—measured as the ratio of metric tons of 

CO2 emitted from energy consumption per million 

dollars of real GDP—also declined steadily in the past 

few years, falling by 4.5 percent from 544 in 2005 to 

520 in 2007 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b).

Residential Sector

The residential sector’s energy base fluctuates according to season, region, and year, and petroleum and 

natural gas demand varies much more than electricity 

demand. Consumption of petroleum, as fuel oil or 

liquefied petroleum gas, has been on a relative decline 

after a peak of 885,000 barrels per day in 2003, dropping to 684,000 barrels per day in 2008. Consumption of natural gas has fluctuated as well in recent 

years, declining after a 2003 peak of 5,079 billion cubic feet to 4,368 billion cubic feet in 2006—a level not 

seen since 1987—and then increasing again to 4,866 

billion cubic feet in 2008 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b). 

The residential sector, made up of living quarters for 

private households, uses energy through a variety of 

sources: space heating, water heating, air conditioning, 

lighting, refrigeration, cooking, appliances, and electronics. In 2008, residential energy consumption, including electricity losses, totaled 21.6 quadrillion Btus, 

representing 21.7 percent of U.S. consumption. Residential buildings accounted for nearly 21 percent of 

GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuels.

The residential sector’s energy use has also declined. 

Residential electricity consumption grew an average of 

2.9 percent annually between 2000 and 2005, but 

slowed to an average 0.5 percent growth between 2006 

and 2008. 

Figure 2-4 Energy Consumption and Expenditures Indicators

Over the last decade, the U.S. demand for energy has plateaued, while the total relative cost of energy for individual Americans has 

risen dramatically.

0

40

60

80

100

120

Quadrillion Btu

Energy Consumption: 1949–2008

1950 2000

20

1960 1970 1980 1990

0

100

200

300

400

500

Million Btu

Energy Consumption per Person: 1949–2008

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Nominal Dollars1 Energy Expenditures per Person: 1970–2006

1970 1980 1990 2000

0

5

10

15

Percent

Energy Expenditures as a Share of 

Gross Domestic Product: 1970–2006

1970 1980 1990 2000

1

 See “Nominal Dollars” in Glossary of U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b.

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b, Table 1.5.

Chapter 2 | National Circumstances 15
Commercial Sector

The commercial sector is made up of service facilities 

and equipment used by businesses, governments, private and public organizations, institutional living 

quarters, and sewage treatment plants. The most common uses of energy in this sector include space ventilation and air conditioning, water heating, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and the operation of office and 

other equipment. Less common uses of energy include 

transportation. In 2008, the total energy consumed in 

the commercial sector was 3.7 percent higher than in 

2005. At 18.5 quadrillion Btus, the commercial sector’s energy use represented 18.6 percent of total U.S. 

energy demand in 2008. When GHG emissions from 

electricity generation are assigned to end-use sectors, 

the commercial sector was responsible for approximately 17 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 

2007 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b; U.S. EPA/OAP 2008).

Electricity accounts for 78 percent of the commercial 

sector’s energy use, followed by natural gas, which is 

close to 17 percent. Demand responds largely to a 

combination of prices and weather, although the impact of weather is less significant in the commercial 

sector than in the residential sector. Since the period 

covered by the 2006 CAR, demand for electricity increased annually at 1.96 percent; demand for natural 

gas fluctuated between 2005 and 2008, but increased 

by 6.6 percent in 2007 and by 3.3 percent in 2008.

EIA projects that between 2008 and 2030, greater 

energy efficiency will offset growth in commercial energy demand and thereby lead to an overall decline in 

the energy intensity of the commercial sector over the 

next two decades. 

Industrial Sector

The U.S. industrial sector consists of all facilities and 

equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods, including manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and construction. The sector depends largely on 

coal, natural gas, and petroleum for its energy use. 

Electricity use, including system losses, represents 

around one-third of all energy consumed in the industrial sector, while petroleum and natural gas account 

for 27 percent and 26 percent, respectively. Use of coal 

in industrial energy consumption, falling from about 

6.4 percent in 2000 to 5.7 percent in 2008, is slowly 

being replaced by increasing use of renewable energy 

sources, notably biomass. 

Industrial sector energy consumption has declined 

steadily since 1973, falling from 43 percent of total 

energy consumption to 35 percent in 2000. This trend 

has steadily continued in recent years, dropping from 

32.3 percent in 2005 to 31.4 percent in 2008. Within 

the industrial sector, total energy consumption has 

been decreasing—slightly from 2006 to 2008, and 

more quickly in 2008, when it fell by 4.1 percent. In 

2008 energy consumption in the industrial sector had 

dropped by 10.2 percent compared to 2000 levels, 

largely due to the U.S. economic downturn, which 

drastically reduced demand for manufactured goods. 

When emissions from electricity generation are distributed to end-use sectors, fossil fuel-related CO2

emissions from the industrial sector have risen by 0.2 

percent since 2006 and 2.4 percent since 1990 (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2009n).As of 2007, using the same assumptions, the industrial sector accounted for 29.1 

percent of total U.S. GHG emissions (U.S. EPA/OAP 

2009).

Approximately four-fifths of the total energy used in 

the industrial sector is for manufacturing, with chemicals and allied products, petroleum and coal products, 

paper and nonmetallic minerals, and primary metals 

accounting for most of this share. The top five energyconsuming industries—bulk chemicals, refining, paper, steel, and food—account for around 60 percent of 

total industrial energy use but comprise only 20 percent of the total shipments. Projected slow growth in 

these energy-intensive industries is likely to result 

from increased foreign competition, reduced domestic 

demand for raw materials and basic goods they produce, and movement of investment capital to more 

profitable areas(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h). Therefore, 

EIA estimates that industrial energy consumption will 

grow by only 4 percent between 2007 and 2030, primarily as a result of declines in output from most of 

the energy-intensive manufacturing industries.

Transportation Sector

Energy consumption in the transportation sector includes all energy used to move people and goods: automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles; trains, subways, and other rail vehicles; aircraft; and ships, barges, 

and other waterborne vehicles.6 Transportation is responsible for about 70 percent of all the petroleum 

used. In 2008,petroleum supplied 94 percent of the 

energy used in the transportation sector, down slightly 

from 96 percent in 2005, and the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b). Energy consumption of biomass has grown significantly in recent years. High 

world oil prices, EPAct’s passage in 2005, and EISA’s 

passage in 2007 have encouraged the use of agriculture-based ethanol and biodiesel in the transportation 

sector. Therefore, between 2007 and 2008, for example, biomass consumption grew by over 35 percent, 

while petroleum consumption fell by 5.1 percent. In 

comparison, biomass consumption grew by an annual 

average of 20 percent from 2000 to 2004 and by 25 

percent from 2005 to 2008 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b).

Demand in the transportation sector accounted for 28 

percent of total U.S. energy demand in 2008 and approximately 28 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.

Slowing economic growth and high oil prices in 2008 

were primary factors affecting the change in energy use 

16 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

6

 Transportation does not include 

such vehicles as construction 

cranes, bulldozers, farming vehicles, 

warehouse tractors, and forklifts, 

whose primary purpose is not 

transportation.
from the transportation sector during the period since 

the 2006 CAR. Between 2000 and 2004, transportrelated energy use grew by around 5 percent, at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent, continuing at nearly 

the same rate of annual growth between 2005 and 

2007. However, in 2008 transport-related energy consumption declined by over 4 percent (U.S. DOE/EIA 

2009b). Crude oil prices had increased rapidly in mid2007, due to several factors, including the inability of 

non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production rates to meet increasing 

global demand, OPEC members’ production decisions, lack of spare production capacity, and geopolitical instability in key oil-producing regions. Therefore, 

crude oil prices increased from around $60 per barrel 

in 2007 to a peak of $145.16 per barrel in July 2008

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009l), in stark contrast to 2005–

2006 average prices of approximately $53 per barrel. 

With the decline in energy use, 2008 transportationrelated energy consumption returned to 2005 levels, at 

approximately 27.94 quadrillion Btus. 

Federal Government

The U.S. government remains the nation’s largest single user of energy. Facilitated and coordinated by 

DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program, federal 

agencies have invested in energy efficiency over the 

past two decades. As of 2007, the last year for which 

final data are available, the U.S. government’s total 

primary energy consumption—excluding energy consumed to produce electricity and enrich uranium—

was 1.085 quadrillion Btus, about 1.0 percent of total 

U.S. energy consumption.This is down by 6.6 percent 

compared to 2005 levels and 24.5 percent from 1990 

levels. Compared to 2000 levels, however, the U.S. 

government’s total primary energy consumption is up 

by 9.2 percent.

EISA set new goals for federal government energy use, 

including: a requirement to reduce energy intensity by 

30 percent in 2030 compared to 2003 levels; a requirement to reduce the fossil-fuel-based energy consumption of new federal buildings, beginning with a 55 percent reduction in 2010 compared to 2003 levels and 

reaching a 100 percent reduction in 2030; a prohibition against purchasing light- or medium-duty vehicles 

that are not low-GHG-emitting vehicles; a requirement to reduce annual petroleum consumption by 20 

percent in 2015 compared to 2005; and many other 

requirements regarding procurement of energy-efficient 

products, improved metering, and reporting (U.S. 

DOE/FEMP 2007).

Federal agencies are also subject to requirements for the 

use of electricity from renewable sources. Section 203 of 

EPAct requires the federal government to consume:

 not less than 3 percent in FY 2007–2009,

 not less than 5 percent in FY 2010–2012, and

 not less than 7.5 percent in FY 2013 and each 

fiscal year thereafter.

Preliminary data for FY 2008 indicate that federal 

agencies purchased or produced 1.9 terawatt-hours of 

renewable electric energy in 2008, which is equivalent 

to 3.4 percent of the federal government’s electricity 

use of 56.1 terawatt-hours.

Executive Order 13123 of June 3, 1999 (later superseded by Executive Order 13423) established a GHG 

reduction goal for federal government facilities at 30 

percent below 1990 levels by 2010.7

 Data for FY 2005 

(the last year for findings under this reporting framework) show emissions from these facilities decreased 

by 22.1 percent since FY 1990, from 54.8 teragrams of 

CO2 equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq.) in FY 1990 to 42.7 Tg 

CO2 Eq. in FY 2005.8

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. The order expands the energy reduction and environmental 

requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making 

GHG management a priority for the federal government.9

 Under the new order, federal agencies are required to measure, manage, and reduce GHG emissions toward agency-defined targets. Provisions of the 

order require agencies to: 

 Set scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emission reduction 

targets for 2020 relative to a 2008 baseline.

 Reduce vehicle fleet petroleum use by 30 percent 

by 2020 compared to 2005.

 Improve water efficiency by 26 percent by 2020 

compared to 2007. 

 Implement the 2030 net-zero-energy building 

requirement. 

 Meet sustainability requirements across 95 percent 

of all applicable contracts. 

 Develop and carry out an integrated strategic 

sustainability performance plan. 

Transportation

The U.S. transportation system has evolved to meet the 

needs of a highly mobile, dispersed population and a 

large, dynamic economy. While the transportation system supports the movement of people and goods and 

the economic vitality of the country, efforts are underway to ensure that it is also as sustainable as possible.

Over the years, the United States has developed an 

extensive multimodal system that includes road, air, 

rail, and water transport capable of moving large volumes of people and goods long distances. Automobiles 

and light trucks still dominate the passenger transportation system, and the highway share of passenger 

miles traveled in 2006, the most recent year of availChapter 2 | National Circumstances 17

7

 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/femp/pdfs/eo13123.pdf. 

8

 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/femp/pdfs/annrep05.pdf. 

9

 See http://www.eere.energy.gov/

femp/pdfs/eo13514.pdf.
able data, was about 89 percent of the total, down by 

around 1 percent from the 2006 CAR. Air travel accounted for slightly over 10 percent (up 1 percent 

from the 2006 CAR), and mass transit and rail travel 

combined accounted for only about 1 percent of passenger miles traveled. For-hire transport services, as a 

portion of GDP, have barely changed since the 2006 

CAR, accounting for 2.9 percent of GDP in 2007 

(U.S. DOT/BTS 2010).

Highway Vehicles

The trends in highway vehicles described in the 2006 

CAR have not changed appreciably. Between 2004 

and 2007, the number of passenger vehicles rose 

steadily by an annual average of 1.8 percent to reach 

254.3 million. This high degree of vehicle ownership is 

a result of population distribution, land-use patterns, 

location of work and shopping, and public preferences 

for personal mobility. Single-occupant passenger automobiles dominated daily traveling between home and 

work place in 2007, with 76 percent of the workforce 

(105 million of 139 million) driving themselves, down 

slightly from almost 80 percent in 2004. Just over 10 

percent of workers commuted in carpools of two or 

more people, around 5 percent used public transportation, and the rest of the workforce used other means 

(biking, walking, taxis, etc.) (U.S. DOT/BTS 2010).

Passenger cars account for over 50 percent of highway 

vehicles and over one-third of all the energy consumed 

in the transportation sector. Light trucks, sport utility 

vehicles (SUVs), and vans comprise almost 40 percent 

of all highway vehicles and consume around 39 percent of energy in the sector. Between 2004 and 2006, 

the number of registered light trucks, SUVs, and vans 

increased by an annual average of 4.3 percent, continuing the upward trend seen in the previous years. 

This growth declined to 2.8 percent in 2007, as crude 

oil and gasoline prices began to rise steadily in mid2007 and consumer preferences changed due to the 

increased costs of operating less fuel-efficient vehicles.

The number of miles driven is another major factor 

affecting energy use in the highway sector. From 2004 

to 2006, the total number of vehicle miles driven each 

year by all on-road vehicles grew by an average of 0.8 

percent to reach around 3 trillion miles, compared to 

around 1.8 percent average annual growth between 

2000 and 2003. During these periods, total energy 

consumed by on-road vehicles grew by 1.02 percent 

and 1.1 percent, respectively (U.S. DOT/BTS 2010).

The fuel efficiency of passenger cars, light trucks, SUVs, 

and vans plays a large role in determining energy consumption and GHG emissions from the highway 

transport sector. The average fuel efficiency of passenger cars in the United States was relatively unchanged 

in the period since the 2006 CAR, increasing from an 

average of 22.1 miles per gallon (MPG) for 2000–2003 

to an average of 22.3 MPG for 2004–2006. In 2008, 

the average fuel efficiency for new passenger cars and 

light trucks was 24.3 MPG and 18.2 MPG, respectively 

(U.S. DOT/BTS 2010). Standards for new vehicles, 

known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 

standards, play an integral role in determining the fuel 

efficiency of passenger cars and light trucks in the 

United States. New laws and policies outlined in 

Chapter 4 of this report will result in substantial increases in fuel efficiency over the next six years, with all 

new fleets of passenger vehicles and light trucks required to reach an average fuel efficiency of 35.5 MPG 

and a fleet average CO2

 emissions level of 250 grams 

per mile by 2016. 

Air Carriers

Despite significant economic turbulence in 2008 and 

2009, total U.S. air passenger miles remain near historic highs. Fueled in part by economic growth, airlines booked more revenue-paying U.S. passengers in 

2007—more than 835 million—than in any other 

year. In 2008, total passengers (810 million) and total 

passenger miles (824 billion) declined by 3 and 2 percent, respectively, but those figures were still 10 and 

18 percent above 2000 levels, respectively (U.S. DOT/

BTS 2009b, 2009c).

Overall air passenger miles traveled are still declining in 

sync with the recent economic recession. Energy consumed from jet fuel of certified air carriers is decreasing 

more rapidly, spurred by the rising cost of fuel, increasing passenger load factors, and, to a greater degree, improvements in energy efficiency. In 2008, fuel use in 

aviation declined by 2.5 percent from 2007 levels, as the 

average price of a gallon of jet fuel jumped by 46 percent 

over 2007 prices (U.S. DOT/BTS 2009a).

Freight

Between 2004 and 2007 (the latest year for which 

freight data are available), U.S. freight transportation 

grew by 1.5 percent to 4.61 trillion ton miles, representing an average annual growth rate of 0.5 percent 

compared to 0.7 percent average annual growth between 2000 and 2003. Rail accounts for the largest 

share of total freight ton miles (39 percent), followed 

by trucks (29 percent), pipelines (20 percent), waterways (12 percent), and air (less than 1 percent) (U.S. 

DOT/BTS 2010).

Industry

The U.S. industrial sector boasts a wide array of light 

and heavy industries in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing subsectors, the latter of which include mining, agriculture, and construction. Private goodsproducing industries accounted for slightly less than 

19 percent of total GDP in 2008, and utilities accounted for another 2.1 percent of GDP. The industrial sector as a whole represents just over 29 percent 

of total U.S. GHG emissions (2007 data). Compared 

to the period covered under the 2006 CAR, declines 

18 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010
in the portion of the economy made up by manufacturing have slowed, with the average change in manufacturing as a percentage of total GDP slowing from a 

decline of 3.7 percent between 2000 and 2004 to a 

decline of 1.5 percent between 2005 and 2008(U.S. 

DOC/BEA 2009c).

The decline in housing prices, which began in 2007, 

took a large toll on the construction industry, which 

saw decreases in total value-added output of 5.4 percent and 4.8 percent in 2007 and 2008, respectively. 

Mining continued to rise as a share of GDP, growing 

from 1.8 percent in 2005 to 2.2 percent in 2008. 

Waste

In 2007, the United States generated approximately 

230 million metric tons (254 million tons) of municipal solid waste (MSW), about 45 million metric tons 

(nearly 50 million tons) more than in 1990. Paper and 

paperboard products made up the largest component 

of MSW generated by weight (33 percent), and yard 

trimmings comprised the second-largest material component (more than 13 percent). Glass, metals, plastics, 

wood, and food each constituted between 5 and 13 

percent of the total MSW generated, while rubber, 

leather, and textiles combined made up about 8 percent of the MSW.

Recycling has been the most significant change in waste 

management from a GHG perspective. From 1990 to 

2007, the recycling rate increased from just over 16 

percent to about 33 percent. Of the remaining MSW 

generated, about 13 percent was combusted and 54 

percent was disposed of in landfills. The number of 

operating MSW landfills in the United States has decreased substantially over the past 20 years, from about 

8,000 in 1988 to about 1,750 in 2007, while the average landfill size has increased (U.S. EPA/OSW 2008).

Landfills are the second-largest U.S. source of anthropogenic methane emissions, accounting for 23 percent 

of the total. Present data suggest a marked increase in 

the amount of methane recovered for either gas-toenergy or flaring purposes in recent years (U.S. EPA/

OAP 2009).

Building Stock and Urban Structure

Buildings are large users of energy. Their number, size, 

and distribution and the appliances and heating and 

cooling systems that go into them influence energy 

consumption and GHG emissions. Buildings account 

for about 37 percent of total U.S. energy consumption 

and about 70 percent of total electricity consumption.

Residential Buildings

Growth in the U.S. housing market has slowed significantly since the advent of the U.S. economic slowdown in 2007. Prior to the economic slump, the housing market had been relatively strong since 2000. 

Between 1997 and 2003, the number of residences in 

the United States grew by 8.3 percent to approximately 

121 million households, 62 percent of which were single, detached dwellings. However, since 2007, the number of new residential units under construction fell 

from an all-time high of two million new housing units 

per year in 2005 to less than one million by 2008. During the downturn, the amount of new multi-family 

rental units (i.e., apartment buildings) has held steady, 

and they now account for 24 percent of new residential 

construction(U.S. DOC/Census 2009a).

As the growth of the U.S. housing market has slowed, 

the growth of energy use in residential buildings has 

also slowed. The housing boom of 2000–2005 had 

been especially strong in the Sunbelt, where almost all 

new homes have air conditioning. Overall, the growth 

in residential buildings’ energy use has been mitigated 

by recent economic events.

While new homes are larger and more plentiful, their 

energy efficiency has increased significantly. In 2004, 8 

percent of all new single-family homes were certified 

as Energy Star compliant, implying at least a 30 

percent energy savings for heating and cooling relative 

to comparable homes built to current code (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2006). New homes are on average about 13 

percent larger than the stock of existing homes, and 

thus have greater requirements for heating, cooling, 

and lighting. Nevertheless, under current building 

codes and appliance standards for heat pumps, air conditioners, furnaces, refrigerators, and water heaters, 

the energy requirement per square foot of a new home 

is typically lower than of an existing home (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2005).

Commercial Buildings

Between 2000 and 2003 (the latest data available), 

commercial floorspace rose an estimated 1.8 percent 

per year. By 2003 there were nearly 4.9 million commercial buildings and more than 6.7 billion square 

meters (71.7 billion square feet) of floorspace. Much 

of this growth has been related to the rapidly expanding information, financial, and health services sectors.

More than half of commercial buildings are 465 

square meters (5,000 square feet) or smaller, and nearly three-fourths are 929 square meters (10,000 square 

feet) or smaller. Just 2 percent of buildings are larger 

than 9,290 square meters (100,000 square feet), but 

these large buildings account for more than one-third 

of commercial floorspace (U.S.DOE/EIA 2003).

Electricity and natural gas are the two largest sources 

of energy used in commercial buildings. Over 85 percent of commercial buildings are heated, and more 

than 75 percent are cooled. The use of computers and 

other office electronic equipment continues to grow 

and will have an impact on the demand for electricity 

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2006).

Chapter 2 | National Circumstances 19
Agriculture and Grazing

Agriculture in the United States is highly productive. 

U.S. croplands produce a wide variety of food and fiber crops, feed grains, oil seeds, fruits and vegetables, 

and other agricultural commodities for both domestic 

and international markets. Although the United 

States harvests roughly the same area as it did in 1910, 

U.S. agriculture feeds a population three times larger, 

with crops still available for export. Technological 

changes account for most of the increased productivity. In 2002, U.S. cropland was 179 million hectares 

(ha) (442 million acres[ac]), about 3 percent lower 

than in 1997 (Lubowski et al. 2006a, 2006b; USDA 

2008).

Soils vary across the landscape in response to the effects of climate, topography, vegetation, and other 

organisms (including humans) on the rate and direction of soil development processes acting on parent 

materials over time. In the United States, the wide 

range and endless combinations of these factors have 

resulted in a great range of soils with widely varying 

properties. All soils provide an effective natural filter 

that protects ground and surface water by removing 

potential contaminants applied on or in the soil. Soils 

across the United States have the potential to sequester substantial amounts of organic and inorganic carbon to help reduce atmospheric CO2

 levels. Although 

soils vary in their resistance and resilience, all are subject to degradation through erosion, salinization, and 

other mechanisms without proper management.

Conservation is an important objective of U.S. farm 

policy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers a set of conservation programs that have been 

highly successful at removing environmentally sensitive lands from commodity production and encouraging farmers to adopt conservation practices on working agricultural lands. The largest of these programs, 

the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), seeks to 

reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat by retiring environmentally sensitive lands from crop production. About 12.6 million 

ha (31.2 million ac) of land are enrolled in CRP.

Improved tillage practices also have helped reduce soil 

erosion and conserve and build soil carbon levels. 

From 1998 to 2004, the amount of cropland managed 

with no-till systems increased by 31 percent to 25.4 ha 

(62.7 ac), in part because of the widespread adoption 

of herbicide-tolerant crops developed using biotechnology. Land managed using all conservation tillage 

systems has fluctuated between about 40 and 46 million ha (98.8 and 113.6 million ac) (CTIC 2004).

Sources of GHG emissions from U.S. croplands include nitrous oxide from nitrogen fertilizer use and 

methane from farm animals’ enteric fermentation and 

manure management. Nitrous oxide from agricultural 

soil management is the largest source of GHG emissions from the agricultural sector, representing just 

over 35 percent of that sector’s emissions in 2007 

(USDA 2008).

Grasslands account for slightly more than one-third of 

U.S. land uses. Pasture and range ecosystems can include a variety of different flora and fauna communities. They are generally managed by varying grazing 

pressure, using fire to shift species abundance, and occasionally disturbing the soil surface to improve water 

infiltration. In 2002, grasslands totaled about 238 million ha (587 million ac), about the same as in 1997. 

Since 1949, grassland acreage has declined by about 9 

percent, reflecting improved productivity of grazing 

lands, land-use changes, and a decline in the number 

of domestic animals raised on grazing lands (Lubowski 

et al. 2006b).

Forests

U.S. forests are predominately natural stands of native 

species, and vary from the complex hardwood forests 

in the East to the highly productive conifer forests of 

the Pacific Coast. Planted forest land is most common 

in the East, and planted stands of native pines are 

common in the South. In 1630, forest land comprised 

an estimated 46 percent of the total U.S land area, 

whereas in 2007, forests covered about one-third of 

the total area. Historically, most of the forest land loss 

was due to agricultural conversions in the late 19th 

century, but today most losses are due to such intensive uses as urban development.

 Of the 305 million ha (751 million ac) of U.S. forest 

land, nearly 208 million ha (514 million ac) are timberland, most of which is privately owned in the conterminous United States. However, a significant area 

of forest land is reserved forests, which in 2007 accounted for 10 percent of all forest land, or about 30 

million ha (75 million ac) (Smith et al. 2009).

 Most timber removals come from private lands, with 

the South providing nearly two-thirds of all domestic 

timber. Management inputs over the past several decades have been gradually increasing the production of 

marketable wood in U.S. forests, especially on the private lands and in the South. The United States currently grows more wood than it harvests, with a 

growth-to-harvest ratio of nearly 2 to 1. As the average 

age of U.S. forests continues to rise and growth continues to exceed removals, standing volume has increased by 37 percent since 1953 to a level of nearly 33 

billion cubic meters.

 Existing U.S. forests are an important net sink for 

atmospheric carbon. Improved forest management 

practices, the regeneration of previously cleared forest 

areas, as well as timber harvesting and use have resulted in net sequestration of CO2

 every year since 1990 

(U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). In 2007, the land use, land20 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010
use change, and forestry sector absorbed a net of 

1,062.6 Tg of CO2. This sequestration represents an 

offset of 14.9 percent of U.S. GHG emissions on a 

global warming potential-weighted basis.

Chapter 2 | National Circumstances 21
An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies a country’s primary anthropogenic1

 sources and sinks of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is essential for addressing climate change. The Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007

(U.S. EPA/OAP 2009) adheres to both (1) a comprehensive and detailed set of methodologies for estimating sources and sinks of anthropogenic GHGs, and (2) 

a common and consistent mechanism that enables 

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to compare the 

relative contribution of different emission sources and 

GHGs to climate change.

In 1992, the United States signed and ratified the 

UNFCCC. As stated in Article 2 of the UNFCCC, 

“The ultimate objective of this Convention and any 

1

 The term “anthropogenic,” in this 

context, 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). 

2

 Article 2 of the United Nations 

Framework Convention on 

Climate Change, published by 

the United Nations Environment 

Programme/World Meteorological 

Organization Information Unit 

on Climate Change. See http://

unfccc.int/essential_background/

convention/background/

items/1353.php.

related legal instruments that the Conference of the 

Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the 

relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of 

GHG 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 time-frame 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.”2

Parties to the Convention, by ratifying, “shall develop, 

periodically update, publish and make available... 

national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by 

sources and removals by sinks of all GHGs not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable 

3

Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 23

Box 3-1 Recalculations of Inventory Estimates

Each year, emission and sink estimates are recalculated and revised for all years in the Inventory 

of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, as attempts are made to improve both the analyses 

themselves, through the use of better methods or data, and the overall usefulness of the report. In 

this effort, the United States follows the IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management 

in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2000), which states, regarding recalculations of 

the time series, “It is good practice to recalculate historic emissions when methods are changed 

or refined, when new source categories are included in the national inventory, or when errors in 

the estimates are identified and corrected.” In general, recalculations are made to the U.S. GHG 

emission estimates either to incorporate new methodologies or, most commonly, to update recent 

historical data.

In each Inventory report, the results of all methodology changes and historical data updates 

are presented in the “Recalculations and Improvements” chapter; detailed descriptions of each 

recalculation appear within each source’s description in the report, if applicable. In general, when 

methodological changes have been implemented, the entire time series (in the case of the most 

recent Inventory report, 1990 through 2007) has been recalculated to reflect the change, per IPCC 

Good Practice Guidance. Changes in historical data are generally the result of changes in statistical 

data supplied by other agencies. References for the data are provided for additional information. 

More information on the most recent changes is provided in the “Recalculations and Improvements” 

chapter of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007 (U.S. EPA/OAP 

2009), and previous Inventory reports can further describe the changes in calculation methods and 

data since the 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report.

methodologies....”3 The United States views the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2007 (U.S. EPA/OAP 2009) as an opportunity 

to fulfill these commitments.

This chapter summarizes the latest information on 

U.S. anthropogenic GHG emission trends from 1990 

through 2007. To ensure that the U.S. emissions inventory is comparable to those of other UNFCCC 

Parties, the estimates presented here were calculated 

using methodologies consistent with those recommended in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC/UNEP/

OECD/IEA 1997), the IPCC Good Practice Guidance 

and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories (IPCC 2000), and the IPCC Good 

Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and 

Forestry (IPCC 2003). Additionally, the U.S. emissions inventory has begun to incorporate new methodologies and data from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines 

for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 

2006). The structure of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007 (U.S. 

EPA/OAP 2009) is consistent with the UNFCCC 

guidelines for inventory reporting (UNFCCC 2003).4

For most source categories, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodologies 

were expanded, resulting in a more comprehensive 

and detailed estimate of emissions (Box 3-1).

Background Information 

Naturally occurring GHGs 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 GHGs, 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). As stratospheric ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS), CFCs, HCFCs, and halons are 

covered under the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

That Deplete the Ozone Layer. The UNFCCC defers 

to this earlier international treaty. Consequently, 

Parties to the UNFCCC are not required to include 

these gases in their national GHG emission inventories.5

 Some other fluorine-containing halogenated 

substances—hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—do 

not deplete stratospheric ozone but are potent GHGs 

(Box 3-2). These latter substances are addressed by the 

UNFCCC and accounted for in national GHG emission inventories.

There are also several gases that do not have a direct 

global warming effect but indirectly affect terrestrial 

and/or solar radiation absorption by influencing the 

formation or destruction of GHGs, including 

3

 Article 4(1)(a) of the United 

Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change (also identified 

in Article 12). Subsequent 

decisions by the Conference of 

the Parties elaborated on the role 

of Annex I Parties in preparing 

national inventories. See http://

unfccc.int/essential_background/

convention/background/

items/1362.php. 

4

 See http://unfccc.int/resource/

docs/cop8/08.pdf. 

5

 Emission estimates of CFCs, 

HCFCs, halons, and other ODS 

are included in the annexes of the 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks:1990–2007

for informational purposes (U.S. 

EPA/OAP 2009). 

tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. These gases include carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx), and non-methane volatile organic compounds 

(NMVOCs). 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 ability of the atmosphere to absorb 

radiation.

Although the direct GHGs CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have 

changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the 

pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2005, 

concentrations of these GHGs have increased globally 

by 36, 148, and 18 percent, respectively (IPCC 2007). 

Beginning in the 1950s, the use of CFCs and other 

stratospheric ODS increased by nearly 10 percent per 

year until the mid-1980s, when international concern 

about stratospheric ozone depletion led to the entry 

into force of the Montreal Protocol. Since then, the 

production of ODS is being phased out. In recent 

years, use of ODS substitutes, such as HFCs and 

PFCs, has grown as they begin to be phased in as replacements for CFCs and HCFCs. Accordingly, atmospheric concentrations of these substitutes have 

been growing (IPCC 2007).

Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks

In 2007, total U.S. GHG emissions were 7,150.1 

teragrams of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). Overall, 

total U.S. emissions rose by 17 percent from 1990 to 

2007. Emissions rose from 2006 to 2007, increasing 

by 1.4 percent (99.0 Tg CO2 Eq.). The following 

factors were primary contributors to this increase: 
24 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

(1) cooler winter and warmer summer conditions in 

2007 than in 2006, which increased the demand for 

heating fuels and contributed to the increase in the 

demand for electricity; (2) increased consumption of 

fossil fuels to generate electricity; and (3) a significant 

decrease (14.2 percent) in hydropower generation 

used to meet this demand.

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 3-2 provides a detailed 

summary of U.S. GHG emissions and sinks for 1990 

through 2007.

Figure 3-4 illustrates the relative contribution of the 

direct GHGs to total U.S. emissions in 2007. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United 

States was CO2, representing approximately 85.4 percent of total GHG emissions. The largest source of 

CO2, and of overall U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions, was fossil fuel combustion. CH4 emissions, 

which have declined from 1990 levels, resulted primarily from enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, decomposition of wastes in landfills, 

and natural gas systems. Agricultural soil management 

and mobile source fuel combustion were the major 

sources of N2O emissions. The emissions of substitutes for ODS 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 PFC emissions resulted as a byproduct of primary aluminum production and from 

semiconductor manufacturing.

Overall, from 1990 to 2007, total emissions of CO2

increased by 1,026.7 Tg CO2 Eq. (20.2 percent), while 

CH4 and N2O emissions decreased by 31.2 Tg CO2

Eq. (5.1 percent) and 3.1 Tg CO2 Eq. (1.0 percent), 

respectively. During the same period, aggregate 

weighted emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 rose by 

59.0 Tg CO2 Eq. (65.2 percent). From 1990 to 2007, 

HFCs increased by 88.6 Tg CO2 Eq. (240.0 percent), 

PFCs decreased by 13.3 Tg CO2 Eq. (64.0 percent), 

and SF6 decreased by 16.3 Tg CO2 Eq. (49.8 percent). 

Despite being emitted in smaller quantities relative to 

the other principal GHGs, emissions of HFCs, PFCs, 

and SF6 are significant because many of them have 

extremely high GWPs. Conversely, U.S. GHG emissions were partly offset by carbon sequestration in forests, trees in urban areas, agricultural soils, and landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps, which, in 

aggregate, offset 14.9 percent of total emissions in 

2007. The following sections describe each gas’s contribution to total U.S. GHG emissions in more detail.

Further information on source and sink categories, 

methods used to calculate emissions and fluxes, and 

trends across the entire time series may be found in 

the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990–2007 (U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). 

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 (i.e., sinks) and are emitted to the atmosphere 

annually through natural processes (i.e., sources). 

When in equilibrium, carbon fluxes among these various reservoirs are roughly balanced. Since the Industrial Revolution, global atmospheric concentrations of 

CO2 have risen about 36 percent (IPCC 2007), principally due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Within 

the United States, fuel combustion accounted for 94 

percent of CO2 emissions in 2007. Globally, approximately 29,195 Tg of CO2 were added to the atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels in 2006, 

of which the United States accounted for about 20 

percent.6 Changes in land use and forestry practices 

can also emit CO2 (e.g., through conversion of forest 

Box 3-2 Emissions Reporting Nomenclature

The global warming potential (GWP)-weighted emissions of all direct GHGs throughout this report 

are presented in terms of equivalent emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), using units of teragrams 

of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated 

radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram (kg) of a trace substance relative to 

that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC 2001). The relationship between gigagrams (Gg) of a gas and 

Tg CO2 Eq. can be expressed as follows:

Tg CO2 Eq. = (Gg of gas) x (GWP) x (

 )

The UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national inventories were updated in 2006 (UNFCCC 2006), 

but continue to require the use of GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC 

1996). The GWP values used in this report are listed below in Table 3-1, and are explained in more 

detail in Chapter 1 of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 (U.S. 

EPA/OAP 2009).

Table 3-1 Global Warming Potentials (100-Year Time Horizon) Used in This 

Report 

The concept of a GWP has been developed to compare the ability of each GHG 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 Gas GWP

CO2 .......................................................1 HFC-227ea.......................................2,900

CH4* ....................................................21 HFC-236fa .......................................6,300

N2O...................................................310 HFC-4310mee..................................1,300

HFC-23 ........................................11,700 CF4 ..................................................6,500

HFC-32 .............................................650 C2F6.................................................9,200

HFC-125 .........................................2,800 C4F10 ...............................................7,000

HFC-134a .......................................1,300 C6F14 ...............................................7,400

HFC-143a .......................................3,800 SF6 ................................................23,900

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

* The methane GWP includes both the direct effects and those indirect effects of the production of tropospheric ozone 

and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. 

GWP = global warming potential; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; HFC = hydrofluorocarbon; 

CF4 = tetrafluoromethane; C2F6 = hexafluoroethane; C4F10 = perfluorobutane; C6F14 = perfluorohexane or 

tetradecafluorohexane; SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride. 

Source: IPCC 1996.

Tg

1,000 Gg

6

 Global CO2 emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion were taken 

from the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information 

Administration International 

Energy Annual 2006 (U.S. DOE/

EIA 2008b).
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 25

Figure 3-1 Growth in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas: 1990–2007

In 2007, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose to 7,150.1 Tg CO2 Eq., which was 17 percent above 1990 emissions, and 

0.6 percent above 2005 emissions.

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

Tg CO2 Eq.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

7,000 

8,000 HFCs, PFCs, & SF6

6,099 6,054 6,156 6,288 6,395 6,463 6,673 6,727 6,769 6,822 7,008 6,896 6,942 6,981 7,065 7,109 7,051 Nitrous Oxide 7,150 

Methane

Carbon Dioxide

Figure 3-2 Annual Percentage Change in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2007

Between 2005 and 2007, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose by 0.6 percent. The average annual rate of increase from 1990 through 

2007 was 0.9 percent.

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

4

 –0.7

1.7

2.1

1.7

1.1

3.2 

0.8 

0.6 0.8 

2.7 

–1.6 

–0.8

0.6 

1.2 

0.7 0.6 

1.4 

Percent Change

Figure 3-3 Cumulative Change in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2007

From 1990 to 2007, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1,051 Tg CO2 Eq., an increase of 17 percent. More recently, between 

2005 and 2007, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose by 41 Tg CO2 Eq., or 0.6 percent.

0

200

500

600

700

800

900

Tg CO2 Eq.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

1,000

1,100

–45 

57 

189 

296 

365 

575 

629

670 

724 

910 

798 

844 882 

966 

1,010

952 

1,051 

300

400

100

–100

Figure 3-4 2007 U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions by Gas 

(presented on a 

CO2 Eq. basis)

In 2007, CO2 was the 

principal greenhouse gas 

emitted by human activities 

in the United States, driven 

primarily by emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion.

2.1% HFCs, 

PFCs, & SF6 

4.4% N2O

8.2% CH4

85.4% CO2
26 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

Table 3-2 Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Tg CO2 Eq.)

In 2007, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,150.1 Tg CO2 Eq., representing a 17 percent rise since 1990.

Gas/Source 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 5,076.7 5,407.9 5,955.2 6,090.8 6,014.9 6,103.4 

Fossil Fuel Combustion 4,708.9 5,013.9 5,561.5 5,723.5 5,635.4 5,735.8 

Electricity Generation 1,809.7 1,938.9 2,283.2 2,381.0 2,327.3 2,397.2 

Transportation 1,484.5 1,598.7 1,800.3 1,881.5 1,880.9 1,887.4 

Industrial 834.2 862.6 844.6 828.0 844.5 845.4 

Residential 337.7 354.4 370.4 358.0 321.9 340.6 

Commercial 214.5 224.4 226.9 221.8 206.0 214.4 

U.S. Territories 28.3 35.0 36.2 53.2 54.8 50.8 

Non-Energy Use of Fuels 117.0 137.5 144.5 138.1 145.1 133.9 

Iron and Steel Production & Metallurgical Coke Production 109.8 103.1 95.1 73.2 76.1 77.4 

Cement Production 33.3 36.8 41.2 45.9 46.6 44.5 

Natural Gas Systems 33.7 33.8 29.4 29.5 29.5 28.7 

Incineration of Waste 10.9 15.7 17.5 19.5 19.8 20.8 

Lime Production 11.5 13.3 14.1 14.4 15.1 14.6 

Ammonia Production and Urea Consumption 16.8 17.8 16.4 12.8 12.3 13.8 

Cropland Remaining Cropland 7.1 7.0 7.5 7.9 7.9 8.0 

Limestone and Dolomite Use 5.1 6.7 5.1 6.8 8.0 6.2 

Aluminum Production 6.8 5.7 6.1 4.1 3.8 4.3 

Soda Ash Production and Consumption 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 

Petrochemical Production 2.2 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 

Titanium Dioxide Production 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 

Carbon Dioxide Consumption 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.9 

Ferroalloy Production 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.6 

Phosphoric Acid Production 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 

Zinc Production 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Petroleum Systems 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Lead Production 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Silicon Carbide Production and Consumption 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (Sink) a (841.4) (851.0) (717.5) (1,122.7) (1,050.5) (1,062.6)

Biomass—Wood 215.2 229.1 218.1 208.9 209.9 209.8

International Bunker Fuels b 114.3 101.6 99.0 111.5 110.5 108.8 

Biomass—Ethanol b 4.2 7.7 9.2 22.6 30.5 38.0

Methane (CH4) 616.6 615.8 591.1 561.7 582.0 585.3 

Enteric Fermentation 133.2 143.6 134.4 136.0 138.2 139.0 

Landfills 149.2 144.3 122.3 127.8 130.4 132.9 

Natural Gas Systems 129.6 132.6 130.8 106.3 104.8 104.7 

Coal Mining 84.1 67.1 60.5 57.1 58.4 57.6 

Manure Management 30.4 34.5 37.9 41.8 41.9 44.0 

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land 4.6 6.1 20.6 14.2 31.3 29.0 

Petroleum Systems 33.9 32.0 30.3 28.3 28.3 28.8 

Wastewater Treatment 23.5 24.8 25.2 24.3 24.5 24.4 

Stationary Combustion 7.4 7.1 6.6 6.7 6.3 6.6 

Rice Cultivation 7.1 7.6 7.5 6.8 5.9 6.2 

Abandoned Underground Coal Mines 6.0 8.2 7.4 5.6 5.5 5.7 

Mobile Combustion 4.7 4.3 3.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 

Composting 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 

Petrochemical Production 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 

Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 

Iron and Steel Production & Metallurgical Coke Production 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 

Ferroalloy Production + + + + + + 

Silicon Carbide Production and Consumption + + + + + + 

International Bunker Fuelsb 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 27

Table 3-2 (Continued) Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Tg CO2 Eq.) 

Gas/Source 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 315.0 334.1 329.2 315.9 312.1 311.9 

Agricultural Soil Management 200.3 202.3 204.5 210.6 208.4 207.9 

Mobile Combustion 43.7 53.7 52.8 36.7 33.5 30.1 

Nitric Acid Production 20.0 22.3 21.9 18.6 18.2 21.7 

Manure Management 12.1 12.9 14.0 14.2 14.6 14.7 

Stationary Combustion 12.8 13.3 14.5 14.8 14.5 14.7 

Adipic Acid Production 15.3 17.3 6.2 5.9 5.9 5.9 

Wastewater Treatment 3.7 4.0 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.9 

N2O from Product Uses 4.4 4.6 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land 0.5 0.8 2.4 1.8 3.5 3.3 

Composting 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.8 

Settlements Remaining Settlements 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 

Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Incineration of Waste 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands + + + + + + 

International Bunker Fuels 

b 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 36.9 61.8 100.1 116.1 119.1 125.5 

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substancesc 0.3 28.5 71.2 100.0 105.0 108.3 

HCFC-22 Production 36.4 33.0 28.6 15.8 13.8 17.0 

Semiconductor Manufacture 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 20.8 15.6 13.5 6.2 6.0 7.5 

Aluminum Production 18.5 11.8 8.6 3.0 2.5 3.8 

Semiconductor Manufacture 2.2 3.8 4.9 3.2 3.5 3.6 

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 32.8 28.1 19.2 17.9 17.0 16.5 

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 26.8 21.6 15.1 14.0 13.2 12.7 

Magnesium Production and Processing 5.4 5.6 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 

Semiconductor Manufacture 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 

Total 6,098.7 6,463.3 7,008.2 7,108.6 7,051.1 7,150.1 

Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 5,257.3 5,612.3 6,290.7 5,985.9 6,000.6 6,087.5 

Tg CO2 Eq. = teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents; HCFC = hydrochlorofluorocarbon. 

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.

a

 Parentheses indicate negative values or sequestration. The net CO2 flux total includes both emissions and sequestration, and constitutes a sink in the United 

States. Sinks are only included in the net emissions total.

b

 Emissions from International Bunker Fuels and Biomass Combustion are not included in the totals.

c

 Small amounts of PFC emissions also result from this source.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. One teragram equals one million metric tons.

land to agricultural or urban use), or can act as a sink 

for CO2 (e.g., through net additions to forest biomass) 

(Figure 3-5).

As the largest source of U.S. anthropogenic GHG 

emissions, CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has 

accounted for approximately 79 percent of total 

GWP-weighted emissions since 1990, growing slowly 

from 77 percent of total GWP-weighted emissions in 

1990 to 80 percent in 2007. Emissions of CO2 from 

fossil fuel combustion increased at an average annual 

rate of 1.3 percent from 1990 to 2007. The fundamental factors influencing this trend include a generally 

growing domestic economy over the last 17 years, and 

the subsequent significant overall growth in emissions 

from electricity generation and transportation activities. Between 1990 and 2007, CO2 emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion increased from 4,708.9 Tg CO2

Eq. to 5,735.8 Tg CO2 Eq.—a 21.8 percent total increase over the 18-year period. From 2006 to 2007, 

these emissions increased by 100.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (1.8 

percent).

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 longterm 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 generally fluctuates in response to 

changes in general economic conditions, energy prices, 

weather, and the availability of non-fossil alternatives. 

For example, in a year with increased consumption of 

goods and services, low fuel prices, severe summer and 
28 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

winter weather conditions, nuclear plant closures, and 

lower precipitation feeding hydroelectric dams, there 

would likely be proportionally greater fossil fuel consumption than in a year with poor economic performance, high fuel prices, mild temperatures, and increased output from nuclear and hydroelectric plants.

The five major fuel-consuming sectors contributing to 

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are electricity generation, transportation, industrial, residential, and commercial. CO2 emissions are produced by 

the electricity generation sector as it consumes fossil 

fuel to provide electricity to one of the other four sectors, or “end-use” sectors. In the following discussion, 

emissions from electricity generation have been distributed to each end-use sector on the basis of each 

sector’s share of aggregate electricity consumption. 

The distribution of the electricity-related emissions 

assumes that each end-use sector consumes electricity 

that is generated from the national average mix of 

fuels according to their carbon intensity. Emissions 

from electricity generation are also addressed separately after the end-use sectors have been discussed. Note 

that emissions from U.S. territories are calculated separately due to a lack of specific consumption data for 

the individual end-use sectors.

Figure 3-5 2007 U.S. Emissions of Carbon Dioxide by Source

In 2007, CO2 accounted for 85.4 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with fossil fuel combustion accounting for 80.2 percent of 

emissions on a global warming potential (GWP)-weighted basis.

Tg CO2 Eq.

Fossil Fuel Combustion

Non-energy Use of Fuels

Iron and Steel Production & Metallurgical Coke Production

Cement Production

Natural Gas Systems

Incineration of Waste

Lime Production

Ammonia Production and Urea Consumption

Cropland Remaining Cropland

Limestone and Dolomite Use

Aluminum Production

Soda Ash Production and Consumption

Petrochemical Production

Titanium Dioxide Production

Carbon Dioxide Consumption

Ferroalloy Production

Phosphoric Acid Production

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands

Zinc Production

Petroleum Systems

Lead Production

Silicon Carbide Production and Consumption

0 30 60 90 120 150

5,735.8

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.2

CO2 as a Portion

of All Emissions

85.4%

133.9

77.4

44.5

28.7

20.8

14.6

13.8

8

6.2

4.3

4.1

2.6

1.9

1.9

1.6

1.2

1

Figures 3-6 and 3-7 summarize CO2 emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion by sector and fuel type and by 

end-use sector.

Transportation End-Use Sector 

Transportation activities (excluding international 

bunker fuels) accounted for 33 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2007.7

 Virtually 

all of the energy consumed in this end-use sector came 

from petroleum products. Nearly 60 percent of the 

emissions resulted from gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use. The remaining emissions came from 

other transportation activities, including the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in 

aircraft.

Industrial End-Use Sector 

Industrial CO2 emissions, resulting both directly from 

the combustion of fossil fuels and indirectly from the 

generation of electricity that is consumed by industry, 

accounted for 27 percent of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion in 2007. Just over half of these emissions resulted from direct fossil fuel combustion to produce 

steam and/or heat for industrial processes. The remaining emissions resulted from consuming electricity 

for motors, electric furnaces, ovens, lighting, and other 

applications.

7

 If emissions from international 

bunker fuels are included, the 

transportation end-use sector 

accounted for 35 percent of 

U.S. emissions from fossil fuel 

combustion in 2007.
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 29

Residential and Commercial End-Use Sectors 

The residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 21 and 18 percent, respectively, of CO2

emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2007. Both 

sectors relied heavily on electricity for meeting energy 

demands, with 72 and 79 percent, respectively, of their 

emissions attributable to electricity consumption for 

lighting, heating, cooling, and operating appliances. 

The remaining emissions were due to the consumption of natural gas and petroleum for heating and 

cooking.

Electricity Generation 

The United States relies on electricity to meet a significant portion of its energy demands, especially for 

lighting, electric motors, heating, and air conditioning. 

Electricity generators consumed 36 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuels and emitted 42 percent of the 

CO2 from fossil fuel combustion in 2007. 8 The type 

of fuel combusted by electricity generators has a significant effect on their emissions. For example, some electricity is generated with low-CO2-emitting energy 

technologies, particularly non-fossil options, such as 

nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, or geothermal energy. 

However, electricity generators rely on coal for over 

half of their total energy requirements and accounted 

for 94 percent of all coal consumed for energy in the 

United States in 2007. Consequently, changes in electricity demand have a significant impact on coal consumption and associated CO2 emissions.

Other significant CO2 trends included the following: 

 CO2 emissions from non-energy use of fossil fuels 

increased by 16.9 Tg CO2 Eq. (14.5 percent) from 

1990 through 2007. Emissions from non-energy 

uses of fossil fuels were 133.9 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, 

which constituted 2.2 percent of total national 

CO2 emissions, approximately the same proportion 

as in 1990. 

 CO2 emissions from iron and steel production and 

metallurgical coke production increased slightly 

from 2006 to 2007 (1.3 Tg CO2 Eq.), but decreased by 29.5 percent to 77.4 Tg CO2 Eq. from 

1990 through 2007, due to restructuring of the 

industry, technological improvements, and increased scrap utilization. 

 In 2007, CO2 emissions from cement production 

decreased slightly by 2.0 Tg CO2 Eq. (4.4 percent) 

from 2006 to 2007. This decrease occurred despite 

the overall increase over the time series. After falling in 1991 by 2 percent from 1990 levels, cement 

production emissions grew every year through 

2006. Overall, from 1990 to 2007, emissions from 

cement production increased by 34 percent, an increase of 11.2 Tg CO2 Eq.

 CO2 emissions from incineration of waste (20.8 Tg 

CO2 Eq. in 2007) increased by 9.8 Tg CO2 Eq. (90 

percent) from 1990 through 2007, as the volume of 

plastics and other fossil carbon-containing materials in the waste stream grew.

 Net CO2 sequestration from land use, land-use 

change, and forestry increased by 221.1 Tg CO2

Eq. (26 percent) from 1990 through 2007. This 

increase was primarily due to growth in the rate of 

net carbon accumulation in forest carbon stocks, 

particularly in above-ground and below-ground 

tree biomass. Annual carbon accumulation in landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps slowed over 

this period, while the rate of carbon accumulation 

in urban trees increased.

Figure 3-6 2007 U.S. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion by Sector and 

Fuel Type

In 2007, U.S. transportation sector emissions were primarily from petroleum consumption, while 

electricity generation emissions were primarily from coal consumption.

256.9

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electricity

Generation

U.S. Territories 

2,500

83.2

Coal

Petroleum

Tg CO2 Eq.

Relative Contribution

by Fuel Type

Natural Gas

163.4

0.6 6.8 385.6

352.5

107.4

35.4 

1,852

1,967 

55.3 

373.8

4.1 45.3 

1.4

44.2

36%

Coal

42%

Petroleum

21%

Natural Gas

Note: Electricity generation also includes emissions of less than 1 Tg CO2

 Eq. from geothermal-based electricity generation.

Figure 3-7 2007 U.S. End-Use Sector CO2 Emissions 

from Fossil Fuel Combustion

In 2007, direct fossil fuel combustion accounted for the vast 

majority of fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions from the 

transportation sector (mostly petroleum combustion). Electricity 

consumption indirectly accounted for most of the fossil 

fuel-related CO2 emissions from the commercial and residential 

sectors.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

From Direct Fossil Fuel Combustion

From Electricity Consumption

Tg CO2 Eq.

Industrial

708

845.4

Commercial

827.1

214.4

Residential

857.4

340.6

Transportation 

1,887.4

4.8 

50.8

U.S. 

Territories 

8

 The emissions of CO2

attributable to electricity 

generation were allocated to the 

end-use sectors, as described in the 

end-use sector discussions. 
30 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

Tg CO2 Eq.

0 20 60 80 120 140

CH4 as a Portion

of All Emissions

40 100

8.2%

Enteric Fermentation

Landlls

Natural Gas Systems

Coal Mining

Manure Management

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

Petroleum Systems

Wastewater Treatment

Stationary Combustion

Rice Cultivation

Abandoned Underground Coal Mines

Mobile Combustion

Composting

Petrochemical Production

Field Burning of Agricultural Residues

Iron, Steel, and Metallurgical Coke Production

Ferroalloy Production

Silicon Carbide Production and Consumption

139

132.9

104.7

57.6

44

29

28.8

24.4

6.6

6.2

5.7

2.3

1.7

1

0.7

<0.05

<0.05

0.9

Figure 3-8 2007 U.S. Emissions of Methane by Source

In 2007, methane (CH4) accounted for 8.2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on a GWP-weighted basis. Enteric fermentation 

was the largest source of U.S. CH4 emissions (24 percent), followed closely by emissions from landfills (23 percent) and natural gas 

systems (18 percent).

Methane Emissions

According to the IPCC, CH4 is more than 20 times as 

effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. 

Over the last 250 years, the concentration of CH4 in 

the atmosphere increased by 148 percent (IPCC 

2007). Anthropogenic sources of CH4 include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural 

activities, coal mining, wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial 

processes (see Figure 3-8). Some significant trends in 

U.S. emissions of CH4 include the following: 

 Enteric fermentation is the largest anthropogenic 

source of CH4 emissions in the United States. In 

2007, enteric fermentation CH4 emissions were 

139.0 Tg CO2 Eq. (approximately 24 percent of 

total CH4 emissions), which represents an increase 

of 5.8 Tg CO2 Eq., or 4.3 percent, since 1990.

 Landfills are the second-largest anthropogenic 

source of CH4 emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 23 percent of total 

CH4 emissions (132.9 Tg CO2 Eq.) in 2007. From 

1990 to 2007, net CH4 emissions from landfills 

decreased by 16.3 Tg CO2 Eq. (11 percent), with 

small increases occurring in some interim years, 

including 2007. This downward trend in overall 

emissions is the result of increases in the amount of 

landfill gas collected and combusted,9 which has 

more than offset the additional CH4 emissions resulting from an increase in the amount of municipal solid waste landfilled. 

 CH4 emissions from natural gas systems were 104.7 

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007. Emissions have declined by 

24.9 Tg CO2 Eq. (19 percent) since 1990, due to 

improvements in technology and management 

practices, as well as some replacement of old equipment.

 In 2007, CH4 emissions from coal mining were 

57.6 Tg CO2 Eq., a 0.8 Tg CO2 Eq. (1.3 percent) 

decrease over 2006 emission levels. The overall decline of 26.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (31 percent) from 1990 

results from the mining of less gassy coal from underground mines and the increased use of CH4

collected from degasification systems.

 CH4 emissions from manure management increased by 44.7 percent, from 30.4 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

1990 to 44.0 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007. The majority of 

this increase was from swine and dairy cow manure, 

since the general trend in manure management is 

increasing use of liquid systems, which tends to 

produce higher CH4 emissions. The increase in 

liquid systems is the combined result of a shift to 

larger facilities, and to facilities in the U.S. West 

and Southwest, all of which tend to use liquid systems. Also, new regulations limiting the application 

of manure nutrients have shifted manure management practices at smaller dairies from daily spread 

to manure managed and stored on site. 

9

 The CO2 produced from 

combusted CH4 at landfills is not 

counted in national inventories, as 

it is considered part of the natural 

carbon cycle of decomposition.
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 31

Nitrous Oxide Emissions

N2O is produced by biological processes that occur in 

soil and water and by a variety of anthropogenic activities in the agricultural, energy-related, industrial, and 

waste management fields. While total N2O emissions 

are much lower than CO2 emissions, N2O is approximately 300 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Since 1750, the global 

atmospheric concentration of N2O has risen by approximately 18 percent (IPCC 2007). The main anthropogenic activities producing N2O in the United 

States are agricultural soil management, fuel combustion in motor vehicles, nitric acid production, stationary fuel combustion, manure management, and adipic 

acid production (see Figure 3-9). 

Some significant trends in U.S. emissions of N2O include the following:

 Agricultural soils produced approximately 67 percent of N2O emissions in the United States in 

2007. Estimated emissions from this source in 2007 

were 207.9 Tg CO2 Eq. Annual N2O emissions 

from agricultural soils fluctuated between 1990 and 

2007, although overall emissions were 3.8 percent 

higher in 2007 than in 1990. N2O emissions from 

this source have not shown any significant longterm trend, as they are highly sensitive to the 

amount of nitrogen applied to soils, which has not 

changed significantly over the time period, and to 

weather patterns and crop type.

 In 2007, N2O emissions from mobile combustion 

were 30.1 Tg CO2 Eq. (approximately 10 percent 

of U.S. N2O emissions). From 1990 to 2007, N2O 

emissions from mobile combustion decreased by 31 

percent. However, from 1990 to 1998, emissions 

increased by 26 percent, due to control technologies that reduced NOx emissions while increasing 

N2O emissions. Since 1998, newer control technologies have led to a steady decline in N2O from this 

source.

 N2O emissions from adipic acid production were 

5.9 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, and have decreased significantly since 1996 from the widespread installation 

of pollution control measures. Emissions from adipic acid production have decreased by 61 percent 

since 1990, and emissions from adipic acid production have fluctuated by less than 1.2 Tg CO2 Eq. 

annually since 1998.

HFC, PFC, and SF6 Emissions

HFCs and PFCs are families of synthetic chemicals 

that are used as alternatives to the ODS, and along 

with SF6, are potent GHGs. SF6 and PFCs have extremely long atmospheric lifetimes, contributing to 

their high GWP values and resulting in their essentially irreversible accumulation in the atmosphere once 

Figure 3-9 2007 U.S. Emissions of Nitrous Oxide by Source

In 2007, nitrous oxide (N2O) accounted for 4.4 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on a 

GWP-weighted basis. Agricultural soil management was the largest U.S. source of N2O, producing 

67 percent of emissions.

Tg CO2 Eq.

0 30 40

N2O as a Portion

of All Emissions

4.4%

207.9

30.1

21.7

14.7

14.7

5.9

4.9

4.4

3.3

1.8

10

Agricultural Soil Management

Mobile Combustion

Nitric Acid Production

Manure Management

Stationary Combustion

Adipic Acid Production

Wastewater Treatment

N2O from Product Uses

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

Composting

Settlements Remaining Settlements

Field Burning of Agricultural Residues

Incineration of Waste

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands

20

<0.05

0.4

0.5

1.6

Figure 3-10 2007 U.S. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 by Source

In 2007, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for 2.1 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on 

a GWP-weighted basis. Although the mass of these gases emitted is comparatively small, these 

emissions have high global warming potentials, and therefore have significant climate impacts.

Tg CO2 Eq.

0 45 50

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6

as a Portion of All Emissions

2.1%

108.3

17

12.7

4.7

3.8

15 30

3

5 2 10 0 4 25 35 0

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances

HCFC-22 Production

Electrical Transmission and Distribution

Semiconductor Manufacture

Aluminum Production

Magnesium Production and Processing

emitted. SF6 is the most potent GHG the IPCC has 

evaluated.

Other emissive sources of these gases include HCFC22 production, electrical transmission and distribution systems, semiconductor manufacturing, aluminum production, and magnesium production and 

processing (see Figure 3-10).

Some significant trends in U.S. HFC, PFC, and SF6

emissions include the following:

 Emissions resulting from the substitution of ODS 

(e.g., CFCs) have been increasing from small 

amounts in 1990 to 108.3 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007. 

Emissions from substitutes for ODS are both the 

largest and the fastest-growing source of HFC, 

PFC, and SF6 emissions. These emissions have been 
32 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

Figure 3-11 Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks by Chapter/IPCC Sector

From 1990 to 2007, total emissions in the energy, industrial processes, and agriculture sectors climbed by 19 percent, 9 percent, 

and 8 percent, respectively. Over the same period, carbon uptake by the land use, land-use change, and forestry sector increased by 

23 percent. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Tg CO2 Eq.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

7,000

8,000

Land Use, Land-Use Waste Industrial Processes

Change, and Forestry

Energy

–1,000

–2,000

9,000

Agriculture Net CO2 Flux from Land Use, Land-Use 

Change, and Forestry (Sinks)

–841.4 –859.4 –845.6 –787.4 –912.6 –851 –768.9 –844.1 –741.1 –695.5 –717.5 –745.9

–1,028.7–1,265.4–1,294.6–1,122.7–1,050.5–1,062.6

6,098.7 6,053.5 6,156.0 6,287.8 6,395.1 6,463.3 6,673.3 6,727.2 6,769.2 6,822.2 7,008.2 6,896.3 6,942.3 6,981.1 7,064.9 7,108.6 7,051.1 7,150.1

Note: Relatively smaller amounts of global warming potential-weighted emissions are also emitted from the Solvent and Other Product Use sectors.

increasing as phase-outs required under the Montreal Protocol come into effect, especially after 1994 

when full market penetration was made for the first 

generation of new technologies featuring ODS substitutes.

 HFC emissions from the production of HCFC-22 

decreased by 53 percent (19.4 Tg CO2 Eq.) from 

1990 through 2007, due to a steady decline in the 

emission rate of HFC-23 (i.e., the amount of HFC23 emitted per kilogram of HCFC-22 manufactured) and the use of thermal oxidation at some 

plants to reduce HFC-23 emissions. 

 SF6 emissions from electric power transmission and 

distribution systems decreased by 53 percent (14.1 

Tg CO2 Eq.) from 1990 to 2007, primarily because 

of higher purchase prices for SF6 and efforts by industry to reduce emissions.

PFC emissions from aluminum production decreased by 79 percent (14.7 Tg CO2 Eq.) from 1990 

to 2007, due to both industry emission reduction efforts and lower domestic aluminum production. 

Overview of Sector Emissions 

and Trends

In accordance with the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines 

for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC/

UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997), and the 2003 UNFCCC 

Guidelines on Reporting and Review (UNFCCC 

2003), the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990–2007 (U.S. EPA/OAP 2009) is segregated into six sector-specific chapters. Figure 3-11 

and Table 3-3 aggregate emissions and sinks by these 

chapters. Emissions of all gases can be summed from 

each source category using IPCC guidance. Over the 

18-year period from 1990 to 2007, total emissions in 

the energy, industrial processes, and agriculture sectors 

climbed by 976.7 Tg CO2 Eq. (19 percent), 28.5 Tg 

CO2 Eq. (9 percent), and 28.9 Tg CO2 Eq. (8 percent), respectively. Emissions decreased in the waste 

and the solvent and other product use sectors by 11.5 

Tg CO2 Eq. (6 percent) and less than 0.1 Tg CO2 Eq. 

(0.4 percent), respectively. Over the same period, estimates of net carbon sequestration in the land use, 

land-use change, and forestry sector increased by 192.5 

Tg CO2 Eq. (23 percent).

Energy 

The Energy chapter of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks contains emissions of all 

GHGs resulting from stationary and mobile energy 

activities, including fuel combustion and fugitive fuel 

emissions. Energy-related activities, primarily fossil fuel 

combustion, accounted for the vast majority of U.S. 

CO2 emissions from 1990 through 2007. In 2007, approximately 85 percent of the energy consumed in the 

United States (on a British thermal unit basis) was pro-
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 33

Figure 3-12 2007 U.S. 

Energy Consumption 

by Energy Source

In 2007, the combustion of 

fossil fuels accounted for 

approximately 85 percent of 

U.S. energy consumption, 

with the remaining 15 

percent coming from other 

sources (nuclear, hydropower, 

wind, etc.).

7% Renewable

8% Nuclear

22% Natural Gas

22% Coal

39% Petroleum

duced through the combustion of fossil fuels. The remaining 15 percent came from other energy sources, 

such as hydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar 

energy (see Figure 3-12). Energy-related activities are 

also responsible for CH4 and N2O emissions (35 percent and 14 percent of total U.S. emissions of each gas, 

respectively). Overall, emission sources in the Energy 

chapter accounted for a combined 86.3 percent of total 

U.S. GHG emissions in 2007. 

Industrial Processes

The Industrial Processes chapter of the Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks contains 

by-product or fugitive emissions of GHGs from industrial processes not directly related to energy activities, such as fossil fuel combustion. For example, industrial processes can chemically transform raw 

materials, which often release waste gases, such as 

CO2, CH4, and N2O. These processes include iron 

and steel production and metallurgical coke production, cement production, ammonia production and 

urea consumption, lime manufacture, limestone and 

dolomite use (e.g., flux stone, flue gas desulfurization, 

and glass manufacturing), soda ash manufacture and 

use, titanium dioxide production, phosphoric acid 

production, ferroalloy production, CO2 consumption, 

silicon carbide production and consumption, aluminum production, petrochemical production, nitric 

acid production, adipic acid production, lead production, and zinc production. Additionally, emissions 

from industrial processes release HFCs, PFCs, and 

SF6. Overall, emission sources in the Industrial Process chapter accounted for 4.9 percent of U.S. GHG 

emissions in 2007.

Solvent and Other Product Use

The Solvent and Other Product Use chapter of the 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 

contains GHG emissions that are produced as a byproduct of various solvent and other product uses. In 

the United States, emissions from N2O from product 

uses—the only source of GHG emissions from this 

sector—accounted for less than 0.1 percent of total 

U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions on a carbonequivalent basis in 2007.

Agriculture

The Agriculture chapter of the Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks contains anthropogenic emissions from agricultural activities (except 

fuel combustion, which is addressed in the Energy 

chapter, and agricultural CO2 fluxes, which are addressed in the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry chapter). Agricultural activities contribute directly to emissions of GHGs through a variety of 

processes, including the following source categories: 

enteric fermentation in domestic livestock, livestock 

manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soil 

management, and field burning of agricultural residues. CH4 and N2O were the primary GHGs emitted 

by agricultural activities. In 2007, CH4 emissions 

from enteric fermentation and manure management 

represented about 24 percent and 8 percent of total 

CH4 emissions from anthropogenic activities, respectively. Agricultural soil management activities, such as 

fertilizer application and other cropping practices, 

were the largest source of U.S. N2O emissions in 2007, 

accounting for 67 percent. In 2007, emission sources 

accounted for in the Agriculture chapter were responsible for 6 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry 

The Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry chapter of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks contains emissions of CH4 and N2O, and 

emissions and removals of CO2 from forest manageTable 3-3 Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks by Chapter/IPCC Sector (Tg CO2 Eq.)

From 1990 to 2007, total emissions in the energy, industrial processes, and agriculture sectors increased, emissions in the waste and 

the solvent and other product use sectors decreased, and net carbon sequestration in the land use, land-use change, and forestry 

sector rose by 23 percent.

Chapter/IPCC Sector 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Energy 5,193.6 5,520.1 6,059.9 6,169.2 6,084.4 6,170.3 

Industrial Processes 325.2 345.8 356.3 337.6 343.9 353.8 

Solvent and Other Product Use 4.4 4.6 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 

Agriculture 384.2 402.0 399.4 410.8 410.3 413.1 

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (Emissions) 14.2 16.2 33.0 26.4 45.1 42.9 

Waste 177.1 174.7 154.6 160.2 163.0 165.6 

Total Emissions 6,098.7 6,463.3 7,008.2 7,108.6 7,051.1 7,150.1 

Net CO2 Flux from Land Use, Land-Use Change, and 

Forestry (Sinks)* (841.4) (851.0) (717.5) (1,122.7) (1,050.5) (1,062.6)

Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 5,257.3 5,612.3 6,290.7 5,985.9 6,000.6 6,087.5 

* The net CO2 flux total includes both emissions and sequestration, and constitutes a sink in the United States. Sinks are only included in the net emissions total.

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Tg CO2 Eq. = teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values or sequestration.
34 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

ment, other land-use activities, and land-use change. 

Forest management practices, tree planting in urban 

areas, the management of agricultural soils, and the 

landfilling of yard trimmings and food scraps have 

resulted in a net uptake (sequestration) of carbon in 

the United States. Forests (including vegetation, soils, 

and harvested wood) accounted for approximately 86 

percent of total 2007 net CO2 flux, urban trees accounted for 9 percent, mineral and organic soil carbon 

stock changes accounted for 4 percent, and landfilled 

yard trimmings and food scraps accounted for 1 percent. 

The net forest sequestration is a result of net forest 

growth and increasing forest area, as well as a net accumulation of carbon stocks in harvested wood pools. 

The net sequestration in urban forests is a result of net 

tree growth in these areas. In agricultural soils, mineral 

and organic soils sequester approximately 70 percent 

more carbon than is emitted through these soils, liming, and urea fertilization, combined. The mineral soil 

carbon sequestration is largely due to the conversion 

of cropland to permanent pastures and hay production, a reduction in summer fallow areas in semi-arid 

areas, an increase in the adoption of conservation tillage practices, and an increase in the amounts of organic fertilizers (i.e., manure and sewage sludge) applied 

to agriculture lands. The landfilled yard trimmings and 

food scraps net sequestration is due to the long-term 

accumulation of yard trimming carbon and food 

scraps in landfills. 

Land use, land-use change, and forestry activities in 

2007 resulted in a net carbon sequestration of 1,062.6 

Tg CO2 Eq. This represents an offset of approximately 

17.4 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions, or 14.9 percent of total GHG emissions in 2007. Between 1990 

and 2007, total land use, land-use change, and forestry 

net carbon flux resulted in a 26.3 percent increase in 

CO2 sequestration, primarily due to an increase in the 

rate of net carbon accumulation in forest carbon 

stocks, particularly in above-ground and belowground tree biomass. Annual carbon accumulation in 

landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps slowed over 

this period, while the rate of annual carbon accumulation increased in urban trees. 

The application of crushed limestone and dolomite to 

managed land (i.e., soil liming) and urea fertilization 

resulted in CO2 emissions of 8.0 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, 

an increase of 13 percent relative to 1990. The application of synthetic fertilizers to forest and settlement 

soils in 2007 resulted in direct N2O emissions of 1.6 

Tg CO2 Eq. Direct N2O emissions from fertilizer application increased by approximately 61 percent between 1990 and 2007. Non-CO2 emissions from forest fires in 2007 resulted in CH4 emissions of 29.0 Tg 

CO2 Eq., and in N2O emissions of 2.9 Tg CO2 Eq. 

CO2 and N2O emissions from peatlands in 2007 

totaled 1.0 Tg CO2 Eq. and less than 0.01 Tg CO2

Eq., respectively.

Waste

The Waste chapter of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks contains emissions from 

waste management activities (except incineration of 

waste, which is addressed in the Energy chapter). 

Landfills were the largest source of anthropogenic 

CH4 emissions in the Waste chapter, accounting for 

23 percent of total U.S. CH4 emissions.10 Additionally, wastewater treatment accounted for 4 percent of 

U.S. CH4 emissions. N2O emissions from the discharge of wastewater treatment effluents into aquatic 

environments were estimated, as were N2O emissions 

from the treatment process itself. Emissions of CH4

and N2O from composting grew from 1990 to 2007, 

and resulted in emissions of 1.7 Tg CO2 Eq. and 1.8 

Tg CO2 Eq., respectively. Overall, in 2007, emission 

sources accounted for in the Waste chapter generated 

2.3 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.

Emissions by Economic Sector

Throughout the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks report, emission estimates are 

grouped into six sectors (i.e., chapters) defined by the 

IPCC: Energy; Industrial Processes; Solvent Use; Agriculture; Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry; 

and Waste (U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). While it is important to use this characterization for consistency with 

UNFCCC reporting guidelines, it is also useful to 

allocate emissions into more commonly used sectoral 

categories. This section reports emissions by the following economic sectors: residential, commercial, industry, transportation, electricity generation, agriculture, and U.S. territories. Table 3-4 summarizes 

emissions from each of these sectors, and Figure 3-13 

shows the trend in emissions by sector from 1990 to 

2007.

Using this categorization, emissions from electricity 

generation accounted for the largest portion (34 percent) of U.S. GHG emissions in 2007, while transportation activities, in aggregate, accounted for 28 percent, and emissions from industry accounted for 

20 percent. In contrast to electricity generation and 

transportation, emissions from industry have in 

general declined over the past decade, due to structural 

changes in the U.S, economy (i.e., shifts from a 

manufacturing-based to a service-based economy), 

fuel switching, and energy efficiency improvements, 

The remaining 18 percent of U.S. GHG emissions 

were from the residential, agriculture, and commercial 

sectors, plus emissions from U.S. territories. The residential sector accounted for about 5 percent, and 

primarily consisted of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel 

combustion. Activities related to agriculture accounted for roughly 7 percent of U.S. emissions; unlike 

10 Landfills also store carbon, due 

to incomplete degradation of 

organic materials, such as wood 

products and yard trimmings, as 

described in the Land-Use, LandUse Change, and Forestry chapter 

of the Inventory report.
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 35

Figure 3-13 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors: 1990–2007

In 2007, electricity generation accounted for 34 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, transportation accounted for 28 

percent, and industry accounted for 20 percent.

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

Tg CO2 Eq.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

2,500 Electricity Generation

Transportation

Industry

Agriculture

Commercial

Residential

Table 3-4 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (Tg CO2 Eq.)

In 2007, electricity generation accounted for 34 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, transportation accounted for 

28 percent, and industry accounted for 30 percent.

Economic Sectors 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Electric Power Industry 1,859.1 1,989.0 2,329.3 2,429.4 2,375.5 2,445.1

Transportation 1,543.6 1,685.2 1,919.7 1,998.9 1,994.4 1,995.2

Industry 1,496.0 1,524.5 1,467.5 1,364.9 1,388.4 1,386.3

Agriculture 428.5 453.7 470.2 482.6 502.9 502.8

Commercial 392.9 401.0 388.2 401.8 392.6 407.6

Residential 344.5 368.8 386.0 370.5 334.9 355.3

U.S. Territories 34.1 41.1 47.3 60.5 62.3 57.7

Total Emissions 6,098.7 6,463.3 7,008.2 7,108.6 7,051.1 7,150.1

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (Sinks) (841.4) (851.0) (717.5) (1,122.7) (1,050.5) (1,062.6)

Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 5,257.3 5,612.3 6,290.7 5,985.9 6,000.6 6,087.5

Tg CO2 Eq. = teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride.

Table 3-5 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector, with Electricity-Related Emissions 

Distributed Among Sectors (Tg CO2 Eq.)

In 2007, after distributing emissions from electricity generation to end-use sectors, industry accounted for 30 percent of total U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions, and the transportation sector accounted for 28 percent.

Implied Sectors 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Industry 2,166.5 2,219.8 2,235.5 2,081.2 2,082.3 2,081.2

Transportation 1,546.7 1,688.3 1,923.2 2,003.6 1,999.0 2,000.1

Commercial 942.2 1,000.2 1,140.0 1,214.6 1,201.5 1,251.2

Residential 950.0 1,024.2 1,159.2 1,237.0 1,176.1 1,229.8

Agriculture 459.2 489.7 503.2 511.7 530.0 530.1

U.S. Territories 34.1 41.1 47.3 60.5 62.3 57.7

Total Emissions 6,098.7 6,463.3 7,008.2 7,108.6 7,051.1 7,150.1

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (Sinks) (841.4) (851.0) (717.5) (1,122.7) (1,050.5) (1,062.6)

Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 5,257.3 5,612.3 6,290.7 5,985.9 6,000.6 6,087.5

Tg CO2 Eq. = teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents.
36 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

other economic sectors, agricultural sector emissions 

were dominated by N2O emissions from agricultural 

soil management and CH4 emissions from enteric 

fermentation, rather than CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. The commercial sector accounted for about 

6 percent of emissions, while U.S. territories accounted for approximately 1 percent.

CO2 was also emitted and sequestered by a variety of 

activities related to forest management practices, tree 

planting in urban areas, the management of agricultural soils, and landfilling of yard trimmings. 

Electricity is ultimately consumed in the economic 

sectors described above. Table 3-5 presents GHG 

emissions from economic sectors with emissions 

related to electricity generation distributed into enduse categories (i.e., emissions from electricity generation are allocated to the economic sectors in which the 

electricity is consumed). To distribute electricity emissions among end-use sectors, emissions from the 

source categories assigned to electricity generation 

were allocated to the residential, commercial, industry, 

transportation, and agriculture economic sectors according to retail sales of electricity.11 These source categories include CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and 

the use of limestone and dolomite for flue gas desulfurization, CO2 and N2O from incineration of waste, 

CH4 and N2O from stationary sources, and SF6 from 

electrical transmission and distribution systems.

When emissions from electricity are distributed 

among these sectors, industry accounts for the largest 

share of U.S. GHG emissions (30 percent) in 2007. 

Emissions from the residential and commercial sectors 

also increase substantially when emissions from elecFigure 3-14 U.S. Electricity-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Distributed to Economic Sectors: 1990–2007

In 2007, when electricity generation-related emissions are distributed to economic sectors, the transportation sector accounted for 28 

percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the industrial sector accounted for 30 percent (emissions from industrial processes 

and from electricity use at industrial facilities).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Tg CO2 Eq.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

2,500

Industrial

Transportation

Commercial (green)

Agriculture

Residential (blue) 11 Emissions were not distributed 

to U.S. territories, since the 

electricity generation sector only 

includes emissions related to 

the generation of electricity in 

the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. 

12 NOx and CO emissions from 

field burning of agricultural 

residues were estimated separately, 

and therefore not taken from U.S. 

EPA/OAQPS 2008.

tricity are included, due to their relatively large share 

of electricity consumption (lighting, appliances, etc.). 

Transportation activities remain the second-largest 

contributor to total U.S. emissions (28 percent). In all 

sectors except agriculture, CO2 accounts for more 

than 80 percent of GHG emissions, primarily from 

the combustion of fossil fuels. Figure 3-14 shows the 

trend in these emissions by sector from 1990 to 2007, 

while Box 3-3 shows recent trends in various U.S. 

GHG emissions-related data.

Indirect Greenhouse Gases

The reporting requirements of the UNFCCC request 

that information be provided on indirect GHGs, 

which include CO, NOx, NMVOCs, and SO2 

(UNFCCC 2003). These gases 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 

and methane, or, in the case of SO2, by affecting the 

absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere. Additionally, some of these gases may react with other 

chemical compounds in the atmosphere to form 

compounds that are GHGs.

Since 1970, the United States has published estimates 

of annual emissions of CO, NOx, NMVOCs, and SO2

(U.S. EPA/OAQPS 2008), which are regulated under 

the Clean Air Act.12 Table 3-7 shows that fuel combustion accounts for the majority of emissions of these 

indirect GHGs. 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.
Chapter 3 | Greenhouse Gas Inventory 37

Figure 3-15 Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita and per Dollar of Gross Domestic 

Product: 1990–2007

Since 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent. This is significantly slower than the 

average annual 2.9 percent growth rate in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

70

90

Index (1990 = 100)

110

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

80

100

120

130

140

150

160

170

Real GDP

Population

Emissions per Capita

Emissions per $ GDP

Sources: U.S. DOC/BEA 2008, U.S. DOC/Census 2008a, and emission estimates in this report.

Table 3-6 Recent Trends in Various U.S. Data (Index 1990 = 100) (Tg CO2 Eq.)

U.S. GHG emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent since 1990. This rate of growth is slightly slower than that 

for total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption and much slower than that for either electricity consumption or overall gross 

domestic product.

Variable 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 Growth Ratea

Gross Domestic Productb 100 113 138 155 159 162 2.9%

Electricity Consumptionc 100 112 127 134 135 137 1.9%

Fossil Fuel Consumptionc 100 107 117 119 117 119 1.1%

Energy Consumptionc 100 108 117 119 118 120 1.1%

Populationd 100 107 113 118 119 120 1.1%

Greenhouse Gas Emissionse 100 106 115 117 115 117 0.9%

a

 Average annual growth rate.

b

 Gross domestic product in chained 2000 dollars (U.S. DOC/BEA 2008).

c

 Energy content-weighted values (U.S. DOE/EIA 2008a). 

d

 U.S. DOC/Census 2008a.

e

 Global warming potential-weighted values.

Box 3-3 Recent Trends in Various U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Related Data

Total emissions can be compared to other economic and social indices to highlight changes over time. These comparisons include: 

(1) emissions per unit of aggregate energy consumption, because energy-related activities are the largest sources of emissions; (2) 

emissions per unit of fossil fuel consumption, because almost all energy-related emissions involve the combustion of fossil fuels; 

(3) emissions per unit of electricity consumption, because the electric power industry—utilities and non-utilities combined—was 

the largest source of U.S. GHG emissions in 2007; (4) emissions per unit of total gross domestic product as a measure of national 

economic activity; or (5) emissions per capita. 

Table 3-6 provides data on various statistics related to U.S. GHG emissions normalized to 1990 as a baseline year. U.S. GHG emissions 

have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent since 1990. This rate of growth is slightly slower than that for total energy 

consumption or fossil fuel consumption and much slower than that for either electricity consumption or overall gross domestic product. 

Total U.S. GHG emissions have also grown slightly slower than the U.S. population since 1990 (see Figure 3-15).
38 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 

Table 3-7 Emissions of NOx, CO, NMVOCs, and SO2 (Gg)

Fuel combustion accounts for the majority of emissions of indirect greenhouse 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.

Gas/Activity 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 21,450 21,070 19,004 15,612 14,701 14,250

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 10,920 10,622 10,310 8,757 8,271 7,831

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 9,689 9,619 7,802 5,857 5,445 5,445

Industrial Processes 591 607 626 534 527 520

Oil and Gas Activities 139 100 111 321 316 314

Incineration of Waste 82 88 114 98 98 97

Agricultural Burning 28 29 35 39 38 37

Solvent Use 1 3 3 5 5 5

Waste 0 1 2 2 2 2

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 130,461 109,032 92,776 71,672 67,453 63,875

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 119,360 97,630 83,559 62,519 58,322 54,678

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 5,000 5,383 4,340 4,778 4,792 4,792

Industrial Processes 4,125 3,959 2,216 1,744 1,743 1,743

Incineration of Waste 978 1,073 1,670 1,439 1,438 1,438

Agricultural Burning 691 663 792 860 825 892

Oil and Gas Activities 302 316 146 324 323 323

Waste 1 2 8 7 7 7

Solvent Use 5 5 45 2 2 2

Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds 

(NMVOCs) 20,930 19,520 15,227 14,562 14,129 13,747

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 10,932 8,745 7,229 6,292 5,954 5,672

Solvent Use 5,216 5,609 4,384 3,881 3,867 3,855

Industrial Processes 2,422 2,642 1,773 2,035 1,950 1,878

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 912 973 1,077 1,450 1,470 1,470

Oil and Gas Activities 554 582 388 545 535 526

Incineration of Waste 222 237 257 243 239 234

Waste 673 731 119 115 113 111

Agricultural Burning N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 20,935 16,891 14,830 13,348 12,259 11,725

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 18,407 14,724 12,849 11,641 10,650 10,211

Industrial Processes 1,307 1,117 1,031 852 845 839

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 793 672 632 600 520 442

Oil and Gas Activities 390 335 287 233 221 210

Incineration of Waste 38 42 29 22 22 22

Waste 0 1 1 1 1 1

Solvent Use 0 1 1 0 0 0

Agricultural Burning N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Gg = gigagrams; N/A = not available.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Source: U.S. EPA 2008, disaggregated based on U.S. EPA 2003, except for estimates from field burning of agricultural residues.
At no time in its history has the United States 

been more engaged—both at home and abroad, 

at the federal, state, and local levels—in enhancing its efforts to reduce climate change. Since assuming 

office, President Obama has moved quickly to establish new federal policies and measures designed to reassert American leadership in solving the global climate challenge. President Obama has outlined a 

comprehensive plan to address global climate change 

through investments that will save or create many 

jobs. The plan will: 

 Help transform the economy through investments 

in research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new forms of clean energy and 

through improvements in energy efficiency.

 Ensure the United States is on a path to reduce its 

dependence on oil, in part by promoting the next 

generation of cars and trucks and the alternative 

fuels on which they will run. 

 Reduce the pollution that causes global warming. 

By stemming carbon pollution through a marketbased cap, the United States will protect the national heritage for generations to come, and address 

many of the energy challenges the nation faces.

This chapter presents key policies and measures undertaken in these past months to fulfill this vision, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (ARRA), a new program to simultaneously promote fuel economy and limit tailpipe emissions of 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), and other significant 

actions (Box 4-1). The chapter also outlines significant 

actions since the most recent 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report (2006 CAR), as well as ongoing policies 

and measures at the federal level. In addition, for many 

Policies and Measures

4
40 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

years, U.S. states and localities have led the way in advancing clean energy climate policies. This 

chapter does not attempt to cover the broad landscape 

of U.S. state and local efforts on climate change. Instead, it provides a brief overview and sampling of the 

many programs that are occurring at the sub-national 

level.

Box 4-1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009, which provided tax cuts and targeted investments to jump-start the U.S. economy. The bill 

provides $787 billion in to multiple sectors of the economy in order to create jobs and stimulate 

growth. This includes extensive incentives to speed the development and growth of clean energy 

technologies in the United States. To create jobs today and reduce U.S. dependence on oil, the bill 

makes investments aimed at doubling renewable energy production and renovating public buildings 

to make them more energy efficient. Some of the specific investments and incentives targeted at 

clean energy and energy efficiency that will address climate change include:1

Modernized Transit—$17.7 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas 

consumption.

Reliable, Efficient Electricity Grid—$11 billion to modernize the electricity grid, making it 

more efficient, secure, and reliable, and build new power lines, including lines that transmit clean, 

renewable energy from sources throughout the nation. 

Renewables and Smart Grid Energy Loan Guarantees—$4 billion to support loan 

guarantees for up to $40 billion in loans for renewable energy generation and electric power 

transmission modernization projects. 

GSA Federal Buildings—$4.5 billion for renovations and repairs to federal buildings, focused on 

transitioning toward a High-Performance Green Building portfolio. 

State and Local Government Energy Efficiency Grants—$6.3 billion to help state and 

local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon 

emissions. 

Energy Efficiency Housing Retrofits—$250 million for a new program to upgrade U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development-sponsored low-income housing to increase energy 

efficiency, including new insulation, windows, and furnaces. Funds will be competitively awarded. 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research—$2.5 billion for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities to foster energy 

independence, reduce carbon emissions, and cut utility bills. Funds are awarded on a competitive 

basis to universities, companies, and national laboratories. 

Advanced Battery Grants—$2 billion for the Advanced Battery Grants Program, to support 

manufacturers of advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems. 

Home Weatherization—$5 billion to help low-income families reduce their energy costs and 

increase energy efficiency by weatherizing their homes. 

Smart Appliances—$300 million to provide consumers with rebates for buying energy-efficient 

Energy Star products to replace old appliances, which will lower energy bills. 

GSA Federal Fleet—$300 million to replace older vehicles owned by the federal government with 

more fuel-efficient vehicles, including alternative-fuel and plug-in hybrid automobiles that will save 

on fuel costs and reduce carbon emissions. 

Electric Transportation—$400 million for a new grant program to encourage electric vehicle 

technologies. 

Cleaner Fossil Energy—$3.4 billion for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology 

demonstration projects. These demonstration projects will provide valuable information needed to 

advance the deployment of CCS technology, which will be critical to reduce the amount of carbon 

dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from industrial facilities and fossil fuel power plants. 

Training for Green Jobs—$500 million to prepare workers for careers in energy efficiency and 

renewable energy fields.

_________

1

 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations. “Summary: American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Conference Agreement.” February 13, 2009. Available at: http://www.appropriations.house.gov/pdf/

PressSummary02-13-09.pdf.

1

 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the_press_office/Statement-ByThe-President-On-House-PassageOf-The-American-Clean-EnergyAnd-Security-Act/.

A cornerstone of the President’s platform involves 

comprehensive new energy and climate legislation, 

which requires approval by Congress and the executive branch. In February 2009, before a joint session of 

Congress, President Obama announced his intent to 

work with Congress to achieve legislation that would 

reduce GHG emissions through a market-based cap, 

drive the production of more renewable energy, and 

invest billions in low-emission technologies, to put the 

United States on a path to reduce its GHG emissions 

by more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. 

In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives 

passed the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act, which includes economy-wide GHG reduction goals of 3 percent below 2005 levels in 2012, 

17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 83 percent 

below 2005 levels in 2050. President Obama praised 

the passage of the House bill as a “bold and necessary 

step” in reducing GHGs.1

 Through a cap-and-trade 

program and other complementary measures, the bill 

would promote the development and deployment of 

new clean energy technologies that would fundamentally change the way we produce, deliver, and use energy. The bill would (1) advance energy efficiency and 

reduce reliance on oil; (2) stimulate innovation in 

clean coal technology to reduce GHG emissions before they enter the atmosphere; (3) accelerate the use 

of renewable sources of energy, including biomass, 

wind, solar, and geothermal; (4) create strong demand 

for a domestic manufacturing market for these nextgeneration technologies that will enable American 

workers to serve in a central role in U.S. clean energy 

transformation; and (5) play a critical role in the 

American economic recovery and job growth—from 

retooling shuttered manufacturing plants to make 

wind turbines, to using equipment and expertise from 

oil drilling to develop clean energy from underground 

geothermal sources, to tapping into American ingenuity to engineer coal-fired power plants that do not 

contribute to climate change. 

This is an exciting and critical time for global climate 

change in U.S. history. The U.S. Senate is currently considering its own legislation to promote clean energy and 

reduce GHG emissions. Under the U.S. system, legislation passed by the House and Senate is reconciled, and 

the resulting bill is passed to the President for signature. 

As new policies and measures are enacted, existing climate change strategies and investments will continue to 

be evaluated and adjusted as necessary. Though much 

remains to be done, this fifth national communication 

demonstrates new momentum in U.S. efforts to achieve 

the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Federal Policies and Measures 

The United States recognizes that a strong set of national policies and measures is critical to achieving the 
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 41

President’s emissions reduction goal. To reach this 

goal, a combination of near- and long-term, voluntary 

and regulatory activities will be needed across the economy, including in the residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, waste, and agricultural sectors. 

While significant GHG reductions have been made 

through existing initiatives, the administration recognizes the need to expand upon successful initiatives 

and introduce new policies and measures.Through the 

programs outlined sector by sector in this chapter, the 

federal government will build on its partnerships, invest 

in the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of emission-reducing technologies, and advance the implementation of critical regulatory policies.

New Initiatives Since the 2006 CAR

In addition to the significant funding for energy efficiency and alternative forms of energy provided 

through ARRA, the United States has advanced legislation, regulations, and initiatives to reduce GHG 

emissions since the nation last reported to the United 

Nations in the 2006 CAR. These efforts constitute a 

“bottom-up” approach to addressing climate change. 

They are both distinct from and complementary to the 

top-down targets described in Chapter 5. These activities are only a sample of U.S. efforts; they do not comprehend all that the United States does to mitigate 

and adapt to climate change. Most of all, such bottomup efforts are necessary, tangible evidence of America’s 

commitment to reducing dangerous GHG emissions. 

This section and Table 4-1 introduce these initiatives, 

and the following broader section discusses progress 

resulting from both recent and ongoing initiatives.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

On February 17, 2009, President Obama took an important step toward reaching the administration’s 

climate change goals with his signing of ARRA. This 

law provides unprecedented investments in clean energy improvements for the U.S. economy, allocating 

more than $90 billion for clean energy programs, such 

as weatherization assistance for low-income homes, 

and billions more for science and infrastructure, including the efficient modernization of mass transit 

systems (EOP/CEA 2010). Key components of the 

legislation include:

 Appropriating funding for numerous grant programs and tax incentives for clean energy technologies, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, 

marine, hydropower, fuel cells, plug-in electric vehicles, and other technologies that have the potential to reduce U.S. GHG emissions.

 Emphasizing energy-efficient technologies, practices, and policies, including a 30 percent tax credit 

for residential energy efficiency investments, as well 

as mandates for improved energy efficiency standards for electric heat pumps, central air conditioners, water heaters, wood stoves, oil furnaces, and 

hot-water boilers.

 Increasing the investments allocated to new clean 

renewable energy bonds and qualified energy conservation bonds.

 Investing in critical energy infrastructure by providing loan guarantees for new or upgraded electric 

power transmission projects, and by providing 

funding for the Smart Grid and new Smart Grid 

technologies.

 Asserting an energy efficiency leadership role for 

the federal government, investing in the “green” 

conversion of federal facilities, and purchasing vehicles for government use with higher fuel economy, including hybrid and electric vehicles.

Table 4-1 Recent Initiatives Not Featured in CAR 2006 

In addition to the significant funding for energy efficiency and alternative forms of energy provided 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the United States has advanced 

legislation, regulations, and initiatives to reduce GHG emissions since the nation last reported to the 

United Nations in the 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report.

 Policy/Measure Agency

Energy: Residential and Commercial

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants Net-Zero Energy Commercial 

Building Initiative 

DOE 

Energy: Industrial

Energy-Intensive Industries Program DOE

Energy: Supply

Biorefinery Assistance USDA 

Energy Smart Parks

Indian Education Renewable Energy Challenge

University-National Park Energy Partnership Program

DOI/DOE

Energy Transmission Infrastructure

Geothermal Energy Deployment Program

Solar Energy Deployment Program 

Wind Energy Development Program

DOI

Transportation

Alternative Transport Systems and Use of Clean Vehicles DOI

Loan Programs (Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive) DOE

Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) DOT

Industry (Non-Carbon Dioxide)

Responsible Appliance Disposal Program EPA

Forestry

Enhancing Ecosystems Services on Forest, Grasslands, Parks, and Wildlife 

Reserves DOI

Cross-Sectoral

Carbon Monitoring and Sequestration

Climate Friendly Parks

DOI

Climate Showcase Communities Grant Program EPA

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency EPA/DOE

Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities DOT/HUD/EPA

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOI = U.S. Department of the Interior; DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation; 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.
42 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership 

in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance2

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order3

 that sets sustainability goals for federal 

agencies and focuses on improving their environmental, energy, and economic performance. The Executive 

Order requires federal agencies to set a 2020 GHG 

emission reduction target within 90 days, increase energy efficiency, reduce fleet petroleum consumption, 

conserve water, reduce waste, support sustainable 

communities, and leverage federal purchasing power 

to promote environmentally responsible products and 

technologies.

The new Executive Order requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce GHG emissions toward 

agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which 

agency goals will be set and reported to the President 

by the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Executive Order also requires agencies 

to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including:

 30 percent reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use 

by 2020, relative to 2005; 

 26 percent improvement in water efficiency by 

2020; 

 50 percent recycling and waste diversion by 2015; 

 95 percent of all applicable contracts in compliance 

with sustainability requirements; 

 implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement; 

 implementation of the stormwater provisions of 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), section 438; and 

 development of guidance for sustainable federal 

building locations in alignment with the Livability 

Principles put forward by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Implementation of the Executive Order will focus on 

integrating achievement of sustainability goals with 

agency mission and strategic planning to optimize performance and minimize implementation costs. Each 

agency will develop and carry out an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan that prioritizes the 

agency’s actions toward the goals of the Executive Order based on life-cycle return on investments. Implementation will be managed through the previously 

established Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, working in close partnership with the Office of 

Management and Budget, CEQ, and the federal agencies.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 20074

In December 2007, EISA was signed into law. This 

major energy policy bill enacted numerous key provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and the 

availability of renewable energy, including:

 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)—The law 

set a minimum target of 35 miles per gallon for the 

combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model 

year (MY) 2020. In March 2009, DOT issued a 

final rule increasing fuel economy standards for MY 

2011 passenger cars and light trucks. In May 2010, 

EPA and DOT published a final regulation (FR 

2010). This rule is expected to save some 960 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) 

over the life of the regulated vehicles (U.S. EPA/

OTAQ 2010). 

 Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)5

—The law established a modified standard that taps the potential of 

renewable fuels to reduce life-cycle GHG emissions 

and provide economic growth. The RFS starts at 9 

billion gallons in 2008 and increases to 36 billion 

gallons by 2022, including 21 billion gallons from 

cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels.

 Energy Efficiency Equipment Standards—EISA contains a variety of new standards for reducing energy 

use in lighting and for residential and commercial 

appliance equipment, including incandescent and 

fluorescent lamps, residential refrigerators, freezers, 

electric motors, and residential boilers.

EISA also established a national goal to achieve zeronet-energy use for new commercial buildings built after 

2025, and a goal to retrofit all pre-2025 commercial 

buildings to zero-net-energy use by 2050. For federal 

buildings, the law requires total energy use to be reduced by 30 percent by 2015 compared to 2005. 

EISA authorized the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to develop and implement 

projects that help reduce energy use and emissions at 

the local and regional levels. Over $2.7 billion in grants 

are available through the program, which is funded by 

ARRA. EISA also established loans, grants, and debentures to help small businesses develop, invest in, and 

purchase energy-efficient buildings, fixtures, equipment, and technology.

EISA directs U.S. government agencies to support accelerated research, development, and demonstration 

(RD&D) and commercial application of clean technologies, such as solar, geothermal, marine and hydrokinetic, and energy storage. It also calls for expanded research 

and development (R&D) for carbon capture and sequestration, including large-scale demonstration projects, and assessment of ecosystem capacities to sequester 

carbon. It establishes a federal policy to modernize the 

electric utility transmission and distribution system, 

including investments in smart grid technologies.

2

 See http://www.whitehouse.

gov/the_press_office/PresidentObama-signs-an-Executive-OrderFocused-on-Federal-Leadershipin-Environmental-Energy-andEconomic-Performance/. 

3 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/

assets/documents/2009fedleader_

eo_rel.pdf. 

4

 See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.

gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname 

=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.

txt.pdf. 

5

 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

renewablefuels/index.htm.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 43

Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008

Signed into law in October 2008, the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 offers an array of 

incentives for U.S. energy production and conservation, including provisions for renewable energy production, clean coal and carbon sequestration, and efficient transportation and end-use standards and 

incentives (Box 4-2). 

Measures to encourage investment in capital-intensive 

projects with otherwise high financial risk are emphasized, such as incentives for wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, landfill gas, trash combustion, combined heat 

and power systems, marine and hydropower facilities, 

fuel cells, microturbines, and advanced coal-based generation technology projects. The legislation provides a 

new tax credit for investment in qualified energy conservation bonds to reduce energy consumption in 

public buildings, implement green community programs, and promote mass commuting facilities. Qualifying commercial and residential improvements and 

provisions for energy-efficient household appliances 

also are included. 

The act also accelerates the deployment of the next 

generation of vehicles by supporting renewable and 

alternative fuels and alternative-fuel vehicles. Other 

low-carbon transportation measures include incentives for bicycle commuting and idling-reduction devices in heavy trucks.

National Policy to Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions 

and CAFE Standards7, 8

EPA and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) signed a joint proposal on 

September 15, 2009, to establish a national program 

consisting of new standards for light-duty vehicles that 

will reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. In May 2010, EPA and DOT published a final 

regulation (FR 2010). This joint rulemaking implements the National Autos Policy announced by President Obama on May 19, 2009, responding to the 

country’s critical need to address global climate change 

and reduce oil consumption. For the first time, EPA 

promulgated federal emission standards for GHGs, 

using its authority under the Clean Air Act, and 

NHTSA proposed CAFE standards under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act. These standards apply to 

passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles, covering MY 2012–2016, and represent a harmonized and consistent national program. 

Under the program, automobile manufacturers could 

build a single light-duty national fleet that satisfies all 

requirements under both standards, while ensuring 

that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices. 

The new standards, covering MY 2012–2016, require 

an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon and 

an average 250 grams per mile of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) in 2016. In turn, they are projected to save 1.8 

billion barrels of oil over the life of the program, with 

a fuel economy gain averaging more than 5 percent per 

year, and a cumulative reduction of approximately 960 

teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.) 

in GHG emissions over the lifetime of the vehicles 

sold in MY 2012–2016. This substantially accelerates 

increases in average fuel economy mandated under the 

CAFE law passed by Congress in 2007.

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule9

In 2009, EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Rule. The rule requires 

reporting of GHG emissions from large U.S. sources, 

and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions 

data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, 

suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 

25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHGs are required to submit annual reports to EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are CO2, methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and 

other fluorinated gases, including nitrogen trifluoride 

(NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFEs).

This comprehensive national reporting system’s accurate and timely GHG emissions data will serve as a 

cornerstone of the domestic U.S. effort to combat climate change. The reporting program covers about 85 

percent of total U.S. emissions from roughly 10,000 

Box 4-2 Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 20086

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343) [4], which was signed into 

law on October 3, 2008, incorporates the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 in Division 

B as follows: 

 Extension of the residential and business tax credits for renewable energy as well as for the purchase 

and production of certain energy-efficient appliances, many of which were originally enacted in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005.

 Removal of the cap on the tax credit for purchases of residential solar photovoltaic installations and 

an increase in the tax credit for residential ground-source heat pumps.

 Addition of a business investment tax credit for combined heat and power, small wind systems, and 

commercial ground-source heat pumps.

 Provision of a tax credit for the purchase of new, qualified, plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. 

 Extension of the income and excise tax credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel to the end of 2009, 

and an increase in the amount of the tax credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from 

recycled feedstock.

 Provision of tax credits for the production of liquid petroleum gas, compressed natural gas, and aviation fuels from biomass.

 Provision of an additional tax credit for the elimination of CO2 that would otherwise be emitted into the 

atmosphere in enhanced oil recovery and non-enhanced oil recovery operations.

 Extension and modification of key renewable energy tax provisions that were scheduled to expire at 

the end of 2008, including production tax credits (PTCs) for wind, geothermal, landfill gas, and certain biomass and hydroelectric facilities.

 Expansion of the PTC-eligible technologies to include plants that use energy from offshore, tidal, or 

river currents (in-stream turbines), ocean waves, or ocean thermal gradients.

6

 See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.

gov/cgibin/getdoc.

cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_

laws&docid=f:publ343.110.pdf. 

7

 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

climate/regulations.htm. 

8

 See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

portal/fueleconomy.jsp. 

9

 See www.epa.gov/climatechange/

emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
44 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

facilities. The reporting threshold of 25,000 metric 

tons per year is roughly equivalent to the annual GHG 

emissions from just over 4,500 passenger vehicles. Annual reporting will begin in 2011 for calendar year 

2010 emissions. Once the system is in place, EPA will 

make the GHG emissions data freely available to the 

public.

Proposed Regulation Facilitating Geologic 

Sequestration of CO2

10

EPA proposed new federal requirements under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act for the underground injection of CO2 for the purpose of long-term underground storage, or geologic sequestration. The proposed rule would establish a new class of injection 

well—Class VI—and technical criteria for geologic 

site characterization, area of review and corrective action, well construction and operation, mechanical 

integrity testing and monitoring, well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure for protecting underground sources of drinking water. Elements of the 

proposal are based on the existing regulatory framework of EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program, while modifications address the unique nature 

of CO2 injection for geologic sequestration. EPA is 

currently evaluating public comments on the proposal, and expects to issue final regulations by 2011.

Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3289

Under President Obama, the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI) has taken a key leadership role in the 

federal government’s plans to adapt to the impacts of 

climate change. To these efforts, DOI brings considerable expertise in climate change and adaptation science, 

management of U.S. natural landscapes and resources, 

fish and wildlife, ecosystem services, and biological carbon sequestration.

DOI initiatives will help to address climate change, 

adapt to a warming planet, and create the new jobs of 

a clean energy economy. In response to the need for 

fully integrated information to achieve these objectives, DOI issued Secretarial Order 3285 on March 

11, 2009. The order made the production and transmission of renewable energy on public lands a priority 

and created a new DOI Energy and Climate Change 

Task Force co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary and 

Counselor to the Secretary. Building upon this effort, 

DOI issued Secretarial Order 3289 on September 14, 

2009, establishing a Department-wide approach for 

applying scientific tools to increase understanding of 

climate change and to coordinate an effective response 

to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, 

fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources that 

DOI manages. 

To fulfill President Obama’s vision for a clean energy 

economy, DOI manages America’s public lands and 

oceans, not just for balanced oil, natural gas, and coal 

development, but also to promote environmentally 

responsible renewable energy development. Sun, wind, 

biomass, and geothermal energy from U.S. public 

lands is creating new jobs and will soon power millions 

of American homes.

Progress and Projections for Reducing 

U.S. GHG Emissions

The U.S. government is continuing to make important 

progress toward reducing GHG emissions through 

energy-related policies and measures that promote 

increased investment in end-use efficiency, clean energy development, and reductions in GHG emissions 

in agriculture and through efforts focused on the most 

potent GHGs. The policies and measures in this chapter highlight the successful U.S. government initiatives 

focused on reducing GHG emissions. While many of 

the policies and measures include projections for reducing GHGs, several do not for a variety of reasons, 

such as double benefit counting and stage of implementation. As a result, the projections presented in 

this chapter should not be compared to the information presented in Chapter 5. Table 4-3 at the end of 

this chapter summarizes the current representative 

U.S. programs and their estimated GHG mitigation 

impacts through 2020. 

In addition, any mitigation levels or projections in this 

chapter are estimates generated using a range of methods and assumptions. Amounts are subject to change 

in the future and may have changed relative to 

amounts presented in past reports due to improvements in calculation methodologies. As noted in Table 4-3, estimates of mitigation impacts for individual 

policies or measures should not be aggregated to the 

sectoral level and may not be directly comparable, due 

to differences in calculation methodologies and possible synergies and interactions among policies and 

measures that may result in double counting.

Energy: Residential and Commercial Sectors11 

The residential and commercial sectors represent approximately 35 percent of U.S. GHG emissions, making them an integral focus of U.S. climate change policies and measures. The use of electricity for such 

services as lighting, heating, cooling, and running electronic equipment and appliances accounts for the majority of CO2 emissions in these sectors. Much progress has been made in achieving GHG emission 

reductions in these sectors, but significant additional 

potential can be realized through both regulatory and 

voluntary programs that set standards, provide information, develop measurement tools, and build partnerships. With the use of commercially available energy-efficient products, technologies, and best practices, 

many commercial buildings and homes could save 

significantly on energy bills and substantially reduce 

GHG emissions. These savings are hindered due to a 

range of pervasive and persistent market barriers. 

10 See http://www.epa.gov/

OGWDW/uic/wells_

sequestration.html. 

11 See http://www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/. 
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 45

Following are descriptions of key policies and measures aimed at addressing these barriers, saving energy, 

and avoiding GHG emissions in the residential and 

commercial sectors.

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

Program, Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards,12

Lighting Energy Efficiency Standards

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Appliances 

and Commercial Equipment Standards Program develops test procedures and minimum efficiency standards for residential appliances and commercial equipment. The rules and regulations that are developed 

apply to products manufactured for sale in, as well as 

those imported into, the United States. By law, DOE 

is required to set efficiency standards at levels that 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 

justified. Standards benefit consumers by requiring 

that appliance manufacturers reduce the energy and 

water use of their products—and thus the costs to 

operate them. They are a cost-effective means of saving 

energy, reducing consumer utility bills, and lowering 

CO2 emissions. 

Less than three weeks into his term, on February 5, 

2009, President Obama issued a memorandum requiring DOE to set more stringent efficiency standards for 

appliances, consistent with EISA and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). EPAct requires DOE to issue 

semi-annual reports describing its rulemaking schedule and plan for implementing the schedule. DOE 

published the first report on January 31, 2006. Efficiency and environmental advocates, states, utilities, 

manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are encouraged to participate in all stages of the rulemaking process. DOE is currently developing standards and test 

procedures for the following products:

 Commercial Equipment—clothes washers, distribution transformers, electric motors, furnaces and 

boilers, high-intensity discharge lamps, metal halide 

lamp fixtures, small electric motors, and walk-in 

coolers and freezers. 

 Residential Products—battery chargers, external 

power supplies, central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, clothes washers and dryers, direct heating 

equipment, furnaces and boilers, fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, high-intensity discharge lamps, pool heaters, microwave ovens, refrigerators and freezers, 

room air conditioners, and water heaters.

In addition, the program shares responsibility with the 

Federal Trade Commission for labeling commercial 

equipment.

Building Energy Codes Program13

DOE’s Building Energy Codes Program is an advocate 

for and information resource on national model energy codes, working with other federal government 

agencies, state and local jurisdictions, national code organizations, and industry to promote stronger model 

building energy codes and help states adopt, implement, and enforce those codes. The program is involved in three major areas to help improve the energy 

efficiency of residential and commercial buildings: 

propose and advocate improvements to national model energy codes; lead DOE’s development and promulgation of improved federal energy codes for manufactured housing (mobile homes); and provide financial 

and technical assistance to help states adopt, implement, and enforce building energy codes. The technical assistance includes development and distribution 

of easy-to-use compliance tools and materials, and 

collaboration with stakeholders to address industry 

needs and provide information on compliance products, Web-based training, and energy code-related 

news. 

ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

EPA and DOE have continued to expand the energyefficient products available for homes and businesses 

through the ENERGY STAR program. The label is 

now available on more than 60 product categories. In 

2008, the level of public awareness of ENERGY 

STAR increased to more than 75 percent. In addition 

to maintaining the integrity of the brand, DOE and 

EPA continue to identify new product categories for 

ENERGY STAR as well as revise existing product 

specifications to more stringent levels. Between 2000 

and 2008, more than 2.5 billion ENERGY STARqualified products were sold. EPA estimates that consumption of these products helped to reduce emissions by about 64.5 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007 and could 

help to reduce emissions by 141.2 Tg. CO2 Eq. by 

2020.

ENERGY STAR for the Commercial Market

Commercial buildings use nearly 20 percent of the 

total U.S. energy consumed and contribute nearly the 

same proportion of GHGs to the atmosphere. Addressing these emissions through energy efficiency is 

critical to reducing GHG emissions.

EPA has continued to expand the ENERGY STAR14

program in the commercial market, offering thousands of businesses and other organizations a strategy 

for superior energy management and standardized 

measurement tools. Since 2006, EPA has expanded 

and improved its national performance rating system, 

Portfolio Manager. Introduced in 1999, Portfolio 

Manager evaluates building energy efficiency and helps 

identify cost-effective opportunities for improvements 

for a wide range of building types, including hospitals, 

schools, grocery stores, office buildings, warehouses, 

retail spaces, residence halls, and hotels. By 2008, 

about 16 percent of U.S. floor space had been rated 

using this building rating system. Utilities can down12 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/index.html. 

13 See http://www.energycodes.

gov/. 

14 See www.energystar.gov.
46 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

load customers’ data directly into Portfolio Manager, 

and a number of states and municipalities are requiring the disclosure of this information as part of the key 

building transactions. 

In addition, more than 6,000 buildings have earned 

the ENERGY STAR label for top performance, and 

are using 35–40 percent less energy than average 

buildings. Further, through ENERGY STAR Leaders, 

EPA is recognizing organizations that reduce the energy use in their buildings by as much as 30 percent or 

by achieving top-performing portfolios in Portfolio 

Manager. EPA estimates that in 2007, ENERGY 

STAR in the commercial sector helped avoid 66 Tg 

CO2 Eq., and that continued efforts could result in 

reductions of about 93 Tg CO2 Eq. by 2020.

ENERGY STAR for the Residential Market

The ENERGY STAR programs in the residential 

sector—in both new and existing housing markets—

have continued to expand since the 2006 CAR. Despite the recent downturn in the new housing market, 

ENERGY STAR for New Homes has gained momentum, with nearly 17 percent of all new homes being 

built to ENERGY STAR specifications in 2008. The 

program is working with more than 6,000 builders 

and, in November 2009, passed the 1 million homes 

threshold across the country, even as EPA proceeds to 

increase the stringency of program requirements.15 

EPA has also worked with partners across the country 

to expand ENERGY STAR into the existing homes 

market with “Home Performance with ENERGY 

STAR,” a whole-house retrofit program. As of 2008, 

more than 50,000 homeowners relied on trained and 

certified contractors to conduct whole-house energy 

audits and implement improvements. To help homeowners assess the current efficiency of their homes, 

EPA released interactive Web-based tools. In addition, EPA launched the ENERGY STAR HVAC 

Quality Installation Program to increase the number 

of properly installed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, helping homeowners save 

25 percent or more on energy. 

EPA is also making ENERGY STAR tools and resources available to improve the energy efficiency of 

housing for lower-income families by providing housing finance agencies with recommendations and cost/

benefit analysis for considerations as criteria in competitively allocating low-income housing credits. Finally, through the ENERGY STAR Mortgage program, EPA is helping to finance new energy-efficient 

homes, as well as energy efficiency improvements in 

existing homes. EPA estimates these programs helped 

to reduce emissions by nearly 2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007 

and could help to reduce emissions by 44 Tg CO2 Eq. 

in 2020.

Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative16

DOE’s Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative (CBI, formerly known as Commercial Building 

Integration) aims to achieve marketable net-zeroenergy commercial buildings by 2025. Net-zero-energy 

buildings generate as much energy as they consume 

through efficiency technologies and on-site power 

generation. CBI encompasses all activities that support 

this goal, including industry partnerships, research, and 

tool development. The initiative provides key design 

and evaluation steps for developing energy-efficient 

and net-zero-energy buildings, including energy simulation software for evaluating building performance. 

DOE estimates that this initiative could generate 15.5 

Tg CO2 Eq. of emission reductions in 2020.

Under the authorization of EISA in 2007, CBI has 

advanced net-zero-energy commercial buildings by 

launching three Commercial Building Energy Alliances: the Retailer Energy Alliance, the Commercial Real 

Estate Energy Alliance, and the Hospital Energy Alliance. These alliances link commercial building owners 

and operators, by sector, who want to reduce the 

energy consumption, GHG emissions, and operating 

expenses of their buildings with the advanced technologies, analytical tools, and capabilities emerging from 

DOE and the national laboratories. CBI has also 

established the National Accounts program, which 

partners companies from the private sector and representatives from the national laboratories in order to 

construct and operate a new building and retrofit 

an existing building to achieve energy savings of 

50 percent and 30 percent, respectively, over baselines. 

As of August 2009, 23 companies were signed up for 

the National Accounts program.

Building America17

DOE’s Building America program helps design, build, 

and evaluate energy-efficient homes that use 30–40 

percent less energy than comparable traditional homes 

with little or no increase in construction costs, and 

helps industry to adopt these practices for new home 

construction. The program optimizes building energy 

performance and savings through the integration of 

new technologies with innovative residential building 

practices. Ongoing research also focuses on integrating 

on-site power systems, including renewable energy 

technologies. 

Hundreds of industry partners have followed the Building America approach in constructing more than 

41,000 homes in 41 states (U.S. DOE/EERE 2010). 

The energy technologies and solutions being advanced 

by the program will contribute to a 70 percent reduction in energy use of new prototype residential buildings that, when combined with on-site energy technologies, will result in “zero-energy homes” by 2020, and an 

additional 20 percent reduction in energy use of exist15 See http://www.energystar.gov/

index.cfm?fuseaction=mil_homes.

showSplash. 

16 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/commercial_

initiative/goals.html. 

17 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/building_america/.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 47

ing homes. DOE estimates these efforts could help to 

reduce GHG emissions by 19.8 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants18

DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block 

Grants (EECBG) program represents a presidential 

priority to invest in the cheapest, cleanest, and most 

reliable energy technologies that can be deployed 

immediately. Through formula and competitive grants 

to U.S. cities, counties, states, territories, and Native 

American nations, the program empowers local communities to make strategic investments to meet the 

nation’s long-term goals for energy independence and 

leadership on climate change. Over $2.7 billion in formula grants are now available to U.S. states, territories, 

local governments, and Native American nations 

under this program, funded for the first time under 

ARRA. Authorized in EISA Title V, Subtitle E and 

signed into Public Law (PL 110-140) on December 

19, 2007, the EECBG program provides funds to 

units of local and state governments, Native American 

nations, and territories to develop and implement 

projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce 

energy use and fossil fuel emissions. 

Weatherization Assistance Program19

DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 

increases residential energy efficiency and reduces energy costs for low-income families. The program provides technical and financial assistance in support of 

state and local weatherization agencies throughout the 

United States. These providers manage one of the largest residential energy retrofit programs in the country.

Since the WAP’s inception in 1976, over 6.2 million 

homes have been weatherized with DOE funds, with 

an estimated 100,000 homes weatherized in 2009. An 

average of 30.5 million British thermal units (Btus) of 

energy per household is saved as a result of weatherization, approximately a 16 percent reduction in primary 

heating fuel use. At 2009 prices, low-income families 

will save an average of $350 in reduced first-year energy costs. In addition, weatherization projects create 

both direct and indirect job opportunities. ARRA 

dedicated $5 billion in additional funding to support 

the administration’s goal of weatherizing 1 million 

homes each year. DOE estimates that 8.9 Tg CO2 Eq. 

of GHGs will be reduced in 2020.

Energy: Industrial Sector

The industrial sector contributes approximately 29 

percent of U.S. GHG emissions, largely from fossil 

fuel combustion on site or at the power generation 

source.20 Many U.S. industries are energy-intensive, 

with energy use contributing to a significant portion 

of operating costs. It is estimated that energy efficiency 

alone can reduce industry emissions by nearly 10 percent (Creyts et al. 2007). The policies and measures 

highlighted in this section are focused on opportunities that improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG 

emissions by helping the industrial sector adopt costeffective, efficient technologies that improve productivity, while reducing energy costs, energy consumption, and waste. 

ENERGY STAR for Industry

EPA’s ENERGY STAR for Industry program has 

continued to grow since the 2006 CAR. EPA’s 

ENERGY STAR Industrial Focuses, which directly 

address barriers to energy efficiency by providing 

industry-specific energy management tools and 

resources, have grown to include 16 industrial sectors 

with the launch of the Steelmaking Focus in 2008. In 

2006 EPA began recognizing energy-efficient industrial plants with the ENERGY STAR label, and by the 

end of 2008 45 plants had earned this label. EPA has 

further developed its existing relationships with industrial partners. EPA estimates that the industrial sector, 

with the help of the ENERGY STAR program, prevented about 23 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, and could avoid 

36.6 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Save Energy Now21

DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) works 

with industry to identify plant-wide opportunities for 

energy savings and process efficiency. By implementing new technologies and system improvements, many 

companies are realizing the benefits of applying 

DOE’s software tools and resources. In fiscal year (FY) 

2006, ITP introduced Save Energy Now to address 

high U.S. natural gas prices. The goal of this initiative 

is to achieve a 25 percent reduction in U.S. industrial 

energy intensity over 10 years. 

Since 2006, Save Energy Now has completed 2,324 

energy assessments in small, medium, and large U.S. 

industrial plants, with resulting annual energy cost savings of $218 million and related CO2 reductions of 2.3 

Tg CO2 Eq.

22 The assessments have ranged from plantwide to system-specific to process-specific. On average, 

energy assessments identify $1.5 million in energy cost 

savings per plant, or 8 percent of total plant energy 

costs.23 Save Energy Now partnership development and 

outreach further extends the program’s impact by increasing technology deployment and efficiency implementation and leveraging financial and technical resources. DOE estimates this program will reduce GHG 

emissions by 28.9 Tg CO2 Eq. by 2020. 

Industrial Assessment Centers24

DOE funds 26 Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs) 

housed at universities across the nation where DOE 

Energy Experts and IAC faculty and students conduct 

no-cost energy assessments for small- and mediumsized manufacturers, identifying an average of 1,300 

metric tons of potential CO2 savings per assessment 

per year.25 The IACs also serve as a training ground for 

engineers who conduct energy audits or industrial 

18 See http://www.eecbg.energy.

gov/. 

19 See http://apps1.eere.energy.

gov/weatherization/. 

20 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/

oiaf/archive/aeo08/index.html. 

21 See http://www.eere.energy.gov/

industry/saveenergynow. 

22 See http://apps1.eere.energy.

gov/industry/saveenergynow/

partners/results.cfm. 

23 As of September 1, 2009. The 8 

percent is a conservative estimate 

based on the Results from the U.S. 

DOE 2007 Save Energy Now 

Assessment Initiative in 2006 and 

2007, which is 10 percent 

(ORNL 2009). See http://apps1.

eere.energy.gov/industry/

saveenergynow/partners/results.

cfm. 

24 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/industry/bestpractices/iacs.

html. 

25 Prymak, Bill. “Energy 

Assessments: What Are the 

Benefits to Small and Medium 

Facilities?” February 19, 2009. 

Available at: http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/industry/pdfs/

webcast_2009-0219 _small_

medium_assessment_benefits.pdf 
48 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

assessments, and provide recommendations to manufacturers to help them identify opportunities to improve productivity, reduce waste, and save energy. 

Recommendations from the IACs have averaged 

$55,000 in potential annual savings for each manufacturer.26 The savings identified for IACs between 2006 

and 2008 were 28.8 trillion Btus per year (TBtus/yr) 

and $277.2 million per year. The continuing efforts 

of this program may help to reduce an estimated 

5.1 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020 (U.S. DOE/EERE 2010).

Industry-Specific and Cross-Cutting RDD&D27

DOE funds both industry-specific and cross-cutting 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) of emerging industrial energy 

efficiency technologies and best practices. Industryspecific RDD&D focuses on energy-intensive industries, including aluminum, chemicals, forest products, 

glass, metal casting, mining, petroleum refining, and 

steel. Cross-cutting RDD&D focuses on key technology areas common to most energy-intensive industries, 

such as combustion, distributed energy, energyintensive processes, fuel and feedstock flexibility, Industrial Materials for the Future, nanomanufacturing, 

and sensors and automation. From the program’s inception in 1975 through 2006, and over the useful life 

of the newly developed technologies, industry-specific 

and cross-cutting technologies have saved 5,650 TBtus 

of energy and about 375 Tg CO2 Eq.28 The program 

has supported more than 600 RDD&D projects, producing 220 commercialized technologies, with more 

than 141 technologies expected to emerge within the 

next one to two years.29

Energy: Supply

Electricity generation from fossil fuels is a major contributor to U.S. CO2 emissions. Federal policies and 

measures aimed at the American energy supply promote CO2 reductions through a variety of means, including energy efficiency for power generation and 

transmission, cleaner fuels, and the use of nuclear 

power and renewable energy resources. Solar, wind, 

and geothermal energy, and hydroelectric and biomass 

are some of the renewable energy resources consumed 

and generated by the United States. The nation’s 

programs include the provision of tax credits and 

R&D, which help increase domestic investments in 

renewable energy and continue to accelerate the costcompetitiveness of these emerging technologies. 

Solar Energy Development Program 

While no commercial-scale solar energy facilities currently exist on public lands managed by DOI’s Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), federal tax incentives, 

loan guarantees, grants, and state renewable energy 

portfolio standards are driving an interest in utilityscale solar energy development projects on public 

lands. BLM has identified approximately 12 million 

hectares (ha) (29.5 million acres [ac]) of public lands 

in six southwestern states with solar energy potential, 

and is evaluating a number of alternatives to determine best management practices for environmentally 

responsible utility-scale solar energy development on 

public lands.30

Wind Energy Development Program

Wind energy is the fastest-growing renewable energy 

resource in the nation, with an annual growth rate of 

over 30 percent.31 As of November 2009, the total installed capacity of U.S. wind energy was over 31,000 

megawatts (MW).32 As of July 2009, BLM had approved 28 wind energy projects on BLM-managed public lands with installed capacity of 327 MW, and another 249 MW under construction. BLM completed a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2005 that 

established best management practices for the development of wind energy resources on the public lands. The 

EIS identified 8.3 million ha (20.6 million ac) of BLMmanaged lands with wind energy resource potential.33

Geothermal Energy Development Program

In 2009, BLM managed 612 geothermal leases. Of 

these, 58 leases were in producing status and generated 

approximately 1,275 MW of capacity—about 50 percent of total U.S. geothermal energy capacity. BLM 

has also completed a Programmatic EIS and ROD, 

which allocated about 45 million ha (111 million ac) 

of BLM-managed lands as open to geothermal leasing. 

In 2007–2009, BLM sold 232 geothermal lease parcels. 

Energy Transmission Infrastructure

One of President Obama’s top energy priorities is to 

speed the development of a 21st-century network to 

move American electricity more cleanly, efficiently, 

and securely around the nation. To create this network, the United States is exploring ways to develop a 

unified, forward-looking strategy for siting, allocating 

the cost of, and coordinating the permitting for proposed transmission projects.

On October 23, 2009, nine agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to expedite the 

permitting, siting, and construction of electric transmission infrastructure on federal lands. This will be 

accomplished through improved coordination among 

project applicants, federal agencies, and other stakeholders involved in the siting process. By reducing the 

expense and uncertainty associated with siting new 

lines, the MOU will speed approval of new lines and 

cut costs passed on to consumers. In addition, BLM 

has identified and designated more than 5,000 miles of 

energy transport corridors on public lands in the western United States.34

Energy SmartPARKS35

In November 2008, DOI’s National Park Service 

(NPS) joined DOE to establish an innovative partner26 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/industry/bestpractices/

about_iac.html. 

27 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/industry/technologies/

emerging_tech.html. 

28 Prymak, Bill. “ Energy 

Assessments: What Are the 

Benefits to Small and Medium 

Facilities?” February 19, 2009. 

Available at: http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/industry/pdfs/

webcast_ 2009-0219_small_

medium_assessment_benefits.pdf. 

29 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/industry/technologies/

emerging_tech.html. 

30 See http://www.blm.gov/

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

MINERALS__REALTY__AND_

RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/

energy.Par.28512.File.

dat/09factsheet_Solar.pdf. 

31 See http://www.blm.gov/

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

MINERALS__REALTY__AND_

RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/

energy.Par.82982.File.

dat/09factsheet_Wind.pdf. 

32 See http://www.awea.org/

publications/reports/3Q09.pdf 

33 See http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.

html. 

34 Record of Decision, January 14, 

2009. See http://www.blm.gov/

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

MINERALS__REALTY__AND_

RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/

lands_and_realty.Par.27853.File.

dat/Energy_Corridors_final_

signed_ROD_1_14_2009.pdf. 

35 See http://www.nps.gov/

energy/.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 49

ship called Energy SmartPARKS. This partnership will 

showcase sustainable energy practices in national parks 

and inspire a green energy future for America. Energy 

SmartPARKS will enable NPS to showcase sustainable 

energy best practices and further its leadership mission. 

With combined federal government and private-sector 

support, Energy SmartPARKS will spark a green energy movement in America. 

Clean Energy Initiative

Launched in 2001, EPA’s Clean Energy Initiative consists of two partnership programs that promote costeffective technologies that offer improved efficiencies 

and lower emissions than traditional energy supply 

options. In 2007 alone, these programs helped to reduce GHG emissions by about 17.6 Tg CO2 Eq. and 

could result in reductions of 73 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Green Power Partnership36

EPA’s Green Power Partnership facilitates the purchase of environmentally friendly electricity from renewable energy sources by addressing the market barriers that stifle demand. The program now includes 

more than 1,000 partners who have committed to 

purchasing 16 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green 

power. There has been increasing interest in on-site 

renewable generation, and the partnership has developed new resources and forms of recognition to 

encourage this trend further. Another innovation 

was the creation of the Green Power Communities 

designation, which eligible municipalities can achieve 

through minimum purchases of green power and 

community-wide campaigns. 

Combined Heat and Power Partnership37

EPA’s Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Partnership 

provides technical assistance to organizations across 

multiple sectors who invest in CHP projects, and assists 

state governments in designing regulations that encourage investment in CHP. As a result, the program now 

includes almost 270 partners who have installed over 

4,700 MW of operational CHP. The CHP Partnership 

has targeted key sectors for action, including dry mill 

ethanol production, wastewater treatment facilities, and 

utilities. Technical guidance documents and project 

assistance have been provided to partners in these sectors.

Indian Education Renewable Energy Challenge38

In September 2009, DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and DOI’s Bureau of Indian Education 

(BIE) and Indian Affairs Office of Indian Energy and 

Economic Development announced a competition for 

students attending tribal and BIE high schools and 

tribal colleges to promote careers in the fields of green 

and renewable energy and build sustainable tribal 

economies. During Phase I of the Indian Education 

Renewable Energy Challenge, competing teams of 

students designed a small wind turbine that will harness wind energy, store it mechanically or electrically, 

and use it to power an array of light-emitting diodes. 

At the end of Phase I, five high school and five college 

design teams with the best submissions received 

$1,300 each to construct prototypes of their inventions. During Phase II, the 10 teams conducted performance data collections to submit to ANL, along 

with detailed reports and videos of their prototypes in 

operation, for evaluation by a team of judges. In April 

2010, two college teams and one high school team 

were announced as Energy Challenge winners.

University-National Park Energy Partnership 

Program39

In 1997, NPS partnered with the Rochester Institute 

of Technology and the Federal Energy Management 

Program to launch the University-National Park Energy Partnership Program (UNPEPP). This nationwide program partners university students and faculty 

with NPS energy management personnel to address 

universities’ energy concerns and provide students realworld problem-solving experience in the energy field. 

Since 1997, UNPEPP has established nearly 50 partnerships nationwide, creating nearly 70 separate projects ranging from energy audits to solar power implementation to public education.40

Biorefinery Assistance41

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(Farm Bill) includes three programs designed to provide 

targeted assistance to biorefineries and producers of 

advanced biofuels. The Biorefinery Assistance Program 

(Section 9003) provides loan guarantees for the development, construction, and retrofitting of commercialscale biorefineries, and grants to help pay for the development and construction costs of demonstration-scale 

biorefineries. The Repowering Assistance Program (Section 9004) provides for payments to biorefineries (that 

were in existence at the time the 2008 Farm Bill was 

passed) to replace fossil fuels used to produce heat or 

power to operate the biorefineries with renewable 

biomass. The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels 

(Section 9005) provides for payments to eligible biofuel 

producers to support and ensure expanded production 

of advanced biofuels. The three programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) 

Rural Development mission area.

Nuclear Technologies42, 43

DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy funds a diverse portfolio of programs to research and develop nuclear 

energy technologies. In FY 2009, major efforts included R&D on nuclear waste management techniques 

and advanced reactor designs through the Generation 

IV Nuclear Energy Systems program (Gen IV). Another effort funded in 2009 was the Nuclear Power 2010 

program. Nuclear Power 2010 is an industry costshared effort to demonstrate revised Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing processes; the program will 

be brought to closure in FY 2010. Gen IV worked to 

36 See http://www.epa.gov/

greenpower/index.htm. 

37 See http://www.epa.gov/chp/

index.htm. 

38 See http://www.bie.edu/downlo

ads/641F7A3E9A724657B79FFD

FF764986E7/Indian%20

Education%20Renewable%20

Energy%20Challenge.doc. 

 

39 See http://www.

energypartnerships.org/. 

40 See http://www.rurdev.usda.

gov/rbs/busp/baplg9003.htm. 

41 See http://www.energy 

partnerships.org/docs/UNPEPP_ 

10Year_Report.pdf. 

42 See http://www.ne.doe.gov/

np2010/overview.html. 

43 See http://climatetechnology.

gov/Strategy-Intensity-ReducingTechnologies.pdf.
50 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

address critical unanswered questions about advanced 

nuclear reactor technologies through R&D and included support for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant 

project. The fuel-cycle R&D program focused on the 

development of fuel-cycle technologies that minimize 

waste and improve proliferation resistance. Many Gen 

IV and fuel-cycle R&D activities will be continued in 

FY 2010.

Renewable Energy Deployment Grants44

Community renewable energy deployment grants, 

totaling nearly $22 million, provide financial assistance 

for the implementation of integrated renewable energy 

deployment plans for communities, and construction 

of renewable energy systems. The grants support 

utility-scale renewable energy projects in up to four 

communities nationwide. The projects funded by these 

grants are expected to create jobs and avoid 50,000 

tons of CO2 annually.

Renewable Energy Production Incentive45 

The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) 

program was created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

and amended in 2005, to provide financial incentives 

for renewable energy electricity produced and sold by 

qualified renewable energy generation facilities. REPI 

provides financial incentive payments for electricity 

generated and sold by new qualifying renewable energy 

generation facilities. Qualifying facilities are eligible for 

annual incentive payments of 1.5 cents/kWh (1993 

dollars and indexed for inflation) for the first 10-year 

period of their operation, subject to the availability of 

annual appropriations in each federal fiscal year of operation.

Rural Energy for America Program46

Formerly known as the Renewable Energy Systems and 

Energy Efficiency Improvements Program, USDA’s 

Rural Energy for America Program provides loan guarantees and grants to agricultural producers and rural 

small businesses to purchase renewable energy systems 

and improve energy efficiency. Between 2002 and 2008, 

the program helped finance 694 renewable energy systems (including 271 biomass, 245 wind, 108 solar, 52 

geothermal, and 18 hybrid projects) and 1,329 energy 

efficiency improvements. USDA estimates that these 

projects have achieved energy savings amounting to 

46.6 million barrels of oil and an estimated reduction in 

GHG emissions of 8.2 Tg CO2 Eq. Reduced GHG 

emissions for 2020 are projected to be 21 Tg CO2 Eq.

Solar Energy Technologies Program47 

DOE’s Solar Energy Technologies Program is improving the performance of energy systems and reducing 

development, production, and installation costs to 

competitive levels, thereby accelerating large-scale use 

across the nation. When federal solar energy research 

began in the 1970s, the cost of electricity from solar 

resources was about $2.00/kWh. Technological advances over the last two decades have significantly reduced solar electricity costs, which range from as low 

as $0.12/kWh for concentrating solar power to $0.18/

kWh for certain photovoltaic applications. DOE estimates that realizing the program’s R&D goals could 

result in solar energy displacing 2.5 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

2020.

Wind Energy Program48

Wind energy is the world’s fastest-growing energy supply technology. Today, the United States has more than 

31,000 MW of wind-generating capacity. DOE’s Wind 

Energy Program has helped lower the cost of wind 

energy to between 5 and 8 cents/kWh, making large 

wind farms in certain areas of the United States costcompetitive with fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. 

Since 2002, the program has focused most of its efforts 

on utility-scale technologies and, through its public– 

private partnerships, has improved the cost of energy 

for large systems in Class 4 onshore winds.49 The Wind 

Energy Program also supports U.S. offshore wind power development prospects. DOE estimates that realizing the program’s R&D goals could result in wind 

energy displacing more than 67.6 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Biomass Program50

DOE has contributed to the advancement of biomass 

technology by working with industry, academia, and 

national laboratory partners on a balanced portfolio of 

RD&D efforts geared toward biomass feedstocks and 

conversion technologies. A major effort includes deployment and further development of infrastructure 

and opportunities for market penetration of bio-based 

fuels and products. DOE seeks to develop advanced 

technologies for producing biofuels—including ethanol—from wood chips, crop residues, and dedicated 

energy crops, such as switchgrass, while bridging the 

gap from technology validation to deployment and 

promoting terrestrial carbon sequestration. The DOE 

research portfolio is supporting national goals related 

to reducing GHG emissions associated with bioenergy 

production and use when compared to conventional 

petroleum-based fuels. 

DOE has contributed to the advancement of biomass 

technology by 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. This research 

has helped biomass become a proven commercial electricity generation option in the United States. DOE 

estimates that these efforts could help reduce emissions by about 55.2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020. 

Coal Technologies51

The mission of DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy Coal 

Program is to ensure the availability of near-zero atmospheric emissions, and abundant, affordable, do44 See http://apps1.eere.energy.

gov/news/daily.cfm/hp_news_

id=185. 

45 See http://apps1.eere.energy.

gov/repi/. 

46 See http://www.rurdev.usda.

gov/rbs/farmbill/index.html. 

47 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/solar/. 

48 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/windandhydro/. 

49 Onshore sites with a Class 4 

rating (7.0–7.5 meters per second 

at 50 ft) or higher (on a scale of 7 

classes) are preferred for large-scale 

wind plants. See American Wind 

Energy Association: http://www.

awea.org/faq/basicwr.html. 

50 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/biomass/. 

51 See http://www.fossil.energy.

gov/programs/powersystems/

cleancoal/.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 51

mestic energy to fuel economic prosperity, strengthen 

energy security, and enhance environmental quality. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, DOE conducted a 

joint program with industry and state agencies to 

demonstrate technologies that addressed the environmental challenges of the time—primarily concerns 

about the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, the focus of environmental 

concern has shifted to the global climate-altering impact of GHGs.

With coal likely to remain one of the nation’s lowestcost energy resources for the foreseeable future, the 

United States is actively funding applied R&D of advanced coal technologies that improve efficiency and 

reduce the intensity of CO2 emissions. In addition, 

the Clean Coal Power Initiative is a cost-shared partnership between the government and industry to develop and demonstrate advanced coal-based power 

generation technologies. By 2020, these initiatives 

could prevent the emission of 23.1 Tg CO2 Eq. 

Geothermal Technologies Program52

Geothermal energy is poised for widespread expansion, if enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) technology can be proven commercially viable. DOE is working to overcome a variety of technical, market, and 

institutional barriers. Studies indicate that these challenges can be overcome with further investment in 

research, changes in policy, and market conditioning. 

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have conducted studies that point to the potential contribution of 

EGS to domestic electricity supply ranging from 

100,000 megawatts electric (MWe) to 517,800 MWe, 

respectively.53, 54 As these studies suggest, geothermal 

energy, once restricted to naturally occurring hydrothermal fields in remote areas, could someday be operating in more locations and in greater proximity to 

large end-use markets. 

DOE’s Geothermal Technologies Program was relaunched in 2008. ARRA has dedicated $400 million 

in investments across the spectrum of geothermal 

technologies, from co-produced geothermal energy 

from oil and gas fields to EGS technologies and more 

widespread deployment of geothermal heat pumps. 

DOE estimates that U.S. electricity generated from 

geothermal power could displace 1.8 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

2020. 

Loan Guarantee Program55

DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program provides financial 

support for projects that employ new or significantly 

improved technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester 

air pollutants or anthropogenic GHG emissions. As 

authorized by Title XVII of EPAct, the program promotes early commercial use of advanced technologies 

for projects with a reasonable prospect of repayment of 

the principal and interest. In addition to $4 billion in 

loan guarantee authority provided in FY 2007, DOE 

has the authority to issue $18.5 billion for new nuclear 

plants, $2 billion for uranium enrichment, $8 billion 

for advanced coal, and $18.5 billion for renewable or 

energy-efficient systems and manufacturing projects. 

An additional $4 billion in credit subsidy was provided 

in ARRA to support up to $40 billion in loans for renewable energy and transmission projects, including 

commercial and advanced technologies.

Water Power Program56

Today, power from water resources represents the largest U.S. renewable energy source and serves as a foundation for other renewable forms of energy being developed. DOE’s Water Power Program seeks to 

identify and undertake RDD&D to assess the potential extractable energy from water resources and to facilitate the development and deployment of renewable, 

environmentally sound, and cost-effective energy from 

U.S. rivers, estuaries, and marine waters. In 2008, the 

program began supporting a comprehensive suite of 

R&D projects geared toward advances in marine and 

hydrokinetic technology that has the potential to provide 43 gigawatts of additional capacity from waves, 

tides, and currents in U.S. waters. DOE is also supporting capacity additions for both small and large conventional hydropower, as well as advances in water power 

grid services to make better use of existing hydroelectric capacity and its highly valuable ancillary services.

Transportation

Renewable Fuel Standard57

EISA made several changes to the RFS, as originally 

implemented under EPAct, including a significant 

increase in the volume of renewable fuel that must be 

used in transportation fuel each year. By 2022, 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel are required—a fivefold 

increase over the volumes included in EPAct. The statute also includes volume requirements for biomassbased diesel and other advanced biofuels, including 16 

billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel by 2022.

The revised requirements also include new definitions 

and criteria for both renewable fuels and the feedstocks used to produce them, including new life-cycle 

GHG emission thresholds for renewable fuels. EPA, 

which issued a final rule in February 2010, is currently 

working to implement these changes to the RFS program, which is anticipated to achieve significant reductions in both petroleum use and GHGs.

National Clean Diesel Campaign58

EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) 

works aggressively to reduce diesel emissions across the 

country through the implementation of proven emission control technologies and innovative strategies 

with the involvement of national, state, and local partners. Many of the clean diesel strategies that NCDC 

52 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/geothermal/. 

53 Tester et al. The Future of 

Geothermal Energy: Impact of 

Enhanced Geothermal Systems 

(EGS) on the United States in 

the 21st Century. 2006. Refers to 

100,000 MWe. 

54 Williams et al. “Assessment of 

Moderate- and High-Temperature 

Geothermal Resources of the 

United States.” 2008. Refers to 

517,800 MWe. Note that this 

assessment is only applicable to 

the western states, and does not 

include an eastern assessment. 

55 See http://www.lgprogram.

energy.gov/index.html. 

56 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/windandhydro/. 

57 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

renewablefuels/index.htm. 

58 See http://www.epa.gov/diesel/. 
52 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

promotes to mitigate nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM)—such as retrofits, engine repair, 

engine replacement, engine repower, idle reduction, 

and cleaner fuels—can also reduce CO2 emissions 

through diesel fuel savings and help mitigate black 

carbon emissions. Black carbon, a component of PM, 

has been found to both increase atmospheric warming 

and speed Arctic melting. Removing PM may have a 

significant effect on slowing global warming due to the 

short-lived nature of black carbon. 

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) provisions in EPAct are a significant funding source for 

NCDC. In the first year of the DERA program (FY 

2008), EPA awarded $49.2 million for projects across 

the country—including projects funded through the 

SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program, State Clean 

Diesel Grants, National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, and Emerging Technologies Program—

which will lead to emission reductions of approximately 

41,700 metric tons of NOx

 and 2,000 metric tons of 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA estimates that the 

idle-reduction technologies funded through FY 2008 

grants alone will save more than 3.2 million gallons of 

fuel and 32,300 metric tons of CO2 per year. Engine 

replacement, repowering, and vehicle replacement projects are contributing additional fuel savings and CO2

reductions. With an additional $300 million of ARRA 

funding to be awarded for clean diesel projects and $60 

million appropriated for FY 2009 and FY 2010, EPA 

anticipates that the level of emissions, including CO2 

and black carbon, from the existing fleet of diesel engines will continue to decrease significantly. 

SmartWaySM Transport Partnership59

The SmartWay SM Transport Partnership is an innovative collaboration with the freight industry to increase 

energy efficiency while significantly reducing GHGs 

and air pollution. EPA provides tools and models to 

help SmartWay Transport partners—including producers and the trucking, rail, and marine shipping 

companies that deliver their products—adopt costeffective strategies to save fuel and reduce GHG emissions. To date, more than 2,000 companies and organizations have joined the partnership. Freight shippers 

meet their goals by using participating carriers, while 

trucking and rail companies meet their goals by improving freight transport efficiency. 

The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program is a 

complementary initiative that aims to accelerate the 

deployment of energy-efficient and emission-control 

technologies by helping truck owners overcome financial obstacles. In 2008, EPA awarded $3.4 million to 

support three loan programs to help small trucking 

companies reduce fuel costs and emissions. In 2009, 

EPA will award the program $30 million from ARRA 

funding to support the development of new financing 

programs.

Other SmartWay initiatives include identification of 

clean and efficient SmartWay-certified vehicles, including heavy-duty trucks, upgrade kits, and components. SmartWay-designated tractor-trailers can save 

10–20 percent annually in fuel and CO2 emissions 

compared to a typical long-haul truck. SmartWay also 

promotes a national idle-reduction program for trucks 

and locomotives and has developed guidance on idlereduction policies and programs for states. SmartWay’s Supply Chain initiative is developing new tools 

to help companies quantify and track freight transport 

environmental performance across all modes, including truck, marine, rail, and aviation. 

The SmartWay program is also working with other 

governments and organizations around the world to 

establish international benchmarks for cleaner, efficient freight transportation. EPA held the first international SmartWay workshop in December 2008, and 

several countries have initiated projects and programs 

modeled after the U.S. SmartWay program. EPA 

estimates that SmartWay could help the industry 

reduce up to 43 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Aviation Fuel Efficiency60

In the United States, aviation makes up about 

3 percent of the national GHG inventory and about 

12 percent of transportation emissions. Currently, 

measuring and tracking fuel efficiency from aircraft 

operations provide the data for assessing the improvements in aircraft and engine technology, operational 

procedures, and the airspace transportation system 

that reduce aviation’s contribution to CO2 emissions. 

Although there are no mandatory U.S. or international goals or requirements with respect to aviation fuel 

efficiency, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) has a number of initiatives to improve aviation 

fuel efficiency. For example, FAA has aviation GHG 

reduction goals as part of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). In the near term, 

new technologies to improve air traffic management 

will help reduce fuel consumption and, thus, emissions. In the long term, new engines and aircraft will 

feature more efficient components and aircraft aerodynamics, enhanced engine cycles, and reduced weight, 

thereby improving fuel efficiency and fuel economy. 

Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative61

FAA’s Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) seeks to enhance energy security and 

environmental sustainability for aviation through 

alternative jet fuels. CAAFI is a government and 

private-sector coalition that focuses the efforts of 

commercial aviation to engage the emerging alternative fuels industry. It enables its diverse participants— 

representing all the leading stakeholders in the field 

of aviation—to build relationships, share and collect 

data, identify resources, and direct RD&D of alternative jet fuels. 

59 See http://www.epa.gov/

smartway/. 

60 See http://ntl.bts.gov/

lib/32000/32700/32779/

DOT_Climate_Change_

Report_-_April_2010_-_

Volume_1_and_2.pdf. 

61 See http://www.caafi.org. 
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 53

Clean Automotive Technology62

EPA’s Clean Automotive Technology program 

searches for cost-effective advanced automotive technologies that greatly cut GHG emissions, increase fuel 

efficiency, reduce emissions, and are affordable for 

mainstream consumer and commercial vehicles. The 

program has developed several historic engine and 

drivetrain technology breakthroughs, and currently 

holds 60 powertrain patents with 28 more in process. 

EPA has been instrumental in moving advanced vehicle technologies from the lab to the road by partnering 

with industry companies, such as UPS, FedEx, 

Navistar, Freightliner, Eaton, and Parker, to get the 

first series of hydraulic hybrid package-delivery vehicles on the road. The first generation of this advanced 

technology has improved real-world fuel efficiency by 

50 percent. EPA is working to incorporate the next 

generation of advanced engine and fuel technologies 

into series hybrids to boost these gains for commercial 

trucks to near 100 percent. 

Fuel Cell Technologies Program63

DOE’s Fuel Cells Technologies Program is implementing RD&D efforts needed for the widespread use 

of fuel cells and hydrogen in the stationary, portable, 

and transportation sectors. Through partnerships with 

the public and private sectors, national laboratories, 

and academia, the program accelerates the pace of 

R&D to reduce U.S. dependence on oil, GHG emissions, and criteria pollutants. Technological advances 

through R&D over the last seven years have successfully reduced fuel cell costs from $275 per kilowatt 

(kW) to approximately $61/kW in 2009, based on a 

production volume of 500,000 units per year, doubled 

fuel cell durability (to 60,000 miles), and reduced 

high-volume hydrogen costs to $3 per gallon gasoline 

equivalent. 

Federal Transit Program64

DOT’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grows 

and sustains public transportation as a low-emission 

alternative to automobiles by providing grants, technical assistance, research, and policy leadership to communities throughout the United States. FTA’s main 

area of support to communities is providing more than 

$10 billion per year in grants for the construction and 

operation of transit services ranging from local buses 

and paratransit services to heavy-rail subways and commuter rail. Over 1,500 transit providers in communities 

throughout the United States benefit from FTA grant 

programs as a way to assist their own efforts to provide 

public transportation options to their customers. FTA 

also encourages adoption of clean technologies by funding a significant percentage of the cost of purchasing 

lower-emission vehicles.

Through its technical assistance efforts focused on 

transportation planning and transit-oriented development, FTA provides communities with the tools 

to effectively coordinate land-use and transportation 

decisions. Combining investment in public transportation with compact, mixed-use development around 

transit stations has a synergistic effect that amplifies the 

GHG reductions of each activity. FTA also provides environmental management systems training to transit 

agencies to help them continually assess and reduce the 

environmental impact of their operations. 

FTA research on alternative fuels and high-fuelefficiency vehicles has yielded the introduction of 

low-emission technologies, such as hybrid electric, compressed natural gas, and biodiesel. Current research is 

also supporting the development of a commercially viable fuel cell bus through a multi-year, multi-organization research effort. Finally, FTA policy research is 

aimed at providing the analysis to give 

decision makers the information to make informed 

decisions about the role of public transportation in reducing GHG emissions.

Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy 

Reduction65

Administered by FTA, DOT’s Transit Investments 

for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) 

grant program aims to position the public transportation industry as a leader in the effort to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and help address global 

climate change. Created by ARRA, the program provides $100 million in discretionary grants to U.S. transit agencies for capital investments that will help reduce 

energy consumption or GHG emissions. In particular, 

TIGGER seeks to fund projects that will yield longterm energy savings and emission reductions from targeted investments in public transit facilities and vehicle 

operations. 

Vehicle Technologies Program66

DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program develops energyefficient and environmentally friendly highway transportation technologies that will reduce use of petroleum in the United States. The long-term aim is to 

develop “leapfrog technologies” that will provide Americans with greater freedom of mobility and energy security, while lowering costs and reducing impacts on the 

environment. Program areas include hybrid and vehicle 

systems, energy storage, power electronics and electrical 

machine technologies, advanced combustion engines, 

fuel and lubricant technologies, materials, EPAct support, and educational activities. Clean Cities, the main 

deployment arm of the program, is a public–private 

partnership designed to reduce petroleum consumption 

in the transportation sector by advancing the use of 

alternative fuels and vehicles, idle-reduction technologies, hybrid electric vehicles, fuel blends, and fuel economy measures. Industry partnerships include the 

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and the 21st Century Truck Partnership.

62 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

technology/. 

63 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/. 

64 See http://www.fta.dot.gov/. 

65 See http://www.fta.dot.gov/

index_9440_9920.html. 

66 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/vehiclesandfuels/.
54 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program67

Administered by DOT’s Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and FTA in consultation with EPA, 

the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program provides states with funding 

to reduce congestion and improve air quality through 

transportation control measures and other transportation strategies that will contribute to attainment or 

maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM. Funds are 

apportioned to states by statutory formula, and the 

amount of funding is primarily based on the severity 

of the air quality problem and the population of the 

area. State and local governments select CMAQ projects and coordinate them through metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), where appropriate. The 

projects typically include transit improvements, alternative fuel programs, shared-ride services, traffic flow 

improvements, demand management strategies, 

freight and intermodal facilities, diesel engine retrofits, 

pedestrian and bicycle programs, and inspection and 

maintenance programs. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU)68 directed states and MPOs to give priority to 

two categories of funding: (1) diesel retrofits and other cost-effective emission reduction activities, taking 

into consideration air quality and health effects; and 

(2) cost-effective congestion mitigation activities that 

provide air quality benefits. States and local governments, however, retain their project selection authority through SAFETEA-LU, maintaining the full range 

of eligible CMAQ projects, such as idle-reduction efforts and public education and outreach programs. 

Alternative Transport Systems and Use 

of Clean Vehicles

Alternative Transportation Systems69

Alternative Transportation Systems integrate all 

modes of travel within a park managed by NPS, including public transit, bicycle and pedestrian linkages, 

automobiles, and a whole range of technologies, facilities, and transportation management strategies. There 

are 98 National Park Units supporting 110 Alternative Transportation Systems: 17 systems are owned 

and operated by NPS; 71 systems are operated by a 

concessionaire; and 22 systems are run by NPS, in 

partnership with local public transit service.

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

BLM has reduced the size of its vehicles and fleet, has 

purchased more than 500 alternative-fuel vehicles, and 

has established a transportation policy to reduce vehicle use, which saves money, reduces fossil fuel use, and 

lowers GHG emissions. Current BLM targets include 

reducing the fleet’s total consumption of petroleum 

products by 2 percent annually through the end of FY 

2015, increasing the total fuel consumption that is 

non-petroleum-based by 10 percent annually, and using plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) when 

they are commercially available at a cost reasonably 

comparable to non-PHEVs, on the basis of life-cycle 

cost.

Industry: Non-CO2

Methane Programs70

U.S. industries and state and local governments collaborate with EPA to implement several voluntary 

programs that promote profitable opportunities for 

reducing emissions of methane, an important GHG. 

These programs are designed to overcome a wide range 

of informational, technical, and institutional barriers 

to reducing methane emissions, while creating profitable activities for the coal, natural gas, and petroleum 

industries. The collective results of EPA’s voluntary 

methane partnership programs have been substantial. 

Total U.S. methane emissions in 2004 were 10 percent lower than emissions in 1990, despite robust economic growth over that period. EPA expects that 

these programs will maintain emissions below 1990 

levels through and beyond 2020 due to expanded industry participation and the continuing commitment 

of the participating companies to identify and implement cost-effective technologies and practices.

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program71

The fraction of coal mine methane captured and used 

by degasification systems grew from 25 percent in 

1990 to more than 80 percent in 2006. Initiated in 

1994, EPA’s Coalbed Methane Outreach Program

(CMOP) is working to demonstrate technologies that 

can eliminate the remaining emissions from active 

mine degasification systems, including mitigating 

methane emissions in mine ventilation air. The program also addresses opportunities to recover and use 

methane emitted from abandoned (closed) underground mines. EPA estimates that CMOP reduced 7 

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007. Based on a number of anticipated conditions, including enhanced market opportunities for natural gas and power, further refinement of 

technical options for the capture and utilization of 

mine methane, a growing reliance on methane degasification in the U.S. West, and CMOP’s anticipated 

success in reducing ventilation air methane over the 

next few years, EPA projects that the program could 

help reduce emissions by 12 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Natural Gas STAR72

Through this partnership program, EPA works with 

oil and natural gas companies to promote proven, 

cost-effective technologies and practices that improve 

operational efficiency and reduce methane (i.e., natural gas) emissions. Methane is emitted by oil production and all sectors of the natural gas industry, from 

drilling and production, through processing and storage, to transmission and distribution. Since its launch 

67 See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/cmaqpgs/. 

68 Public Law 109-59. 

69 See http://www.nps.gov/

transportation/tmp/shuttles.htm. 

70 See http://www.epa.gov/

methane/index.html. 

71 See http://www.epa.gov/cmop/

index.html. 

72 See http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/

index.htm. 
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 55

in 1993, Natural Gas STAR has been successful in 

working with U.S. oil and natural gas companies to 

reduce methane emissions and bring more energy to 

markets. As of 2007, Natural Gas STAR partner companies represented almost 60 percent of the U.S. natural gas industry. For calendar year 2007, Natural Gas 

STAR domestic partners reported emission reductions of approximately 37 Tg CO2 Eq. EPA projects 

that the program could help reduce methane emissions by 46.9 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

High Global Warming Potential Programs73

The United States is one of the first nations to develop 

and implement a national strategy to control emissions of high global warming potential (GWP) gases. 

The strategy is a combination of industry partnerships 

and regulatory mechanisms to minimize atmospheric 

releases of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are 

potent GHGs that 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 (ODS) across multiple 

industry sectors.

Environmental Stewardship Initiative

EPA’s Environmental Stewardship Initiative aims to 

limit emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 in three industrial applications: semiconductor production,74

electric power distribution,75 and magnesium production.76 Since 2002, the SF6 emission reduction partnership for magnesium has worked toward its goal of 

eliminating emissions of SF6 by the end of 2010. Additional sectors are being assessed for the availability of 

cost-effective emission reduction opportunities and 

are being added to this initiative. EPA estimates that 

partnerships in this initiative reduced emissions by 

17.3 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007 and projects that the programs could help reduce emissions by 44.7 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2020. 

Voluntary Code of Practice for the Reduction of 

Emissions of HFC & PFC Fire Protection Agents77

In 2002, EPA and several hundred equipment and 

chemical manufacturers and distributors representing 

the U.S. fire protection industry launched the Voluntary Code of Practice for the Reduction of Emissions 

of HFC & PFC Fire Protection Agents (VCOP). Successful implementation of VCOP achieves the dual 

goals of minimizing nonfire emissions of HFCs and 

PFCs (predominantly HFCs), which are used as firesuppression alternatives to ozone-depleting halons, 

and can effectively protect people and property from 

the threat of fire. In addition, approximately 22 manufacturers annually report to the HFC Emissions Estimating Program, tracking industry-wide emissions of 

HFCs and progress under VCOP.

HFC-23 Emission Reduction Partnership78

EPA’s HFC-23 Emission Reduction 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 4 percent increase in the production of HCFC-22 compared to 1990, EPA estimates that total HFC emissions in 2007 were significantly below 1990 levels. 

Compared to business as usual, EPA estimates the 

partnership reduced emissions by 17.8 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

2007, and projects that this partnership could help 

reduce GHG emissions by 20.9 Tg CO2 Eq. for 2020, 

due to manufacturers switching away from the production of this chemical.

Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Protection 

Partnership79

EPA’s Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Protection 

Partnership has been reducing GHG emissions from 

vehicle air conditioning fuel use and refrigerant emissions. In 2007, the partnership demonstrated new, 

commercially available technology that would reduce 

vehicle air conditioner fuel use by over 30 percent, cut 

refrigerant emissions by 50 percent, reduce cooling 

loads, and improve refrigerant recovery and recycling. 

These technologies are currently being integrated into 

vehicles and refrigerant recovery and recycling equipment sold in the United States and worldwide. In addition, partnership members have announced plans to 

switch to a low-GWP refrigerant. This transition, 

which will begin in 2010, could help displace 24.6 Tg 

CO2 Eq. of GHG in 2020.80

GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership81

Formerly known as Green Grocer, the GreenChill 

Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA cooperative alliance with the supermarket industry to promote advanced technologies, strategies, and practices 

that reduce supermarkets’ impact on the ozone layer 

and climate system. Through GreenChill, EPA works 

with supermarkets to reduce the amount of refrigerants they use in their stores. Refrigerants are 

responsible for high-GWP and ozone-depleting gases, 

so their minimization is especially beneficial for the 

environment. 

EPA launched GreenChill in November 2007 with 10 

founding partners. GreenChill now has 45 partners 

with more than 6,500 supermarkets (18 percent of all 

U.S. supermarkets) in 47 states. Upon joining, partners measure their refrigerant emissions annually and 

set goals to reduce those emissions. On average, more 

than 20 percent of the refrigerant used each year in the 

supermarket industry is released into the atmosphere 

in the form of dangerous GHGs. In 2008—GreenChill’s first year of measuring supermarket emission 

reductions—partners reduced their aggregate total 

corporate emission rate from 13 percent to 11.9 per73 See http://www.epa.gov/

highgwp/. 

74 See http://www.epa.gov/

semiconductor-pfc/. 

75 See http://www.epa.gov/

highgwp/electricpower-sf6/index.

html. 

76 See http://www.epa.gov/

magnesium-sf6/. 

77 See http://epa.gov/ozone/snap/

fire/vcopdocument.pdf. 

78 See http://www.epa.gov/

highgwp/voluntary.html. 

79 See http://www.epa.gov/cppd/

mac/. 

80 According to the latest U.S. 

GHG Inventory Report (U.S. 

EPA/OAP 2009), HFC-134a 

emissions from U.S. vehicle air 

conditioners account for 50 

MMTCO2 Eq. per year. Transition 

to a low-GWP refrigerant (either 

CO2, GWP 1, or HFO-1234yf, 

GWP 4) will reduce CO2 Eq. 

emissions by well over 99 percent). 

81 See http://www.epa.gov/

greenchill/.
56 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

cent per year. As the partnership continues to grow, 

EPA estimates it could help reduce annual GHG 

emissions in 2020 by 1.9 Tg CO2 Eq. 

Responsible Appliance Disposal Program82

Announced in 2006, the Responsible Appliance 

Disposal Program is reducing GHG emissions from 

refrigerant-containing home appliances that have 

reached their end of life. Through this voluntary program, partners ensure the disposal of refrigerantcontaining appliances using the best environmental 

practices available. Through such responsible disposal 

practices, partners are able to recover and recycle 

refrigerants and foam, thereby reducing emissions of 

high-GWP gases. They also prevent the release of hazardous materials (e.g., used oil, polychlorinated biphenyls, and mercury), and they save landfill space and 

energy by recycling durable materials. EPA estimates 

that the annual emission reduction in 2010 from this 

effort will be 0.1 Tg CO2 Eq. In 2020, the program 

could help to save 0.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (not including possible CO2 reductions from energy savings). 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program83

Since the 2006 CAR, EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy Program has continued to identify substitutes for ODS, such as CFCs and HCFCs. EPA has 

worked closely with industry to research, identify, and 

implement climate- and ozone-friendly alternatives, 

supporting a smooth transition to these new technologies. In addition, EPA has initiated programs with different industry sectors to monitor and minimize emissions of global-warming gases, such as HFCs and PFCs, 

used as substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals. By 

limiting use of these gases in specific applications where 

safe alternatives are available, EPA reduced annual 

emissions by an estimated 115 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, 

and the program could help to reduce GHG emissions 

by an estimated 240 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Voluntary Aluminum Industry Partnership84

EPA’s Voluntary Aluminum Industry Partnership continued to reduce PFCs, tetrafluoromethane, and 

hexafluoroethane where cost-effective technologies and 

practices are technically feasible. Since 2006, the partnership has intensified its efforts to further reduce PFC 

emissions and direct carbon emissions from anode consumption. EPA estimates that the partnership reduced 

PFC emissions by 10.0 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, and EPA 

projects reductions of 8.2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Agriculture

Through a portfolio of conservation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency programs, USDA provides 

incentives and other support for voluntary actions by 

private landowners to reduce GHG emissions and 

increase carbon sequestration. Depending on the program and activity, USDA support can include financial incentives, technical assistance, demonstrations, 

pilot programs, education and capacity building, and 

frameworks and tools for assessing success in achieving 

GHG benefits. Major elements of the USDA actions 

to reduce GHGs are described in the sections below.

AgSTAR85

AgSTAR is a voluntary effort jointly sponsored by 

EPA, USDA, and DOE. The program encourages the 

use of methane recovery (biogas) technologies at confined animal feeding operations that manage manure 

as liquids or slurries. These technologies reduce methane emissions while achieving other environmental 

benefits. Although the overall impact of AgSTAR on 

GHG emissions has been comparatively small on a 

national scale, livestock producers in the dairy and 

swine sector have demonstrated that the practices can 

reduce GHG emissions and achieve other pollution 

control benefits while increasing farm profitability. 

The practices recommended under AgSTAR have 

been incorporated into USDA’s broader technical, 

conservation, and cost-share programs.

Conservation Reserve Program86 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) encourages 

farmers to convert environmentally sensitive acreage 

to native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, restored wetlands, filter strips, or riparian buffers. Administered by 

USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), the CRP sequesters more carbon on private lands than any other federally administered program. CRP contracts last 10–

15 years, and landowners retain the right to put land 

back into production once contracts end. Hence, the 

benefits of many contracts are not permanent. FSA 

allows the private sale of carbon credits for lands enrolled in the CRP. FSA has also included carbon sequestration potential in its ranking process by which 

offers are selected for enrollment. In addition to increasing carbon sequestration, CRP lands produce 

GHG benefits in the form of reduced CO2 emissions 

from fewer field operations and reduced N2O emissions from avoided fertilizer applications. For 2008, 

FSA estimates the net GHG benefits of the CRP were 

emission reductions of 56 Tg CO2 Eq. This value is 

expected to decrease to 53 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2012 and 

remain at that level through 2020.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program87

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP) provides financial assistance for conservation 

practices on working farm and ranch lands. NRCS has 

provided guidance to its state offices to recognize actions that provide GHG benefits within the EQIP 

ranking systems. A wide array of conservation practices can reduce GHG emissions, including residue management, irrigation and water management, nutrient 

management, crop rotations, cover crops, restoring 

wetlands, and grazing land management. However, 

these benefits are not permanent, as EQIP contracts 

last for 10 years, and producers retain the right to put 

land back into production after the contract ends. In 

82 See http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/

partnerships/rad/. 

83 See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

snap/. 

84 See http://www.epa.gov/

highgwp/aluminum-pfc/index.

html. 

85 See http://www.epa.gov/agstar/ 

and http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/

rbs/farmbill/index.html. 

86 See http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

dafp/cepd/crp.htm. 

87 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

programs/eqip/. 
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 57

2009, NRCS estimated the GHG mitigation benefits 

associated with 17 conservation practices that it identified as sequestering carbon and/or reducing emissions. For 2007, total GHG mitigation attributable to 

these practices is estimated at 3.9 Tg CO2 Eq. This value is projected to increase to 14.2 Tg CO2 in 2020. 

Conservation Stewardship Program88

Formerly known as the Conservation Security Program, 

USDA’s Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) is a 

voluntary nationwide program that provides financial 

and technical assistance to promote the conservation 

and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and 

animal life, and other conservation purposes on tribal 

and private working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and 

range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental 

part of an agriculture operation. CSP contracts last 5 

years, and landowners retain the right to put land back 

into production once contracts end. Hence, the benefits 

of many contracts are not permanent. CSP has the potential to support activities and actions that increase 

carbon sequestration and reduce GHG emissions. The 

program began in FY 2009. GHG emission reductions 

will depend on the contracts enrolled and practices 

those contracts put into place.

Wetlands Reserve Program89

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary 

program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. 

NRCS provides technical and financial support to 

help landowners with their wetland restoration 

efforts, toward the goal of achieving the greatest 

wetland functions and values, along with optimum 

wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. 

This program offers landowners an opportunity to 

establish long-term conservation and wildlife practices 

and protection. Activities associated with wetland 

conservation often increase carbon sequestration and 

reduce GHG emissions. For 2007, NRCS estimates 

the WRP reduced GHG emissions by 0.18 Tg CO2

Eq. These reductions are projected to increase to 0.25 

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020. 

Grassland Reserve Program90

NRCS’s Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is a voluntary conservation program that emphasizes support 

for working grazing operations, enhancement of plant 

and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland 

under threat of conversion to other uses. Participants 

voluntarily limit future development and cropping 

uses of the land, while retaining the right to conduct 

common grazing practices and operations related to 

the production of forage and seeding, subject to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of bird species 

that are in significant decline or are protected under 

federal or state law. A grazing management plan is 

required for participants. Many of the conservation 

practices encouraged under the GRP increase the 

quantity of carbon sequestered in the affected soils. 

However, only part of these benefits is permanent, as 

the program includes both permanent easements and 

10- to 20-year rental contracts. Once rental contracts 

end, farmers retain the right to put land back into production. For 2007, NRCS estimates the GRP reduced 

GHG emissions by 0.007 Tg CO2 Eq. These reductions are projected to increase to 0.027 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

2020. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program91

The 2008 Farm Bill reauthorized the Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program (WHIP) as a voluntary approach 

to improving the nation’s wildlife habitat. NRCS administers WHIP to provide both technical assistance 

and up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to establish 

and improve fish and wildlife habitat. WHIP costshare agreements between NRCS and the participant 

generally begin one year after the last conservation 

practice is implemented and end not more than 10 

years from the date the agreement is signed. Establishing and enhancing wildlife habitats often increase carbon sequestration and reduce GHG emissions. However, these benefits are not permanent, as landowners 

retain the right to put land back into production once 

the contracts end. For 2007, NRCS estimates WHIP 

reduced GHG emissions by 0.25 Tg CO2 Eq. These 

reductions are projected to increase to 0.50 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2020. 

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. 

Enhancing Ecosystem Services on Forests, 

Grasslands, Parks, and Wildlife Reserves 

To address the effects of climate change on federal 

lands administered by DOI and other agencies, DOI, 

in conjunction with USDA, EPA, other federal agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector, is 

conducting thorough ecoregional analyses. These analyses will help DOI conserve, enhance, restore, and 

adapt ecosystems, find opportunities for carbon sequestration, and provide opportunities for renewable 

energy development. As a result of extreme fire events, 

other natural disasters, and human activities, public 

lands present a substantial opportunity to optimize 

the potential benefits of a carbon sequestration program. Those benefits include long-term capture and 

storage of CO2, improved biodiversity and wildlife 

habitat condition and connectivity, improved water 

quality and quantity, reduced soil erosion, decreased 

invasive species, improved environmental esthetics, 

and enhanced recreational experiences.92

88 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

programs/CSP/. 

89 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

Programs/WRP/. 

90 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

programs/grp/. 

91 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

programs/whip/. 

92 U.S. Forest Service, Forest 

Inventory and National Analysis 

Program. Forest Inventory Data 

Online. See http://fiatools.fs.fed.

us/fido/. The estimate was 

prepared by DOI. The footnote 

refers generally to the USDA 

Forest Inventory data. 
58 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Healthy Forest Initiative 

Today, up to 81 million ha (200 million ac) of federal 

lands are currently at risk for catastrophic wildfires, in 

large part due to significant changes in forest structure 

and density during the last 60–70 years, prolonged 

drought, and other environmental changes. The need 

for innovative, large-scale management to restore the 

health and productivity of at-risk ecosystems prompted the development of the Healthy Forest Initiative, 

which now includes the National Fire Plan93 and the 

joint federal–state 10-Year Strategy Implementation 

Plan.94 One goal of these efforts is to increase biomass 

and wood fiber utilization as an integral component of 

restoring the nation’s forests, woodlands, and rangelands. Addressing hazardous fuels on federal lands is a 

key element of the National Fire Plan and related efforts, with almost 7.3 million ha (18 million ac) being 

treated by USDA since 2001. 

Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program95

The Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program focuses on creating markets for small-diameter material 

and low-valued trees removed from forest restoration 

activities, such as reducing hazardous fuels, handling 

insect and disease conditions, or treating forestlands 

impacted by catastrophic weather events. Most of this 

woody biomass would have been piled and burned in 

the open, so the program reduces GHG emissions 

when that material is used for energy or substitutes for 

fossil fuel-intensive products instead. For 2008, the 

U.S. Forest Service estimates this grant program reduced GHG emissions by 0.43 Tg CO2 Eq. These reductions are projected to increase to 0.77 Tg CO2 Eq. 

in 2020.

Waste Management 

The U.S. government’s waste management programs 

reduce municipal solid waste and GHG emissions 

through energy savings, increased carbon sequestration, and avoided methane emissions from landfill 

gas—the largest contributor to U.S. anthropogenic 

methane emissions.

Stringent Landfill Rule96

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. 

The implementation of the rule began at the state level 

in 1998. Recent 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. The current EPA projection is that 

reductions will be about 10 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Landfill Methane Outreach Program97 

EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) 

reduces GHG emissions at landfills by supporting the 

recovery and use of landfill gas for energy. Capturing 

and using landfill gas reduces methane emissions directly and reduces CO2 emissions by displacing the 

use of fossil fuels through the utilization of landfill gas 

as a source of energy. 

Since the 2006 CAR, the LMOP continues to partner 

with landfill owners and operators, state energy and 

environmental agencies, utilities and other energy suppliers, corporations, industry, and other stakeholders 

to lower the barriers to installing cost-effective landfill 

gas energy projects. LMOP focuses its efforts on smaller landfills not required to collect and combust their 

landfill gas, as well as larger, regulated operations that 

are combusting their gas but not utilizing it as a clean 

energy source. LMOP has developed a range of technical resources and tools to help the landfill gas industry 

overcome barriers to energy project development, including feasibility analyses, project evaluation software, a database of more than 500 candidate landfills 

across the country, a project development handbook, 

commercial and industrial sector analyses, and economic analyses. Due to these efforts, the number of 

landfill gas energy projects has grown from approximately 100 in 1990 to 500 projects today. EPA estimates that LMOP reduced GHG emissions from 

landfills by 19 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2007, and projects reductions of 30.8 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020. 

WasteWise98

WasteWise encourages waste reduction through preventing and recycling waste and purchasing recycledcontent products. EPA is implementing a number of 

targeted efforts within this program and is working 

with organizations to reduce solid waste through voluntary waste reduction activities. New efforts since 

the 2006 CAR include WasteWise Communities, a 

WasteWise campaign in support of local governments 

to reduce residential municipal solid waste and its impact on climate change; WasteWise Re-TRAC, a valuable new Web-based tool to assist organizations with 

tracking and analyzing their waste reduction activities; 

and the Office Carbon Footprint Tool, which assists 

office-based organizations in making decisions to reduce the GHG emissions associated with their activities. In addition to program implementation, EPA’s 

climate and waste programs support outreach, technical assistance, and research efforts on the linkages between climate change and waste management. EPA 

estimates GHG emission reductions in 2007 were 20 

Tg CO2 Eq. EPA projects reductions will increase to 

38 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Cross-Sectoral

Carbon Monitoring and Sequestration 

Under EISA, DOI’s USGS is charged with assessing 

the status of U.S. carbon stores.99 This includes the 

potential for global, active, long-term containment of 

carbon in subsurface geologic areas and the natural 

capacity of ecosystems—including forests, soils, wet93 See http://www.forestsandrange 

lands.gov/reports/documents/ 

2001/8-20-en.pdf. 

94 See http://www.forestsandrange 

lands.gov/plan/documents/10-

YearStrategyFinal_Dec2006.pdf. 

95 See http://www.fs.fed.us/

woodybiomass/opportunities.

shtml. 

96 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/landfill/landflpg.html. 

97 See http://www.epa.gov/lmop/. 

98 See http://www.epa.gov/waste/

partnerships/wastewise/index.htm. 

99 See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.

gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 

110_cong_public_laws&docid= 

f:publ140.110.pdf.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 59

lands, and coastal areas—to store carbon. DOI, in 

consultation with DOE, USDA, and others, conducts 

national assessments of biologic carbon sequestration, 

ecosystem GHG fluxes, and potential effects of management practices and policies on ecosystem carbon 

sequestration and GHG emissions. This work is essential to developing science-based best management 

practices for GHG mitigation within the United 

States and globally. 

USGS scientists are helping to assess ways to limit 

human-caused CO2 emissions and remove GHGs 

from the atmosphere through both geologic and biological carbon sequestration. They are also closely evaluating the potential environmental risks and economic costs of capturing and storing CO2, as well as other 

carbon management strategies, and are studying the 

global carbon cycle by observing both natural and human sources for CO2 and how it moves and interacts 

in the environment. These data are crucial to establishing a baseline of carbon and GHG emissions essential 

to source attribution and reduced uncertainty in global carbon and climate models.

USGS also operates remote-sensing and satellite monitoring systems, such as Landsat, which help monitor 

afforestation and prevention of deforestation efforts 

globally. The Landsat data set contains over 2.4 million scenes of the Earth’s surface spanning over 37 

years and is the only global, radiometrically accurate, 

terrestrial database available today. As such, it is critical to studying land-use trends and ecosystem performance that occurs as a consequence of climate change. 

Landsat is Web-enabled and delivered over 1 million 

scenes to 166 countries during FY 2009.

Interagency Partnership for Sustainable 

Communities100

In June 2009, DOT, HUD, and EPA announced the 

Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities.101 This partnership has identified six principles to 

guide the alignment of federal transportation, environmental protection, and housing policies: 

 Provide more transportation choices.

 Promote equitable, affordable housing.

 Enhance economic competitiveness.

 Support existing communities.

 Coordinate polices and leverage investment.

Value communities and neighborhoods.

The interagency partnership will pursue these principles by establishing incentives for integrated regional 

design, identifying and removing federal barriers to 

sustainable design strategies, and providing information and training to federal employees to incorporate 

these principles at the local level. Key benefits of this 

partnership include reduced vehicle miles traveled, 

lower per-capita GHG emissions, and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. 

Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting in Agriculture 

and Forestry102

In 2006, USDA completed the first phases of its development of comprehensive accounting rules and guidelines for forest and agriculture GHG emissions and 

carbon sequestration. These technical guidelines enable farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to construct entity-level GHG inventories that account for 

emissions and removals from virtually all agriculture 

and forestry sources and sinks. By preparing annual 

inventories, farmers and forest landowners can quantify and track changes in GHG emissions and terrestrial carbon sequestration associated with changes in 

production activities and land-use practices. DOE has 

adopted USDA’s technical guidelines for use in this 

voluntary GHG reporting program, which was originally established by Section 1605(b) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992. USDA will continue to develop 

technical guidelines and science-based methods for 

energy efficiency and quantifying GHG emissions and 

removals from agriculture and forestry sources and 

sinks, as directed by EISA.

Climate Leaders103

EPA launched Climate Leaders in 2002. In recent 

years, the program has initiated work in several new 

areas—providing lower-emitting companies with 

more streamlined tools and guidance, advancing measurement of indirect emissions associated with firms’ 

supply chains, and allowing partners to meet their voluntary reduction goals with offsets. Companies that 

join the partnership receive a number of benefits, such 

as understanding and managing their emissions, increased identification of cost-effective reduction opportunities, and strategic preparation for the future as 

the climate change policy discussion evolves. Climate 

Leader partners set aggressive, corporate-wide GHG 

reduction goals and conduct annual inventories of 

their emissions to measure progress. The program has 

expanded from its original 12 Charter Partners to over 

250 partners across a number of industrial sectors 

from heavy manufacturing to banking and retail. The 

GHG emissions from these partners comprise more 

than 8 percent of total U.S. emissions. 

Climate Showcase Communities Grant Program104

In 2009, EPA issued $10 million in grants through the 

Climate Showcase Communities program, an initiative to help local and tribal governments take steps to 

reduce GHG emissions while achieving additional 

environmental, economic, and social benefits.105 The 

goal of these grants was to create models of community action that generate cost-effective and persistent 

GHG reductions and can be replicated across the 

country. Local and tribal activities funded through the 

grants included energy performance in municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial operations; land 

use and transportation; waste management; renewable 

100 See http://www.epa.gov/

dced/2009-0616-epahuddot.htm. 

101 See http://www.dot.gov/

affairs/2009/dot8009.htm. 

102 See http://www.usda.gov/oce/

global_change/gg_reporting.htm. 

103 See http://www.epa.gov/

climateleaders/. 

104 See http://www.epa.gov/

RDEE/energy-programs/

state-and-local/showcase.html. 

105 See http://www.epa.gov/

RDEE/energy-programs/

state-and-local/showcase.html.
60 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

energy; heat island management; removal of barriers 

to GHG management; and other innovative activities 

that generate measurable reductions of GHGs. EPA is 

offering peer exchange, training, and technical support 

to grant recipients, and showcasing the recipients’ successes to spur additional action.

State Climate and Energy Partner Network106

The State Climate and Energy Partner Network is the 

next generation of EPA’s Clean Energy-Environment 

State Partnership, which operated from 2005 to 2009 

and included 16 partner states (California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia). 

Through the partnership, each state took important 

steps toward developing clean energy action plans and 

integrating energy and environmental strategies to 

achieve multiple benefits. Lessons learned from the 

partnership will be shared broadly through the new 

partner network.

Climate Friendly Parks107

Climate Friendly Parks (CFP) was launched in 2003 

as a collaborative partnership between NPS and EPA. 

Run independently by NPS since July 2009, the CFP 

program is dedicated to helping NPS and the general 

public understand the interaction between climate 

change and national parks. The program now involves 

more than 70 parks and focuses on providing the necessary tools and resources so that parks can (1) measure their GHG emissions, (2) plan ways to reduce 

their impact on the global climate, (3) adapt to a 

changing climate, and (4) effectively promote sound 

science by educating park staff and the public about 

climate change. CFP’s Climate Leadership in Parks 

tool, an Excel-based calculator designed for parks to 

assess their own GHG emissions, focuses on in-park 

operational activities, such as electricity use, transportation, waste and wastewater treatment, and other 

GHG-emitting activities inside parks. 

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency108

Since 2005, DOE and EPA have facilitated the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, which engages more than 60 leading electric and gas utilities, state 

utility regulators and energy agencies, energy consumers, and others. The Action Plan focuses on the critical 

state-level policies that have a profound impact on the 

overall level of investment in energy efficiency across 

the country. Through its “Vision for 2025,” this leadership group offers a complete policy framework to 

implement substantial cost-effective energy efficiency 

measures by 2025. A number of best-practice-based 

guides, reports, and tools are available to help organizations expand and meet their commitments to energy 

efficiency.

State Energy Program109

The State Energy Program (SEP) provides grants and 

technical assistance to states and U.S. territories to 

promote energy conservation and reduce the growth 

of energy demand in ways that are consistent with 

national energy goals. State energy offices use SEP 

funds to develop state plans that identify new opportunities for states to adopt renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. SEP funds are also used to 

implement programs to improve energy sustainability. 

SEP is the only program in the DOE Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy that supports outreach for energy technologies in every sector of the 

economy: industry; businesses; residences; public facilities, schools, and hospitals; and transportation. SEP 

effectively leverages investment in renewable energy 

and energy efficiency. Based on the nationally peerreviewed 2005 Oak Ridge National Laboratory methodology, for each $1 of federal investment in SEP, 

states report $10 of nonfederal investment in energy 

projects and $7.22 savings in energy costs. State energy 

offices propagate this financial leverage of SEP funds 

by co-sponsoring energy projects with local stakeholders and private-sector partners. Those partners, in 

turn, provide feedback and help DOE direct requests 

for technical assistance. 

SEP is playing a central role in implementing ARRA. 

Under ARRA, states have received $3.1 billion for 

energy projects through SEP. These funds are allocated 

among the states according to the following formula: 

one-third equally among states and territories, onethird according to population, and one-third according to energy consumption. States will use this funding to upgrade the efficiency of state and local 

facilities, expand utility energy efficiency programs 

that help families save money on their energy bills, 

promote consumer products that carry the ENERGY 

STAR® label for energy efficiency, and invest in alternative fuel infrastructure.

Federal Government Programs

Federal Energy Management Program110

The federal government is the largest single user of 

energy in the nation. DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) works to reduce the cost and 

environmental impact of the federal government by 

advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, 

promoting the use of distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at 

federal sites. FEMP accomplishes its mission by leveraging both federal and private resources to provide 

federal agencies with the technical and financial assistance they need to achieve their energy goals and statutory requirements. FEMP provides project transaction services (assistance with alternative financing 

mechanisms), applied technology services, and decision support services. FEMP also provides guidance 

106 See http://www.epa.gov/

cleanenergy/energy-programs/

state-and-local/index.html. 

107 See http://www.nps.gov/

climatefriendlyparks/. 

108 See http://www.epa.gov/

eeactionplan/. 

109 See http://apps1.eere.energy.

gov/state_energy_program/. 

110 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/femp/.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 61

and assistance for implementing and managing 

energy-efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles within 

federal fleets. 

As of 2007, FEMP had assisted federal agencies in reducing the energy intensity of their buildings by 11 percent compared to 2003. DOE estimates that realizing 

FEMP’s goal of providing financing and technical assistance to federal agencies to further the use of cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy could result 

in energy savings of about 3.4 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.

Nonfederal Policies and Measures

Within the United States, several regional, state, and 

local initiatives supplement the federal effort to reduce 

GHG emissions. These policies either directly regulate 

GHG emissions or encourage investments in energy 

efficiency and renewable energy, thereby leading to 

GHG reductions. Through the U.S. Department of 

State and its Office of Global Intergovernmental Affairs, the results of and feedback from state and local 

climate protection efforts will play an integral role in 

the development of the federal actions to address climate change. In addition, some of these actions serve 

as a model for countries that are beginning to formulate their response to climate change because they can 

be tailored to local and regional conditions, are often 

scalable, and can create economic opportunities and 

job growth through the promotion of clean energy.

Direct Greenhouse Gas Policies and Measures

Regional Initiatives

Many states have joined regional initiatives to reduce 

GHG emissions and promote clean energy. States participating in regional GHG cap-and-trade initiatives 

are shown in Figure 4-1.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

Launched on January 1, 2009, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory 

market-based U.S. cap-and-trade program to reduce 

GHG emissions. Emissions from large electricity generators in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are 

capped at approximately 188 million short tons (approximately 171 million metric tons) of CO2 per year 

from 2009 to 2014. Then the cap will be reduced by 

2.5 percent in each of the four years from 2015 

through 2018, for a total reduction of 10 percent. As 

of August 2009, the RGGI states auctioned more than 

110 million allowances and raised $367 million. Most 

states have decided to auction the majority of allowances for public benefit and use the proceeds to invest 

in energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy programs at the state and local levels.111

Western Climate Initiative 

The Western Climate Initiative(WCI) was launched 

in February 2007 by the governors of five western 

states, with the goal of aggregate GHG emission reductions of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. 

Beginning in 2012, WCI aims to cap emissions from 

the electricity sector (including imported electricity) 

and large industrial sources (including combustion 

and process emissions). The second phase is set to begin in 2015, when the program expands to include 

transportation fuels and residential, commercial, and 

industrial fuels not otherwise covered.112 The WCI 

also includes commitments to “complementary policies” promoting clean energy.

Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord

The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord 

includes six midwestern states that have agreed to develop a market-based and multisector cap-and-trade 

mechanism, along with complementary policies to 

help achieve GHG reduction targets. Details and recommendations are under development, but the group 

is considering mid-term targets that would reduce 

emissions by 16–20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 

and long-term targets that would reduce emissions by 

80 percent113 from 2005 levels by 2050.114

State Policies and Measures

Many state governments are reducing GHG emissions 

through a wide range of policies and measures, from 

voluntary measures, such as tax credits, to legislative 

mandates, such as state GHG caps. Appreciating the 

value of collaboration, states are working with publicand private-sector stakeholders to develop the most 

cost-effective mitigation strategies. Table 4-2 illustrates the range of actions that states are taking on 

climate change.

State Emission Targets and Caps

As of November 2009, 23 of the 50 states had adopted 

a state GHG reduction target, although these vary in 

stringency, timing, and enforceability. In 2006, Cali111 See http://www.rggi.org/. 

112 See http://www.

westernclimateinitiative.org/. 

113 See http://www.pewclimate.

org/node/6572. 

114 See http://www.

midwesternaccord.org/.

Figure 4-1 U.S. Regional Climate Initiatives

Many states across the nation have joined regional initiatives to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote clean energy.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

RGGI Observer

Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA)

MGGRA Observer

Western Climate Initiative (WCI)

WCI Observer

Individual State Cap-and-Trade Program

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
62 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

fornia became the first state to adopt legislation specifying mandatory GHG reductions. It was soon joined 

by Hawaii, New Jersey, Washington, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Maryland. These laws 

cap state GHG emissions by a certain percentage relative to a baseline year, such as 1990. For example, California’s Global Warming Solution Act has capped the 

state’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020.115 In 

May 2009, Maryland passed a law requiring that the 

state achieve a 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020. Maryland expects that 

decreasing emissions by this amount will have a positive net economic benefit of $2 billion by 2020.116

In another example of state-based action on climate 

change, Florida passed legislation in 2008 that authorizes its Department of Environmental Protection to 

develop a cap-and-trade program for the electric utility sector. The state is currently evaluating whether to 

implement its own program or join one of the other 

existing regional cap-and-trade programs.

Performance Standards for Electric Power

As of July 2009, five states had enacted legislation requiring entities that sell electricity to customers to 

adhere to a standard of maximum allowable emissions 

per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced. In 

California, for example, the maximum emission level 

is 1,100 pounds (500 kg) of CO2 per MWh of electricity produced.117

Local Policies and Measures

County Climate Protection Program

The County Climate Protection Program, under the 

aegis of the National Association of Counties 

(NACo), works to encourage and support counties in 

their actions to combat climate change. Several counties have made significant strides in implementing and 

achieving the objectives of emissions reduction and air 

quality improvement. The Fresh AIRE Program of 

Arlington, Virginia, and the Climate Protection Campaign of Sonoma County, California, are two examples of work being done under the County Climate 

Protection Program. 

Local Governments for Sustainability

Several counties and municipalities are also making 

commitments to Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), such as California’s Alameda and San 

Francisco counties, and Florida’s Miami-Dade County. These partnerships encourage the establishment 

and implementation of goals to reduce GHG emissions. Special attention is paid to producing identifiable and measurable results from these goals.

National League of Cities

The National League of Cities (NLC) is a driving force 

in strengthening and promoting local government in 

the United States. NLC is actively coordinating and 

encouraging climate change initiatives across the nation. NLC’s commitment to sustainability is illustrated 

by the climate protection agreements and pledges made 

at the 2009 Congress of Cities, and also by NLC’s determination to urge Congress and the Obama administration to study and address climate change. 

Examples of initiatives undertaken by NLC members 

include the Clean and Green Program in Riverside, 

California; the Cambridge Energy Alliance in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the Energy Efficiency and 

Climate Change Rally for residents and local businesses 

in Waterbury, Vermont. 

U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection 

Agreement

To date, 965 mayors have signed the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to reduce 

GHG emissions in their cities to 7 percent below 

1990 levels by 2012.118 While signatories are embracing a wide range of measures to meet this ambitious 

goal, recent best practices award winners include Denver, which has reduced emissions by over 60,000 metric tons of CO2 through investment in rapid transit, 

and San Francisco, whose restaurant grease recycling 

program is reducing emissions by over 6,000 metric 

tons of CO2 annually.119

Cities for Climate Protection Campaign

As of August 2009, 569 U.S. cities and counties are 

participating in the International Council for Local 

Environmental Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Campaign.120 Participants pledge to reduce GHG 

emissions from local government operations and 

throughout their communities, while the program 

provides training and technical assistance. Participants 

are developing plans for their respective communities, 

such as the Arlington (Virginia) Initiative to Reduce 

Emissions, which aims to achieve a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions from county operations by 

2012 through building efficiency, employee engagement, and fleet efficiency.121

Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Policies 

and Measures

State Policies and Measures

A number of state governments have made energy 

efficiency and renewable energy a high priority, recognizing the significant economic and environmental 

benefits and widespread public support. Table 4-2 

illustrates the range of actions that states are taking on 

clean energy and energy efficiency.

Lead by Example

Many state and local governments lead by example by 

establishing programs that achieve substantial energy 

cost savings within their own operations and buildings 

(owned or leased). These “lead-by-example” programs 

include energy standards for new buildings, binding 

usage reduction targets for existing buildings, and innovations in financing efficiency projects. In addition 

115 See http://www.pewclimate.

org/what_s_being_done/in_the_

states/emissionstargets_map.cfm. 

116 See http://www.climate 

strategies.us/What_New.cfm. 

117 Rubin, E.S. “A Performance 

Standards Approach to Reducing 

CO2 Emissions from Electric 

Power Plants.” Coal Initiative 

Series. Pew Center on Global 

Climate Change. June 2009. 

118 See http://www.usmayors.org/

climateprotection/revised/. 

119 See http://usmayors.org/

pressreleases/uploads/

ClimateBestPractices061209.pdf. 

120 See http://www.iclei.org/index.

php?id=1484®ion=NA. 

121 See http://www.arlingtonva.us/

portals/Topics/Climate.aspx. 
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 63

Table 4-2 State Actions on Climate Change (as of August 2009)

A number of state governments have made energy efficiency and renewable energy a high priority, recognizing the significant economic and environmental benefits of and 

widespread public support for taking action.

 Type of Action Participating States Number of States

Greenhouse Gas Policies and Measures

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reductions1

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington 8

Emission Targets and Goals2 Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, 

Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia

15

Greenhouse Gas Performance 

Standards for Power Plant 

Emissions3

California, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Washington 5

Offsets and Limits on Power 

Plant Emissions4

California, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, Washington 6

Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards for Vehicles5

Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

15

Low-Carbon Fuel Standard6 California 1

Renewable Fuels Standards7 California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Washington

12

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policies

Green Building Standards for 

State Buildings8

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Virginia, Washington

23

Net Metering9 Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

46

Green Power Purchasing10 Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin 9

Green Pricing11,12 Colorado, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, 

Wisconsin, Wyoming)

6 (+ 39 states 

green pricing 

programs available)

Renewable Portfolio 

Standards (RPS)13,14

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin (North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia [Florida])

30 (+ 5 state voluntary 

standards [and 1 state 

with a utility that offers 

an RPS])

Public Benefit Funds for 

Renewables and Efficiency15,16

California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin

18

Public Benefits Funds for 

Energy Efficiency17

Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nebraska, Texas 6

Energy Efficiency Resource 

Standards18

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New 

York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington

19

Appliance and Equipment 

Efficiency Standards19

Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, 

Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington

12

Compliance with Stringent 

Residential Energy Building 

Codes20

Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 

Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

25

1

 See http://www.ncsl.org/?TabId=13240.

2

 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/emissionstargets_map.cfm.

3

 Rubin, E.S. June 2009. “A Performance Standards Approach to Reducing CO2 Emissions from 

Electric Power Plants.” Coal Initiative Series. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. See http://www.

pewclimate.org/white-papers/coal-initiative/performance-standards-electric.

4

 Pew Center on Climate Change. 2009. “Climate Change 101: State Action.” See http://www.

pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-State-Jan09.pdf.

5

 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/vehicle_ghg_standard.cfm.

6

 See http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-State-Jan09.pdf.

7

 See http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-State-Jan09.pdf.

8

 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/leed_state_buildings.cfm.

9

 See http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm.

10 See http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm.

11 See http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing.shtml?page=4.

12 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/west_coast_map.cfm.

13 See http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm.

14 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfm.

15 See http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm.

16 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/public_benefit_funds.cfm.

17 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/public_benefit_funds.cfm.

18 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/efficiency_resource.cfm.

19 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/energy_eff_map.cfm.

20 See http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/res__energy_codes.cfm.
64 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

to reducing state energy bills and emissions, these 

efforts demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of clean 

energy to the larger market.

Net Metering 

Most states have at least one utility that permits customers to sell electricity back to the grid, a practice 

known as net metering.122 Net metering is available 

statewide in 18 states, and is offered by select utilities 

in 27 states.123 Limits on the capacity of eligible installations range from 10 kW in Indiana to 80 MW in 

New Mexico.124 While the utilization of these programs varies greatly among states and utilities, PG&E 

in California has reported more than 31,600 total installations with a combined capacity of 275 MW of 

solar and wind power as of June 2009, representing 

1.3 percent of the peak load (the program is limited to 

2.5 percent of the peak load).125

Renewable Energy Standards

A mandatory renewable energy standard (RES), sometimes referred to as a renewable portfolio standard 

(RPS), requires utilities to generate a certain amount 

of electricity or install a certain amount of capacity 

from renewable energy sources in a set time frame. As 

of November 2009, 30 states had mandatory RES programs, and an additional 5 states had voluntary RES 

programs.126, 127

In 1999, Texas passed its first RPS, which mandated 

that electricity providers collectively provide 2,000 

MW of additional renewable energy capacity by 2009. 

The program exceeded expectations, and the state 

reached this goal in six years. During that time, wind 

power development in Texas more than quadrupled. 

In 2005, the state legislature expanded the RPS mandate to 5,880 MW by 2015, with a target of 10,000 

MW for 2025. The required increase in renewable 

energy generation capacity is allocated between providers according to percentage market share of energy 

sales. Like most states with an RES in place, the Texas 

program includes a renewable energy credit (REC) 

program that allows utility companies to buy or trade 

RECs and use them toward compliance. In Texas, 

each REC represents 1 MW of installed capacity from 

renewable sources. If a utility earns extra RECs 

through its renewable energy generation, it may sell 

these credits to other utilities that do not have sufficient renewable energy capacity to meet the RPS requirements.128

Although Massachusetts has had an RPS program 

since the late 1990s, in July 2008 the state doubled 

existing requirements by mandating that its RPS requirement must grow by 1 percent per year. Under 

these guidelines, renewable energy will account for 15 

percent of electricity generation by 2020 and 25 percent by 2030. The new legislation also divided renewable energy into two classes based on age of operating 

facility in order to support the continued operation of 

older renewable energy facilities. In Massachusetts, 

electricity providers may meet their obligations by 

producing renewable energy, purchasing a REC or 

paying an Alternative Compliance Payment.129, 130

Public Benefit Funds

Currently, 24 states have some form of public benefit 

funds, in which utility consumers pay a small charge 

to a common fund, often as part of the monthly billing 

cycle. The utility uses these funds to invest in energy 

efficiency and renewable energy projects, such as home 

weatherization and renewable technologies. Existing 

funds are anticipated to generate $7.3 billion for 

renewable energy by 2017.131, 132, 133

Tax Credits for Renewable Energy 

Currently 21 states offer personal and/or corporate 

tax credits for investment in renewable energy.134 

Oregon’s program includes both residential tax credits 

for small-scale renewable capacity and business tax 

credits up to $20 million for renewable energy equipment manufacturing, thereby cultivating both renewable energy and green jobs in the state.135 Most other 

states offer some type of deduction or exemption from 

sales, income, corporate, or property taxes tied to renewable energy.136

Local Policies and Measures

Local, state, and tribal governments and territories are 

using funds made available under ARRA through the 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to develop and implement projects that improve 

energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. The 

first 19 cities and counties received funds in July 2009 

to develop energy efficiency and conservation strategies, to be supported with additional funds for implementation.137

Many local and tribal governments are developing 

their own programs to foster the development of renewable energy. The City of Madison (Wisconsin) has 

initiated the MadiSUN Solar Energy Program to double solar electric and solar hot water installations by 

2011, which would reduce the city’s CO2 emissions by 

100,000 tons. The Ogala Sioux Tribe Renewable Energy Development Authority will oversee community 

and commercial-scale renewable energy development 

on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. The Authority estimates that the reservation has 

the potential to develop several hundred megawatts of 

wind power.138

Local governments are also active in promoting weatherization projects in their jurisdictions. For example, 

the City of Portland’s (Oregon) Block-by-Block 

Weatherization Program provides basic weatherization and education to low-income households, and 

hopes to weatherize 1,250 homes by 2020, reducing 

annual energy demand by 215 billion Btus (63,000 

MWh).139

122 See http://www.pewclimate.

org/what_s_being_done/in_the_

states/net_metering_map.cfm. 

123 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

summarytables/rrpre.cfm. 

124 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

summarytables/rrpre.cfm. 

125 See http://www.pge.com/

mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/

solar/nemtracking/index.shtml. 

126 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

summarytables/rrpre.cfm. 

127 See http://www.pewclimate.

org/what_s_being_done/in_the_

states/rps.cfm. 

128 See http://www.seco.cpa.state.

tx.us/re_rps-portfolio.htm. 

129 See http://www.pewclimate.

org/what_s_being_done/in_the_

states/rps.cfm. 

130 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

incentives/incentive.cfm? 

Incentive_Code= MA05R& 

state=MA& CurrentPageID=1. 

131 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

summarytables/rrpre.cfm. 

132 See http://www.pewclimate.

org/what_s_being_done/in_the_

states/public_benefit_funds.cfm. 

133 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

documents/SummaryMaps/

PBF_Map.ppt. 

134 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

documents/SummaryMaps/

TaxIncentives_Map.ppt. 

135 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=&

spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=OR. 

136 See http://www.dsireusa.org/

summarytables/finre.cfm. 

137 See http://www.eecbg.energy.

gov/. 

138 See http://www.indiancountry 

today.com/national/50848652.

html. 

139 See http://www.smart 

communities.ncat.org/success/

block.shtml.
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 65

Table 4-3 Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020

Energy: Residential and Commercial2

Appliances and 

Commercial 

Equipment Standards 

Program, Appliance 

Energy Efficiency 

Standards

Analyzes, develops, reviews 

and updates efficiency 

standards for most major 

household appliances and 

major commercial building 

technologies and equipment.

CO2 Regulatory Implemented DOE 0.0 1.3 4.3 6.1

Building Energy 

Codes Program

Promotes stronger building 

energy codes and helps states 

adopt, implement, and enforce 

them. Recognizes that energy 

codes maximize energy 

efficiency only when they are 

fully embraced by users and 

supported through education, 

implementation, and 

enforcement.

CO2 Regulatory Implemented DOE 0.0 1.3 5.8 11.3

Lighting Energy 

Efficiency Standards

Mandates standards that will 

result in phasing out the 

130-year-old incandescent 

light bulb by the middle of the 

next decade and phases out 

less efficient fluorescent tubes. 

New standards will also apply 

to reflector lamps—the 

cone-shaped bulbs used in 

recessed and track lighting. 

CO2 Regulatory Implemented DOE 0.0 0.4 1.2 1.5

ENERGY STAR 

Labeled Products

Labels distinguish energyefficient products in the 

marketplace.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented EPA/DOE 64.5 82.5 113.6 141.2

ENERGY STAR for the 

Commercial Market

Promotes the improvement of 

energy performance in 

commercial buildings.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented EPA 66.0 56.8 75.0 93.5

ENERGY STAR for the 

Residential Market

Promotes the improvement of 

energy performance in 

residential buildings beyond 

the labeling of products.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented EPA 1.8 5.5 21.1 44.0

Net-Zero-Energy 

Commercial Building 

Initiative

Achieves marketable net-zeroenergy commercial buildings 

by 2025. Encompasses all 

activities that support this goal, 

including industry partnerships, 

research, and tool development.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented DOE N/A 8.2 12.7 15.5

Building America Develops cost-effective 

solutions that reduce the 

average energy use of housing 

by 40–100% through research 

partnerships with all facets of 

the residential building industry. 

CO2 Economic Implemented DOE 0.0 3.8 11.0 19.8

Energy Efficiency 

and Conservation 

Block Grants

Provides funds to units of local 

and state government, Native 

American nations, and 

territories to develop and 

implement projects to improve 

energy efficiency and reduce 

energy use and fossil fuel 

emissions in their communities.

CO2 Economic Implemented DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A
66 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Energy: Residential and Commercial2 (Continued)

Weatherization 

Assistance Program

Enables low-income families to 

permanently reduce their 

energy bills by making their 

homes more energy efficient.

CO2 Economic Implemented DOE N/A 6.7 7.8 8.9

Energy: Industrial

ENERGY STAR for 

Industry

Enables industrial companies 

to evaluate and cost-effectively 

reduce energy use.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented EPA 23.1 18.0 25.6 36.6

Save Energy Now National initiative of the 

Industrial Technologies 

Program to drive a 25% 

reduction in industrial energy 

intensity in 10 years.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented DOE N/A 9.4 28.2 28.9

Industrial Assessment 

Centers 

Provide in-depth assessments 

of a plant’s site and its 

facilities, services, and 

manufacturing operations.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented DOE N/A 0.6 2.7 5.1

Industry-Specific 

and Cross-Cutting 

RDD&D

Develops and delivers 

advanced energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and 

pollution prevention 

technologies for industrial 

applications through 

partnerships with industry, 

government, and 

nongovernment organizations.

CO2 Information 

and Research

Implemented DOE N/A 0.0 0.8 3.4

Energy: Supply

Solar Energy 

Development 

Program 

Provides opportunities for and 

encourages use of federal 

public lands for the 

development of solar energy.

CO2 Research and 

Information

Implemented DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Wind Energy Program Seeks to improve the 

cost-effectiveness of wind 

energy technology and lower 

market and regulatory barriers 

to the use of wind.

CO2 Research and 

Information

Implemented DOE N/A 1.9 30.2 67.6

Geothermal Energy 

Development 

Program

Provides opportunities for and 

encourages use of federal 

public lands for the 

development of geothermal 

energy.

CO2 Research and 

Information

Implemented DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Energy Transmission 

Infrastructure

Provides for new and updated 

transmission for new energy 

development and improvement 

of the existing system.

CO2 Voluntary Initiated DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Energy Smart Parks Works to reduce carbon 

emissions in all aspects of 

national park operations and 

deploys renewable and 

efficient energy 

technologies throughout the 

national park system.

CO2 Voluntary Initiated DOI/DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 67

Energy: Supply (Continued)

Clean Energy 

Initiative; Green 

Power Partnership; 

Combined Heat and 

Power Partnership

Remove market barriers to 

increased penetration of a 

cleaner, more efficient energy 

supply.

CO2 Voluntary, 

Education

Implemented EPA 17.6 19.8 44.0 73.3

Indian Education 

Renewable Energy 

Challenge

Provides opportunities for 

students attending tribal high 

schools and colleges to pursue 

careers in the fields of green 

and renewable energy.

— Voluntary Initiated DOI/DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A

University-National 

Park Energy 

Partnership Program

Provides parks assistance in 

addressing their energy 

concerns.

CO2 Voluntary Initiated DOI/DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A

Biorefinery 

Assistance

Provides loan guarantees for 

the development, construction, 

and retrofitting of commercialscale biorefineries, and grants 

to help pay for the 

development and construction 

costs of demonstration-scale 

biorefineries. 

CO2 Economic Implemented USDA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Nuclear Power 

(AFCI, NP2010, Loan 

Guarantee Program, 

Standby Support for 

Certain Delays, PAA)

Provides risk insurance against 

construction and operational 

delays beyond the control of 

the plants’ sponsors and 

against liability claims from 

nuclear incidents. Also provides 

loan guarantees for new plants 

and R&D support for advanced 

nuclear technologies.

CO2 Economic, 

Fiscal, 

Regulatory, 

Research

Implemented DOE 0.0 0.0 5.2 14.4

Renewable Energy 

Production Incentive

Provides financial incentives 

for electricity generated by new 

qualifying renewable energy 

generation, cost-sharing 

incentives for RDD&D of 

renewable energy technology 

manufacturing, and 50% 

matching grants for smallscale renewable projects.

CO2 Economic, 

Fiscal, 

Research

Implemented DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A

Rural Energy for 

America Program

Provides grants and loan 

guarantees to rural residents, 

agricultural producers, and 

rural businesses for energy 

efficiency and renewable 

energy systems, energy audits, 

and technical assistance; and 

for projects ranging from 

biofuels to wind, solar, 

geothermal, methane gas 

recovery, advanced hydro, and 

biomass. 

CO2 Economic Implemented USDA 2.0 0.9 0.7 1.2

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
68 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Energy: Supply (Continued)

Solar Energy 

Technologies Program

Supports R&D and deployment 

of cost-effective technologies 

toward growing the use of 

solar energy throughout the 

nation and the world. Seeks 

to make solar electricity costcompetitive with conventional 

forms of electricity by 2015.

CO2 Research and 

Information

Implemented DOE N/A 0.2 1.5 2.5

Wind Energy 

Development 

Program

Provides opportunities for and 

encourages use of federal 

public lands for development of 

wind energy.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Biomass Program (BFI, 

Integrated Cellulosic 

Biorefineries and 

Financial Assistance, 

Woody Biomass 

Utilization, BRDI, 

Grants for Advanced 

Biofuels, Biorefinery 

Energy Efficiency)

Develops a portfolio of RD&D 

geared toward biomass 

feedstocks and conversion 

technologies. Includes 

development and deployment 

of infrastructure and 

opportunities for market 

penetration of bio-based fuels 

and products.

CO2 Research and 

Information

Implemented DOE 0.0 3.3 29.2 55.2

Coal Technologies 

(Innovations for 

Existing Plants, 

Carbon Sequestration 

Program, Gasification 

Technologies Program, 

CCPI, FutureGen, 

Demonstration)

Seeks to develop and 

demonstrate a portfolio of 

technologies that can increase 

operating efficiency and 

capture and permanently store 

GHGs in new commercial-scale 

plants or existing plants. Also 

includes tax credits.

CO2 Research, 

Fiscal, 

Information

Implemented DOE 0.0 18.6 25.3 23.1

Geothermal 

Technologies 

Program

Supports deployment, market 

transformation, technology 

diffusion, information, and 

technical assistance for 

expanding the use of 

geothermal resources.

CO2 Research and 

Information

Implemented DOE N/A 0.0 1.1 1.8

Transportation

Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS)

Implements the Energy 

Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 requirements revising 

the RFS. Changes include 

increasing the total volume of 

renewable fuel used in 

transportation to 36 billion 

gallons by 2022, as well as 

adding specific volume 

standards for cellulosic biofuel, 

biomass-based diesel, and 

advanced biofuel within the 

total volume required. Also 

includes new definitions and 

criteria for both renewable 

fuels and the feedstocks used 

to produce them, including 

new life-cycle (GHG) emission 

thresholds for renewable fuels.

All Regulatory New: Being 

Implemented

EPA N/A N/A N/A 138

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 69

Transportation (Continued)

Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy 

Standards

Raise the fuel economy 

standard for light-duty trucks 

for MY 2005–2010.

CO2 Regulatory Implemented DOT 8.7 29.1 33.7 35.9

Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy 

Standards (Model Year 

2011)

Raise the fuel economy 

standard for light-duty trucks 

and passenger cars for MY

2011 (cumulative with savings 

from previous rules).

CO2 Regulatory Implemented EPA/DOT N/A N/A 37.6 43.4

National Policy to 

Establish Vehicle GHG 

Emissions and 

Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy 

Standards

EPA and DOT are jointly 

proposing GHG and fuel 

economy standards for 

passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles, covering 

MY 2012–2016. These 

standards that would achieve 

an average of 250 grams per 

mile in 2016 (with a related 

fuel economy standard of 

about 35.5 miles per gallon). 

All Regulatory Implemented EPA/DOT N/A N/A 39.0 132.0

National Clean Diesel 

Campaign

Works aggressively to reduce 

diesel emissions across the 

country through the 

implementation of proven 

emission control technologies 

and innovative strategies with 

the involvement of national, 

state, and local partners, 

including financial support 

through DERA. 

CO2 and 

black carbon

Voluntary, 

Education, 

Information

Implemented EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

SmartWay Transport 

Partnership

Accelerates the uptake of 

low-GHG technologies and 

strategies in the freight and 

consumer sectors.

CO2 Voluntary, 

Information, 

Education

Implemented EPA 4.2 15.8 36.8 43

Aviation Fuel 

Efficiency, Renewable 

Fuels, and Market 

Measures3

Improve aircraft/engine 

technology and operational 

procedures, enhance the 

airspace transportation system 

to reduce aviation’s CO2

emissions contribution, develop 

environmentally clean and 

affordable alternative fuels, 

secure energy future for 

sustainable aviation growth, 

and apply market measures, 

such as charges or cap and 

trade.

CO2 Research Implemented FAA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Commercial Aviation 

Alternative Fuels 

Initiative

Develops environmentally clean 

and affordable alternative fuels 

and secures energy future for 

sustainable aviation growth.

CO2 Research Implemented FAA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
70 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Transportation (Continued)

Clean Automotive 

Technology Program

Searches for cost-effective 

advanced automotive 

technologies that cut GHG 

emissions, increase fuel 

efficiency, reduce healthrelated emissions, and are 

affordable for mainstream 

consumer and commercial 

vehicles, while partnering with 

industry to move these 

technologies to the road. 

CO2 Research Implemented EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Fuel Cell Technologies 

Program

Supports R&D of fuel cell 

technologies and infrastructure 

for electricity generation and 

transportation to reduce energy 

use, GHG emissions, and 

criteria pollutants

CO2 Research Implemented DOE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Federal Transit 

Program

Provides grants and technical 

assistance to support public 

transportation systems across 

the country.

All Voluntary Implemented DOT N/A N/A N/A N/A

Transit Investments for 

Greenhouse Gas and 

Energy Reduction

Provides funds to public transit 

agencies for capital 

investments that will assist in 

reducing the energy 

consumption or GHG emissions 

of public transportation 

systems.

All Voluntary Implemented DOT N/A N/A N/A N/A

Loan Programs 

(Advanced Battery 

Loan Guarantee, 

Advanced Technology 

Vehicles 

Manufacturing 

Incentive)

Provide loan guarantees to 

advanced vehicle 

manufacturers and their 

component suppliers for the 

construction of facilities that 

manufacture U.S.-developed 

and -produced advanced 

vehicle batteries, lithium ion 

batteries, and hybrid electrical 

systems. 

CO2 Economic Implemented DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A

Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality 

Improvement Program

Provides states with funds to 

reduce congestion and to 

improve air quality through 

transportation control 

measures and other strategies.

CO2 Fiscal Implemented DOT N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative Transport 

Systems and Use of 

Clean Vehicles

Replace traditional fueled 

vehicles with “clean” energy 

vehicles and reduce the size of 

vehicles and vehicle fleets.

CO2 Voluntary implemented DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 71

Industry (Non-CO2)

Coalbed Methane 

Outreach Program

Reduces methane emissions 

from U.S. coal mining 

operations through costeffective means.

CH4 Education, 

Information

Implemented EPA 7.3 9.9 11 12.1

Natural Gas STAR 

Program

Reduces methane emissions 

from U.S. natural gas systems 

through the widespread 

adoption of industry best 

management practices.

CH4 Voluntary Implemented EPA 37 27.5 35.6 46.9

Environmental 

Stewardship Initiative

Limits emissions of HFCs, 

PFCs, and SF6 in industrial 

applications.

HFCs, PFCs, 

SF6

Voluntary Implemented EPA 17.3 25.5 34.1 44.7

Voluntary Code of the 

Reductions of 

Emissions of HFC and 

PFC Fire Protection 

Agents 

Minimizes non-fire emissions 

of HFCs and PFCs used as 

fire-suppression alternatives 

and protects people and 

property from the threat of fire 

through the use of proven, 

effective products and 

systems.

HFCs, PFCs Voluntary Implemented EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

HFC-23 Partnership Encourages reduction of 

HFC-23 emissions through 

cost-effective practices or 

technologies.

HFC-23 Voluntary Implemented EPA 17.8 22.9 20.7 20.9

Mobile Air 

Conditioning Climate 

Protection Partnership 

Identifies near-term 

opportunities to improve the 

environmental performance of 

mobile air conditioners and 

promotes cost-effective 

designs and improved service 

procedures to minimize 

emissions from mobile air 

conditioning systems.

CO2, 

HFC-134a

Voluntary, 

Research

Implemented EPA 0.0 0.2 13.6 24.6

GreenChill Advanced 

Refrigeration 

Partnership 

Reduces ozone-depleting and 

GHG refrigerant emissions 

from supermarkets.

HFCs Voluntary, 

Information, 

Education

Implemented EPA N/A 0.3 1.0 1.9

Responsible Appliance 

Disposal Program

Reduces emissions of 

refrigerant and foam-blowing 

agents from end-of-life 

appliances.

HFCs Voluntary Implemented EPA 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4

Significant New 

Alternatives Policy 

Program 

Facilitates smooth transition 

away from ozone-depleting 

chemicals in industrial and 

consumer sectors.

HFCs, PFCs, 

SF6

Regulatory, 

Information

Implemented EPA 115.4 159.8 208.5 243

Voluntary Aluminum 

Industry Partnership 

Encourages reduction of CF4

and C2F6 where technically 

feasible and cost-effective.

PFCs Voluntary Implemented EPA 10.0 8.1 8.1 8.2

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
72 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Agriculture

AgSTAR Promotes practices to reduce 

GHG emissions from U.S. 

farms.

CH4 Information, 

Education

Implemented EPA/USDA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Conservation Reserve 

Program

Encourages farmers to convert 

highly erodible cropland or 

other environmentally sensitive 

acreage to native grasses, 

wildlife plantings, trees, filter 

strips, or riparian buffers to 

improve soil, water, wildlife, 

and other natural resources.

CO2, N2O Voluntary Implemented USDA 59.6 57.1 4 53 53

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program

Offers innovation grants to 

livestock producers and 

owners of working farmlands 

to accelerate the development, 

transfer, and adoption of 

innovative technologies and 

approaches, including those 

that deliver GHG benefits and 

improve the quality of nutrient 

management systems. 

CO2, CH4, 

N2O

Voluntary Implemented USDA/NRCS 3.9 6.3 10.2 14.2

Conservation 

Stewardship Program 

This new program will provide 

financial and technical 

assistance to promote 

conservation on working 

cropland, pasture, and range 

land, as well as forested land 

that is an incidental part of an 

agriculture operation. 

Significant GHG emission 

reductions are possible, 

depending on the contracts 

enrolled. 

CO2, CH4, 

N2O

Voluntary Implemented 

Beginning in 

2009

USDA 0 0.3 0.6 0.7

Wetlands Reserve 

Program 

Purchases easements and 

restores the hydrology of 

previously drained wetlands, 

frequently restoring woody 

wetlands and producing carbon 

sequestration benefits.

CO2, CH4, 

N2O

Voluntary Implemented USDA 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.25

Grassland Reserve 

Program 

Purchases easements to 

restore or maintain grassland 

to a good or excellent condition 

to enhance carbon 

sequestration.

CO2, CH4, 

N2O

Voluntary Implemented USDA 0.007 0.01 0.02 0.03

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program 

Provides funds to help private 

landowners create habitat for 

specific wildlife species, 

frequently resulting in the 

establishment of woody and 

grass species that sequester 

carbon.

CO2, CH4, 

N2O

Voluntary Implemented USDA 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 73

Forestry

Enhancing 

Ecosystems Services 

on Forestland, 

Grasslands, Parks, 

and Wildlife Reserves

Conducts regional analyses to 

determine opportunities for 

carbon sequestration and to 

conserve, enhance, and 

restore, or assist in the 

adaptation of ecosystems.

CO2 Voluntary Initiated DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Healthy Forest 

Initiative

Restores the health of U.S. 

forests, woodlands, and 

rangelands. Coordination 

among DOI, USDA, and DOE 

and cooperative work with 

states, tribes, private 

landowners, nongovernmental 

organizations, and other 

interested parties and potential 

partners is key to success. 

Improves air quality, particularly 

emissions from smoke, PM, 

CO2, and NOx

.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented USDA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Woody Biomass 

Utilization Grants 

Program

Focuses on creating markets 

for small-diameter material 

and low-valued trees removed 

from forest restoration 

activities, such as reducing 

hazardous fuels, handling 

insect and disease conditions, 

or treating forestland impacted 

by catastrophic weather 

events. Helps communities, 

entrepreneurs, and others turn 

residues into marketable forest 

and/or energy products. 

CO2 Economic Implemented USDA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Waste Management

Stringent Landfill Rule Reduces methane/landfill gas 

emissions from U.S. landfills.

CH4 Regulatory Implemented EPA 9.2 9.2 9.5 9.9

Landfill Methane 

Outreach Program

Reduces methane emissions 

from U.S. landfills through 

cost-effective means.

CH4 Voluntary, 

Information, 

Education

Implemented EPA 19.1 22.7 26.4 30.8

Waste Wise Encourages recycling, source 

reduction, and other 

progressive integrated waste 

management activities to 

reduce GHG emissions.

All Voluntary, 

Information, 

Research

Implemented EPA 20.1 23.4 29.9 38.1

Cross-Sectoral

Carbon Monitoring 

and Sequestration

Assesses the potential for 

global, active, long-term 

containment of carbon geologic 

areas and the natural capacity 

of ecosystems to store carbon.

CO2 Regulatory Initiated DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
74 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Cross-Sectoral (Continued)

Interagency 

Partnership for 

Sustainable 

Communities

Encourages integrated regional 

planning by aligning federal 

policies for housing, 

transportation, and the 

environment. Aims to reduce 

vehicle-miles traveled, 

per-capita GHG emissions, and 

dependence on fossil fuels.

All Voluntary, 

Economic, and 

Information

Implemented EPA/DOT/HUD N/A N/A N/A N/A

Voluntary Reporting 

of Greenhouse 

Gases (1605(b))

Provides a means for 

organizations and individuals to 

record the results of voluntary 

measures to reduce, avoid, or 

sequester GHG emissions.

All Voluntary Implemented DOE/EPA/ 

USDA

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Climate Leaders Assists companies with 

developing long-term 

comprehensive climate change 

strategies.

All Voluntary Implemented EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Climate Showcase 

Communities Grant 

Program

Creates models of local and 

tribal government community 

actions that generate 

cost-effective and persistent 

GHG reductions and can be 

replicated across the country. 

All Economic, 

Information

Implemented EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

State Climate and 

Energy Partner 

Network

Motivates GHG emission 

reductions as one of several 

benefits states derive from 

implementing a comprehensive 

suite of cost-effective clean 

energy policies and programs.

All Information, 

Education

Implemented EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Climate Friendly 

Parks

Parks conduct emission 

inventories, develop strategies 

for reducing emissions by 

developing action plans, and 

educate park visitors about 

climate change and what parks 

are doing to address the issue.

CO2 Voluntary Implemented DOI N/A N/A N/A N/A

National Action Plan 

for Energy Efficiency

Provides policy 

recommendations, reports, 

technical assistance, and 

outreach to encourage states, 

utilities, and stakeholders to 

meet electricity and natural gas 

demand with zero-GHGemitting energy efficiency. 

All Information, 

Education

Implemented EPA/DOE N/A N/A N/A N/A

State Energy 

Program

Strengthens and supports the 

capabilities of states to 

promote energy efficiency and 

to adopt renewable energy 

technologies, helping the 

nation achieve a stronger 

economy, a cleaner 

environment, and greater 

energy security.

CO2 Economic, 

Information

Implemented DOE 2.5 3.7 3.7 3.7

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
Chapter 4 | Policies and Measures 75

Federal Programs

FEMP, Renewable 

Energy Purchases, 

Purchasing of 

Energy-Efficient 

Products, Fleet 

Conservation 

Requirements, 

Renewable Energy 

Goals, Efficiency 

Performance 

Standards

Promotes energy efficiency and 

renewable energy use in 

federal buildings, facilities, and 

operations.

All Economic, 

Information, 

Education

Implemented DOE N/A 0.4 2.3 3.4

1

 Estimates of the mitigation impacts of programs are provided by the federal agency responsible for each individual program, based on the agency’s experience and assumptions related to the implementation 

of voluntary programs. These estimates may include assumptions about the continued or increased participation of partners, development and deployment goals, and/or whether the necessary 

commercialization or significant market penetration is achieved. 

2

 Estimates of mitigation impacts for individual policies or measures should not be aggregated to the sectoral level, due to possible synergies and interactions among policies and measures that might result in 

double counting.

3

 Aviation fuel efficiency is defined as the fuel burned per unit distance traveled.

4

 This value may change, depending on the outcome of an interagency process relating to the operation of the Conservation Reserve Program. The value shown is a straight-line interpolation between the 

values calculated for 2007 and 2012 and may not necessarily reflect the outcome of the interagency process.

AFCI = Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative; BFI = Biofuels Initiative; BRDI = Biomass Research and Development Initiative; CCPI = Clean Coal Power Initiative; DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOI = U.S. 

Department of the Interior; DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation; C2F6 = hexafluoroethane; CF4 = tetrafluoromethane; CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; DERA = Diesel Emissions Reduction Act; 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EQIP = Environmental Quality Incentives Program; FAA = Federal Aviation Administration; FEMP = Federal Energy Management Program; GHG = greenhouse 

gas; GWP = global warming potential; HFCs = hydrofluorocarbons; HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; MY = model year; N2O = nitrous oxide; N/A = not available; NOx

 = nitrogen 

oxides; NP = nuclear power; NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service; PAA = Price-Anderson Act; PFCs = perfluorocarbons; PM = particulate matter; R&D = research and development; RD&D = 

research, development, and demonstration; RDD&D = research, development, demonstration, and deployment; SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Table 4-3 (Continued) Summary of U.S. Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 

Name of Policy 

or Measure

Objective and/or 

Activity Affected

Greenhouse 

Gas Affected

Type of 

Program Status Implementing Entities

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2007

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2010

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2015

Estimated 

Mitigation 

Impact for 

2020
Projected Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions

5

T

his chapter is concerned mostly with businessas-usual greenhouse gas (GHG) emission projections, but it begins with a description of the 

Obama administration’s goals to reduce GHGs from 

that trajectory.

Administration Policy and Goals

The Obama administration supports the implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade program to spur 

growth in the low-carbon economy and reduce GHG 

emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 

(Figure 5-1). Since taking office in January 2009, the 

Obama administration has made investments in lowcarbon and renewable technologies a priority, including through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).1 The administration has 

1For the complete bill text, see 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/

cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_

cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf.

also worked to reduce GHGs through robust actions 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and other 

executive agencies. While ARRA and the actions of 

these agencies will result in significant emission reductions, the projections in this chapter show that GHG 

emissions will gradually increase in the long term 

without additional measures, such as a cap-and-trade 

program. 

In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives 

passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, 

which includes economy-wide GHG reduction goals 

of 3 percent below 2005 levels in 2012, 17 percent 

below 2005 levels in 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 

levels in 2050. Through a cap-and-trade program and 

other complementary measures, the bill would promote the development and deployment of new clean 
Chapter 5 | Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 77

energy technologies that would fundamentally change 

the way we produce, deliver, and use energy. 

The bill would: (1) advance energy efficiency and 

reduce reliance on oil; (2) stimulate innovation in 

clean coal technology to sequester GHG emissions 

before they enter the atmosphere; (3) accelerate the 

use of renewable sources of energy, including biomass, 

wind, solar, and geothermal; (4) create strong market 

demand in the long run for these next-generation 

technologies, which will result in increased domestic 

manufacturing and enable American workers to play a 

central role in U.S. clean energy transformation; and 

(5) play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth—from retooling shuttered 

manufacturing plants to make wind turbines, to using 

equipment and expertise in drilling for oil to develop 

clean energy from underground geothermal sources, to 

tapping into American ingenuity to engineer coalfired power plants that do not contribute to climate 

change.

In early 2010, the Senate was considering its own 

legislation, with similarly bold targets, to promote 

clean energy and reduce GHG emissions. If the Senate 

and House pass bills, a conference committee will be 

convened to resolve disagreements and negotiate a 

compromise bill for consideration in both legislative 

bodies.

In December 2009, at the Fifteenth Conference of the 

Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as part of a Copenhagen Accord involving GHG mitigation contributions 

by developed and key developing countries, the Obama 

administration proposed a U.S. GHG emissions reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels 

by 2020 and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, ultimately aligned with final U.S. legislation. 

Chapter Overview

This chapter provides business-as-usual projections of 

U.S. GHG emissions through 2020 and beyond. These 

projections reflect national estimates considering population growth, long-term economic growth potential, 

and historical rates of technology improvement, and the 

projections are consistent with historic average weather. 

The projections are based on anticipated trends in technology deployment and adoption, demand-side efficiency gains, fuel switching, and many of the implemented 

policies and measures discussed in Chapter 4.2

Despite the recent global economic turmoil, the U.S. 

economy is expected to recover and emissions are 

expected to grow in the long term in a businessas-usual case. Even with projected growth in absolute 

emissions, emissions per unit of gross domestic product are expected to decline.

Figure 5-1 Projected U.S. GHG Emissions Meeting Recently Proposed Goals 

Versus Business as Usual

By 2050, the Obama administration’s goal is to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

approximately by 83 percent from 2005 levels, in the same range as legislation passed by the U.S. 

Congress.

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

12,000 

Tg CO2 Eq.

Total U.S. GHG Emissions, Business as Usual

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 

Total U.S. GHG Emissions, with Waxman-Markey Economy-wide Emission Goals

2 Because Chapter 5 projections 

and Chapter 4 mitigation effects of 

policies and measures are calculated 

using different methodologies, 

estimates of the total effect of 

policies and measures derived from 

each chapter are not directly 

comparable.

3 For the full text of the 

announcement, see http://www.

whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/

Remarks-by-the-President-onnational-fuel-efficiency-standards/. 

4 The AEO 2009 estimate for 

bunker fuels was subtracted and 

replaced with an EPA estimate that 

reflects a broader definition of 

bunker fuels consistent with the 

international inventory convention. 

The AEO 2009 estimate of 

non-energy CO2 emissions was 

replaced by an EPA estimate of 

non-energy CO2 emissions from 

fuel use and all other non-energy 

CO2 emissions (e.g., industrial 

processes). This is consistent with 

previous U.S. Climate Action 

Reports. An estimate of CO2

emissions in the U.S. territories was 

added to the AEO 2009 number, 

since these emissions are not 

included in the AEO.

Projections are provided by gas and by sector. In keeping with the reporting guidelines of the UNFCCC, 

gases included in this report are carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). CO2 emissions are reported 

for the following sectors: electric power generation 

and residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation end use. 

Proposed or planned policies that had not been implemented as of March 31, 2009, as well as sections of 

existing legislation that require implementing regulations or funds that have not been appropriated, are 

not included in the projections. The projections include provisions from ARRA, but do not include, for 

example, the vehicle fuel economy and emission standards announced by the President in May 2009 and 

finalized in 2010.3 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

2000–2020

Trends in Total Greenhouse Gases 

DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

April 2009 update of the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 

(AEO 2009) provides a baseline projection of energyrelated CO2 emissions out to 2030, and reflects the 

provisions of ARRA, enacted in mid-February 2009 

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h). Projected CO2 emissions in 

the AEO 2009 are adjusted to match the international 

inventory convention.4 EPA prepared the projections 

of non-energy-related CO2 emissions and non-CO2

emissions. Non-CO2 emission projections are based 

on the report Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2020 (U.S. EPA/OAP 

2006b). The U.S. Department of Agriculture prepared 

the estimates of carbon sequestration. Historical 

Source: U.S. EPA 2009. The historical data are derived from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2007; the baseline scenario is from EPA’s ADAGE (Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global Economy) model; and 

the decreasing emissions line includes the Waxman-Markey goals for 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050, with intervening 

years interpolated.
78 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

emissions data are drawn from the Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007 (U.S. 

EPA/OAP 2009). In general, the projections reflect 

long-run trends and do not attempt to consider shortrun departures from those trends, with the exception 

that EIA explicitly models the current recession in its 

2010 CO2 emissions projection. 

All GHGs in this chapter are reported in teragrams 

of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), in keeping with the 

reporting guidelines of the UNFCCC. The conversions of non-CO2 gases to CO2 equivalents are based 

on the 100-year global warming potentials listed in the 

Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 1996).

Inventory totals of GHG emissions for 2000, 2005, and 

2007 and projections for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are 

shown in Table 5-1. From 2005 to 2020, total GHG 

emissions in the baseline are projected to increase by 4 

percent, from 7,109 Tg CO2 Eq. to 7,416 Tg CO2 Eq., 

while the U.S. gross domestic product is projected to 

grow by 40 percent (US DOE/EIA 2009a). 

Given the implementation of programs and measures 

in place as of spring 2009 and current economic projections, total gross U.S. GHG emissions are expected 

to drop slightly below 2005 emissions in the short 

term, but will rise steadily in the long term as population and total economic activity grow. Increased demand for energy services will be offset in part by shifts 

toward less energy-intensive industries, efficiency improvements, and increased use of renewable energy 

Table 5-1 Historical and Projected U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Sources: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Between 2005 and 2020, total gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are expected to grow by 4 percent, while U.S. gross domestic 

product is expected to increase by 40 percent. Energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to grow by 1.5 percent, reflecting the 

development and deployment of clean energy technologies, while non-CO2 emissions growth will be driven by the shift from gases 

regulated under the Montreal Protocol to hydrofluorocarbons.

Greenhouse Gases

Historical GHG Emissions Projected GHG Emissions

20001 20051 20071 2010 2015 2020

Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide2 5,562 5,724 5,736 5,633 5,721 5,813

Non-energy Carbon Dioxide3 394 368 368 368 368 368

Methane4 591 562 585 590 593 605

Nitrous Oxide4 329 316 312 314 322 332

Hydrofluorocarbons4 100 116 126 147 209 279

Perfluorocarbons4 14 6 8 7 7 6

Sulfur Hexafluoride4 19 18 17 15 13 13

International Bunker Fuels (not included in totals) 100 113 110 109 108 107

U.S. Territories 36 53 51 63 74 86

Total Gross Emissions 7,008 7,109 7,150 7,074 7,233 7,416

Net Sequestration Removals5 –718 –1,123 –1,063 –1,238 –1,218 –1,210

Total Net Emissions 6,291 5,986 6,088 5,836 6,014 6,206

1 Historical emissions and sinks data are from U.S. EPA/OAP 2009. Bunker fuels and biomass combustion are not included in inventory calculations.

2 Energy-related CO2 projections are calculated from U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h, with adjustments made to remove any non-energy CO2.

3 Non-energy CO2 includes emissions from non-energy fuel use and industrial processes.

4 Non-CO2 emission projections are based on US EPA/OAP 2006b, adjusted to 2007 inventory emissions.

5 Details on disaggregated historical and projected sequestration data can be found in Table 5-3.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

technologies and other less carbon-intensive energy 

fuels. More rapid improvements in technologies that 

emit fewer GHGs, new GHG mitigation requirements, or more rapid adoption of voluntary GHG 

emission reduction programs could result in lower 

GHG emission levels than in the baseline projection 

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009a, 2009b).

Between 2005 and 2020, CO2 emissions in the baseline projection are estimated to increase by 1.5 percent. Over the same period, CH4, N2O, and PFC 

emissions are expected to grow by 8 percent, 5 percent, and 4 percent, respectively. A large portion of 

emissions growth is driven by HFCs, which are projected to more than double between 2005 and 2020, 

as they are more extensively used as a substitute for 

ozone-depleting substances. Slow growth in CO2

emissions is driven by a combination of policies implemented to increase efficiency and the use of renewable 

energy, as well as increasing energy prices and economic projections that are lower than those estimated in 

the 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report (2006 CAR). 

Some non-CO2 emission sources are less affected by 

short-term economic disruptions than CO2 emission 

sources. For example, CH4 emissions from landfills are 

a result of waste deposited over a long period of time, 

as opposed to sources based only on current economic 

activity.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Energy-related CO2 emission estimates are taken from 

EIA’s AEO 2009, but are adjusted to match interna-
Chapter 5 | Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 79

tional inventory convention, as described later in this 

chapter. AEO 2009 presents projections and analysis 

of U.S. energy supply, demand, and prices through 

2030, based on results from EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System. The projections in AEO 2009 look 

beyond current economic and financial turmoil and 

focus on factors that drive U.S. energy markets in the 

longer term. Key issues highlighted in AEO 2009 include higher but uncertain world oil prices, growing 

concern about GHG emissions and their impacts on 

energy investment decisions, the increasing use of renewable fuels, the expanding production of unconventional natural gas, the shift in the transportation fleet 

to more efficient vehicles, and improved efficiency in 

end-use appliances (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009a, 2009b).

Energy-related CO2 emissions are projected to grow 

by 0.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2020, as compared with 1.3 percent per year from 1990 to 2005. 

The growth rate between 2005 and 2020 is moderated 

by the impact of the current recession in the United 

States. In 2020, energy-related CO2 emissions are projected to total 5,813 Tg CO2, about 1.5 percent higher 

than in 2005 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h). 

Non-energy sources of CO2 emissions include feedstock use of energy fuels in manufacturing, natural gas 

production and processing, the cement industry, and 

waste handling and combustion. As U.S. firms voluntarily adopt recapture technologies and other mitigation practices, these emissions will slow in growth and 

even decline in some sectors. Because the underlying 

sources are so varied, no single driver of projections is 

available. Therefore, the estimates presented here are 

historical extrapolations from the U.S. GHG inventory trends (U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). Emissions from 

these sources are expected to remain approximately 

constant, as some sources have historically increased 

and others have decreased, at 368 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2005 

and 2020. 

Non-Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Emissions other than CO2 currently represent about 

15 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. Non-CO2 GHG 

emissions include CH4 emissions from natural gas 

production and transmission, coal mine operations, 

landfills, and livestock operations; N2O emissions 

from agriculture and, to a lesser degree, transportation; and HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 gases from industrial 

activities including, in some cases, the life cycles of the 

resulting products (Table 5-2).

Non-CO2 emission projections are based on EPA’s 

Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: 1990–2020 (U.S. EPA/OAP 2006b). Projections in this report are based on a combination of 

trends in historical emissions and source-specific modeling. These projections have been adjusted to align 

with the most recent U.S. GHG emissions inventory 

(U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). EPA is currently updating its 

non-CO2 emission projections, but the results were 

not available in time for this report. In some cases, 

non-CO2 emissions can be less sensitive to short-term 

economic disruptions than energy-related CO2 emissions. For example, CH4 emissions from landfills 

result from waste deposited over a long period of time. 

Methane Emissions 

Between 2005 and 2020, total CH4 emissions are 

estimated to increase by about 8 percent as underlying 

economic activity increases over the projection period, 

with fugitive emissions from increased natural gas production the largest influence. However, these increases 

are expected to be mitigated by greater control of CH4

emissions from landfills, coal mines, and manure 

through increased flaring, recovery, and use. CH4 capture-and-use projects are driven in part by the prices of 

electricity and natural gas, which increase over the projection period.

Nitrous Oxide Emissions

N2O emissions are estimated to rise from 316 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2005 to 332 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020—an increase 

of 5 percent. Emissions from agriculture, the largest 

Table 5-2 U.S. Non-CO2 Emissions by Source and Gas (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Emissions other than CO2 include methane from agriculture, landfills, and natural gas production; 

nitrous oxide from agriculture; and HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 from industrial production. Of these, HFCs 

are expected to grow the fastest due to the ongoing CFC and HCFC phaseout and replacement 

with HFCs.

Gases and Sources 2005 2010 2015 2020

Methane (CH4) 562 590 593 605

Agriculture CH4 186 192 189 189

Landfills 128 130 128 128

Natural Gas 106 113 125 138

Coal Mines 63 61 56 56

Other 79 95 94 95

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 316 314 322 332

Agriculture N2O 225 227 232 237

Mobile Combustion 37 26 26 28

Nitric and Adipic Acid Production 25 29 30 32

Other 29 32 33 34

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 116 147 209 279

ODS Substitutes (HFCs) 100 135 198 268

HCFC-22 (HFC-23) 16 12 11 11

Semiconductors 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6 7 7 6

Aluminum 3 4 4 4

Semiconductors 3 4 3 3

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 18 15 13 13

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 14 12 12 11

Magnesium 3 2 1 1

Semiconductors 1 1 1 1

CFCs = chlorofluorocarbons; ODS = ozone-depleting substance; HCFCs = hydrochlorofluorocarbons. 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
80 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

source of N2O emissions, are estimated to increase 

from 225 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2005 to 237 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

2020. In contrast, N2O emissions from transportation 

are estimated to decrease over the same time period 

due to improvements in vehicle emission control technologies.

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 Emissions

HFC emissions are estimated to increase by more 

than 140 percent between 2005 and 2020, from 116 

Tg CO2 Eq. to 279 Tg CO2 Eq. Over the same period, 

PFC emissions are estimated to remain flat, and SF6

emissions are estimated to decline somewhat through 

increased voluntary control. 

HFC emissions are increasing because demand for 

refrigeration and air conditioning is increasing and 

because HFCs are predominantly used as alternatives 

for ozone-depleting substances, such as the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that are being phased out 

under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Both HFCs and HCFCs are 

GHGs, but HCFCs are not included here consistent 

with UNFCCC guidelines. Growth of HFCs is anticipated to continue well beyond 2020 if left unconstrained. Other sources of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 in 

industrial production include aluminum, magnesium, 

and semiconductor manufacturing and, in the case of 

SF6, electricity transmission and distribution. These 

projections assume that voluntary emission reduction 

goals set by these industries will be met by implementing process improvements and emission control technologies.

Bunker Fuels

Bunker fuels consist of jet fuel, residual fuel oil, and 

distillate fuel oil used for international aviation and 

marine transport. Between 1990 and 2007, CO2 

emissions from bunker fuels declined by 5 percent 

from 114 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

(MMTCO2) to 109 MMTCO2. Although emissions 

from international flights departing the United States 

have increased by 14 percent, emissions from international shipping voyages have decreased by 18 percent. 

The projection in Table 5-1 extends the annual rate of 

decline (from 1990 to 2007) through 2020 (U.S. 

EPA/OAP 2006b).

Sequestration

Forests and agricultural soils sequester a large amount 

of CO2 from the atmosphere. In 2007, American forests and soils sequestered approximately 1,063 Tg CO2

Eq., or 15 percent of total gross U.S. GHG emissions 

(U.S. EPA/OAP 2009). This net removal of atmospheric CO2 is largely the result of careful land-use 

decisions in the forestry and agriculture sectors, including afforestation, reforestation, forest management 

techniques, and increased adoption of reduced-tillage 

practices in agriculture. The continuation and in5 Updated projections for urban 

forest land are expected in the 

upcoming U.S. Forest Service 2010 

Resources Planning Act (RPA) 

Assessment. See http://www.fs.fed.

us/research/rpa/.

creased adoption of such practices are expected to increase net carbon sequestration within the next decade.

Net sequestration estimated in this report is –1,210 

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020 (specific data on sequestration for 

each significant sink can be found in Table 5-3). Net 

forest land area in the United States is expected to 

decline by 2 percent from 2002 to 2030 (Haynes et al. 

2007), largely due to conversion to urban forest and 

developed areas.5 Given this low rate of projected 

change in U.S. forest land area, the projected increase 

in net forest carbon uptake is largely due to expected 

changes in management practices (including intensification), afforestation/reforestation, and increased 

adoption of sustainable forestry practices.

Intensified management of forests can lead to an increased rate of growth, which will increase the uptake 

of carbon. Though harvesting on forest land removes 

much of the above-ground carbon, there is a positive 

growth-to-harvest ratio in U.S. forests, meaning that 

more carbon is accruing than is being harvested. Because most of the timber harvested from U.S. forests is 

stored in wood products or disposed of in solid waste 

disposal facilities, significant quantities of carbon in 

harvested wood are stored rather than released. The 

reversion of cropland to forest land also increases carbon in biomass. 

In the agricultural sector, changes in agricultural soil 

management can lead to increases in carbon sequestration. Much of the carbon accumulation that has 

occurred in cropped soils in the United States over 

the last 20 years is attributable to the Conservation 

Reserve Program (see Chapter 4) and land-use conversions from annual crops to perennial hay and grazing 

land (USDA 2008). Changes in other soil management practices have also contributed to the higher 

carbon stock in U.S. agricultural soils and are projected to continue through 2020 (Table 5-3). These practices include increased use of conservation tillage (particularly no-till), reduced frequency of summer fallow, 

and increased application of manure to cropland and 

pasture. 

Adjustments

Adjustments, primarily to the energy-related CO2

emissions reported in this chapter, were made to more 

closely adhere to UNFCCC guidelines. Emissions in 

U.S. territories, predominantly fuel-related, were added, and the military and civilian international use of 

bunker fuels was subtracted from the totals and is 

reported separately. Emissions from fuel use in U.S. 

territories are projected to increase from 53 Tg CO2

Eq. to 86 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020, based on extrapolation 

of historical trends. Emissions from international bunker fuels will decrease from 113 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2005 

to 107 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020 based on extrapolation of 

historical trends.
Chapter 5 | Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 81

Table 5-3 Projections of Net Carbon Sequestration Uptake (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Increases in carbon sequestration from forests will lead to an overall increase in sequestration from 

today’s levels by 2020.

Sources of Sequestration 20001 20051 20071 2010 2015 2020

Forests2 400 872 810 976 947 928

Wood Products3 113 104 100 104 105 109

Urban Forests4 82 93 98 104 115 126

Agricultural Soils4 111 44 45 44 42 39

Other 

4,5 11 10 10 10 9 8

Total Sequestration 718 1,123 1,063 1,238 1,218 1,210

1 Historical values are from U.S. EPA/OAP 2009. 

2 Estimates include carbon in above-ground and below-ground biomass, dead wood, litter, and forest soils. Projections 

reflect adjustments to the historical value for 2005. Forest carbon stocks are calculated by the FORCARB2 model 

(Smith and Heath 2004), based on forest areas and volumes from the base case U.S. Forest Service 2005 RPA Timber 

Assessment Update (Haynes et al. 2007). Emissions from forest fires are implicitly included in these estimates. Historical 

climate is assumed in the base projection.

3 Estimates are composed of changes in carbon held in wood products in use and in landfills, including carbon from 

domestically harvested wood and exported wood products (Production Accounting Approach). Projections are made using 

the Woodcarb II model (Skog 2008), based on base case projections of forest products production and trade from Haynes 

et al. 2007.

4 Projections are estimated from historical trends.

5 “Other” category includes landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps.

Note: Projections reflect average annual values over each period ending with the labeled year. Totals may not sum due to 

independent rounding.

Sectoral Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Electric Power CO2 Emissions

The largest share of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions 

comes from electricity generation, currently about 

one-third of U.S. GHG emissions. CO2 emissions are 

projected to increase by approximately 4 percent from 

2005 to 2020, or from 2,381 Tg CO2 to 2,466 Tg 

CO2 (Table 5-4). Of the CO2 emissions attributable 

to the electricity consumed in each economic sector, 

most of the increase can be attributed to the residential and commercial sectors; emissions attributable to 

the industrial sector are expected to decrease during 

that time (Table 5-5).

The combination of recently enacted energy policies, 

such as energy efficiency measures and renewable 

energy incentives, and rising energy prices slows the 

growth in U.S. consumption of primary energy relative to historical trends. Further, when slower demand 

growth is combined with increased use of renewable 

energy technologies and fewer additions of new coalfired conventional power plants, growth in CO2 emissions due to electricity generation also is slowed relative to historical experience. The share of electricity 

generation that comes from fossil fuels—primarily, 

coal and natural gas—is expected to decline, and the 

share from renewables is expected to increase from 

8 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2020. 

Although a comprehensive federal policy has yet to be 

enacted to address climate change, growing concerns 

Table 5-4 Electricity Generation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The electricity sector will experience an accelerating shift toward renewable generation through 2020.

Sources of 

Electricity

2005 2010 2015 20205

Emissions 

(Tg CO2 Eq.)

Generation 

(billion kWh)

Emissions 

(Tg CO2 Eq.)

Generation 

(billion kWh)

Emissions 

(Tg CO2 Eq.)

Generation 

(billion kWh)

Emissions 

(Tg CO2 Eq.)

Generation 

(billion kWh)

Fossil Fuels1,2 2,381 2,793 2,342 2,756 2,382 2,717 2,466 2,832

Petroleum 102 116 47 52 38 43 40 45

Natural Gas 320 684 322 700 261 561 285 620

Coal 1,958 1,992 1,962 2,003 2,071 2,113 2,129 2,166

Other3,4 0.4 1 12 1 12 1 12 1

Non-Fossil Fuels 0 1,102 0 1,240 0 1,423 0 1,512

Nuclear 0 782 0 809 0 831 0 876

Renewable 0 320 0 431 0 592 0 636

Non-Fossil % Share 

Generation 28% 31% 34% 35%

Total Fossil and NonFossil Fuel Generation 3,896 3,996 4,141 4,344

1 Historical emissions are from U.S. EPA/OAP 2009, and historical generation data are from U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b, Table 8.2.

2 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public.

3 Other fossil fuel emissions include emissions from geothermal power and nonbiogenic emissions from municipal waste.

4 Due to slight differences in categories between the EPA inventory and EIA projections, the “other” category in the historical inventory is not directly comparable to the “other” category in the projections. 

5 2020 projections are from U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h.

kWh = kilowatt-hour; Tg CO2 Eq. = teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

about GHG emissions appear to be affecting investment decisions in the electricity sector. In the United 

States, potential regulatory policies to address climate 

change are in various stages of development at the 

state, regional, and federal levels. In addition to ongoing uncertainty with respect to future demand growth 
82 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

and the costs of fuel, labor, and new plant construction, it appears that capacity planning decisions for 

new generating plants are already being affected by the 

potential impacts of policy changes that could limit or 

reduce GHG emissions. 

This concern is recognized in the electric sector projections by adding a 3 percent premium on investment in 

carbon-intensive electric generation sources, leading 

to limited additions of new coal-fired capacity. Much 

less new coal capacity is projected in this report than 

in recent years (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009). Renewable 

generation is expected to be about half of cumulative 

new capacity additions through 2020, and is the largest source of new capacity additions. Key federal tax 

credits and a new loan guarantee program in ARRA 

are expected to lead to a significant expansion of renewable energy generation compared with a case without ARRA. 

As a result of these factors, while electricity generation 

is projected to increase by 0.7 percent per year from 

2005 to 2020, CO2 emissions from electricity generation will increase by only 0.2 percent per year.

Residential CO2 Emissions

Energy-related CO2 emissions from the residential 

sector are estimated to increase by about 1.5 percent 

between 2005 and 2020, including indirect emissions 

from electricity. U.S. energy use will grow more slowly 

than the U.S. population because of investments in 

energy efficiency, including those spurred by ARRA. 

Emissions from electricity should increase over the 

projection period, while emissions from combustion 

of natural gas should decrease. Since population is expanding faster in the warmer climates of the West and 

South, less natural gas will be used for heating and 

more electricity will be necessary for cooling.

Commercial CO2 Emissions

Commercial floorspace is expected to continue to expand, following trends in economic and population 

growth. Improvements in efficiency can only partly 

offset increases in emissions from the commercial sector. Increased disposable income will continue to lead 

to growth in commercial floorspace in hotels, restaurants, stores, and theaters. Growth in natural gas use, 

predominantly for heating, will be slower than growth 

in electricity use because of the more rapid growth in 

the South and West, where heating represents a smaller share of energy use.

Industrial CO2 Emissions

Energy-related CO2 emissions from the industrial 

sector are expected to grow slowly, from 828 Tg CO2

in 2005 to 840 Tg CO2 in 2020. Production from 

energy-intensive manufacturing industries will grow 

more slowly than the sector average, partly accounting 

for the slow growth in overall emissions. Including 

indirect emissions from electricity, industrial emissions are expected to decline by approximately 7 percent by 2020.

Transportation CO2 Emissions

Transportation-related CO2 emissions are the secondlargest source of U.S. emissions. As with other energyrelated sources of CO2 emissions, transportation CO2

emission projections for this report are based on EIA’s 

April 2009 update of AEO 2009, and adjusted to 

match international inventory convention (U.S. 

DOE/EIA 2009a). Future emissions in the transportation sector will be impacted by a number of factors.

As shown in Table 5-6, AEO 2009 projects that slower growth in income per capita and higher fuel costs 

will reduce the growth of personal travel, slowing the 

growth in demand for both highway and aviation 

fuels. AEO 2009 also projects that emissions from 

heavy-duty vehicles will grow more rapidly than lightduty vehicles as a result of increases in commercial 

activity (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h). While not included 

in AEO 2009, future regulatory efforts, including the 

6 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

climate/regulations.htm.

Table 5-5 U.S. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Sector and Source1 (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Electricity generation accounts for the largest share—about one-third—of U.S. energy-related 

CO2 emissions. In 2020, energy-related CO2 emissions are projected to total 5,813 Tg CO2, about 

2 percent higher than in 2005.

Sectors and Sources 20052 2010 2015 2020

Electric Power 2,381 2,342 2,382 2,466

Petroleum 102 47 38 40

Natural Gas 320 322 261 285

Coal 1,958 1,962 2,071 2,129

Other 0.4 12 12 12

Transportation3 1,882 1,835 1,858 1,853

Petroleum 1,848 1,800 1,823 1,817

Natural Gas 33 35 35 36

Electricity 5 4 5 6

Industrial3 828 805 839 840

Petroleum 330 336 326 321

Natural Gas 382 370 389 387

Coal 116 99 124 132

Electricity 731 580 607 610

Residential3 358 363 346 344

Petroleum 95 93 83 78

Natural Gas 262 268 262 265

Coal 1 1 1 1

Electricity 849 879 855 882

Commercial3 222 225 223 224

Petroleum 50 45 42 41

Natural Gas 163 173 174 176

Coal 9 6 6 6

Electricity 797 879 916 968

U.S. Territories 53 63 74 86

1 U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h, with adjustments for bunker fuels, non-energy CO2 emissions, and U.S. territories.

2 Historical emissions data are from U.S. EPA/OAP 2009.

3 Sector total emissions do not include indirect emissions from electricity usage.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Chapter 5 | Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 83

GHG tailpipe standards proposed on September 28, 

2009,6 will bring about additional reductions in future 

GHG emissions.

Assumptions Used to Estimate 

Future GHG Emissions

Changes Between the 2006 CAR and the 2010 

CAR, Including the Effects of New Policies 

and Measures

GHG emissions under the “with measures” case presented in this report are significantly lower than emission estimates in the 2006 CAR. These differences can 

be traced to a combination of changes in policies, energy prices, and economic growth. In the 2006 CAR, 

emissions increased by 19 percent from the reported 

2000 levels, versus a 5.6 percent increase from 2000 

levels by 2020 (4 percent from 2005 to 2020) in this 

2010 CAR.

Current estimates of energy-related CO2 emissions 

include the effects of a number of policies that have 

been implemented since the analysis was completed 

for the 2006 CAR. These policies include ARRA and 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

They also include various state vehicle technology programs and renewable portfolio standards that have 

been implemented since 2006 and the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeastern and 

Mid-Atlantic United States. In addition, anticipation 

Table 5-6 Comparison of the 2002, 2006, and 2010 CAR Assumptions and Model Results for 2020

The 2010 U.S. Climate Action Report reflects assumptions of lower GDP growth and higher energy prices.

 Factors

Assumptions for 2020

2002 CAR 2006 CAR 2010 CAR

Real GDP (billion chain-weighted 2000 dollars)1

Reported 18,136 17,541 15,398

Corrected 17,688 17,541 15,398

Population (millions) 325 337 343

Energy Intensity (Btu per 2000 chain-weighted dollar of GDP)2

Reported 8,712 6,877 6,798

Corrected 7,398 6,877 6,798

Light-Duty Vehicle Miles Traveled (billion miles) 3,631 3,474 3,137

Refiners’ Acquisition Cost of Imported Crude Oil (2000 dollars/barrel) 24.68 41.24 95.56

Wellhead Natural Gas Price (2000 dollars/thousand cubic feet) 3.26 4.49 5.67

Minemouth Coal Price (2000 dollars/short ton) 12.79 18.52 22.85

Average Electricity Price (2000 cents/kWh) 6.5 6.6 7.7

All Sector Motor Gasoline Price (2000 dollars/gallon) 1.40 1.90 3.02

Energy Consumption (quadrillion Btus) 131 121 105 

1 A table in the 2006 CAR reported that the real GDP, as reported in the 2002 CAR, was $18,136 billion in 2000 dollars (while not reported as chain-weighted these 

are chain-weighted dollars). This appears to be an incorrect conversion from $15,525 billion chain-weighted 1996 dollars as originally reported in the 2002 CAR. 

Using the deflator from the 2002 Annual Energy Outlook (U.S. DOE/EIA 2002) for consistency, it should have been only $17,688 billion chain-weighted 2000 dollars.

2 Energy intensity, which is total energy consumption divided by real GDP, was reported as 7,920 Btu per 1996 dollar of GDP in the original 2002 CAR. In the 2006 

CAR, energy intensity for the 2002 CAR was reported as 8,712 Btu per 2000 dollar of GDP. Using a corrected real GDP, energy intensity in the 2002 CAR should be 

7,398 Btu per chain-weighted 2000 dollar of GDP.

Btus = British thermal units; CAR = U.S. Climate Action Report; GDP = gross domestic product; kWh = kilowatt-hour.

Sources: U.S. DOE/EIA 2002, 2009h.

of future limits on GHG emissions has already shifted 

business practices. Analysis of the changes in energyrelated CO2 emission projections between the 2006 

CAR and the 2010 CAR shows that about half of 

them are due to the influence of newly implemented 

or anticipated public policies, equivalent to about 500 

Tg CO2 in 2020.

Changes in long-term economic growth estimates and 

energy prices account for the remaining changes in 

projected emissions between the 2006 CAR and the 

2010 CAR. The macroeconomic projection used for 

this report estimates that the U.S. economy will grow 

by an average of 2.3 percent per year through 2020. 

This is a significant departure from the 3.0 percent 

projection in the 2006 CAR. The anticipated price of 

oil in 2020 has doubled along with significant increases in the anticipated prices of natural gas, coal, and 

electricity (U.S. DOE/EIA 2009).

Description of NEMS and Methodology

EIA's Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting 

developed and maintains the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). The projections in NEMS are 

developed using a market-based approach to energy 

analysis. For each fuel and consuming sector, NEMS 

balances energy supply and demand, accounting for 

economic competition among the various energy fuels 

and sources. The time horizon of NEMS is 2005 

through 2030, approximately 25 years into the future. 
84 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

NEMS is organized and implemented as a modular 

system. The modules represent each of the fuel supply 

markets, conversion sectors, and end-use consumption 

sectors of the energy system. NEMS also includes 

macroeconomic and international modules. The primary flows of information among the modules are the 

delivered prices of energy to end users and the quantities consumed by product, region, and sector. The delivered fuel prices encompass all the activities necessary to produce, import, and transport fuels to end 

users. The information flows also include other data 

on such areas as economic activity, domestic production, and international petroleum supply.

Each NEMS component represents the impacts and 

costs of existing legislation and environmental regulations that affect that sector. NEMS accounts for all 

combustion-related CO2 emissions, as well as emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury 

from the electricity generation sector. The potential 

impacts of pending or proposed federal and state legislation, regulations, or standards—or of sections of 

legislation that have been enacted but that require 

funds or implementing regulations that have not been 

provided or specified—are not reflected in NEMS. 

Table 5-6 shows the underlying assumptions and results in NEMS for the year 2020 and how they have 

changed from the 2002 and 2006 CARs.

Key Uncertainties Affecting Projected 

GHG Emissions

Any projection of future emissions is subject to considerable uncertainty. In the short term (less than five 

years), the key factors that can increase or decrease 

estimated net emissions include unexpected changes in 

retail energy prices, shifts in the competitive relationship between natural gas and coal in electricity generation markets, changes in economic growth, abnormal 

winter or summer temperatures, and imperfect projection methods. Additional factors may influence emission rates over the longer term, notably technology 

developments, shifts in the composition of economic 

activity, and changes in government policies. Finally, 

the indirect effects and interactions among some emission sources are not fully considered in the projections. 

For example, the indirect effects of increased biofuel 

production are not considered.

Technology Development 

The projections of U.S. GHG emissions take into consideration likely improvements in technology over 

time. For example, technology-based 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 highly uncertain, 

especially over the long term. 

Unexpected scientific and technical breakthroughs 

can cause changes in economic activities with dramatic effects on patterns of energy production and use. 

Such breakthroughs could enable the United States to 

considerably reduce future GHG emissions. While 

U.S. 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 remains to be seen. 

Regulatory or Statutory Changes 

The current projections of U.S. GHG emissions do 

not include the effects of any legislative or regulatory 

action that was not finalized before March 31, 2009. 

Consequently, the projections do 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 projections do not include the Obama administration’s 

proposed goals of reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 

17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and 83 percent 

in 2050. However, the GHG projections do reflect 

some of the uncertainty surrounding the adoption of 

national climate policy and, in particular, the decreased investment in new coal power capacity that 

results from this uncertainty.

Energy Prices 

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, a reduction in the price of natural gas relative to 

other fuels could encourage fuel switching that, in turn, 

could reduce carbon emissions. Alternatively, coal 

could become more competitive vis-à-vis natural gas, 

which could increase emissions from the power sector.

The energy-related CO2 projections reflect a shift in 

oil market assumptions, with projected oil prices substantially higher than in previous analyses (U.S. DOE/

EIA 2006, 2009a, 2009b). However, energy and oil 

price projections are subject to significant uncertainty. 

Decreases in delivered energy prices could result from 

increased competition in the electric utility sector or 

improved technology. On the other hand, energy price 

increases could result from the faster-than-expected 

depletion of oil and gas resources, from political or 

other disruptions in oil-producing countries, or from 

increases in oil demand abroad.

Economic Growth 

Economic growth increases the future demand for 

energy services, such as vehicle miles traveled, amount 

of lighted and ventilated space, and process heat used 
Chapter 5 | Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 85

in industrial production. However, 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 economic growth work in opposing 

directions. However, 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. The economic growth data used for this 

report suggest that growth will be slower (2.3 percent 

per year) through 2020 than projected in the 2006 

CAR (3.0 percent per year), which is expected to slow 

emissions growth. 

Weather and Natural Occurrences

Energy use for heating and cooling is directly responsive to weather variation. In the EIA projection of 

CO2 emissions, normal weather is defined by the average population-weighted number of heating and cooling degree-days for the most recent 10 years of historical data. 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 from year to year. For sequestration projections, historical climate and natural 

disturbances are assumed. For example, emissions 

from forest fires are implicitly included in the estimates for forest sequestration in Table 5-3. However, 

the extent to which climate change could exacerbate 

impacts on agriculture and forestry sinks—e.g., via 

increased pests, different degrees of dieback, and forest 

fire incidence—is not included in these estimates. 

Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Projections to 2050

The GHG emission projections in this chapter generally extend to 2020. EPA has also developed a number 

of modeling tools to evaluate long-term GHG mitigation policies, often extending to 2050. One of these 

models is the Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global 

Economy (ADAGE) model. The focus of this model is 

policy analysis, but it includes long-term reference 

Table 5-7 Long-Term U.S. GHG Emission Projections 

in ADAGE (Tg CO2 Eq.)

EPA’s ADAGE model projects total U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions will increase gradually, by about 18 percent between 

2010 and 2050.

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

7,118 7,390 7,765 8,101 8,379

ADAGE = Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global Economy; EIA = Energy 

Information Administration; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency.

Note: At the time of this report, ADAGE was calibrated to EIA’s March 2009 

release of its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2009) (U.S. DIE/EIA 2009h). The 

ADAGE projections may be different from other projections in this chapter due 

to differences in modeling and lag time in calibrating model baselines to new 

versions of AEO 2009.

scenarios that are used as a basis to evaluate proposed 

policies.

Reference scenarios for long-term projections are 

based on the same data sources used for this report to 

the extent data are available. Energy-related CO2

emission projections are based on EIA’s AEO 2009 

(U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h), and non-CO2 emission projections are based on Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2020 (U.S. EPA/

OAP 2006b). Currently, the EPA models use the projections from the main release of AEO 2009 published 

in March 2009, which used slightly different economic projections and did not include ARRA. Sector definitions in ADAGE differ from those used for national 

inventory reporting. For these reasons, ADAGE longterm projections will not match those presented in 

other parts of this chapter. In addition, the sources for 

baseline projections used in this chapter do not extend 

to 2050, which required taking long-term projections 

from other sources. AEO 2009 extends to 2030, while 

the Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions report extends to 2020. Longer-term projections are drawn from emission scenarios prepared by 

the U.S Climate Change Science Program (U.S. 

CCSP 2007).

Table 5-7 presents long-term U.S. GHG emission 

projections used in ADAGE to evaluate policy. 
Vulnerability Assessment, 

Climate Change Impacts, 

and Adaptation Measures

6

Recent U.S. government-led scientific assessments of climate change impacts on the United 

States indicate that the nation is increasingly 

vulnerable to current and projected changes. It is also 

clear that there is more emphasis than ever on adaptation measures to increase the nation’s resilience and 

take advantage of opportunities in the face of significant change.

During the past year, the U.S. government completed 

a major new climate change assessment, the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP’s) 

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 

(Karl et al. 2009). This assessment received a great deal 

of attention from large segments of the public and is 

now providing the basis for significant effort to incorporate climate change into decisions made by U.S. 

businesses, resource managers, and policymakers. This 

report is especially helpful because it assesses impacts 

on a regional and socioeconomic basis. Across nine 

regions and seven sectors it explains the current and 

potential U.S. impacts of climate change and illustrates adaptation measures already being adopted. As 

this chapter demonstrates, the motivation for adaptation is clear, and the movement to initiate and coordinate action is underway.

There has been early and significant investment by the 

Obama administration in developing the first overarching U.S. adaptation strategy. The Director of the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy highlighted 

the need for adaptation in recent testimony to the U.S. 

Senate: 
Chapter 6 | Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation Measures 87

[The reality of climate change] underlines the need to 

invest, in parallel with efforts to reduce emissions and 

increase the uptake of the main heat-trapping gases, in 

adaptation to the changes in climate that can no longer 

be avoided—e.g., breeding heat- and drought-resistant 

crop strains, bolstering defenses against tropical diseases, improving the efficiency of water use, managing 

ecosystems to improve their resilience, and management of coastal zones with sea-level rise in mind.1

Building on community, business, and resource management efforts to examine adaptation options, the 

President issued Executive Order 13514 on October 

5, 2009.2 In addition to reducing greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions, this order will seek to organize the 

national effort on climate change adaptation and ensure widespread and complementary programs across 

the U.S. government. The executive order states that 

federal agencies will participate actively in a new U.S. 

Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force 

that is “developing the domestic and international 

dimensions of a U.S. strategy for adaptation to climate 

change.” This strategy will contribute to the knowledge, capability, and resources to effectively respond to 

climate change. 

Increasingly, activities to assess and address vulnerabilities are focusing on the specific information needed 

to make better decisions in the face of climate variability and change, and in particular to facilitate effective 

and appropriate adaptation initiatives. Recent scientific assessments have been more focused on defining 

the most relevant and useful information for decision 

makers and providing it in a way that is accessible for 

all. In other words, the process is changing to be more 

demand-driven, and not only identifies the expected 

climate impacts, but also looks at some key risks and 

opportunities. Some of the recent key findings follow.

Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States 

During the last three years (2006–2009), the U.S. government has completed a suite of focused assessments 

addressing high-priority climate research questions. In 

an open and transparent manner, this approach communicates scientific analyses to the public via a set of 

21 Synthesis and Assessment Products (SAPs) developed by USGCRP (U.S. CCSP/GCRP 2006–2009). 

These SAPs were synthesized in a single national-scale 

assessment, Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States (GCCI), released in June 2009 (Karl et 

al. 2009). The report analyzed climate impacts and 

response options across nine U.S. regions and seven 

sectors, and identified the following 10 key findings: 

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily 

human-induced. Global temperature has increased over 

the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily 

to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. 

2. Climate changes are underway in the United 

States and are projected to grow. Climate-related 

changes are already observed in the United States and 

its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy 

downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly 

retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening 

growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the 

ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and 

alterations in river flows. These changes are projected 

to grow. 

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring 

now and are expected to increase. Climate changes 

are already affecting water, energy, transportation, 

agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are 

different from region to region and will grow under 

projected climate change. 

4. Climate change will stress water resources. 

Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the 

potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced 

precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased 

water loss from plants, is an important issue in many 

U.S. regions, especially in the West. Floods, water 

quality problems, and impacts on aquatic ecosystems 

and species are likely to be amplified by climate change 

in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are 

important in the West and Alaska, where snowpack 

provides vital natural water storage. 

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly 

challenged. Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, 

increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop 

and livestock production. 

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea level 

rise and storm surge. Sea level rise and storm surge 

place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy 

and transportation infrastructure and other property in 

coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. 

7. Threats to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change include heat stress, waterborne 

and foodborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme 

weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects 

and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure could 

reduce the potential for negative impacts from climate 

change. 

8. Climate change will interact with many social and 

environmental stresses. Climate change will combine 

with air and water pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. 

1 John P. Holdren, Climate 

Services: Solutions from Commerce 

to Communities: Hearing before the 

United States Senate Committee 

on Science, Transportation, and 

Commerce, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. 

(2009).

2 “Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance.” Federal 

Register, Vol. 74, No. 194. See 

http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/2009-

obama.html.
88 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large 

changes in climate and ecosystems. There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. 

These thresholds determine, for example, the presence 

of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, 

from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. 

With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. 

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on 

choices made today. The amount and rate of future 

climate change depend largely on current and future 

human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and 

airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the 

changes that are unavoidable. 

The information in all of the SAPs as well as the 

GCCI is intended for use by a diverse group of decision makers, stakeholders, communicators (e.g., the 

media), and scientists. The material addresses the nation’s needs for sound scientific information that decision makers can use to develop a better understanding 

of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities, as well 

as to develop and improve the design and implementation of adaptation measures. All of the SAPs and the 

GCCI were extensively reviewed by scientists, federal 

agency officials, stakeholders, and the general public. 

The SAPs build on and integrate cutting-edge research 

and application activities, advanced over the years by 

the interagency research efforts in climate and global 

change. More information about the SAPs and GCCI 

may be found in Chapter 8 of this report and at www.

globalchange.gov. 

The information highlighted in this chapter is taken 

principally from the GCCI report, which synthesizes 

much of the analysis in the SAPs and incorporates 

several other assessments. It provides analyses of ongoing and potential impacts of climate variability and 

change, adaptability of key systems, and measures that 

might be taken to reduce vulnerability, including examples of adaptation measures already in evidence. 

This chapter highlights ongoing U.S. efforts that are 

generating new insights into the potential impacts of 

climate change on key physical and biological processes (e.g., snowpack changes, streamflow, drought, extreme events) and changing resilience and vulnerability in a range of socioeconomic sectors (e.g., energy, 

agriculture, water resources, coastal systems, human 

health, and transportation). 

Some Key U.S. Vulnerabilities

Water and Energy 

Climate change has clearly already altered, and will 

continue to alter, many aspects of the water cycle in 

the United States, affecting where, when, and how 

much water is available for all uses. Changes include 

widespread melting of snow and ice, increasing atmospheric water vapor, increasing evaporation, changing 

precipitation patterns and intensity, changing incidence of drought, rising water temperatures, reductions in river and lake ice, and changes in soil moisture 

and runoff. These changes have impacts across a vast 

range of socioeconomic activities, such as transportation, agriculture, energy production, industrial uses, 

and other needs, including human consumption (Karl 

et al. 2009).

Some examples of regional changes already observed 

include drying in the Southwest, a reduction of snowpack/snow-water equivalent in the West, an increase in 

the incidence of heavy precipitation events across most 

of the United States, increasing streamflow in the eastern United States, and reduced ice cover on the Great 

Lakes. All of these examples are projected to continue, 

along with additional emerging disruptions to the current state of the water cycle (Karl et al. 2009).

An illustration of impacts from one of these regional 

changes is the potential consequences of drying in the 

Southwest. Parts of the Southwest could see more 

than a 40 percent decrease in surface runoff by midcentury (even under a moderate future emissions scenario). This is occurring against a backdrop of rapid 

population growth in the region and in a climate that 

is already semi-arid. In this region (and in others), climate change places an additional stress on already 

overburdened water systems (Karl et al. 2009). 

Many locations in the Southwest are likely to suffer 

from conflict over water resources by 2025, even in 

the absence of climate change (U.S. DOI/BOR 2005). 

Under drier conditions, these conflicts are likely to be 

more widespread or to occur sooner and with greater 

intensity. Water disputes already exist in several areas 

across the United States, including the Sacramento 

Bay Delta, the Rio Grande, the Klamath River in Oregon and California, the Colorado River, and the 

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system in 

the Southeast (Karl et al. 2009). 

In addition to vulnerabilities in water supply for human consumption, water is used in the process of 

power production—for cooling thermal power plants, 

and for generating power in hydroelectric facilities. In 

addition, delivering and treating water require large 

amounts of energy; thus, the vulnerabilities of water 

and energy systems are tightly interconnected.

Many of the effects of climate change have clear implications for the reliable production, transmission, and 

use of energy itself. For example, rising temperatures 

are likely to increase cooling needs and reduce heating 

needs in different parts of the country; changing precipitation patterns may positively or negatively affect 

the ability to produce hydropower; and increases in 

hurricane intensity could impact Gulf of Mexico energy production, refining, and transportation (Karl 
Chapter 6 | Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation Measures 89

et al. 2009). There may be changes in energy consumed 

for other climate-sensitive processes, such as pumping 

water for irrigation in agriculture (Peart et al. 1995; 

McCarthy et al. 2001). Depending on the magnitude 

of these possible energy consumption changes, it may 

be necessary to consider changes in energy supply or 

conservation practices to balance demand (Franco and 

Sanstad 2006; CEPA 2006).

Impacts due to climate change are more likely to be 

most apparent at the sub-national scale, such as the regional effects of extreme weather and reduced water 

availability, and increased cooling demands in areas 

where temperature and vulnerable populations are increasing. Overall, the national energy economy is large, 

and the energy industry has both the financial and the 

managerial resources to be adaptive (Karl et al. 2009). 

Of course, climate change effects on energy supply and 

demand will depend not only on climatic factors, but 

also on patterns of economic growth, land use, population growth and distribution, technological change, and 

social and cultural trends that shape individual and institutional actions (McCarthy et al. 2001).

Transportation

The U.S. transportation network is vital to the nation’s economy, safety, and quality of life. Transportation accounts for approximately one-third of total U.S. 

GHG emissions. While it is widely recognized that 

emissions from transportation have impacts on climate change, climate will also likely have significant 

impacts on transportation infrastructure and operations (Karl et al. 2009; U.S. DOT 2006). 

Examples of specific types of impacts include softening 

of asphalt roads and warping of railroad rails; damage 

to roads and opening of shipping routes in polar regions (McCarthy et al. 2001); flooding of roadways, 

rail routes, and airports from extreme events and sea 

level rise; and interruptions to flight plans due to severe weather (Karl et al. 2009). 

Along the Gulf Coast alone, it is estimated that 3,864 

kilometers (2,400 miles) of major roadways and 396 

kilometers (246 miles) of freight rail lines are at risk of 

permanent flooding within 50–100 years as climate 

change and land subsidence combine to produce an 

anticipated relative sea level rise in the range of 1.2 

meters (4 feet). In Alaska, the cost of maintaining the 

state’s public infrastructure is projected to rise 10–20 

percent by 2030 due to warming, costing the state an 

additional $4–$6 billion, with roads and airports accounting for about half this cost (Karl et al. 2009). In 

New York City, what is now a 100-year storm is projected to occur as often as every 10 years by late this century. Portions of lower Manhattan and coastal areas of 

Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island’s 

Nassau County would experience a marked increase in 

flooding frequency. Much of the critical transportation 

infrastructure, including tunnels, subways, and airports, 

lies well within the range of projected storm surge and 

would be flooded during such events (Karl et al. 2009).

Public Health

Climate change poses unique threats to human health, 

including direct threats from heat waves or storms, 

and indirect effects, such as heat-exacerbated air quality impacts on health, or climate-sensitive infectious 

diseases (Box 6-1; Karl et al. 2009). Given the complexity of the factors that influence human health, 

assessing health impacts related to climate change poses a significant challenge (NAS/NRC 2001). The extent and nature of climate change impacts on human 

health vary by region, by relative sensitivity of population groups, by the extent and duration of exposure to 

climate change itself, and by society’s ability to adapt 

to or cope with the change (Rose et al. 2001). 

The probability of exacerbated health risks due to climate change points to a need to maintain a strong 

public health infrastructure to help limit future impacts (Ebi et al. 2008). Several initiatives, especially in 

cities, have been implemented for reducing risk. Appropriate and focused weather and climate information from the U.S. government has been essential in 

these initiatives. For example, heat is already the leading cause of U.S. weather-related deaths, with more 

than 3,400 deaths reported between 1999 and 2003 

from excessive heat. Projections for several cities indicate increasing risk of heat-related deaths with increasing temperatures, even when including the likelihood 

of some adaptation measures (Karl et al. 2009).

Warming will also make it more challenging to meet 

air quality standards that affect certain segments of the 

population, particularly those with existing lung conditions or those who spend more time outdoors. Under constant pollution emissions, by the middle of this 

century, Red Ozone Alert days (when the air is unhealthful for everyone) in the 50 largest cities in the 

eastern United States, are projected to increase by 68 

percent due to warming alone (Karl et al. 2009).

Box 6-1 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases1

In response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to determine whether greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger human health or welfare, or whether the 

science is too uncertain to make a determination, the EPA Administrator proposed endangerment and 

cause or contribute findings under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act in April 2009. The proposed 

findings then underwent a public comment period. The proposed findings stated that the total body of 

scientific evidence compellingly supports that GHGs threaten both public health and welfare and that 

emissions from U.S. vehicles cause or contribute to the problem. On December 7, 2009, EPA finalized 

the endangerment and the cause or contribute findings. The Administrator reached this conclusion 

after considering both current and projected future effects of climate change and the full range of risks 

and impacts to public health and welfare in the United States, as well as extensive public comments.

_________

1Further information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.
90 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Studies analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that climate change causes 

increases in summertime ozone concentrations over 

substantial regions of the country (U.S. EPA/ORD 

2009). For those regions that showed climate-induced 

increases, the increase in the maximum daily 8-hour 

average ozone concentration—a key metric for regulating U.S. air quality—was in the range of 2–8 parts 

per billion, averaged over the summer season. The increases were substantially greater than this during the 

peak pollution episodes that tend to occur over a 

number of days each summer. Several studies suggest 

that climate change may increase the frequency of 

high-ozone events (Bell et al. 2007; Leibensperger et 

al. 2008). Even when considering future scenarios 

with large decreases in air pollution emissions, climate 

change partly offsets the benefit of the emission reductions (Jacob and Winner 2009). Accordingly, climate 

change represents a significant penalty for air quality 

managers working to achieve ozone air quality goals 

and raises concerns about adverse health outcomes.

Ecosystems

Climate is an important factor influencing the distribution, structure, function, and services of ecosystems. 

Ongoing climate changes are interacting with other 

environmental changes to affect biodiversity and the 

future condition of ecosystems (e.g., McCarthy et al. 

2001; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Karl et al. 2009). 

Many factors affect biodiversity, including climatic 

conditions; the influence of competitors, predators, 

parasites, and diseases; disturbances, such as fire; and 

other physical factors. Human-induced climate 

change, in conjunction with other stresses, is exerting 

major influences on natural environments and biodiversity, and these influences are generally expected to 

grow with increased warming (Karl et al. 2009).

Climate change is already affecting many U.S. ecosystems, including wetlands, forests, grasslands, rivers and 

lakes, and coastal and nearshore environments, and 

has led to large-scale changes in the range of species 

and timing of seasons and migration. Invasive weed 

species have also increased, as have some insect pests 

and pathogens. Nearshore ecosystems are under stress 

not only from increasing temperatures, but also from 

the increased acidity in the ocean. U.S. desert and dry 

lands are likely to become hotter and drier, feeding a 

self-reinforcing cycle of invasive plants, fire, and erosion. In the future, these effects are likely to increase 

(Karl et al. 2009).

Coasts

Approximately one-third of the U.S. population lives 

in counties immediately bordering the nation’s ocean 

coasts. In addition to accommodating major cities, the 

coastal zone supports recreation, fishing, energy, industry, and critical transportation infrastructure. 

Coastal and ocean activities contribute more than one 

trillion dollars to the national gross domestic product 

(Karl et al. 2009).

Increasing vulnerability at the coast will result from 

extreme events and sea level rise, and also from population changes, building practices, beach management, 

increasing nitrogen runoff, and many other socioeconomic factors. Sea levels have been rising by 2–3 millimeters (0.078–0.117 inches) per year along most of 

the U.S. coast (Zervas 2001). However, due to the 

feedback loops of climate change, that rise is projected 

to accelerate in the coming decades. Accounting for 

local subsidence, coastal scientists are considering the 

possible impacts of a 0.9-meter (3-foot) rise in sea level 

(or more in some locations) over the next century (Titus et al. 2009; Karl et al. 2009).

Key concerns associated with these changes include 

land loss, increased flooding of low-lying coastal communities, coastal erosion, barrier island migration, 

wetland loss, and increased salinity of aquifers and 

estuaries, especially during droughts. Various health 

impacts, including those associated with population 

displacement, are among the secondary effects of these 

changes. This increasing societal vulnerability is leading some insurance companies to raise rates or deny 

property coverage to communities along the Gulf and 

Atlantic coasts (Mills 2005).

Sample u.s. Research, Assessments, 

and Activities Pertaining to 

Vulnerability, Impacts, and Adaptation

Many of the key U.S. vulnerabilities discussed above 

are being addressed across the government and within 

communities through specific programs at a variety of 

different geographic scales. Following is a sample 

cross-section of the programs being carried out by the 

United States at the international, federal, state, regional, and local levels to assess the impacts of and 

reduce vulnerability to climate change. A goal of the 

new U.S. Interagency Climate Change Adaptation 

Task Force is to create a coherent, comprehensive program of activities that allows synergies among these 

many and varied programs.

International Activities 

NASA, USAID, and NOAA Hubs 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are working to develop regional hubs around the world to apply remotely 

sensed information to development assistance. Based on 

the successful SERVIR (Regional Visualization and 

Monitoring System) hub in Central America, this activity will link available data streams to new applications, 

develop tools, and build local human and institutional 

capacity to use this information. These systems will sup-
Chapter 6 | Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation Measures 91

port decision making in a number of areas, including 

climate change, land management, urban planning, food 

security, agriculture, and disaster mitigation.

USAID Climate Change Program3

USAID, often in partnership with other agencies, leads 

a number of activities to help build developing country 

capacity to understand climate change and adapt to its 

impacts. This includes supporting innovative applications and tools for climate and weather observation, 

and developing guidance on how to build the resilience 

of projects designed to promote economic development. USAID works to make data and guidance readily 

accessible and useful for development decisions at the 

community, national, and regional levels. USAID also 

provides support for cutting-edge research to develop 

more climate change-resilient agricultural inputs, and 

provides capacity building in disaster preparedness and 

risk reduction. USAID’s approach places particular 

emphasis on partnerships with the private sector and on 

working with local and national authorities, communities, and nongovernmental organizations. 

Recent climate change adaptation projects supported 

by USAID include: 

 Community-based drought preparedness planning 

in Cambodia, East Timor, and Vietnam.

 An early-warning system to ensure that drought 

and other threats to the well-being of East African 

pastoralists’ free-ranging livestock can be detected 

and addressed in a timely manner.

 A three-year initiative to help vulnerable communities in the seven Zambezi river basin countries use 

conservation-based farming techniques, soil conservation, water-harvesting techniques, and reforestation to adapt to climate-related threats.

 Research into the development of heat-tolerant wheat 

and flood-tolerant rice varieties in South Asia, where 

farmers are already seeing the impacts of higher temperatures and more severe flooding on crop yields. 

 Community training to help farmers in Malawi diversify their livelihoods and adopt new agriculture 

conservation practices that reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and sequester carbon in the soil.

 A Collaborative Research Support Program that is 

identifying ways to build the resilience of Andean 

small-holder production systems and their capacity 

to adapt to climate change.

 Dissemination of micro-irrigation technologies, 

such as foot pumps, in Mali, to address rainfall variability and increase water use efficiency.

USAID recognizes that adapting to climate change 

requires a hierarchy of linked efforts. USAID is working to make Earth observation information readily 

accessible and applicable to development decisions, 

including developing innovative applications and appropriate tools, and communicating that information 

to stakeholders and decision makers. Through interaction with local partners and with new tools, USAID 

can better understand how environmental changes 

may affect sectors critical for development. Once 

those impacts are understood, stakeholders need to 

assess and agree on preferred adaptation options. 

Then, on-the-ground actions can be implemented to 

build the resilience of projects designed to promote 

economic development.

USAID is also supporting a three-year initiative implemented by the International Federation of Red 

Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the United 

Nations World Meteorological Organization, to help 

vulnerable communities in the seven Zambezi river 

basin countries use conservation-based farming techniques, soil conservation, water-harvesting techniques, 

and reforestation to adapt to climate-related threats.

Activities at Local to National Scales

USGCRP Assessments4

USGCRP, an interagency body of 13 agencies, has 

published a suite of 21 SAPs over the past three years 

(U.S. CCSP/GCRP 2006–2009). USGCRP is the 

focal point for the development of the detailed assessments referred to in this chapter. Each of the 21 reports focused on particular elements of climate change 

and U.S. vulnerabilities, and many assessment efforts of 

individual agencies are incorporated into these USGCRP 

assessments. In the spring of 2008, a technical scientific 

assessment was produced to provide an ongoing summary of the work (CENR 2008). In June 2009, the 

comprehensive national-scale GCCI assessment was 

released, which incorporated the results of all 21 SAPs 

and included a specific focus on adaptation information (Karl et al. 2009). The assessment is being discussed at dozens of local, regional, and national meetings and stakeholder forums, and is being built on to 

provide a foundation for more focused scientific information to support adaptation and decision making.

NASA Applied Sciences Program

This program benchmarks practical uses of NASAsponsored observations from Earth observation systems 

and predictions from Earth science models. NASA implements projects that carry forth this mission through 

partnerships with public, private, and academic organizations working toward developing innovative approaches for using Earth system science information to 

provide decision support that can be adapted in applications worldwide. This program focuses on applications 

of national priority, such as agriculture, water resources, 

and air quality, and expands and accelerates the use of 

knowledge, science, and technologies resulting from the 

NASA goal of improving predictions in the areas of 

weather, climate, and natural hazards.5

3 See http://www.usaid.gov/our_

work/environment/climate/. 

4 See http://www.globalchange.

gov/publications/reports. 

5 See http://science.hq.nasa.gov/

earth-sun/applications/index.html. 
92 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

EPA Global Change Research Program

EPA’s Global Change Research Program (GCRP) is 

an assessment-oriented program that emphasizes understanding the potential consequences of climate 

variability and change on U.S. human health, ecosystems, and socioeconomic systems. This program has 

four areas of emphasis: human health, air quality, water quality, and ecosystem health. In an attempt to 

capitalize on expertise in the academic community, a 

significant portion of EPA’s GCRP resources is dedicated to extramural research grants administered 

through the STAR (Science To Achieve Results) 

grants program, which supports science related to assessments of the consequences of global change and 

human dimensions research.6 Another sample of research and assessment is available in the form of the 

Sanctuaries Condition Reports published by NOAA’s 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 

manages marine areas in both nearshore and open 

ocean waters that range in size from less than 2.59 

square kilometers (1 square mile) to almost 362,600 

square kilometers (140,000 square miles). To study 

marine ecosystems and the human influences that 

affect them, in 2001 ONMS began to implement 

System-Wide Monitoring (SWiM). Part of SWiM 

includes the preparation of Condition Reports that 

summarize the resources in each sanctuary, pressures 

on those resources, the current condition and trends, 

and management responses to the pressures that 

threaten the integrity of the marine environment. Specifically, the reports include information on the status 

and trends of water quality, habitat, living resources, 

and maritime archaeological resources and the human 

activities that affect them. They also consider ways to 

observe and respond to climate-related changes in sea 

level, water temperature, ocean acidity, coral bleaching, invasive species, and diseases.7

USGS Climate Effects Science Network8

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Climate Effects 

Science Network (CESN) is coordinated through all 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) resource management bureaus. CESN integrates climate and environmental change data sets with conceptual and digital models across disciplines, including remote sensing, 

geography, geology, biology, and hydrology, to better 

understand the impacts of climate on natural resources, agriculture, and human populations on episodic to 

decadal and millennial time scales, local to global spatial scales, and weather to climate process scales. The 

goal of CESN is to develop a systems-level understanding of biogeochemical processes resulting from 

changes in climate, to link these changes to the sustainability of ecosystems, wildlife, subsistence cultures, 

and societal infrastructure, and to apply the knowledge gained for decision support. In 2008, USGS initiated pilot-integrated research in northern Alaska, 

where permafrost thaw and sea-ice melting are resulting in rapid and poorly understood changes to regional ecosystems. 

U.S. National Integrated Drought Information System 

More than a dozen U.S. federal agencies or offices collaborate in the U.S. National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) effort to provide risk and 

drought management information.6 Some of the agencies include NOAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOI, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Department of 

Energy. NIDIS was formally launched in 2006 and has 

significant milestones to increase capabilities in every 

year. It is designed to develop the leadership and networks to implement an integrated drought monitoring and forecasting system at federal, state, and local 

levels and to foster and support a research environment focusing on risk assessment, forecasting, and 

management. A key piece of the NIDIS activity will be 

an early-warning system for drought to provide accurate, timely, and integrated information. All of this 

information is incorporated into interactive systems, 

such as the Web portal, which provides not only timely access to the early-warning capabilities, but also a 

framework for public awareness and education about 

droughts.9

NSF Decision Making Under Uncertainty Centers10

Under the leadership of the U.S. National Science 

Foundation (NSF) five interdisciplinary research 

teams are studying important aspects of problems associated with understanding climate-related decisions 

under uncertainty. The increased knowledge generated 

by recent scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change and variability has led to a 

growing need to better understand how decision makers choose among alternative courses of action. These 

teams are expected to produce new insights of interest 

to the academic community, generate significant educational benefits, and develop new tools that will benefit decision makers and a range of stakeholders. Research centers are located at Arizona State, 

Carnegie-Mellon, and Columbia universities. Other 

interdisciplinary teams are conducting research at the 

University of Colorado at Boulder, and Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California.

USDA/NRCS National Water and Climate Center

The National Water and Climate Center (NWCC) 

leads the development and transfer of water and climate information and technology through natural 

resource planning support, data acquisition and management, technology innovation and transfer, partnerships, and joint ventures.11 The NWCC develops and 

manages key observation and monitoring networks 

called SNOTEL (SNOpack TELemetry) and SCAN 

6 See http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/

about_ov.cfm. 

7 See http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/

science/condition/welcome.html. 

8 See http://www.usgcrp.gov/

usgcrp/agencies/interior.htm. 

9 See http://www.drought.gov. 

10 See http://www.nsf.gov/news/

news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100447. 

11 See http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.

gov/. 
Chapter 6 | Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation Measures 93

(Soil Climate Analysis Network). These networks provide automated comprehensive snowpack, soil moisture, and related climate information designed to support natural resource assessments. They collect and 

disseminate continuous, standardized soil moisture 

and other climate data in publicly available databases 

and climate reports. Uses for these data include inputs 

to global circulation models, verifying and ground 

truthing satellite data, monitoring drought development, forecasting water supply, and predicting sustainability for cropping systems.

Regional Activities

NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and 

Assessments Program

One of the key questions NOAA faces is how to improve the link between climate sciences and society. The 

Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) 

program is helping to realign the nation’s climate research to better serve society. NOAA’s RISA program 

supports research that addresses complex climate-sensitive issues of concern to decision makers and policy 

planners at a regional level. RISA research team members are primarily based at universities, though some are 

based at government research facilities, nonprofit organizations, or private-sector entities. Research areas include the fisheries, water, wildfire, and agriculture sectors, coastal restoration, and climate-sensitive public 

health issues.12 The program currently supports eight 

regional centers. A new RISA initiative, the Southern 

Climate Impacts Planning Program, was initiated in 

2009 in the Gulf Coast region.13

NOAA Regional Climate Centers

NOAA’s six Regional Climate Centers (RCCs) are a 

federal-state cooperative effort designed to provide 

regional and local expertise and assistance to a wide 

range of customers.14 The RCCs are engaged in the 

timely production and delivery of useful climate data, 

information, and knowledge for decision makers and 

other users at local, state, regional, and national levels. 

The RCCs support NOAA’s efforts to provide operational climate services, while leveraging improvements 

in technology and collaborations with partners to expand quality data dissemination capabilities.

DOI Practitioner Development Program

In partnership with many stakeholders and several 

federal agencies (including NOAA, EPA, the Department of Defense [DOD], and USDA), the DOI 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has implemented the 

Basin Study Program, which will incorporate the latest 

science, engineering technology, climate models, and 

innovative approaches to water management in the 

western United States.15 The program will serve as a 

part of BOR’s Water Conservation Initiative and as a 

key element in implementing the Secure Water Act. 

To integrate climate change into water management 

activities and to help improve methods of water resources planning, these partners are working together 

to develop and provide a Climate Change Integration 

Technical Training Program for western water practitioners, planners, technical specialists, and decision 

makers. This effort also exposes practitioners to emerging methods as they become available. 

DOI Climate Change Response Centers

Under a new secretarial order, DOI has launched a 

coordinated strategy to address the current and future 

impacts of climate change on land, water, and other 

natural and cultural U.S. resources. A cornerstone of 

this strategy is the implementation of eight Climate 

Change Response Centers located across the country. 

A network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

will also work at landscape scales to foster partnerships 

and assess climate impacts on such issues as wildlife 

migration, invasive species, and wildfire risk. This 

2009 initiative will support and promote adaptation 

responses. 

State Activities

California Climate Change Center16

The California Climate Change Center is investigating the range of possible changes to the state’s climate 

and the likelihood and rate of progression of such 

changes.17 Using the results of this work, the Center is 

assessing the potential future economic and ecological 

consequences of climate change for California, and 

examining a range of impacts and adaptation options 

(e.g., agriculture and water resources), as well as mitigation strategies. The center manages a robust research 

program with a dynamic community of California 

researchers from various scientific disciplines and a 

worldwide network of peers collaborating on climate 

change issues of interest to California. 

Sample U.S. Assessment and 

Adaptation Activities in Specific

Sectors

The sample sector- and region-specific impact summaries and adaptation projects included in this section 

demonstrate the variety and scale of information and 

methods utilized within the United States. The examples are illustrative of key areas of investigation, and 

are not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all 

efforts across the nation.

Water Resources 

Working Toward a Drought-Resilient U.S. 

Southwest 

A NOAA RISA program based at the University of 

Arizona, titled the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS),18 is developing and utilizing new information on drought to increase societal resilience to 

this recurrent phenomenon. The impacts of U.S. 

drought during the last five to seven years have included 

12 See http://www.climate.noaa.

gov/cpo_pa/risa/. 

13 See http://www.

southernclimate.org. 

14 See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

oa/climate/regionalclimatecenters.

html. 

15 See http://www.usbr.gov/

WaterSMART/docs/Basin%20

Study%20Program.pdf. 

16 See http://www.doi.gov/

archive/climatechange/

SecOrder3289.pdf. 

17See http://www.climatechange.

ca.gov/research/index.html. 

18 See http://www.ispe.arizona.

edu/climas/. 
94 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

sustained and significant economic losses, significantly 

reduced reservoir levels, water emergencies, and widespread and severe wildfires. Creating a more droughtresilient society requires a fundamental shift from crisis 

management to risk management. Investigators studying the impacts of drought are studying the historical 

record, evolving demographics and population growth, 

water law, and ecosystem management. For example, 

investigators are working to develop methods to utilize 

seasonal climate and streamflow forecasts more effectively to mitigate the impact of drought on water supplies. It is expected that knowledge of this type will become even more valuable in the coming decades, if 

climate model projections of increasing aridity in continental interiors prove accurate. 

Developing Strategies for Improving Water 

Management

If the allocation of water is already a concern in many 

locations around the country, the added challenges of 

climate change pose increased risk and vulnerability 

for some of these locations. An interagency report, 

released in 2009 by DOI, DOD, and NOAA, explored strategies to improve water management by 

tracking, anticipating, and responding to climate 

change (Brekke et al. 2009). This report describes the 

existing and still needed science crucial to addressing 

the many impacts of climate change on water resource 

management. It provides adaptation and planning 

options for water resource practitioners. 

In addition, federally funded researchers are working 

with water and ecosystem managers as new insights and 

techniques become available, allowing incorporation of 

scientific data and information into near- and longterm planning. Interagency and partnership projects are 

occurring for the Colorado River, in the Columbia River Basin, and in California and many other locations.19

Evaluating Hydroclimatic Conditions in the Pacific 

Northwest 

The Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University 

of Washington is using emerging knowledge to help 

inform decision making related to changing hydroclimatic conditions in the Pacific Northwest. CIG is 

utilizing its hydrologic modeling and prediction capabilities to evaluate water resource issues, including the 

consequences of alternative water and hydroelectric 

power management strategies for salmon restoration 

efforts and the consequences of changing water demands and changes in land cover for regional water 

resources.20 CIG is one of seven similar RISA programs funded by NOAA’s Climate Program Office. 

These programs are designed to provide the nation 

with experience-based knowledge about how to develop climate services.21 They are an important element 

of the USGCRP’s efforts to support decision making 

on climate-related issues. 

Planning for Climate Change in New York City

New York City is an example of adaptation in the face 

of water resource concerns. The city’s Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP), which provides 

water for 9 million people in the New York City metropolitan area, is beginning to alter its planning to 

take into account the effects of climate change—sea 

level rise, higher temperatures, increases in extreme 

events, and changing precipitation patterns—on the 

city’s water systems. Examples of measures that have 

emerged from the comprehensive assessment and evaluation process include relocating critical control systems to higher floors in low-lying buildings or to higher ground, building flood walls, and modifying 

infrastructure design criteria. The DEP is also establishing a system for reporting the impacts of extreme 

weather on the city’s watershed and infrastructure 

(Karl et al. 2009). 

Assessing Groundwater Availability

The depletion of groundwater at a variety of scales and 

the compounding effects of recent droughts emphasize the need for an updated status on the availability 

of the nation’s groundwater resources. Assessments of 

the current state of the highest-stressed groundwater 

flow systems are necessary tools for characterizing the 

availability of groundwater. The USGS Groundwater 

Resources Program22 is taking advantage of the quantitative work previously conducted by the Regional 

Aquifer-System Analysis Program and information 

available from USGS, DOI (e.g., BOR, the National 

Park Service [NPS], Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM]) and other federal agencies (e.g., EPA and 

NOAA), states, tribes, and local governments to provide an updated quantitative assessment of groundwater 

availability in areas of critical importance. The assessments currently underway and continuing into 2010 

and beyond will (1) document the effects of human 

activities on water levels, groundwater storage, and 

discharge to streams and other surface-water bodies; 

(2) explore climate variability impacts on the regional 

water budget; and (3) evaluate the adequacy of data 

networks to assess impacts at a regional scale.

Developing a National-Scale View of Water Quality 

Impacts from Climate Change

EPA is using high-resolution simulations of future 

climate change over the contiguous United States 

from the North American Regional Climate Change 

Assessment Program and land-use scenarios from 

EPA’s Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios 

project to develop hydrologic and water quality 

change scenarios for 20 major drainage basins across 

the United States. These scenarios will be based on 

watershed simulations conducted with the HSPF 

(Hydrologic Simulation Program–Fortran) and 

SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) watershed 

models, and will focus on the response of stream flow, 

19 See, for example, http://pubs.

usgs.gov/circ/1331/Circ1331.pdf 

and http://wwa.colorado.edu/

colorado_river/.

20 See http://www.cses.

washington.edu/cig/res/hwr/hwr.

shtml. 

21 See http://www.climate.noaa.

gov/cpo_pa/risa/. 

22 See http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/

gwrp/.
Chapter 6 | Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation Measures 95

nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment to a 

range of projected changes in climate and land use.

Ecosystems 

Enhancing Ecosystem Management Strategies 

The extent to which ecosystem conditions will be affected in the future will depend on the magnitude of 

climate change, the degree of sensitivity of the ecosystem to that change, the availability of adaptation options for effective ecosystem management, and the 

willingness to deploy those options. USGCRP addressed management strategies for facilitating ecosystem adaptation to climate variability and change in 

several state-of-the-art reports focused on federal lands 

(Baron et al. 2008; Backlund et al. 2008; Fagre et al. 

2009). The goal of these adaptation strategies is to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes through activities 

that increase the resilience of ecological systems to 

climate change, and to take advantage of positive outcomes (Turner et al. 2003; Tompkins and Adger 

2004; Scheffer et al. 2001; Baron et al. 2008). Because 

some changes in the climate system are likely to persist 

into the future regardless of emissions reduction, adaptation is an essential response for future protection 

of climate-sensitive ecosystems.

Adaptation options for enhancing ecosystem resilience include changes in processes, practices, or structures to reduce anticipated damages or enhance beneficial responses associated with climate variability and 

change. In some cases, opportunities for adaptation 

offer stakeholders multiple beneficial outcomes, such 

as the addition of riparian buffer strips that, for example, manage pollution loadings from agricultural land 

into rivers or provide a protective barrier to increases 

in both pollution and sediment loadings that may be 

associated with future climate or other environmental 

change (Baron et al. 2008). 

Identifying Necessary Information and Tools

A range of adaptation options is possible for many 

ecosystems, but a lack of information or resources may 

impede successful implementation. In some cases, 

managers may not have the knowledge or information 

they need to address climate change impacts. In other 

instances, managers may understand the issues and 

have the relevant information but lack resources to 

implement adaptation options. Furthermore, even 

with improvement in the knowledge and communication of available and emerging adaptation strategies, 

the feasibility and effectiveness of adaptation will depend on the adaptive capacity of the ecological system 

or social entity (Baron et al. 2008). 

Thus, increasing adaptive capacity will require information and tools that aid in (1) understanding the 

combined effects on ecosystems of climate changes 

and non-climate stressors, and consequent implications for achieving specific management goals; 

(2) applying existing management options or developing new adaptation approaches that reduce the risk of 

negative outcomes; and (3) understanding the opportunities and barriers that affect successful implementation of management strategies to address climate 

change impacts (Baron et al. 2008).

Reducing the Frequency and Severity of Wildfires 

in the West 

In the western United States, invasive annual grasses 

(e.g., cheatgrass) are increasing rapidly throughout the 

region. These fire-tolerant species increase fire frequency, eliminating native plants, wildlife and livestock forage, and habitat. USGS is providing science 

in support of decision making, including (1) mapping 

annual plant invasions (ground, aerial, satellite); (2) 

developing native plant restoration protocols; and (3) 

mapping historic fires to understand causes.23 BLM, 

which is responsible for managing much of the federal 

land affected by these issues, is developing adaptation 

plans to restore native plant communities, ensure the 

necessary presence of pollinators, reduce the frequency 

and severity of wildfire, and “pre-adapt” these lands 

for climate change—planting communities in anticipation of local changes due to a changing climate. Specifically, BLM and its partners are conducting a natural habitat restoration effort for millions of acres in 

the Great Basin of Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, California, 

and Utah, and they are working with commercial seed 

producers to grow native seed for restoration.24

Public Health 

Addressing Heat-Related Health Threats

Critical U.S. government information to support action to reduce the health impacts of excessive heat days 

would be routinely used during heat waves in many U.S. 

cities. This information has applicability under projected increases in the number of such events, due to climate change. For example, NOAA’s National Weather 

Service provides temperature and heat index information for the determination of “heat warnings.” 

During heat waves in Philadelphia, a heat alert is issued and news organizations are provided with tips on 

how vulnerable people can protect themselves. The 

health department and thousands of block captains 

check on elderly residents, and public cooling places 

extend their hours. The city also operates a “heatline” 

with nurses ready to assist callers with heat-related 

health problems. In addition, the Cool Homes program offers assistance to elderly, low-income residents 

to install roof insulation and cool surfaces to save energy and lower indoor temperatures. Philadelphia’s 

system is estimated to have saved 117 lives in its first 

three years of operation (Karl et al. 2009).

As another example, EPA and other federal agencies 

responsible for addressing excessive heat events 

(EHEs) developed a guidebook that provides interest23 See http://www.usgs.gov/

hazards/wildfires/. 

24 See http://www.blm.gov/id/st/

en/prog/gbri.html.
96 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

ed public health officials with information on the risks 

of and impacts from EHEs, including guidance on 

EHE forecasting and identification (U.S. EPA/OAP 

2006a). The guidebook also provides a menu of notification and response actions to consider when developing or enhancing a local EHE program based in part 

upon a review of various EHE response programs.

Developing Integrated Health Assessment 

Frameworks

EPA is also undertaking important work assessing the 

relationships between climate change and human 

health. This assessment work goes beyond basic epidemiological research to develop integrated health assessment frameworks that consider the effects of multiple stresses, their interactions, and human adaptive 

responses. Along with health sector assessments, conducted in conjunction with the USGCRP national 

assessment process, there are research and assessment 

activities focused on the consequences of global 

change on weather-related morbidity and vector- and 

water-borne diseases. In addition, the results from the 

USGCRP air quality assessments will be used to evaluate health consequences.25

Working Internationally to Fight Malaria

Internationally, NOAA, EPA, and NSF have collaborated to fund efforts, in partnership with developing 

country colleagues, to identify relationships between 

malaria and climate and to develop an early-warning 

system for malaria.26 Clear relationships were identified and significant capacity was built, including 

through stakeholder input, to develop early-warning 

systems.

Coasts 

Adapting to Rising Sea Levels Along the East Coast

In an example from the USGCRP assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea level rise (Titus et al. 2009), 

adaption options for coastal wetland ecosystems were 

outlined. Wetlands are rich ecosystems that provide 

protection from coastal storms as well as a number of 

other resources and services (Karl et al. 2009). To 

adapt to rising sea level without damaging vulnerable 

ecosystems through the implementation of “hard armoring” of the shorelines (e.g., sea walls), a system of 

“rolling easements” for property and ecosystems to 

migrate inland as the sea rises could be implemented. 

For example, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, hard 

armoring of the shoreline is prohibited in some areas 

to allow the migration of ecosystems. Maryland has 

recently enacted a Living Shoreline Protection Act,27

which requires its Department of the Environment to 

create maps delineating the areas where hard structures will be allowed or prohibited (Karl et al. 2009).

Preparing for Sea Level Rise

In recognition of significant potential impacts from 

climate change, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1972 states: “Because global warming may result in a 

substantial sea-level rise with serious adverse effects in 

the coastal zone, coastal states must anticipate and 

plan for such an occurrence” (16 U.S.C. [U.S. Code] § 

1451).28 Property owners and federal, state, and local 

governments are already starting to take measures to 

prepare for the consequences of rising sea level. Most 

coastal states are working with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers to place sand on their beaches to offset 

shore erosion. Property owners are elevating existing 

structures in many low-lying areas, to provide resilience to episodic storms as well as long-term change. 

Shoreline erosion along estuaries has led many property owners to defend their back yards by erecting 

shore protection structures, such as bulkheads, which 

eliminate the intertidal wetlands and beaches that 

would otherwise be found between the water and the 

dry land. 

Several states have adopted policies to ensure that 

beaches, dunes, or wetlands are able to migrate inland 

as sea level rises. Some states prohibit new houses in 

areas likely to be eroded in the next 30–60 years (e.g., 

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission). 

Concerned about the need to protect both natural 

shores and private property rights, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas have 

implemented some version of “rolling easements,” in 

which people are allowed to build, but only on the 

condition that they will remove the structure if and 

when it is threatened by an advancing shoreline 

(McCarthy et al. 2001; Titus et al. 2009).

Addressing Climate’s Impacts on Estuaries

EPA has created the Climate Ready Estuaries program 

to help address climate change in coastal areas. This 

effort is helping the National Estuary Programs and 

other coastal managers develop the technical capacity 

to assess climate change vulnerabilities, engage and 

educate local stakeholders, and develop and implement adaptation strategies.29

Developing Assessments and Adaptation Plans

DOI through USGS is conducting a national risk assessment due to future sea level rise for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. This includes 

work with NPS for coastal park units. In parallel, DOI 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is 

working with partners to create and implement adaptation plans for specific coastal wildlife refuges. In 

2008, FWS created an adaptation plan with The Nature Conservancy and Duke Energy. Solutions articulated in the plan include (1) restore wetland hydrology: restore damage caused by artificial ditches; (2) 

reforest and restore shoreline: protect and restore existing natural coastal and inland habitat to facilitate 

species migration as sea level rises; (3) restore oyster 

reefs: restore oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound to protect 

shorelines from storms and rising seas;30 and (4) mea25 See http://cfpub.epa.

gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.

cfm?deid=203459. 

26 See http://portal.iri.columbia.

edu/portal/server.pt/gateway/

PTARGS_0_0_4621_223_0_43/

http%3B/portal.iri.columbia.

edu%3B9086/irips/projectview.

jsp?id=31 and http://www.iwmi.

cgiar.org/health/malaria/projects.

htm#climatev. 

27 See http://mlis.state.

md.us/2008rs/chapters_noln/

Ch_304_hb0973E.pdf. 

28 See http://coastalmanagement.

noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html. 

29 See http://www.epa.gov/cre. 

30 See http://www.dot.gov/

climate. 
Chapter 6 | Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation Measures 97

sure and monitor carbon sequestration: monitor the 

effects of management on soil carbon.

Developing Data for Informed Decision Making

Many agencies and organizations are developing data 

that can provide insights regarding the implications of 

sea level rise. Sample data include elevation models 

and data sets; geographic information systems; ecosystem, fish, and wetlands impact information; tidal 

gauge data; economic and population data; insurance 

information; storm surge databases; and hurricane 

research. 

Transportation 

The United States is working to provide better information to decision makers across the sector about 

what future climate variability and change could mean 

for existing and planned infrastructure and about the 

set of potential response strategies that might be implemented to adapt to future climate. 

Incorporating Climate Change and Variability into 

Decision Making

DOT’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting is dedicated to fostering awareness of 

the potential links between transportation and global 

climate change, and to formulating policy options to 

deal with the challenges posed by climate change and 

variability.18 DOT research projects are investigating 

the potential impacts of climate variability and change 

on transportation infrastructure and its operation, 

and provide guidance as to how transportation planners and decision makers may incorporate this information into transportation planning decisions to ensure a reliable and robust future transportation 

network.

“Climate Proofing” Roads

An example of adaption measures undertaken in response to climate threats to transportation includes an 

effort to “climate proof” a road on the island of Kosrae 

in the U.S.-affiliated Federated States of Micronesia. 

In response to projections of increased heavy downpours and sea level rise, authorities placed the road 

higher and introduced improved drainage systems. 

The additional costs to incorporating these measures 

were projected to be offset by the reduced repair and 

maintenance costs after 15 years (Karl et al. 2009). 

Energy 

Prospects for adaptation to climate change effects by 

energy providers, energy users, and society at large are 

speculative, in part because of the lack of research to 

date, although the potentials are considerable and several examples exist of early adaptation planning. It is 

possible that the greatest challenges would be in connection with possible increases in the intensity of extreme weather events and possible significant changes 

in regional water supply regimes. But adaptation prospects depend considerably on the availability of information about possible climate change effects to inform 

decisions about adaptive management, along with 

technological change in the longer term. 

One example of addressing energy vulnerabilities 

along the Gulf Coast in association with the oil and 

gas industry can be found in Port Fourchon, Louisiana. The port supports 75 percent of deepwater oil 

and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, and its role 

is increasing. The oil imported (1 million barrels/day) 

and produced (300,000 barrels/day) through Port 

Fourchon is linked to 50 percent of the refining capacity of the nation. Only one road, Highway 1, connects 

Port Fourchon with the nation, and it transports machinery, supplies, and workers to the port. Responding 

to concerns about storm surge and flooding, related in 

part to climate change and rising sea levels, Louisiana 

is upgrading Highway 1 and raising it to about the 

500-year flood level, as well as building higher bridges 

over Bayou LaFourche and the Boudreaux Canal 

(Karl et al. 2009; Savonis et al. 2008).
Financial Resources 

and Technology Transfer

7

C

limate change is a global challenge that must be 

addressed in the context of a dynamic global 

economy. Since the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was 

negotiated, patterns of economic growth and emissions in the developed and developing world have 

shifted substantially. It is now clearer than ever that 

no single country or group of countries can solve the 

threat of climate change alone, and all countries must 

take actions to alter their emission trajectories commensurate with the demands of science and consistent 

with their specific capabilities and circumstances.

In this context, the United States recognizes that 

poorer developing countries have urgent and growing 

needs for financial and technical support to adapt to 

the effects of climate change and to promote lowemissions development pathways. As part of our commitment to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the 

United States is working with other developed countries to provide “fast-start” climate finance, approaching $30 billion during 2010–2012, to help meet the 

adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. We are also committed to a leadership role in 

addressing the long-term climate finance challenge. 

On December 16, 2009, President Obama signed the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, which more 

than tripled climate-related foreign assistance from 

the previous fiscal year (FY), to over $1 billion.

The FY 2010 enacted budget also includes a dramatic 

increase for adaptation assistance, including a first-ever 

U.S. contribution of $50 million to the United Nations 
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 99

Least Developed Country Fund (LDCF) and Special 

Climate Change Fund (SCCF). It also includes $375 

million for the World Bank-managed Climate Investment Funds, and a substantial increase in funding for 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 

climate programs. This will lead to scaled-up cooperation in many parts of the world, including Africa and 

Asia and among the small island states. 

President Obama has also taken major steps to promote new international technology cooperation on 

climate and energy issues with specific regions and 

countries. In June 2009, the President announced a 

new Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas 

to promote the diffusion of clean energy technologies 

across the Western Hemisphere. In July 2009, leaders 

of the 17 major economies in the Major Economies 

Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) announced the 

establishment of a Global Partnership to speed clean 

energy technology deployment. They are also working 

to develop and implement action plans for eight key 

technologies. The United States has accelerated collaboration with key partners, such as China, India, the 

European Union, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, 

to combat climate change, coordinate clean energy research and development, and support efforts to achieve 

a successful agreement under the UNFCCC. 

Most recently, the United States announced in Copenhagen that it would ramp up U.S. climate financing to ensure a fast start to post-Copenhagen efforts, 

contributing its share of developed country financing 

approaching $30 billion by 2010, and working with 

other Parties to the UNFCCC to mobilize $100 billion globally by 2020 for countries in need, from various public- and private-sector sources, given the existence of robust mitigation efforts by all key Parties. As 

part of that larger effort, the United States pledged $1 

billion through 2012 to reduce emissions from deforestation, land degradation, and other activities, as part 

of a multilateral donor effort of $3.5 billion. Also as 

part of the broader multiyear, multidonor effort, the 

United States pledged $85 million toward the Climate 

Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative 

(Climate REDI), which will channel a total of $350 

million to fund programs over five years.

This chapter describes first the general roles of U.S. 

government agencies in climate change financial and 

technical assistance, and then ongoing programs and 

partnerships that involve significant U.S. government 

resources and investments. The latter are broken out 

further into cross-cutting initiatives, mitigation and 

forests, vunerability and adaptation, trade and development assistance, and private-sector assistance. Tables 7-1 through 7-3 present U.S. financial contributions to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and 

multilateral institutions in support of climate change 

programs and activities. Table 7-5 at the end of this 

chapter presents U.S. financial contributions related 

to U.S. implementation of the UNFCCC. The United States expects that a transition to a larger and more 

robust foreign assistance program will include substantial new efforts to assist countries in their efforts 

to address climate change in FY 2010. 

U.S. Financial and Technical 

Assistance by agency

U.S. government agencies provide developing and 

transition countries with finance and technical assistance for low-carbon and climate-resilient development. These agencies facilitate the transfer of technologies for mitigation, adaptation, capacity building, and 

research through official assistance, export credits, 

project financing, risk guarantees, and insurance to 

U.S. companies, as well as credit enhancements for 

host-country financial institutions.

U.S. Agency for International Development

As the foreign assistance arm of the U.S. government, 

USAID works in the areas of agriculture, the environment, economic growth, democracy and governance, 

conflict prevention, education, health, global partnerships, and humanitarian assistance in more than 100 

countries. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., 

USAID provides assistance in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia 

and the Near East, Latin America and the Caribbean, 

and Europe and Eurasia. USAID’s strength is its field 

offices in many regions of the world. In addition to 

partnering with other U.S. government agencies, the 

agency partners with private voluntary organizations, 

indigenous organizations, universities, American businesses, international agencies, and other governments.

Table 7-1 U.S. Financial Contributions to the Global Environment Facility for Climate Change Activities: 

2003–2010 (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

During fiscal years 2003–2010, the United States allocated $242 million for Global Environment Facility programs related to climate 

change.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

56 32 24 26 26 26 26 26 242

Note: Since 2004, funding estimates represent the budget authority available to incur obligations, and not necessarily the amount of funds outlayed or spent. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget.
100 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Table 7-2 Annual U.S. Financial Contributions to Multilateral Institutions (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

The U.S. government provides direct funding to multilateral institutions and programs in support of sustainable economic development 

and poverty alleviation. Although in many cases a portion of this funding supports climate change activities, it is not currently possible to 

identify that amount. Therefore, this table represents total U.S. government contributions to these multilateral development institutions 

and funds, including amounts not directly attributable to climate change activities. Table 7-3 presents U.S. funding to multilateral 

programs that can be directly attributed to climate change activities.

Institutions, Funds, and Programs 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

World Bank Group 843.200 941.800 940.500 942.300 1,115.000

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

International Development Association 843.200 940.500 940.500 942.300 1,115.000

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency 0.000 1.300 0.000 0.000 0.000

International Finance Corporation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Other Multilateral Institutions, Funds, and Programs

Inter-American Investment Corporation 0.000 1.700 0.000 0.000

Inter-American Development Bank – Multilateral Investment 

Fund 10.900 1.700 1.700 24.800 25.000

Asian Development Bank 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Asian Development Fund 99.200 99.000 99.000 74.500 105.000

African Development Bank 4.100 3.600 3.600 2.000 0.800

African Development Fund 105.200 134.300 134.300 134.600 150.000

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 35.100 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Global Environment Facility3 36.000 36.000 26.000 26.000 26.000

International Fund for Agricultural Development 14.900 14.900 14.900 17.900 18.000

North American Development Bank 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

United Nations Development Programme2 108.128 110.000 108.900 97.365 100.000

United Nations Environment Programme2 10.912 10.262 10.159 10.415 10.500

UNFCCC Supplementary Fund (included under IPCC/ 

UNFCCC, below) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Multilateral Scientific, Technological, and Training Programs 

OAS Development Assistance Programs1 4.861 4.750 4.702 5.455 5.500

United Nations World Food Programme 1,173.720 1,123.113 1,183.235 2,076.430

UN Development Fund for Women & UNIFEM Trust Fund2 2.976 4.750 4.703 5.356 6.000

World Trade Organization Technical Assistance1,2 0.992 0.950 0.940 0.942 0.950

International Civil Aviation Organization1,2 0.992 0.950 0.940 0.942 0.950

Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund2 33.381 32.185 34.729 30.413 32.797

International Conservation Programs2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/UNFCCC2 6.349 5.950 5.891 6.447 7.000

International Contributions for Scientific, Educational, and 

Cultural Activities1 6.789 7.000 6930 6.447 9.000

World Meteorological Organization Voluntary Co-operation 

Programme1,2 1.984 1.900 1.881 1.885 1.900

Center for Human Settlements2 0.149 0.150 0.149 0.992 2.000

1 These international organizations also receive assessed contributions through the Contributions to International Organizations account.

2

 Voluntary contributions from International organizations and programs.

3

 These numbers reflect fiscal year funding—i.e. "2005" funding is FY 2005 funding. The U.S. fiscal year begins October 1st of the preceding year and ends on September 30th.

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; OAS = Organization of American States; UN = United Nations; UNFCCC = United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change; UNIFEM = United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Sources: U.S. Department of State (http://www.state.gov/), U.S. Department of the Treasury (http://www.ustreas.gov/), UN World Food Programme (http://www.wfp.org/node/7359). 

 

The types of assistance USAID provides include technical assistance and capacity building, training and scholarships, food aid and disaster relief, infrastructure construction, small-enterprise loans, budget support, enterprise 

funds, and credit guarantees. USAID plays a key leadership role in delivering climate change-related assistance to 

developing and transition countries through its Global 

Climate Change Program. The program is active in more 

than 40 developing and transition countries, integrating 

climate change mitigation and adaptation into a broad 

range of development assistance activities. 
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 101

Table 7-3 Multilateral Programs Receiving U.S. Funding for Climate Change Programs and Activities: 

2005–2009 (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

During 2005–2009, the United States provided funding to three multilateral programs specifically for programs and activities related to 

climate change. 

Multilateral Programs 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund 21.328 21.500 21.285 18.846 21.000

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/UNFCCC 6.349 5.950 5.891 6.447 7.000

International Contributions for Scientific, Educational, and 

Cultural Activities 5.952 6.000 5.940 5.455 8.000

UNFCCC = United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Source: U.S. Department of State (http://www.state.gov/).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

designs and implements innovative programs on a 

variety of international environmental challenges, including efforts to make transportation cleaner, reduce 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and improve local 

air quality. As a global leader in methane mitigation, 

EPA spearheads the Methane to Markets Partnership, 

an international effort that promotes methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. EPA is also working through international partnerships to retrofit diesel engines (Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles); 

bring energy efficiency labeling, like ENERGY STAR, 

to other countries; improve national GHG inventories; and reduce the impacts of buildings and vehicles 

on the environment.

U.S. Department of Energy

In addition to providing funding support for such 

interagency activities as the Climate Change Technology Program, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

works with numerous foreign governments and institutions to promote dissemination of energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and clean energy technologies and 

practices. Since the 2006 U.S. Climate Action Report, 

DOE has enhanced its international engagement on 

technology transfer through such efforts as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and the 

MEF. DOE is participating in the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation and the 

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 

and is working through the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) to reduce the climate change impacts of 

biofuel development. DOE has chaired the Climate 

Technology Initiative (CTI) that serves the UNFCCC, and is actively involved in the Private Financing 

Advisory Network (PFAN), which is seeking and 

finding opportunities for private entities to invest in 

clean energy projects in developing countries. 

U.S. Department of State

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) coordinates 

bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts related to 

climate change, including the U.S. presence at the international climate negotiations hosted by the United 

Nations. DOS also deploys financial resources in support of key multilateral and bilateral priorities in adaptation, clean energy, and forestry and land use. 

DOS is responsible for U.S. government commitments to the LDCF and SCCF. These multilateral 

funds provide financing to developing countries to 

help them adapt to the impacts of climate change, 

with a specific focus on assisting the most urgent adaptation needs of least developed countries. In FY 2010, 

DOS will also invest funds in pilot approaches that 

better integrate climate change objectives into other 

U.S. government development activities.

DOS, in coordination with other agencies, also funds 

clean energy programs in support of strategic bilateral 

diplomatic partnerships as well as multilateral efforts. 

For example, working with DOE, DOS supports the 

MEF, which provides an avenue for supporting lowcarbon technology projects and programs of interest 

to key emerging economies, including China, India, 

Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia. DOS 

funds, in conjunction with EPA technical assistance, 

also support the Methane to Markets Partnership.

In forestry and land use, DOS supports the World 

Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, to help developing countries measure forest carbon stocks and 

design deforestation emission reduction strategies. In 

FY 2010, DOS will also invest funds to support capacity building for reducing emissions from deforestation 

and degradation (REDD+) projects in key forested 

developing countries.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a broad array of technical and financial assistance 

to help countries carry out agriculture- and forest-sector 

activities that support their efforts to mitigate or adapt 

to the impacts of climate change. USDA activities are 

coordinated through the Foreign Agricultural Service 

and and the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS's) International Program and draw on the technical capabilities 

of USDA’s research and conservation programs. 

Strong partnerships with land grant universities, environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 

and the private sector make this work integrated and 

comprehensive. 
102 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Specific activities include developing methods and protocols for measuring GHG emissions from agricultural 

sources, and estimating carbon fluxes from forest and 

agricultural systems; designing and implementing agriculture- and forest-sector components of national 

GHG inventories; reducing GHG emissions through 

improved agricultural practices; increasing carbon sequestration through improved forest management (including forest conservation, sustainable forestry, and 

agroforestry); and encouraging sustainable and renewable bioenergy technology and use. In addition, USDA 

provides technical assistance to the USAID missions 

and host governments to incorporate climate change 

strategies into country plans and carry out country-led 

projects to adapt to and mitigate the effects of global 

climate change. 

The USDA Cochran and Borlaug Fellowship programs now offer training in areas related to global climate change, in response to country requests. In 2008, 

USFS completed a multiyear, multimillion-dollar program funded by USAID, to integrate the Incident 

Command System (ICS) into India’s emergency response procedures, improving the country’s ability to 

effectively coordinate and respond to large-scale climate-related disasters. A similar program was also 

completed in Sri Lanka. In recent years, cooperation 

has also occurred between USFS and partners in Mexico and China on technologies and methods related to 

forest carbon inventories. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) advances scientific knowledge by observing 

the Earth system from space; assimilating new observations into climate, weather, and other Earth system 

models; and developing new technologies, systems, 

and capabilities for its observations, including those 

with the potential to improve future operational systems managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and others. NASA 

is a major participant in the U.S. Global Change Research Program and in U.S. activities to support the 

Group on Earth Observations (GEO). NASA’s Earth 

observation data are openly available to all nations, 

organizations, and individuals, and the agency has 

many active partnerships with U.S. and international 

agencies to facilitate the use of its data in research and 

operational applications.

U.S. Department of Commerce

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) contributes to developing scientific data on climate change 

and facilitates the development and deployment of 

technology to mitigate and address the effects of climate change through its various agencies: 

 The Patent and Trademark Office protects intellectual 

property rights that enable technological innovation.

 The National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration provide research into 

developing a smart-grid infrastructure. 

 The Economic and Statistics Administration works 

on identifying and quantifying “green jobs.” 

 The International Trade Administration promotes 

the global deployment of U.S. climate mitigation 

technologies.

 The Economic Development Administration 

(EDA) works to help U.S. communities develop 

sustainable economic development plans, projects, 

and activities. EDA’s Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund supports communities as 

they develop green projects, processes, and functions, helping to create new green jobs while simultaneously reducing global GHG emissions.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA, which is a DOC agency, plays a particularly 

critical role in international climate activities. NOAA 

provides weather, water, and climate services; manages 

and protects fisheries and sensitive marine ecosystems; 

conducts atmospheric, climate, and ecosystem research; promotes efficient and environmentally safe 

commerce and transportation; supports emergency 

response; and provides vital information in support of 

decision making. NOAA’s climate mission is to: “Understand and describe climate variability and change 

to enhance society’s ability to plan and respond.” 

NOAA’s long-term climate efforts are designed to 

develop and deliver a predictive understanding of variability and change in the global climate system, and to 

advance the application of this information for decision making in climate-sensitive sectors through a 

suite of research, observations and modeling, and application and assessment activities.

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Established in January 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a U.S. government corporation that works with some of the poorest countries in the world to reduce poverty through 

sustainable economic growth. MCC’s innovative development assistance is based on the principle that aid 

is most effective when it reinforces good governance, 

economic freedom, and investments in people. MCC 

recognizes that alleviating global poverty requires urgent attention to climate change and responsible environmental stewardship, and is committed to helping 

partner countries integrate climate change and other 

environmental and social considerations into their 

poverty reduction programs. 

To date, MCC has signed grant agreements with 20 

countries totaling nearly $7.2 billion in assistance. 

Many of these compacts include funding for projects 
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 103

designed to help partner countries improve natural 

resource management, strengthen institutional capacity, and pursue lower-carbon growth strategies. For 

instance, in El Salvador, MCC is funding a $67-million community development project that includes 

approximately $1 million for the installation of 450 

solar panel systems to serve more than 2,000 poor and 

isolated households in the country’s northern zone, 

and the development of watershed management plans 

to promote water conservation as part of a broader 

water supply and sanitation program. And in the Republic of Moldova, MCC is providing $2 million in 

assistance to promote improved watershed management as part of a larger agriculture and irrigation development program, which will contribute to climate 

change adaptation and increased food security. 

Looking ahead, MCC anticipates increasing opportunities to help developing countries incorporate climate 

change and other environmental issues into their poverty reduction programs. Future compact partners—

such as Jordan, Malawi, Zambia, the Philippines, and 

Indonesia—face cross-cutting environmental challenges, like water scarcity, deforestation, and biodiversity loss, and are particularly vulnerable to climate 

risks, such as droughts and extreme weather events. 

MCC is actively working with these countries, as with 

all of its partners, to help them adapt to and mitigate 

these risks. Moreover, MCC is committed to working 

closely with other donors to harmonize efforts to integrate climate change and natural resource management into development assistance.

Major U.S. cross-cutting Initiatives

Several major U.S. initiatives that cut across agencies 

and sectors provide technology transfer and financial 

assistance in support of climate change objectives.

USAID Global Change Program 

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton 

noted that USAID has for years been “a leader in advancing climate, clean energy, and conservation activities in the developing world, drawing the clear and 

important link between solving the climate problem 

and promoting sustainable development globally.”1

Since 1991, USAID has spent over $3 billion on projects and programs aimed at mitigating climate change 

and helping vulnerable communities build their capacity and resilience, while simultaneously meeting development objectives in the energy and water sectors, 

urban areas, forest conservation, agriculture, and disaster assistance. USAID is committed to further bolstering its efforts in this area, in recognition of the importance of global low-carbon growth and the 

increasingly urgent adaptation and resilience needs of 

vulnerable developing countries. USAID will continue to support and augment programs to promote the 

transfer of clean energy technologies, provide tools to 

measure and reduce GHG emissions, deploy tools for 

Earth observation and early-warning systems, facilitate 

carbon management through improved land use, and 

support climate vulnerability assessments and initiatives to help countries and communities increase their 

adaptive capacity. 

World Bank Climate Investment Funds

On July 1, 2008, the World Bank Board of Executive 

Directors formally approved the creation of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). On September 26, 

2008, donors gathered to pledge over U.S. $6.1 billion. 

The CIFs are hosted by the World Bank, but have 

separate, innovative governance structures that give 

developed and developing countries equal voice and 

representation, creating a consensus-based decisionmaking model. The World Bank implements the CIF 

jointly with the Regional Development Banks (the 

Africa Development Bank, the Asian Develpment 

Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development 

Bank). The CIFs were established through an inclusive 

and consultative process in support of the Bali Action 

Plan. They are designed on the basis of consultations 

with potential donors and recipients, the United Nations (UN) system, the GEF, civil society organizations, and the private sector. These funds will be used 

to pilot new approaches to governance, and address 

new areas of common interest, such as reducing emissions from deforestation and increasing resilience to 

climate change impacts. 

Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative

Early in 2009, President Obama joined fellow Group 

of Eight (G8) leaders in committing a collective $20 

billion to jump-start a new, comprehensive approach 

to combating global hunger. Through the Global 

Hunger and Food Security Initiative, the United 

States is focusing on agricultural-led growth to raise 

the incomes of the poor and increase the availability of 

food, while providing support to strengthen the capacity of countries to anticipate and prevent hunger-related 

emergencies. This commitment is particularly critical 

in the context of rapidly changing climate. As stated 

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

in its Fourth Assessment Report, the increased frequency of extreme climatic events, such as droughts 

and floods, will negatively affect global agricultural 

production, even beyond the impacts of increasing 

temperatures alone (IPCC 2007). 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

The United States is a founding member of the intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO), 

which is coordinating efforts to build the Global Earth 

Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) on the basis 

of a 10-Year Implementation Plan for 2005–2015 

(GEO 2005). The purposes of GEOSS are to achieve 

comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained observa1

 January 26, 2009. Announcement 

of appointment of Special Envoy 

on Climate Change Todd Stern. 

See http://www.state.gov/

secretary/rm/2009a/01/115409.

htm.
104 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

tions of the Earth system; improve monitoring and 

predictions; and increase understanding of Earth processes, especially those related to weather, climate, energy, water, agriculture, disasters, health, biodiversity, 

and ecosystems. The emerging public infrastructure 

connects a diverse and growing array of instruments 

and systems, including the Global Climate Observing 

System, for monitoring and forecasting changes in the 

global environment. This “system of systems” supports 

policymakers, resource managers, science researchers, 

and many other experts and decision makers. For example, an umbrella framework known as “GEOSS in 

the Americas” has resulted in significant increases in 

the availability and use of environmental data and new 

information tools in Central and South America and 

the Caribbean, particularly for coastal zone management, hurricanes and flooding, air quality, water, and 

agricultural management.

U.S. Mitigation Programs, Excluding 

Forest Programs

Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate 

The MEF brings together 17 developed and developing economies to engage in a meaningful dialogue on 

clean energy technology and the need to secure a 

broad international agreement to combat climate 

change. President Obama chaired a meeting of the 

leaders of the MEF partners in July 2009, and the 

group underscored its commitment to continue to 

work together to strengthen the world’s ability to 

combat climate change and to facilitate agreement at 

the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC 

(COP-15) in Copenhagen in December 2009. The 

group agreed to establish a Global Partnership to drive 

development and deployment of eight key transformational low-carbon technologies: advanced vehicles; 

bio-energy; carbon capture, use, and storage; energy 

efficiency (including buildings and industrial processes); high-efficiency and lower-emission coal technologies; smart grids; solar energy; and wind energy. Partners created action plans by late 2009 to seek to 

accelerate development and deployment of these technologies, and it is anticipated that MEF partners as 

well as other interested countries will subsequently 

cooperate on the implementation of the activities 

identified in the action plans.

Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean 

Development and Climate

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development 

and Climate (APP) is an effort by Australia, Canada, 

China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the 

United States to accelerate the development and commercialization of clean energy technologies and practices.2

 Partner countries work together and with their private sectors to meet energy security, national air 

pollution reduction, and climate change goals in ways 

that promote sustainable economic growth and poverty 

reduction. Using a sectoral approach that breaks climate and clean development challenges into more manageable task forces (e.g., cleaner fossil energy, renewable 

energy and distributed generation, power generation 

and transmission, steel, aluminum, cement, coal mining, and buildings and appliances) helps APP Partners 

take advantage of readily available opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. 

In addition to such targeted, immediate actions, a sectoral focus enables APP Partners to lay the foundations for long-term market transformation. The Partnership has endorsed 175 individual cooperative 

activities, including 22 flagship projects that exemplify 

the Partnership's goals. The United States has provided funding for 40 of these projects, and has contributed approximately $75 million to further Partnership's goals since its inception.

Methane to Markets Partnership

Emerging climate science is revealing the critical importance of reducing methane emissions to mitigate 

climate impacts, especially in the near term. Launched 

in 2004, the Methane to Markets (M2M) Partnership 

has made great progress in accelerating the development of methane emission reduction projects around 

the world.3 This international initiative also demonstrates how countries and the private sector can work 

together cooperatively to reduce GHG emissions, 

stimulate economic growth, develop new sources of 

clean energy, and improve local environmental quality. 

Building off of its domestic methane programs, EPA is 

working with M2M partners—30 national governments, including the European Union, and more than 

900 private- and public-sector organizations (the Project Network)—to advance methane energy projects 

from four major sources: agricultural and food processing waste, landfills, underground coal mines, and 

natural gas and oil systems. 

U.S. efforts under M2M are led by EPA and involve the 

collective efforts of six agencies and departments across 

the federal government. Ongoing U.S.-supported projects potentially can reduce GHG emissions by approximately 60.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (MMTCO2

 Eq.) annually, and actually 

reduced global warming pollution by 26.7 MMTCO2

Eq. in 2008 (Figure 7-1). U.S. contributions of $38.9 

million have also leveraged more than $277.9 million 

in investment from other partner countries, development banks, the private sector, and members of the 

Project Network (Figure 7-2).

In March 2010, New Delhi, India, hosted M2M’s 

2010 Expo. New Delhi will seek to build on the success of its first Expo, which featured more than 90 project opportunities with annual emission reduction potential of 11.5 MMTCO2

 Eq. 

2

 See http://www.

asiapacificpartnership.org/. 

3

 See http://www.

methanetomarkets.org/m2m2009/

index.aspx.
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 105

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

An international climate change initiative that includes both developed and developing countries, the 

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) is 

focused on developing improved and costeffective technologies for the separation and capture 

of carbon dioxide (CO2) and its transport and longterm safe storage.4

 CSLF works to make these technologies broadly available internationally and to identify 

and address more comprehensive issues, such as regulation, relating to carbon capture and storage. To date, 

CSLF has endorsed 20 projects to evaluate and demonstrate carbon sequestration technologies. 

U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center

President Obama and President Hu Jintao formally 

announced the establishment of the U.S.-China Clean 

Energy Research Center (CERC) during the President’s trip to Beijing in November 2009. Work to operationalize CERC began immediately, and further 

coordination of operations will continue in the months 

ahead. In March 2010, DOE Secretary Steven Chu announced the availability of $37.5 million in U.S. funding over the next five years to support CERC. Funding 

from DOE will be matched by the grantees to support 

$75 million in total U.S. research that will focus on advancing technologies for building energy efficiency; 

clean coal, including carbon capture and storage; and 

clean vehicles. An additional $75 million in Chinese 

funding will be provided. CERC will be located in existing facilities in both the United States and China. 

U.S.-India Clean Energy Research Center

The U.S.-India Clean Energy Research Center aims to 

improve technologies to make clean energy more affordable and efficient. This center will include cooperation in wind and solar energy, second-generation 

biofuels, and energy efficiency, as well as unconventional sources of natural gas and clean coal technologies, including carbon capture and storage.

U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway

Sponsored by USAID and EPA, the U.S. Climate 

Technology Cooperation (U.S.-CTC) Gateway is an 

effort to increase public access to information about 

U.S.-sponsored international technology cooperation 

via an online tool.5 The U.S.-CTC Gateway aims to 

facilitate climate technology cooperation for mitigation and adaptation activities in developing and transition countries consistent with U.S. responsibilities 

under Article 4.5 of the UNFCCC. It highlights 

U.S.-sponsored activities that have resulted in clear, 

measurable benefits, and provides information and 

resources that can allow users to implement climatefriendly technologies and practices throughout the 

world. The site is designed to be used by government 

officials, private-sector project developers, financiers, 

technology providers, NGOs, and the general public. 

EPA Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles— 

International Diesel Retrofit Projects

Through its Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, 

EPA has funded and provided technical assistance on 

several diesel retrofit projects in other countries. Projects 

have been completed in Mexico City, Beijing, and Bangkok. In each of these projects, EPA has worked to demonstrate state-of-the art diesel particulate filters that can 

remove more than 90 percent of diesel particulate matter—including black carbon, which is implicated in climate change. The projects involve substantial capacity 

building. In the Beijing project, Chinese entities have to 

date retrofitted more than 8,000 diesel trucks and buses 

following EPA’s small demonstration project.

EPA has also funded a pilot project to retrofit twostroke gasoline three-wheeled vehicles used as taxis 

(“auto rickshaws”) in Pune, India. These vehicles are 

ubiquitous throughout Asia and contribute significantly to air quality problems in many Asian megacities. 

4

 See http://www.cslforum.org/. 

5

 See http://www.usctcgateway.gov/.

Figure 7-1 Actual and Potential Annual 

Methane Emission Reductions Resulting from 

U.S.-Supported Projects: 2005–2008

Ongoing U.S.-supported projects are expected to reduce annual 

methane emissions by approximately 60.7 million metric tons 

of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2

 Eq.). In 2008, these 

projects reduced global warming pollution by 26.7 MMTCO2

 Eq.

0

10

20

30

40

50

2006 2007 2008

60

9

2005

5 6.4

24

26.7

60.7

MMTCO2 Eq.

Potential Annual Reductions 

Actual Annual Reductions

70

Figure 7-2 Total U.S. Government Funding and Leveraged Funding for the 

Methane to Markets Partnership: FY 2005–FY 2008

U.S. contributions of $38.9 million have leveraged more than $277.9 million in investment from 

other partner countries, development banks, the private sector, and members of the Project Network.

Millions of U.S. Dollars

0 $300

$277.9

$100 $200

Total U.S. Government Funding

Leveraged Funding

$38.9
106 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Adding electronically controlled direct-injection technology to these vehicles resulted in 30 percent fuel 

savings on top of substantial reductions in hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. 

EPA Programs for Energy Efficiency

EPA continues to support several programs that promote energy efficiency in products and buildings. 

Energy Efficiency Endorsement Labeling Programs

Drawing on experiences and resources from its successful ENERGY STAR program, EPA has worked 

with a number of countries, including China and India, to enhance their own voluntary energy efficiency 

endorsement labeling programs. For example, EPA 

worked with the China Standard Certification Center 

to harmonize product test procedures with international standards, and in India supported the technical 

analysis and market research for the development of 

labels for televisions and set-top boxes.

Vehicle Emissions and Efficiency Programs— 

SmartWay

EPA is working with Mexico, China, and other developing nations to export technical expertise from its 

successful SmartWaySM Transport partnership, which 

is touted as a model program in Australia, the European Union, Mexico, Canada, and elsewhere.6

 SmartWay promotes technologies and best practices that 

reduce fuel consumption throughout the freight industry and supply chain. EPA provides technical assistance, modeling tools, analysis, and “lessons learned” 

to enable developing nations in Asia and elsewhere to 

establish voluntary programs to reduce GHG and other emissions from new and legacy vehicles and to create vehicle labeling programs modeled after the SmartWay vehicle designation.

In 2008, EPA held an international workshop attended by over a dozen countries. The World Bank is currently considering a SmartWay workshop for Asia. 

Recently, EPA met with officials from 11 Chinese 

cities and the Ministry of Transportation to discuss a 

pilot SmartWay program in the city of Guangzhou, 

with the aim of expanding it to other Chinese cities. 

EPA also met with engineers from China’s Auto Research Institute and Automotive Testing and Research 

Institute to share information on test methods to evaluate GHG emissions from commercial trucks. 

eeBuildings

This EPA program has provided technical assistance to 

building owners, managers, and tenants in China and 

India to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.7 In 

China, EPA successfully implemented an agreement 

with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction to assist with the development of a building 

energy benchmarking certification program, and 

worked with other organizations (e.g., Trade Association of Shanghai Property Managers and the China 

Business Council for Sustainable Development) to 

introduce efficiency measures. In India, in partnership 

with the Indian Green Buildings Council, the Bureau 

of Energy Efficiency, and others, EPA conducted 

training sessions on low- and no-cost energy efficiency 

measures for corporate building owners, major hotel 

chains, property management companies, service and 

equipment providers, and electric utilities. 

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Improvement Project

Building on a previous successful partnership with 

seven nations of Central America, USAID and EPA 

are continuing to provide support to countries in 

Southeast Asia, and are exploring opportunities to 

collaborate with institutions and/or experts in other 

regions, to improve the quality and sustainability of 

national GHG inventories produced by developing 

countries. A rigorous national GHG inventory is an 

essential tool for informing future climate change policy decisions, designing appropriate mitigation activities, and projecting future emission trends. Highquality, transparent, consistent, and comparable 

inventories also provide the critical context within 

which mitigation actions and commitments may be 

monitored, reported, and verified.

The project focuses on developing long-term national 

inventory management systems, improving the methods and data used in the agriculture and the land use, 

land-use change, and forestry sectors, and training 

regional experts. Currently, direct assistance is being 

provided in collaboration with the UNFCCC Secretariat to Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, 

and Vietnam. The project is also further refining the 

Agriculture and Land Use (ALU) software, which 

helps governments easily and accurately complete 

their national GHG inventories for the agriculture 

and the land use, land-use change, and forestry sectors.

ECO-Asia

Through the Environmental Cooperation–Asia 

(ECO–Asia) program, USAID develops a combination of national and regional activities in partnership 

with Asian governments, cities, and other organizations and agencies to promote regional dialogue in 

sharing and replicating innovation across Asia.8 Key 

program countries include Cambodia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

ECO-Asia’s Clean Development and Climate Program 

(CDCP) works to catalyze policy and finance solutions 

for clean energy in Asia’s largest developing economies 

through targeted technical assistance and training, regional cooperation, and knowledge sharing. In its first 

two years, ECO-Asia CDCP initiated programs with 

partners that are expected to avoid emissions of 1.6 

MMTCO2

 from fossil fuel consumption.

6

 See http://www.epa.gov/

smartway/. 

7

 See http://www.epa.gov/

EEBUILDINGS/. 

8

 See http://usaid.eco-asia.org/

programs/cdcp/index.html.
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 107

ECO-Asia CDCP and the Asian Development Bank 

have also co-organized the Asia Clean Energy Forum 

for the past two years. This forum has become an instrumental event in Asia for policymakers, financiers, 

and energy experts to network, present new research 

findings, and share best practices. To supplement this 

event and other regional workshops, ECO-Asia 

CDCP hosts an innovative, user-generated Web site 

for clean energy experts to share and discuss information about clean energy solutions for Asia that help 

address climate change and energy security.

DOE National Laboratory Expert Technical 

Support 

Recognizing the need for advanced technical assistance to support clean energy development across the 

globe, the U.S. government is establishing a network 

of U.S. experts to provide both targeted and crosscutting technical assistance to developing country 

partners. The underlying goal of this effort is to ensure 

that the best U.S. technical expertise is being accessed 

to support global efforts to combat climate change. 

USAID began working with DOE in 2009 to launch 

the first component of this new initiative. A team of 

DOE laboratory experts will be formed to provide technical assistance to USAID missions and their partner 

countries in the analysis, design, and implementation of 

GHG mitigation initiatives and clean energy projects 

guided by local needs and priorities. Supported activities will include sector assessments to effectively target 

USAID resources, country analyses for prioritizing mitigation actions, access to energy-sector and economic 

modelling and end-use emissions models, and assistance 

with analysis and design considerations for carbon markets. Ideally, these targeted efforts will aid in the development and application of analytical and technical resources to support the design and implementation of 

national- and sectoral-level low-carbon clean energy 

growth strategies in developing countries. It is anticipated that this initial effort will grow in scale and scope 

over the next three years, providing a framework for 

climate change mitigation and clean energy assistance 

across various U.S. government agencies and partners. 

Global Bioenergy Partnership 

The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) provides “a 

mechanism for Partners to organize, coordinate, and 

implement targeted international research, development, demonstration, and commercial activities related 

to production, delivery, conversion, and use of biomass 

for energy, with a focus on developing countries.”9 In 

response to the GBEP Steering Committee’s request, 

the Task Force on Sustainability is working to define 

voluntary, science-based sustainability criteria and indicators with the intent to provide governments a toolbox 

to monitor trends in environmental, economic, and 

social sustainability. The Task Force on GHG Methodologies, chaired by the United States, has produced a 

Version Zero methodological framework to provide 

countries and institutions with a consistent and transparent method to describe measurements of the GHG 

footprint of biofuels. Currently in the testing phase, a 

Version One publication is expected in 2010. 

International Partnership for Energy Efficiency 

Cooperation

In May 2009, the Energy Ministers of the G8, India, 

South Korea, China, Brazil, Mexico, and the European Commission officially launched a high-level international energy efficiency partnership that will allow 

participating countries to share best practices and effective policies, conduct joint activities and research, 

and showcase their successes in energy efficiency. The 

partnership will focus on developing energy efficiency 

tools, sharing best practices, expanding consumer 

awareness, and helping countries track their own progress toward national energy efficiency goals. As one of 

its first initiatives, the partnership will inventory the 

domestic energy efficiency policies of member nations. 

International Renewable Energy Agency 

The United States signed the IRENA Statute in June 

2009.10 The International Renewable Energy Agency 

(IRENA) was launched to substantially scale up global 

use of renewable energy through capacity building, 

technical assistance, sharing of best practices, and networking that does not currently exist in any other 

multilateral forum on energy. IRENA can help improve public policymakers’ understanding of renewable energy policy and regulatory and institutional 

requirements for technology diffusion. Renewable 

energy technologies can address the multiple domestic 

and international objectives of energy security, climate 

change mitigation, economic growth and job creation, 

and cleaner air quality. 

Climate Technology Initiative

The Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) is a multilateral cooperative activity that supports implementation of the UNFCCC by fostering international cooperation for accelerated development and diffusion 

of climate-friendly technologies and practices.11 CTI 

was originally established at the first Conference of 

the Parties to the UNFCCC in 1995. Since July 2003, 

CTI has been operating under an implementing agreement of the International Energy Agency that includes the United States, Australia, Austria, Canada, 

Finland, Germany, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Through a variety 

of capacity-building activities, CTI has promoted 

meaningful technology transfer to and among developing and transition countries. In addition to their 

current and future environmental benefits, these efforts are promoting near- and long-term global economic and social stability. 

9

 See http://www.globalbioenergy.

org/. 

10 See http://www.irena.org/. 

11 See http://www.climatetech.net.
108 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

CTI Private Financing Advisory Network

In an effort to address the growing need for clean technology financing in developing and transition countries, CTI launched PFAN in 2006 to increase access 

to private capital markets. PFAN is comprised of a 

network of practicing private finance professionals 

who work with project developers and other project 

proponents to structure projects and supporting financing proposals to meet the standard of the international financial community. These consulting services 

are provided at no cost to the project developer. Although there are no formal restrictions on size, CTI 

PFAN has thus far targeted projects with a total investment volume of $1–$50 million. 

CTI PFAN is technology-neutral and will consider 

any clean energy, renewable energy, or energy efficiency project that can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility. Typically, PFAN projects are mitigation and distributed generation types of projects, 

deploying a range of such technologies as biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, biofuels, waste to energy, and 

small hydro. However, PFAN will also consider adaptation and technology development projects as well. 

One of the techniques used by CTI PFAN to bring 

project developers and investors together is regionally 

organized financing forums that are preceded by a call 

for proposals. Selected projects are provided with intensive one-on-one PFAN coaching and are showcased before specially convened investor audiences. 

Projects identified through the calls for proposals are 

also considered for induction into the development 

pipeline. During 2009, this effort was significantly 

scaled up, with investor forums planned for Africa, 

Asia, and Latin America in early 2010.

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 

Partnership

The United States is one of 45 countries whose governments contribute funding to the Renewable Energy and 

Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).12 Conceived at 

the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 

2002, REEEP seeks to lower the policy, regulatory, and 

financial barriers to implementation of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and projects in 

emerging markets and developing countries; improve 

access to reliable clean energy services in developing and 

transition countries; and increase the use of local renewable resources. Since 2004, REEEP has provided support for more than 100 projects in 40 countries.

U.S. Forest programs and 

Partnerships

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

The United States is a donor to the Forest Carbon 

Partnership Facility (FCPF), a multilateral fund at the 

World Bank that assists developing countries in their 

efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and 

forest degradation (REDD). The FCPF’s first objective is to build capacity in developing countries to 

credibly estimate forest carbon stocks and sources of 

forest emissions, to assist countries in building a national strategy for stemming deforestation, and to create national reference scenarios or baselines against 

which to measure future performance. The FCFP will 

then test performance-based incentive payments in a 

few pilot countries to set the stage for a much larger 

system of potential financing flows from future carbon 

markets. The FCFP seeks to learn lessons from firstof-a kind operations and develop a realistic and costeffective new instrument for tackling deforestation. 

The experiences generated from the FCPF’s pilot implementation and carbon finance experiences will provide insights and knowledge that can facilitate development of a much larger global program of incentives 

for REDD.

Tropical Forest Conservation Act

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) was 

enacted in 1998 to offer eligible developing countries 

options to relieve certain official debt owed to the 

United States, while at the same time to generate 

funds to support local tropical forest conservation 

activities.13 As of August 2009, TFCA programs are 

being implemented in Bangladesh, Belize, Botswana, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jamaica, Panama (two agreements), Paraguay, 

Peru (two agreements), and the Philippines. The 15 

agreements completed to date will directly generate 

more than $218 million for tropical forest conservation in these countries over the life of the agreements, 

and additional resources will be created through returns on investments and matching funds. 

A number of other countries have expressed interest in 

the TFCA program. In addition to forest conservation 

and debt relief, TFCA is intended to strengthen civil 

society by creating local foundations to support small 

grants to NGOs and communities. The program also offers a unique opportunity for public–private partnerships. 

Nine of the agreements to date have included more 

than $14 million in cash raised by U.S.-based NGOs 

(and one Indonesian NGO), in addition to the approximately $135 million in appropriated debt-reduction 

funds contributed by the U.S. government.

Several TFCA national-level funds are exploring ways 

to catalyze REDD development in their respective 

countries. In addition, some national-level funds established through the Enterprise for the Americas 

Initiative, a predecessor to TFCA, are supporting the 

dissemination of clean technologies in several sectors.

Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon

USAID’s Initiative for Conservation in the Andean 

Amazon (ICAA) is a five-year program (2006–2011) 

12 See http://www.reeep.org/. 

13 See http://www.usaid.gov/

our_work/environment/forestry/

tfca.html. 
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 109

that brings together the efforts of more than 20 public 

and private organizations currently working in the 

Amazon regions of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and 

Peru to build constituencies and agreements that promote the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and environmental services in the regions.14 Beyond sharing a common language and cultural 

patrimony, this area includes globally unique resources 

and ecosystem services that are important to local, 

regional, and global climate, health, and economies.

ICAA activities include landscape and protected area 

management, improved natural resource management 

(timber, non-timber, and agriculture), improved environmental policy, and capacity building of local and 

indigenous organizations. These activities help to increase carbon sequestration and avoid GHG emissions 

by supporting improved resource management and 

minimizing conversion of natural habitats. The 

Woods Hole Research Center, an ICAA partner, is 

developing approaches to more accurately measure 

and monitor these GHG benefits using satellite and 

ground-based measurements, while also building the 

capacity of local NGOs to do these calculations.

Forest, Climate & Community Alliance

The Forest, Climate & Community Alliance (FCCA) 

is a public–private partnership between USAID and 

the Rainforest Alliance. A number of private-sector 

companies are also working with the Rainforest Alliance on this project, including Gibson Guitar Corporation, EKO Asset Management Partners, NatSource 

LLC, and others. Formed in 2009, the FCCA aims to 

increase economic opportunities for poor communities and forest management enterprises, and to combat 

threats to tropical forest biodiversity. The project will 

pilot technologies, organizational models, and local 

and national policies that help communities more effectively access revenue streams from payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, particularly carbon 

credits from the emerging voluntary and mandatory 

carbon markets. The FCCA will pilot initiatives in the 

countries of Ghana and Honduras and will use lessons 

learned from these sites to provide options for other 

USAID missions and cooperators.

International Small Group and Tree Planting 

Program 

The International Small Group and Tree Planting 

Program (TIST) is a public–private partnership between USAID, the Institute for Environmental Innovation, and the Clean Air Action Corporation. Begun 

in 2005 and now in its second phase, this initiative has 

grown to include over 35,000 small farmers planting 

over 4 million trees in four countries.

The TIST program amalgamates small farmers into 

clusters of farmers who work together to plant and 

maintain trees for carbon sequestration, biodiversity 

enhancement, environmental benefits, and personal 

use. It also builds capacity in farming technologies, 

HIV/AIDS (human immunodeficiency virus/acquired 

immunodeficiency syndrome) prevention, fuel-efficient 

wood stoves, and other development objectives. 

TIST is a PES arrangement, which pays the individual 

participant approximately two cents per tree for each 

year that it is growing on the registered plot. There is 

also an agreement between the Clean Air Action Corporation and the individual participant that will allow 

the farmers to collect 70 percent of any profits from 

future carbon sales from the registered trees. Carbon 

stocks are monitored and verified through a rigorous 

auditing process that uses handheld computers and 

global positioning system (GPS) coordinates to verify 

the status of each plot on an annual basis.

Center for International Forestry Project

In 2007, USAID initiated a program to build capacity 

within the agency on issues related to forests and climate change in general, and specifically related to the 

international discussion about reducing emissions 

from deforestation in developing countries. Implemented in collaboration with the Center for International Forestry, this program included the following 

three components:

1. A series of training modules on topics related to 

forests and climate, including forest adaptation technologies, biofuels, carbon accounting methods, forest 

and climate policy, and a variety of other topics. 

2. Technical assistance to USAID missions in Indonesia and Liberia, to help them assess their ongoing 

programs and look for opportunities to make adjustments to prepare for challenges and opportunities related to forests and climate change. 

3. A series of training workshops on forests and climate 

issues, held in Thailand and South Africa in 2009.

Forest Carbon Calculator

USAID is supporting the development of a Forest 

Carbon Calculator, which consists of a cutting-edge 

set of carbon estimation calculators for the forest sector using a Web-based tool.15 Covering forest protection, reforestation/afforestation, agroforestry, and 

forest management, the tool provides estimated CO2

emission reductions and sequestration from improved 

forest and land management practices. USAID is using this tool to estimate the mitigation impacts of existing programs and to explore options in the design of 

new programs. A public-access version of the tool will 

be available for the use of anyone who wishes to estimate the carbon emission reductions and sequestration of site-level activities. Future revisions of the tool 

are planned to allow estimation of CO2

 benefits from 

grasslands and agricultural management. 

14 See http://www.amazoniaandina.org/en. 

15 See http://winrock.stage.datarg.

net/gcc/.
110 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

USAID/USFS Interagency Agreement

Through its long-standing agreement with USFS, 

USAID accesses the technical expertise of USFS to 

implement training, technical assistance, capacity 

building, and policy dialogue in the countries where 

USAID works. With more than 100 years of experience managing over 77 million hectares (190 million 

acres) of national forests and grasslands, USFS has 

valuable experience to contribute to the issue of climate change in the global context.

Much of the land that USFS manages is already being 

influenced by climate change, requiring the development of adaptation strategies. As a result, USFS is 

closely involved in efforts to enhance the mitigation 

potential of U.S. forests and is well positioned to provide technical assistance in the context of longer-term 

development engagement with other nations facing 

land management and climate change challenges. 

USFS is actively collaborating with numerous governments, NGOs, and the private sector to address climate change and avoided deforestation through collaborative research, policy dialogue, and technical 

cooperation. 

In 2008, USFS experts participated in a USAIDfunded assessment to identify opportunities for 

USAID assistance in helping Bolivia address forest 

and climate change issues. In 2009, USFS worked 

with USAID to identify and pilot models for increasing women’s involvement in forest carbon management and exchanges.

Illegal Logging and Forest Trade

Illegal logging is a significant cause of forest degradation that often leads to increased carbon emissions and 

less resilient ecosystems. USAID is taking measures to 

address both the supply and the demand sides of the 

global forest product trade through three multiyear, 

multimillion-dollar public–private partnerships. For 

example, USAID supported the Sustainable Forest 

Products Global Alliance in 2008 and launched a new 

program in 2009 to further promote transparent supply chain management in response to new and emerging consumer country laws, such as the amended U.S. 

Lacey Act. The new program aims to reach out to a 

wider group of forest stakeholders both in the United 

States and abroad, to raise awareness about illegal logging, and to provide information to encourage improved supply chain management from the stump to 

the shelf. In the Asia region, the Responsible Asia Forest and Trade program continues to work with partners in the retail, financial, and NGO sectors to assist 

governments and the private sector to combat illegal 

logging and associated trade through the promotion of 

improved technologies, market strategies, management practices, and forestry policies. 

Standing Forest Conservation Markets Initiative

USAID has been supporting activities in the field of 

PES, including the Global Assessment of Best Practices 

in Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs; Wildlife 

Conservation Society pilot projects integrating carbon 

emission reductions, biodiversity conservation, and 

community livelihoods in Madagascar and Cambodia; 

and Regional PES Network Meetings and site PES Incubator projects led by Forest Trends and the Katoomba Group.16 The Standing Forest Conservation Markets 

Initiative, which began in 2008, builds on these recent 

efforts. The initial targets for this initiative are the globally important forested watersheds of the Amazon, 

Congo, and Mekong River Basins. Project development 

documentation for reduced emissions from REDD 

projects are currently under preparation for voluntary 

private-sector carbon trading, as well as for water and 

biodiversity markets. Pilot PES sites within these 

mega-diversity areas—such as the Xingu and Surui 

Indigenous Reserves in Brazil, and the Mbe River 

headlands in Gabon—are being linked to encourage 

south-south collaboration and learning. 

The initiative also offers project development tools, 

such as legal and institutional assessments and a PES 

curriculum that can be tailored to different stakeholder groups. Training workshops to build capacity in 

carbon baseline measurement and market assessment 

were held in 2008 and 2009 in Peru, Brazil, Nepal, 

Cambodia, Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, and South Africa. Finally, USAID is also providing partial support 

for Katoomba meetings, which aim to build regional 

networks and senior policymakers’ interest in PES; for 

2008–2010, avoided deforestation is a major theme. 

U.S. Vulnerability and Adaptation 

programs

Through agencies including USAID, NASA, and 

NOAA, the United States continues to pursue a 

broad range of activities designed to help countries 

integrate adaptation and development concerns, understand their vulnerabilities to new climate-related 

risks, and build capacity at the household, community, 

national, and regional levels to address the urgent challenges posed by changing climatic conditions. 

Adaptation Guidance Manuals

In August 2007, USAID published Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance Manual for 

Development Planning (USAID 2007). The manual is 

designed to assist USAID missions and other development partners to understand, analyze, and respond to 

the potential impacts of climate change on development challenges, and to develop effective approaches 

to solving those challenges. It lays out a six-step process for assessing the potential for climatic changes to 

affect development efforts and engaging stakeholders 

in identifying alternative approaches for more climate16 See http://www.translinks.

org, http://www.oired.vt.edu/

sanremcrsp/PES.php, and http://

www.katoombagroup.org.
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 111

resilient development. The manual describes four pilot 

projects conducted by USAID to field-test the proposed methods, and also provides resources for further 

technical information. 

In May 2009, USAID, International Resources 

Group, and The Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode Island published Adapting to Coastal 

Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners (IRG and CRC-URI 2009). This coastal guide is 

designed to help coastal managers and other decision 

makers understand how climate change may affect 

processes in coastal areas. The guide also presents a 

number of well-known coastal management practices 

that deal with climate change, and assesses each practice or measure for its ability to address climate change 

or other coastal management challenges. 

USAID continues to develop guidance to assist development practitioners in considering climate change 

impacts on development goals. However, USAID also 

recognizes that the methods laid out in the guidance 

require access to environmental, meteorological, and 

climatological data. To facilitate access to data, the 

agency has developed or leveraged a number of tools, 

described further in this chapter, in collaboration with 

other federal agencies and organizations.

Earth Observations for Decision Support

SERVIR 

USAID and NASA support SERVIR, a Regional Visualization and Monitoring System that integrates 

satellite and other geospatial data for improved scientific knowledge and decision making by managers, 

researchers, students, and the general public.17 In addition to making available previously inaccessible data, 

online mapping tools, and training opportunities, 

SERVIR provides improved monitoring of air quality, 

extreme weather, biodiversity, changes in land cover, and the impacts of climate change. The first SERVIR regional operational facility—for the Latin 

America and Caribbean region—was established in 

2005 in partnership with the Water Center for the 

Humid Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean 

(CATHALAC). In 2008, NASA and CATHALAC 

helped set up a second SERVIR regional operational 

facility for East Africa, at the Regional Center for 

Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD) 

in Nairobi, Kenya. The SERVIR–Africa project is 

building upon RCMRD’s existing strengths, while 

augmenting its data management and training capabilities. Efforts are underway to replicate the SERVIR 

system model in other regions of the world, in support 

of climate-resilient development. 

Climate Mapper 

In 2008, USAID, NASA, the Institute for the Application of Geospatial Technology, the University of 

Colorado, and CATHALAC developed the Climate 

Mapper tool for SERVIR.18 The Climate Mapper 

makes historical weather records and the results of 

climate change models accessible to a broad user community. Data are currently available for all land portions of Earth for 1⁄2-degree grid cells, which, at the 

equator, corresponds to roughly 50 kilometers by 50 

kilometers (31 miles by 31 miles). The Climate Mapper presents historical temperature and precipitation 

for the base period (1961–1990), as well as modeled 

monthly data averaged over the decades 2031–2040 

and 2051–2060. Users can assess climate change projections for the 2030s and 2050s against threedimensional visualizations of landscape. This should 

enhance vulnerability assessments as development planners consider adaptation strategies and design projects 

to be more resilient to climate variability and change. 

Climate One Stop

USAID and NASA are working with a number of 

other donors, NGOs, developing country institutions, 

and the UNFCCC to develop the Climate One 

Stop.19 As its name suggests, the One Stop will be a 

comprehensive Web site where a variety of users—

from the public to project planners and researchers—

can learn about climate change, access data and tools, 

find climate-related news and project case studies, and 

link with other people and groups interested in climate change through an online community. In the 

beginning, the One Stop will emphasize adaptation, 

but it eventually will have the flexibility to grow in 

whatever ways the user community demands.

Regional Climate Outlook Forums

NOAA, in collaboration with USAID and the UN 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), provides regional institutions in developing countries 

with technical support for Regional Climate Outlook 

Forums. These forums are a principal vehicle for providing advance information about the likely character 

of seasonal climate in several developing regions. They 

bring together climate forecasters and forecast users to 

develop a consensus forecast from multiple predictions and to discuss methods of dissemination and 

application of information. The forums also provide a 

unique opportunity for stakeholders to meet, share information and concerns, and forge an informal network to 

address common problems.

Resource-Sharing Partnerships for Sustained 

Ocean-Climate Observations

NOAA’s Climate Program Office is working with the 

National Ocean Service and other NOAA offices to 

build sustained capacity in the Indian Ocean for 

ocean-climate observations and their socioeconomic 

application. Partnerships for New GEOSS Applications (PANGEA) builds sustainable capacity in maritime regions by providing resources and in-country, 

practical training by NOAA experts for local policy 

and budget officials, scientists, and end users. In ex17 See http://www.servir.net. 

18 See http://www.servir.net/

en/The_Climate_Mapper_and_

SERVIR_Viz. 

19 See http://www.climate1stop.

net.
112 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

change, participating national institutes provide gratis 

ship time and expertise to NOAA for the deployment 

and regular servicing of NOAA’s in situ ocean-climate 

instrumentation. 

PANGEA complements existing efforts to achieve a 

more sustainable capacity for the region by increasing 

both in situ ocean data and information as well as the 

more effective application of these data for more informed decision making. Capacity-building workshop 

topics include Planning for Climate Change in the 

Coastal and Marine Environment, Societal and Economic Benefits of Delivering Enhanced Ocean Observing System Data, Tools for Assessing Community Resilience, and How to Select and Evaluate Adaptation 

Measures for Managing Impacts From Climate Change. 

NOAA’s current partners include Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and Agency for the 

Assessment and Application of Technology, India’s 

Ministry of Earth Sciences, and the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystem for nine East 

African and Western Indian Ocean nations. The 

PANGEA model is equally applicable elsewhere and is 

being explored for other ocean basins. 

International Research Institute for Climate 

and Society

NOAA provides approximately $9 million in annual 

funding to the International Research Institute for 

Climate and Society (IRI).20 IRI’s mission is to enhance society’s capability to understand, anticipate, 

and manage the impacts of seasonal climate fluctuations, in order to improve human welfare and the environment, especially in developing countries. IRI’s 

international efforts involve research in climate prediction, monitoring, and analysis targeted to address 

problems of climate risk in agriculture and food security, water resources, public health, disasters, and such 

cross-cutting issues as drought management. A combination of scientific rigor, problem-centered analysis, 

and partner teamwork is beginning to yield successful 

approaches to climate risk management. IRI has several ongoing projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and has launched an effort to raise institutional and 

societal awareness of climate vulnerability and risk as 

an arena for action. 

Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, 

Fisheries, and Food Security 

The Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) on Coral Reefs, 

Fisheries, and Food Security is a new multilateral partnership to safeguard the region’s extraordinary marine 

and coastal biological resources.21 Recognized as the 

global center of marine biological diversity, the Coral 

Triangle region embraces six countries—Indonesia, 

Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Timor 

Leste, and the Solomon Islands. Home to some 363 million people, one-third of whom are directly dependent on 

coastal and marine resources for their livelihoods, the 

region faces immediate risk from a range of factors, including overfishing, unsustainable fishing methods, landbased sources of pollution, and climate change.

The CTI was officially launched in December 2007 

during UNFCCC COP-13 in Bali, and was endorsed 

by the six heads of state at the CTI Summit in May 

2009. Over the first five years of the initiative, USAID 

and DOS plan to invest at least $42 million in the 

regional initiative, in addition to providing bilateral 

support to Indonesia and the Philippines. Investments 

will strengthen the capacity of community groups, 

governments, and public and private organizations to 

conserve the Coral Triangle’s globally important biodiversity, improve fisheries management, and enhance 

resiliency and adaptation to climate change.

Famine Early Warning System Network

The USAID-funded Famine Early Warning Systems 

Network (FEWS NET) is a 25-year-old program that 

analyzes remotely sensed data and ground-based meteorological, crop, markets and trade, and livelihoods 

information to provide early-warning and vulnerability information on emerging or evolving food security 

conditions.22 The network is comprised of a multidisciplinary team that includes a management unit at 

USAID, contractual relationships with NASA, NOAA, 

USDA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a privatesector contractor operating a FEWS NET headquarters team, and USAID’s 23 offices in food-insecure 

countries of the developing world. 

FEWS NET includes a unique initiative to identify 

climate change impacts on specific food-insecure 

countries. This initiative has focused largely on Africa 

to date, and has produced a large volume of research 

that identifies how climate change is already affecting 

large parts of eastern Africa, including significant impacts on food security conditions. The broad conclusions of this research include the following: (1) climate change is already producing drought and eroding 

livelihoods in eastern Africa, and these drought impacts are likely to precede impacts from projected temperature rises; (2) climate change models fail to model 

precipitation accurately, are commonly wrong, and are 

inadequate tools for evaluating changes in precipitation, especially over land surfaces; (3) conversely, data 

sets based on precipitation observations, when properly constructed and analyzed, can provide one of the 

best tools for tracking decadal climatic variability; and 

(4) climate change impacts on food security must be 

assessed in an interdisciplinary investigation that can 

identify and trace the multiple interactions of food 

security with climate. 

FEWS NET is also committed to the capacity and institution building of national and regional early-warning 

and response networks. Anticipating an increase in the 

threat of food insecurity in previously relatively un20 See http://portal.iri.columbia.

edu/portal/server.pt. 

21 See http://www.cti-secretariat.

net/. 

22 See http://www.fews.net.
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 113

challenged countries, FEWS NET will expand to cover up to 30 new countries over the next five years. New 

climate change research will also be conducted in additional African regions and Central Asia.

RANET Program

USAID and NOAA are working with a range of humanitarian and meteorological organizations to build 

the capacity of regional, national, and sub-national 

institutions to provide useful weather and climate information to rural communities and populations in 

remote regions of Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and Central 

America. RANET (Radio and Internet for the Communication of Hydro-Meteorological and ClimateRelated Information for Development) utilizes and 

develops applications on a variety of communication 

platforms, such as satellite data broadcasts, satellite 

telephony, FM (frequency modulation) community 

radio, HD (high-definition) digital e-mail networks, 

mobile phones, and Web-based systems.23 RANET 

works with national partners to use these tools to deliver forecasts, bulletins, imagery, seasonal assessments, 

educational and training information, and data to rural and remote areas. The program stresses training, 

system development, and ongoing operation of communication networks to support country programs, 

and emphasizes local ownership of all systems. 

In 2010 RANET will continue current activities, 

which include operation of satellite broadcasts, the 

RANET Alert Watcher Short-Message Service notification system, development of the Community Reporter Program, and creation of various technical 

training modules. Significant new activities will be 

development of GEONETCast capacity for current 

RANET country programs, continuation of the 

RANET Chatty Beetle pilot, and launch of a unified 

content management system designed to allow countries to publish information across multiple communications platforms.

Disaster Preparedness Activities

USAID is supporting a number of projects around the 

world to help vulnerable communities anticipate 

weather hazards and build resilience to climate 

change. In 2008, USDA, USAID, NOAA, and other 

partners began work to develop a Global Flash Flood 

Guidance and Early Warning System, to improve lead 

time for early warnings of flash floods and allow for 

rapid mobilization of response activities. USAID has 

also supported technical assessments and forums for 

decision makers and technical personnel from the 

Hindu Kush–Himalayan region to strengthen capacities on flash flood management, promote collaboration, and develop regional approaches to flood management and flood early-warning systems. USAID, 

NOAA, and USGS also support the Asia Flood Network, which aims to lessen flood hazard vulnerability 

in Asia by building regional and national capacities in 

climate, weather, and hydrological forecasting and 

warning, and by improving the dissemination of forecasts and warnings to at-risk populations. 

Other programs receiving USAID support include 

community-based drought preparedness planning in 

Cambodia, East Timor, and Vietnam; training for 

Mekong Delta officials and affected populations on 

the use of flood mapping; the introduction of water 

management schemes that will enhance the sustainability of water supply activities in southern Swaziland; and a five-year project to support a communitybased approach to flood monitoring and forecasting in 

Bangladesh. Finally, in partnership with the United 

Nations World Food Programme, USAID is supporting the development of a drought insurance program 

to protect against livelihood loss in Ethiopia. 

International Technical Assistance Program

The Department of the Interior (DOI) International 

Technical Assistance Program (ITAP) leverages funds 

from other federal agencies, international organizations, and foreign governments to provide capacity 

building in other countries using the diverse expertise 

of technical experts from DOI bureaus.24 Currently, 

DOS and USAID provide the largest share of 

DOI-ITAP funds, which supports training and technical assistance efforts in Bahrain, Costa Rica, the 

Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jordan, 

Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, the Philippines, the Republic of Georgia, and Tanzania. 

DOI-ITAP’s capacity-building efforts span the range 

of DOI expertise, including protected area management, environmental education, natural and cultural 

resource law enforcement, mining policy and regulations, and endangered species management. Recent 

proposals have centered on DOI’s unique positioning 

as a leader in climate change adaptation, mitigation, 

and education and outreach. DOI-ITAP is seeking to 

apply the combined expertise of its bureaus to establish programs addressing climate change in at least 10 

countries worldwide.

U.S. Trade and Development Financing

The U.S. government facilitates the transfer of technologies by providing official assistance, export credits, 

project financing, risk and loan guarantees, and investment insurance to U.S. companies, as well as credit 

enhancements for host-country financial institutions. 

These activities help leverage direct investment by decreasing the risks associated with long-term, capitalintensive projects or projects in nontraditional sectors. 

Supported projects include a number of clean technology projects that further climate change objectives.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation’s 

(OPIC’s) core mission is to support economic devel23 See http://www.ranetproject.

net/. 

24 See http://www.doi.gov/intl/

itap/overview.html.
114 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

opment by facilitating U.S. private investment in developing countries and transition economies. OPIC 

provides project financing and political risk insurance 

for U.S. company projects covering a range of investments, including many independent power projects in 

developing countries. OPIC also supports a variety of 

private investment funds that make direct equity and 

equity-related investments in new, expanding, and 

privatizing companies in emerging market economies. 

OPIC evaluates all project applications on the basis of 

their contribution to economic development to ensure the successful implementation of the organization’s core developmental mission, and prioritizes the 

allocation of scarce resources to projects on the basis 

of their developmental benefits. With its expanded 

commitment to the clean technology and renewable 

energy sector (i.e., via its existing Finance, Political 

Risk Insurance, and Investment Funds programs), 

OPIC anticipates significant increased future support 

of clean technology and renewable energy projects in 

OPIC-eligible countries. 

OPIC Finance and Political Risk Insurance Programs

Support for renewable energy and clean technology 

projects is a priority area for OPIC. OPIC’s Finance 

and Political Risk Insurance programs have considered 

over 100 proposals each year for 2008 and 2009 to 

determine projects suitable for OPIC support. OPIC 

is currently tracking renewable energy and clean technology projects that total nearly $2 billion for potential support, in the areas of energy-efficient buildings, 

solar power, hydroelectric power, wind power, geothermal power, waste-to-energy, and wastewater treatment. OPIC has a substantial portfolio of existing 

renewable energy and clean technology projects. Table 

7-4 presents illustrative examples from OPIC’s annual 

reports.

Investment Funds

In FY 2010 OPIC expects to commit $523 million in 

finance, investment funds, and insurance for renewable energy and clean technology projects, nearly a 

threefold increase over FY 2009. Target geographies 

include all OPIC-eligible emerging market countries 

throughout Asia, Latin America, Central and Eastern 

Europe, and the Middle East. Target sectors include 

those with proven renewable energy technologies (e.g., 

solar, wind, small hydro); energy efficiency systems 

and equipment; and water, waste, and emission control treatment.

OPIC financing will be provided to invest in existing 

companies and/or projects in the aforementioned renewable energy and environmental sectors in OPICeligible countries. Such investments will help to catalyze the sustainable development of emerging markets 

in which OPIC operates. By the end of 2010, OPIC 

anticipates signed formal commitments with the 

funds. Furthermore, OPIC expects the majority of 

such funds to have already begun investing in existing 

companies and/or projects within the aforementioned 

renewable energy and environmental sectors in OPICeligible countries.

Export-Import Bank

The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), the export credit 

agency of the United States, provides financial support 

to exporters of U.S. equipment and services through 

its insurance, working capital, and loan guarantee programs. Ex-Im also features an Environmental Exports 

Program (EEP) that provides enhanced financial support for renewable energy and other environmentally 

beneficial exports. Under the EEP, Ex-Im provides 

special support for exports of air, water, and soil pollution cleanup; ecological and forestry management; 

Table 7-4 Sample Renewable and Clean Energy Projects Supported by OPIC

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) supports renewable energy and clean technology projects in developing countries 

and economies in transition. Current OPIC finance and insurance exposure in these projects totals more than $1 billion. This table 

presents some examples of this support.

Country U.S. Sponsor/

Insured Investor Project Name Project Description

Committed Amount/

Maximum Coverage 

Amount Issued

Project 

Category

India Southern Energy 

Partners LLC

SEP Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Wind Energy—Tamil Nadu $1,150,000 Insurance

Dominica Dominica Private 

Power Ltd.

Dominica Electricity 

Services Ltd. (“DOMLEC”)

Hydro and geothermal 

electric services

$3,033,000 Insurance

Colombia Citibank, N.A. ISAGEN S.A. Hydropower generation $310,000,000 Finance

Algeria GE Ionics, Inc. Fixed Rate Funding & 

Liquidity Ltd. (HWD SPA)

Reverse osmosis water 

desalination plant

$200,000,000 Finance

Serbia DV Technologies DV Technologies d.o.o. 

Belgrade

Hydroelectric power 

plant—SHPP Vrutci

$153,000 Insurance

Source: Overseas Private Investment Corporation annual reports (http://www.opic.gov/).
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 115

renewable and alternative energy projects, including 

photovoltaic, wind, biomass, fuel cells, waste-to-energy, 

hydroelectric, clean coal, and geothermal projects; 

products to measure or monitor air or water quality; 

equipment to reduce emissions or effluents; environmental impact assessments and ecological studies; environmental training services; and products designed 

to improve energy efficiency.

Ex-Im also offers foreign buyers extended repayment 

terms of up to 18 years to cover the purchase of U.S. 

goods and services for renewable energy projects. This 

special support is available for exports to wind energy, 

geothermal energy, hydropower, tidal, wave power, 

solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, ocean thermal, sustainable biomass, and certain bioenergy projects. In 

FY 2010, Ex-Im expects to commit nearly $183 million in loan guarantees, insurance, and working capital 

guarantees to support U.S. renewable energy exports 

to various foreign countries, which greatly exceeded 

amounts authorized for these exports in previous years 

($23.1 million in FY 2009, $30.4 million in FY 2008, 

$2.7 million in FY 2007, $9.8 million in FY 2006, and 

$16.8 million in FY 2005).

USAID Development Credit Authority

The Development Credit Authority (DCA) is a broad 

financing authority that allows USAID to use credit 

guarantees to pursue any of the development purposes 

specified under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 

amended. DCA seeks to provide USAID the flexibility 

to make more rational choices about appropriate financing tools used in development, including individual or 

combined loans, guarantees, and grants. DCA activities 

are designed and managed by USAID’s overseas missions. 

Credit guarantees offer several distinct and attractive 

advantages over other forms of assistance, and leverage 

and maximize USAID resources by providing access to 

local private capital, sharing risk to encourage lending, 

mobilizing local private capital, and enhancing “the 

demonstration effect” so that other financial institutions will be induced to enter the market. USAID/El 

Salvador used a DCA guarantee to enable Citibank de 

El Salvador to lend to businesses that wanted to invest 

in energy-efficient upgrades. One guaranteed loan for 

$300,000 allowed a family-owned milk processing company to invest in a new filtration system and wastewater 

treatment facility. With these upgrades, the company 

now meets the environmental compliance standards 

under the Central America–Dominican Republic–

United States Free Trade Agreement, and is certified by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

USAID Global Development Alliance

USAID’s Global Development Alliance (GDA) business model links U.S. foreign assistance with the resources, expertise, and creativity of governments, business, and civil society. Through public–private 

partnerships, USAID and its partners combine their 

assets to address pressing development problems, 

achieving a solution that would not be possible for any 

individual partner alone. 

Through 2009, USAID has cultivated more than 900 

alliances with 1,700 partners to extend development 

assistance programming. For example, USAID 

and Firestone are planning to launch a GDA that will 

reinvigorate Liberia’s rubber industry and support the 

development of a clean energy power plant in Monrovia through a rubber tree cultivation and recycling 

program. The partnership is expected to increase 

export-driven trade and growth, while boosting 

Liberia’s clean energy initiatives.

In 2005, USAID created a new obligating instrument—the collaboration agreement—to provide funding directly to a nontraditional partner. For example, 

PFAN, an alliance of private-sector companies and investors described earlier in this chapter, receives funding 

from USAID to help developers of climate-friendly 

technologies in developing countries find financing.

U.S. Trade and Development Agency

The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) 

is a foreign assistance agency that delivers its program 

commitments through overseas grants and contracts 

with U.S. firms that are designed to support activities 

that will have a strong and measurable development 

impact on emerging markets and offer opportunities 

for commercial participation by U.S. firms. USTDA’s 

approach to foreign assistance generates mutually beneficial results through the formation of long-term 

business relationships that foster sustainable development, facilitate local private-sector growth, improve 

trade and investment climates, and advance U.S. commercial innovations. 

USTDA’s efforts are helping to realize the Obama 

administration’s goal of reversing the effects of climate 

change, creating green jobs, and helping move emerging economies to a low-carbon energy base. For example, USTDA programs are providing countries with 

the resources necessary to discern what technologies 

are needed to implement a low-carbon development 

strategy as well as manage the technologies if and 

when they are implemented. In this way, USTDA is a 

bridge and a catalyst in paving the way for the acceptance and deployment of more environmentally sound 

energy production in emerging economies. USTDA 

has been a catalyst for new geothermal power generation in Turkey and Ethiopia; deployment of methanecapturing coalbed methane (CBM) power generation 

in China; and the construction of new CBM power development in Botswana. Going forward, USTDA is investing in solar, wind, energy efficiency, and new advanced technologies to help emerging economies expand 

their use of clean renewable energy and optimize current 

energy resources.
116 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

u.s. Private-Sector Assistance

The private sector has a crucial and complementary 

role to play in the successful transfer of technical 

know-how and climate-friendly technologies to developing and transition countries. The private sector is 

well placed to provide much of the human and financial capital for effective deployment of these technologies. While public-sector funding for climate change 

activities continues to grow, U.S. foreign direct investment by the private sector still comprises the vast majority of funding going to climate change and related 

activities in developing and transition countries. 

The Obama administration also recognizes the importance of creating incentives for the development of 

low-carbon energy sources. Yet, most information 

relating to financing and implementing private-sector 

projects is proprietary. Furthermore, the classification 

of domestic exports in available databases uses broad 

categories that do not allow for the specific and comprehensive identification of clean or lower-carbon 

technologies and products. As a result, only publicsector funding is included in the tables in this chapter, 

with the intention of providing increased transparency.
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 117

Table 7-5 2008 U.S. Direct Financial Contributions Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

RECIPIENT COUNTRY/

REGION

MITIGATION ADAPTATION

TOTALS

Energy Transport Forestry Agriculture Waste 

Management Industry Capacity Building

Coastal Zone

Management

Other Vulnerability 

Studies

WORLD 228.58

Africa 44.68

Africa Regional 2.40 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.90

Angola 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Benin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Botswana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Burkina Faso 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Burundi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cameroon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cape Verde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Central Africa Regional 0.00 0.00 15.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.25

Central African Republic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Chad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Comoros 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Congo (DROC) 0.25 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Congo (ROC) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cote d’Ivoire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Djibouti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

East Africa Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Equatorial Guinea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eritrea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethiopia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gabon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gambia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ghana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20

Guinea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Guinea-Bissau 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kenya 0.27 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.63 0.00 1.44

Lesotho 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Liberia 4.95 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.95

Madagascar 0.00 0.00 8.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.00 8.22

Malawi 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95

Mali 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08

Mauritania 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mauritius 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mozambique 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.00 0.35

Namibia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Niger 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nigeria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rwanda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sahel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Senegal 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.95

Sierra Leone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Somalia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

South Africa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southern AfricaRegional 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30

Sudan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Swaziland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tanzania 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uganda 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00

West Africa Regional 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.66 0.00 2.10

Zimbabwe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
118 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

RECIPIENT COUNTRY/

REGION

MITIGATION ADAPTATION

TOTALS

Energy Transport Forestry Agriculture Waste 

Management Industry Capacity Building

Coastal Zone

Management

Other Vulnerability 

Studies

Asia/Near East 73.85

Afghanistan 17.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.54

Algeria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asia/Near East Regional 2.31 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20

Bahrain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bangladesh 2.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00

Bhutan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Brunei 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Burma (Myanmar) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cambodia 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94

China 5.69 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.29

East Timor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Egypt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Federated States of Micronesia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fiji 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

French Polynesia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hong Kong 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

India 7.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.68

Indonesia 0.00 0.00 5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.20 0.00 7.10

Iraq 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jordan 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10

Kiribati 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Korea (ROK) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Laos 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lebanon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Macao 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Malaysia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maldive Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Marshall Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mongolia 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

Morocco 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07

Nauru 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nepal 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00

New Caledonia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

North Korea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oman 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pakistan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Palau 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Papua New Guinea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.25

Philippines 3.73 0.00 7.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 3.90 0.00 16.41

Qatar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reunion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Samoa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saudi Arabia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seychelles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Singapore 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

South Asia Regional 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70

Southeast Asia Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sri Lanka 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52

Syria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Taiwan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Thailand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 7-5 (Continued) 2008 U.S. Direct Financial Contributions Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Chapter 7 | Financial Resources and Technology Transfer 119

RECIPIENT COUNTRY/

REGION

MITIGATION ADAPTATION

TOTALS

Energy Transport Forestry Agriculture Waste 

Management Industry Capacity Building

Coastal Zone

Management

Other Vulnerability 

Studies

Tokelau Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tunisia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Turkey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Turks & Caicos Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vanuatu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vietnam 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.60 0.00 2.00

West Bank/Gaza 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Yemen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Europe/Eurasia 29.23

Albania 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46

Armenia 8.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.55

Azerbaijan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Belarus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bosnia & Herzegovina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bulgaria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Central Asia Regional 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95

Croatia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cyprus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Czech Republic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Estonia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Europe & Eurasia Regional 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12

Georgia 3.17 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.41

Hungary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kazakhstan 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36

Kosovo 6.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.62

Kyrgyzstan 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98

Latvia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lithuania 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Macedonia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Moldova 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40

Montenegro 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Poland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Romania 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Russia 0.27 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70

Serbia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slovak Republic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slovenia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tajikistan 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77

Turkmenistan 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22

Ukraine 4.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.70

Uzbekistan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Yugoslavia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Latin America/ 

Caribbean 56.42

Anguilla 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Antigua & Barbuda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Argentina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Aruba 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bahamas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barbados 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Belize 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.10

Bermuda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 7-5 (Continued) 2008 U.S. Direct Financial Contributions Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
120 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

RECIPIENT COUNTRY/

REGION

MITIGATION ADAPTATION

TOTALS

Energy Transport Forestry Agriculture Waste 

Management Industry Capacity Building

Coastal Zone

Management

Other Vulnerability 

Studies

Bolivia 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.30

Brazil 0.00 0.00 7.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.32

British Virgin Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Caribbean Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.60 0.00 2.00

Cayman Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Central America Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 2.40 0.05 3.05

Chile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Colombia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Costa Rica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dominica Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dominican Republic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.50

Ecuador 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 1.76 0.00 3.28

El Salvador 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.30

French Guiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grenada Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Guadeloupe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Guatemala 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 1.83

Guyana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Haiti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.01 16.05 0.00 20.06

Honduras 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 2.00 0.00 3.02

Jamaica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.46 0.00 0.56

Latin America Regional 0.00 0.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50

Martinique 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mexico 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.60

Montserrat Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nicaragua 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Panama 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.60 0.00 2.00

Paraguay 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Peru 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Saint Kitts-Nevis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saint Lucia Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saint Vincent & Grenadines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Suriname 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trinidad & Tobago 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uruguay 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Venezuela 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other Global Programs 3.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.13 24.41

Table 7-5 (Continued) 2008 U.S. Direct Financial Contributions Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC (Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Research and Systematic 

Observation

8

I

nvestments in climate science over the past several 

decades have greatly increased understanding of 

global climate change, including its attribution 

mainly to human influences. The air and oceans are 

warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is 

shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice 

sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are showing signs 

of instability, and sea level is rising. The consequences 

for human well-being are already being felt: more heat 

waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires; tropical diseases 

reaching into the temperate zones; vast areas of forest 

destroyed by pest outbreaks linked to warming; alterations in patterns of rainfall on which agriculture depends; and coastal property increasingly at risk from 

the surging seas. All of these impacts are being experienced in the United States and globally, as extensively 

documented in the recently released U.S. Global 

Change Research Program report Global Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States (Karl et al. 2009). 

Research on Global Change 

The latest and best scientific information forms the bedrock on which effective policy to combat and cope with 

climate change must be built. To assist the government 

and society as a whole with understanding, mitigating, 

and adapting to climate change, U.S. government agencies deploy a wide range of powerful science and technology resources. Each agency has different sets of key 

specialists and capabilities, different networks and relationships with the external research community, and 

separate program and budget authorities. 
122 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

U.S. Global Change Research Program 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 

brings together into a single interagency program the 

essential capacities for research and observations that 

are widely distributed across U.S. government agencies.1 An essential component of success in delivering 

the information necessary for decision making is coordination of the programmatic and budgetary decisions 

of the 13 agencies that make up the USGCRP. 

Growing out of interagency activities and planning 

beginning in about 1988, creation of the USGCRP 

energized cooperative interagency activities, with each 

agency bringing its strength to the collaborative effort. 

In 1990, USGCRP received congressional support 

under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA). The 

act called for the development of a research program 

“...to understand, assess, predict, and respond to 

human-induced and natural processes of global 

change,” and guided federally supported global change 

research for the next decade.2 In 2001, President Bush 

established the Climate Change Research Initiative 

(CCRI) to investigate uncertainties and set research 

priorities in climate change science, aiming to fill gaps 

in understanding within a few years.3 In the following 

year, it was announced that the USGCRP and CCRI 

together would become the Climate Change Science 

Program (CCSP). The USGCRP label remained attached to many of the program’s activities; now, consistent with the statutory language of the GCRA, the 

whole effort is going forward in the Obama administration as the USGCRP. 

The USGCRP is managed by a director from one of 

the participating agencies (currently from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]), 

with the help of the USGCRP Integration and Coordination Office (ICO) and interagency working 

groups that plan future research and cross-cutting activities, such as communications, decision support, 

and information and data concerns. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of 

Management and Budget work closely with the ICO 

and the working groups to establish research priorities 

and funding plans to ensure the program is aligned 

with the administration’s priorities and reflects agency 

planning. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget provides $2.1 billion for 

USGCRP/CCSP programs—an increase of about 3 

percent, over the 2009 level (excluding American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [ARRA] funds).4

USGCRP programs also received $604 million in 

ARRA funding based on preliminary agency allocations, including $237 million for NASA climate activities. ARRA funding also includes $170 million for 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) climate modeling activities. The 

2011 budget supports research activities, including the 

goals set forth in the program’s strategic plan. These 

activities can be grouped under the following areas: 

increase society’s knowledge of Earth’s past and present climate variability and change; improve understanding of natural and human forces of climate 

change; accelerate the capability to model and predict 

future conditions and impacts; assess the nation’s vulnerability to current and anticipated impacts of climate change; and improve the nation’s ability to respond to climate change by providing climate 

information and decision-support tools that are useful 

to policymakers and the general public.

Although the USGCRP continues to support a variety of research activities to gain more detailed predictive understanding of climate change, increased emphasis is being placed on bridging the significant gaps 

between estimating how much climate may change 

and the effects these changes may have on ecosystem 

services, water resources, natural resource utilization, 

human health, and societal well-being. The USGCRP 

is making a strong commitment to provide information that will reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience to variability and change. 

A recent National Academy of Sciences National Research Council report recommended restructuring the 

USGCRP around “...the end-to-end climate change 

problem, from understanding causes and processes to 

supporting actions needed to cope with the impending societal problems of climate change” (NAS/NRC 

2009). The USGCRP is committed to supporting a 

balanced portfolio of fundamental and applicationoriented research activities, from expanded modeling 

efforts to studies of coupled human-natural systems 

and institutional resilience. Plans are being developed 

to boost adaptation research; to bolster the capacity to 

monitor change and its impacts (including not only 

enhancing monitoring networks on land and at sea 

but also strengthening our system of Earth observation 

satellites); to produce the integrated assessments of 

the pace, patterns, and regional impacts of climate 

change that will be needed by decision makers as input 

into their deliberations on the metrics and goals to be 

embraced for both mitigation and adaptation; and to 

make climate data and information accessible to those 

who need it. 

Adaptation Research 

Knowledge is currently limited about the ability of 

communities, regions, and sectors to adapt to a changing climate. To address this shortfall, research on climate change impacts and adaptation must address 

complex human dimensions, such as economics, management, governance, behavior, and equity. Interdisciplinary research on adaptation that takes into account 

the interconnectedness of the Earth system and the 

complex nature of the social, political, and economic 

environment in which adaptation decisions must be 

1See http://www.usgcrp.gov/. 

2See http://www.gcrio.org/

gcact1990.html. 

3See http://www.climatescience.

gov/about/ccri.htm. 

4See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/

usbudget/.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 123

made is central to this effort. Given the relationships 

between climate change and extreme events, the communities of researchers, engineers, and other experts 

who work on reducing risks from natural and humancaused disasters have an important role to play in 

framing climate change adaptation strategies and in 

providing information to support decision making 

during implementation. For example, assessments of 

emergency preparedness and response systems, insurance systems, and disaster-relief capabilities are an important component of a society’s adaptive capacity. 

Integrated Assessment

Preparing for and adapting and responding to the impacts of climate change at the national level must begin 

with an integrated assessment that cuts across regional 

and sectoral lines. Any national assessment activity 

must engage localities and sectors to aggregate information into a national picture of climate impacts, and 

should also use this engagement to gather information 

on the “demand side” of adaptation, where people live 

and work, to re-orient research and observation investments. While national policy may be warranted for addressing certain climate change issues, individuals, public- and private-sector organizations, local communities, 

states, and regions will need to respond to many challenges as well. Future USGCRP activities will serve 

these different scales and stakeholders, providing the 

information and capabilities they need to prepare for 

and adapt and respond to future conditions.

Climate Services

Coordinated climate information and services are 

needed to assist decision making across public and 

private sectors. Local planners need information on 

likely changes in precipitation amount and flooding 

rains; farmers and farm cooperatives need information 

on changes in season length and temperature, not just 

for their own farms, but for those of their local and 

distant competitors; coastal zone managers need information on likely changes in sea level, storms, and estuarine temperatures; water resource managers need 

information on likely changes in snowpack and runoff, and the chance of floods and drought; community 

health planners need information on changes in the 

location of freezing conditions and the frequency of 

extreme heat waves; industry needs information on 

changes in extremes that might affect their businesses 

and shipping; and economic analysts need information across the region. 

Just as the nation’s climate research efforts require and 

benefit from interagency and academic partnerships, 

so too will the development and communication of 

climate change information benefit citizens and researchers. Providing this information requires sustained federal agency partnerships and collaboration 

with climate service providers and end users. 

While much work has been done to evaluate the need 

for climate services and a National Climate Service, 

the Obama administration believes that additional 

assessment and analysis of existing climate-service capabilities and user needs for climate services are necessary. A National Climate Service and, more broadly, 

our nation’s approach to delivering climate services 

will require that such analysis and assessment are ongoing, science-based, user-responsive, and relevant to 

all levels of interest—e.g., local, regional, national, and 

international. Such a framework must also be able to 

adapt to new developments in the scientific understanding of climate change and resultant impacts to 

serve the needs of decision makers and the public.

To address the nation’s need for reliable and accurate 

climate information, OSTP is working to convene a 

task force with representation from a diverse group of 

key agencies whose charge will be to examine national 

assets, existing data and information gaps, and costs 

related to the development of a cohesive framework 

for delivering accurate climate-related information to 

the public. This process is intended to result in a more 

detailed functional and organizational approach for 

delivering climate services to the nation, in concert 

with a broad authorizing framework.

Systematic Observations

Long-term, high-quality observations of the global 

environmental system are essential for defining the 

current state of the Earth’s system, discovering past 

trends, and measuring its variability. This task requires 

both space- and surface-based observation systems. 

The term climate observations can encompass a broad 

range of environmental observations, including (1) 

routine weather observations, which, when collected 

consistently over a long period of time, can be used to 

help describe a region’s climatology; (2) 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; (3) highly precise, continuous observations of climate system variables collected for the 

express purpose of documenting long-term (decadalto-centennial) change; and (4) 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. A full documentation of all U.S. systematic climate observational activities can be found 

in The United States National Report on Systematic 

Observations for Climate for 2008: National Activities 

with Respect to the Global Climate Observing System 

(GCOS) Implementation Plan (U.S. CCSP 2008). The 

following input will summarize, and where appropriate, update that information.

Past reports have categorized observing systems as being either satellite-based or in situ, to indicate a 
124 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

ground-based system. However, the term in situ is somewhat misleading, as it appears to include all non-satellite 

measurements (i.e., remote sensing from the ground, balloons, or aircraft), which it does not. For example, atmospheric observations necessary for climate studies include 

both real in situ measurements (which directly sample 

the air mass surrounding the instrument) as well as nonsatellite remote-sensing measurements. Therefore, this 

report distinguishes observing systems as being either 

non-satellite or satellite in nature. 

Satellite observations provide a unique perspective of 

the global integrated Earth system and are necessary 

for good global climate coverage. Non-satellite observations are required for the measurement of parameters that cannot be estimated from space platforms 

(e.g., biodiversity, groundwater, carbon sequestration 

at the root zone, and subsurface ocean parameters). 

Non-satellite 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. 

NOAA has provided leadership in the in situ longterm measurement of atmospheric greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) for 40 years. Flask, tower. and aircraft measurements are routinely made by NOAA’s Earth System Resources Laboratory, and ocean carbon inventory and exchange observations are routinely made by 

NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. 

NOAA maintains the global observational networks 

and field programs on which society will increasingly 

depend for reliable information.

One critical challenge to the Earth observation field is 

to maintain existing observation capabilities in a variety of areas. For example, maintaining the observational record of stratospheric ozone is essential in discerning the effects of climate change on the nature and 

timing of ozone recovery. Other key areas include radiative energy fluxes of the Sun and Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), global surface temperature, 

and global sea level. Efforts to create a long-term record of global land cover, started by Landsat in the 

1970s, are currently being prepared for the transition 

to a Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) being 

planned by NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS).5 The LDCM is currently planned for launch 

in December 2012 and is expected to have a 5-year 

mission life with 10-year expendable provisions.

The USGS Landsat 35-year record of the Earth’s surface 

is available to users at no charge. Under a transition 

toward the National Land Imaging Program, USGS is 

pursuing an aggressive schedule to provide users with 

electronic access to any Landsat scene held in the 

USGS-managed national archive of global scenes dating 

back to Landsat 1, launched in 1972. As of February 

2009, any Landsat archive scene selected by a user will 

be automatically processed, at no charge. In addition, 

newly acquired scenes meeting a cloud cover threshold 

of 20 percent or below will be processed and placed online for at least three months, after which time they will 

remain available for selection from the archive. 

The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)6 program has undergone a major restructuring in order to put this critical program on a more sustainable pathway toward 

success. The satellite system is a national priority that 

is essential to meeting both civil and military weatherforecasting, storm-tracking, and climate-monitoring 

requirements. The restructured program, now known 

as the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), will consist 

of platforms based on the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) satellite scheduled for launch in September 

2011. The JPSS is designed to monitor global environmental conditions, and collect and disseminate data 

related to weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and 

near-space environment with a planned launch in 

2015. The first JPSS satellite will host some of the sensors that were planned for the first NPOESS satellite, 

including the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer 

Suite, the Cross-track Infrared Sounder, the Advanced 

Technology Microwave Sounder, the Ozone Mapping 

and Profiling Suite, and the Cloud and Earth Radiant 

Energy System instrument.

Remotely sensed observations continue to be a cornerstone of the overall U.S. climate-observing program as 

coordinated by the USGCRP. The Cloud-Aerosol 

Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation 

(CALIPSO) satellite mission and CloudSat radar instruments are providing an unprecedented examination of the vertical structure of aerosols and clouds 

over the entire Earth. These data—when combined 

with data from the Aqua, Aura, and Parasol satellites 

orbiting in formation (the “A-Train”)—will enable 

systematic pursuit of key issues, including the effects 

of aerosols on clouds and precipitation, the strength of 

cloud feedbacks, and the characteristics of difficult-toobserve polar clouds. The increasing volume of data 

from remote-sensing and non-satellite observing systems presents a continuing challenge for USGCRP 

agencies to ensure that data management systems are 

able to handle the expected increases. 

To meet the long-term needs for the documentation 

of global changes, the United States integrates observations from both research and operational systems. 

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.

Providing for wide access to information from the 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

5 See http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 

and http://landsat.usgs.gov. 

6 See http://www.ipo.noaa.gov/. 

7 See http://www.

earthobservations.org/.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 125

(GEOSS)7 for applications that benefit society has 

been a focus of efforts coordinated by the intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO)8 and the 

U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO).9 The 

United States continues to be a very active participant 

in the development of GEOSS. The purpose of 

GEOSS is to achieve comprehensive, coordinated, and 

sustained observations of the Earth system in order to 

improve monitoring of the changing state of the planet, to increase understanding of complex Earth processes, and to enhance the prediction of the impacts of 

environmental change, including climate change. Finally, GEOSS provides the overall conceptual and 

organizational framework to build toward integrated 

global Earth observations to meet user needs and to 

support decision making in an increasingly complex 

and environmentally stressed world. It is a “system of 

systems” consisting of existing and future Earth observation systems, supplementing—not supplanting—

the mandates and governance arrangements of those 

systems, such as GCOS.10 The established Earth observation systems, through which many countries cooperate as members of the United Nations (UN) Specialized Agencies and as contributors to international 

scientific programs, provide essential building blocks 

for GEOSS.11 

Potential benefits of Earth observations were detailed 

in the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System 10-

year strategic plan that covered climate and eight other related areas—agriculture, disasters, ecology, energy, 

health, integration, ocean resources, water resources, 

and weather (IWGEO and NSTC/CENR 2005). The 

importance of this global collaborative effort was evident at the November 2009 GEO-VI Plenary Meeting, and a regional implementation of GEOSS, known 

as GEOSS in the Americas, continues to be an effort 

strongly supported by the United States.12 The first 

significant GEOSS in the Americas project involved 

the shifting of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites GOES-10 satellite in 2006 to a 

new orbit, to greatly improve environmental satellite 

coverage of the Western Hemisphere, especially over 

South America.13 By significantly enhancing satellite 

detection of such natural hazards as severe storms, 

floods, drought, landslides, and wildfires, the shift 

helps protect lives and property in both South America and the United States, and allows for improved 

prediction, response, and follow-up and expanded 

understanding of Earth system processes. Planning is 

underway to continue this South America coverage 

after GOES-10’s service is completed, by using GOES-12. 

Since 2006, other collaborative activities in the region 

have been taken on, including the North American 

Drought Monitoring Program14 and a coastal zone 

management effort discussed at a special forum in concert with the 2009 GEO-VI Plenary Meeting. 

Documentation of U.S. Climate Observations

The United States supports a large number of remotesensing satellite platforms, as well as a broad network 

of Earth-based global atmospheric, ocean, and terrestrial observation systems that are essential to climate 

monitoring. The United States contributes to the development and operation of several global observing 

systems, both research and operational, that collectively provide a comprehensive measure of climate system 

variability and climate change processes. These systems 

are a baseline Earth-observing system and include 

NASA, NOAA, and USGS Earth-observing satellites 

and extensive non-satellite observational capabilities. 

The USGCRP also supports several ground-based 

measurement activities that provide the data used in 

studies of the various climate processes necessary for 

better understanding of climate change. U.S. observational and monitoring activities contribute significantly to several international observing systems, including 

the GCOS, principally sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO); the Global Ocean 

Observing System (GOOS),15 sponsored by the UN 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission;16

and the Global Terrestrial Observing System 

(GTOS), sponsored by the UN Food and Agriculture 

Organization.17 The latter two have climate-related 

elements being developed jointly with GCOS. For 

example, NOAA has provided leadership in the in situ

long-term measurement of atmospheric GHGs for 40 

years. Flask, tower, and aircraft measurements are routinely made by NOAA’s Earth System Resources Laboratory, and ocean carbon inventory and exchange 

observations are routinely made by NOAA’s Pacific 

Marine Environmental Laboratory.

U.S. priorities for advancement of the atmospheric, 

oceanic, and terrestrial observing components of 

GCOS include (1) reducing the uncertainty in the 

global carbon inventory (in the atmospheric, oceanic, 

and terrestrial domains), sea-level change, and sea surface temperature; (2) continuing support for existing 

non-satellite atmospheric networks in developing nations; and (3) planning for surface and upper-air 

GCOS reference observations consistent with the 

USGCRP Synthesis and Analysis Report 1.1 (Karl et 

al. 2006). As such, the GOOS will make incremental 

advances, building out to 60 percent completion in 

2010, in which 50 surface drifters will be equipped 

with salinity sensors for satellite validation and salinity 

budget calculations, particularly in the polar regions; a 

new reference array will be added across the Atlantic 

basin, to measure changes in the ocean’s overturning 

circulation—an indicator of possible abrupt climate 

change; a pilot U.S. coastal carbon-observing network 

will enter sustained service, to help quantify North 

American carbon sources and sinks and to measure 

ocean acidification caused by CO2 sequestration in 

8 See http://www.

earthobservations.org/. 

9 See http://www.usgeo.gov/.10 See 

http://www.gosic.org/ios/GCOSmain-page.htm. 

11 See http://earthobservations.org. 

12 See http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/ 

PS/SATS/GOES/TEN/. 

13 See http://www.strategies.org/

EOPA.html. 

14 See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

oa/climate/monitoring/drought/

nadm/. 

15 See http://www.ioc-goos.org/. 

16 See http://ioc-unesco.org/. 

17 See http://www.fao.org/gtos/.
126 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

the ocean; and dedicated ships will target deployments 

of Argo and surface drifters in undersampled regions 

of the world oceans. The North American Carbon 

Program (NACP), under the auspices of the 

USGCRP, aims heavily at terrestrial uncertainties that 

are supported by a growing set of atmospheric measurements to place constraints on flux estimates.18

These observations are ongoing and involve participation from numerous agencies and institutions. 

Non-Satellite Atmospheric Observations 

The United States supports 75 stations in the GCOS 

Surface Network, 21 stations in the GCOS Upper Air 

Network,19 and 4 stations in the Global Atmospheric 

Watch (GAW).20 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.

Since publishing its last report to the UN Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 

United States has continued to field and commission a 

system known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network 

(USCRN).21 The USCRN is designed to answer the 

question: How has the U.S. climate changed over the 

past 50 years at national, regional, and local levels? Since 

beginning in 2002, and as of September 2008, 114 

USCRN stations have been commissioned in the continental United States. In 2008, work was begun on expanding that network to include 29 additional commissioned USCRN stations in Alaska; as of September 

2009, 2 new USCRN stations had been installed in 

Alaska. The USCRN concept is also being applied toward expanding reference surface observing on an international basis as resources allow. After a few years of 

planning, an effort is underway to install a USCRN 

station at the Russian Arctic observing station in Tiksi 

as part of a U.S.–Russia bilateral effort.

In addition, the Cooperative Observer Program 

(COOP) is the nation’s largest and oldest weather 

network, with nearly 10,250 observations taken daily, 

mostly by volunteers, over the course of the past 121 

years. The COOP is the primary source for monitoring U.S. climate variability, including measuring weekly to interannual time frames on national, regional, 

and local scales. These data are also the primary basis 

for assessments of century-scale climate change. The 

network is in stable locations of urban, suburban, and 

rural settings in flat, mountainous, and beach areas 

where people live, work and play. The COOP is designed to provide weather, water, and climate information. Due to the density of this observation network, 

the information collected by the COOP can clarify 

how the U.S. climate has changed in the past 120 years 

or more, on a national, regional, and local level. The 

USCRN installed the final station in 2008, and uses 

historic data from the COOP network to develop 

pseudo-normals. Each year these data help to inform 

decisions related to Federal Disaster Declarations 

based on weather, insurance industry claims, water 

resource management, drought declarations, transportation issues, legal issues, computing model guidance 

to daily weather forecasts, normals and extremes, and 

energy consumption.

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) 

Climate Research Facility (ACRF) is a scientific user 

facility for obtaining continuous, long-term measurements of radiative fluxes, cloud and aerosol properties, 

and related atmospheric characteristics in diverse climate regimes.22 The ACRF paradigm of long-term 

continuous measurements is essential to the evaluation and enhancement of climate models that must 

simulate the evolution of atmospheric properties for 

long continuous periods, from decades to centuries. 

The ACRF expands its geographic coverage through 

deployments of a mobile facility and includes aerial 

measurements that complement the ground measurements. In 2008, the mobile facility was deployed to 

China to examine aerosol indirect effects. In 2009, the 

mobile facility began a two-year deployment to the 

Azores to study processes controlling the radiative 

properties and microphysics of marine boundary layer 

clouds, a high-priority science question. An International Polar Year (IPY)23 experiment was conducted 

using combinations of ground and aerial measurements. Data from the IPY experiment will be used as a 

case study by the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Cloud Systems Study.24

The U.S. GCOS program’s primary mission is support 

of non-satellite reference observational efforts, including developing the GCOS Reference Upper-Air 

Network (GRUAN). The GRUAN is intended to aid 

in enhancing the quality of upper-tropospheric and 

lower-stratospheric water vapor measurements at a 

subset of 30-40 global stations. The GRUAN began 

operation on January 1, 2009, and is led by the GRUAN 

Lead Center in Lindenberg, Germany; seven U.S. stations (including five ACRF sites, one NOAA/ 

National Center for Atmospheric Research site, and 

one site from Howard University) have been invited 

to be part of the initial configuration of stations. The 

GRUAN is a key contributing network to GCOS; 

contributes to the GEOSS goal of “understanding, 

assessing, predicting, mitigating, and adapting to climate variability and change”; and is a key element supporting the Global Space-Based Inter-Calibration System effort. Long-term surface-based reference climate 

sites are essential for creating a continuous and homogeneous climate data record, such as those used by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 

UNFCCC, in global climate assessments. A reference 

climate data record is also essential for use by leastdeveloped nations for local and regional planning 

related to protecting and monitoring water resources 

18 See http://www.nacarbon.org/. 

19 See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

oa/hofn/guan/guan-intro.html. 

20 See http://www.wmo.ch/web/

arep/gaw/gaw_home.html. 

21 See http://www.ncdc.noaa.

gov/crn/. 

22 See http://www.arm.gov/acrf/. 

23 See http://www.ipy.org/. 

24 See http://www.gewex.org/

gewex_overview.html.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 127

under development for measurements of atmospheric 

CO2. In the future, light detection and ranging 

(LIDAR) data will be used in studies of the influence 

of polar stratospheric clouds on ozone formation over 

the South Pole, Arctic haze impacts on polar climate, 

and generation of climatological aerosol and cloud 

properties at several Micro Pulse Lidar (MPL)29 

Network (MPLNET)30 sites. To enhance data value, 

MPL instrument designs and hardware will be continually improved. In addition, several new MPLNET 

data products will be made available to the research 

community.

Non-Satellite Ocean Observations 

The climate requirements of GOOS are the same as 

those for GCOS. Also like GCOS, GOOS is based on 

a number of non-satellite and space-based observing 

components. The United States supports the Integrated Ocean Observing System’s (IOOS’s) surface and 

marine observations through a variety of components, 

including fixed and surface-drifting buoys, subsurface 

floats, and volunteer observing ships.31 It also supports 

the Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS) 

through a network of sea level tidal gauges.32

The United States currently provides satellite coverage 

of the global oceans for sea-surface temperatures, surface elevation, ocean-surface vector winds, sea ice, 

ocean color, and other climate variables. The first element of the climate portion of GOOS, completed in 

September 2005, is the global drifting buoy array, 

which is a network of 1,250 drifting buoys measuring 

sea-surface temperature and other variables as they 

flow in the ocean currents. At present, the United 

States is the world leader in implementing the nonsatellite elements of GOOS for climate, and sponsors 

the majority of the IOOS Global Component, which 

is the U.S. contribution to the international GOOS 

program and the ocean baseline of the GEOSS. The 

United States sponsors nearly half of the platforms 

presently deployed in the global ocean (3,860 of 

7,723), with 72 other countries providing the remainder. The United States has historically contributed 

about half of the international system, and has been a 

leader in fostering an international systems approach 

to the implementation of GOOS.

Expanding in coverage, currently 60 percent of the 

initial GOOS design is complete. The demand for 

ocean data and the products and forecasts derived 

from these data require international cooperation 

with other nations to complete deployment as soon as 

possible. 

In 1998, an international consortium presented plans 

for Argo, a global array of 3,000 autonomous instruments that would revolutionize the collection of critical, climate-relevant information from the upper 2 

kilometers (km) (1.2 miles [mi]) of the world’s 

oceans.33 These instruments drift at depth, periodically 

(e.g., drought forecasting), for understanding the effects of climate change on human health, and for understanding, assessing, predicting, mitigating and 

adapting to climate variability and change. Additionally, this kind of data record is a key element in reducing uncertainties in global temperature and precipitation variances, providing reference ground-truth data 

to aid in the evaluation of climate model simulations 

and in the provision of quality data for the calibration 

and validation of satellite data. 

While it is difficult to list all observing campaigns and 

systems, several others should be noted for their global 

climate significance. The Southern Hemisphere 

ADditional OZonesondes (SHADOZ)25 provides a 

consistent data set from balloon-borne ozonesondes 

for ground verification of satellite tropospheric ozone 

measurements at 12 sites across the tropical and subtropical regions of the Southern Hemisphere. Another 

key system along these lines is the AErosol RObotic 

NETwork (AERONET),26 which is a federation of 

ground-based remote-sensing aerosol networks established in part by NASA and France’s Centre National 

de la Recherche Scientifique. 

AERONET provides a long-term, continuous, and 

readily accessible public domain database of aerosol 

optical properties for research and characterization of 

aerosols, validates satellite retrievals, and provides synergy with other databases. AERONET collaboration 

provides a series of globally distributed observations of 

spectral aerosol optical depth, inversion products, and 

precipitable water in diverse aerosol regimes. The collaborative effort between NASA’s Advanced Global 

Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE)27 and 

NOAA’s Flask Monitoring Network has been instrumental in measuring the composition of the global 

atmosphere continuously since 1978. The AGAGE is 

distinguished by its capability to measure globally and 

at high frequency most of the important gases in the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the 

Ozone Layer and almost all of the significant non-CO2 

gases in the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate climate change. 

Also, both NASA and NOAA demonstrate great collaborative research efforts in this key climate monitoring activity.28

AERONET retrievals of atmospheric particulate absorption will continue to be utilized in climate-forcing 

studies and in the validation of current and future 

satellite missions, such as the Glory satellite (late 2010 

launch), which will measure aerosol light absorption 

from space. Network expansion will continue, with 

focus on regions that are not adequately sampled and 

that are important for understanding of global climate 

change, such as Asia. An experimental effort is underway to investigate the possibility of measuring sunlight 

reflected off the moon to make aerosol measurements 

at night. In addition, an experimental algorithm is 

25 See http://croc.gsfc.nasa.gov/

shadoz/. 

26 See http://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/

data_frame.html. 

27 See http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/. 

28 See http://www.strategies.org/

EOPA.html. 

29 See http://www.arm.gov/

instruments/instrument.

php?id=mpl. 

30 See http://www.mplnet.com/. 

31 See http://www.ocean.us/

what_is_ioos. 

32 See http://www.gloss-sealevel.

org/. 

33 See http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/.
128 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

rising to the sea surface, collecting data along the way, 

and report their observations in real time via satellite 

communications. The initial deployment objective of 

3,000 instruments distributed homogenously 

throughout the world’s oceans has been attained, and 

Argo now provides over 100,000 high-quality temperature and salinity profiles annually, along with globalscale velocity data, all without a seasonal bias. The 

Argo array has been deployed through the collaboration of more than 40 countries plus the European 

Union. 

A guiding principle of Argo is that the program should 

benefit everyone. Thus, the data are openly and immediately available to anyone wishing to use them. Argo 

data coupled with global-scale satellite measurements 

from radar altimeters have made possible huge advances in the representation of the oceans in coupled 

ocean-atmosphere models for climate forecasts and 

the routine analysis and forecasting of the state of the 

subsurface ocean. Argo data are being used in an everwidening range of research applications that have led 

to new insights into how the ocean and atmosphere 

interact in extreme as well as normal conditions. Two 

examples are the processes in polar winters when the 

deep waters that fill most of the ocean basins are 

formed, and the transfer of heat and water to the atmosphere beneath tropical cyclones. Both conditions 

are crucial to global weather and climate, and could 

not be observed by ships.

The present generation of instruments has a design life 

of four years when profiling to 2-km (1.2-mi) depth 

every 10 days. Maintaining the array will require annual deployments of around 800 floats. Having deployed the array and built the data delivery system, the 

challenge is to maintain the full array for a decade in a 

pre-operational “sustained maintenance” phase, including ensuring the availability of the platform resources to 

maintain the array. This will allow Argo’s design to be 

optimized and its value fully demonstrated. The United 

States has committed to maintaining half of the array, 

and other contributing nations are striving to continue 

the array’s strong international nature.

Continued upgrading of the GLOSS tidal gauge network from 43 to 170 stations is planned for the period 

2006–2010. Ocean carbon inventory surveys in a 10-

year repeat survey cycle help determine the anthropogenic intake of carbon into the oceans. Plans for advancement of the global Tropical-Atmosphere-Ocean 

(TAO) network of ocean buoys include an expansion 

of the network into the Indian Ocean (the Pacific 

Ocean has a current array of 70 TAO buoys).34 From 

2005 to 2007, 8 new TAO buoys were installed in the 

Indian Ocean in collaboration with partners from 

India, Indonesia, and France. Plans call for a total of 

38 TAO buoys in the Indian Ocean by 2013, which 

will form the Research Moored Array for AfricanAsian-Australian Monsoon Analysis and Prediction 

(RAMA) network. RAMA is a multinationally supported element of the Indian Ocean Observing System, a combination of complementary satellite and 

non-satellite measurement platforms for climate research and forecasting purposes. NASA is currently 

investing in the development of new prototype geodetic instruments for deployment later this decade to 

support the creation of a next-generation geodetic 

network for the improvement of the terrestrial reference frame.

IOOS is the U.S. coastal observing component of the 

GOOS. It is envisioned as a coordinated national and 

international network of observations, data management, and analyses that systematically acquires and 

disseminates data and information on past, present, 

and future states of the oceans. A coordinated IOOS 

effort is being established by NOAA via a national 

IOOS Program Office. The IOOS observing subsystem employs both remote and non-satellite sensing. 

Remote sensing includes satellite-, aircraft- and landbased sensors, power sources, and transmitters. Nonsatellite sensing includes platforms (ships, buoys, gliders, etc.), non-satellitesensors, power sources, sampling 

devices, laboratory-based measurements, and transmitters.

Non-Satellite Terrestrial Observations 

For terrestrial observations, GCOS and GTOS have 

identified permafrost thermal state and permafrost 

active layer as key variables for monitoring the state of 

the cryosphere. The United States operates a long-term 

“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 and glacier-related hazards, and the consequences of climate change. Longterm, mass balance monitoring programs have been 

established at three widely spaced U.S. glacier basins 

that clearly sample different climate-glacier-runoff 

regimes.

SNOTEL and SCAN Networks

The SNOTEL (SNOpack TELemetry) and SCAN 

(Soil Climate Analysis Network) monitoring networks provide automated comprehensive snowpack, 

soil moisture, and related climate information designed to support natural resource assessments. 

SNOTEL operates more than 660 remote sites in 

mountain snowpack zones of the western United 

States.35 SCAN, which began as a pilot program, now 

consists of more than 120 sites.36 These networks collect and disseminate continuous, standardized soil 

moisture and other climate data in publicly available 

databases and climate reports. Uses for these data include inputs to global circulation models, verifying 

34 See http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/

tao/proj_over/pubs/overview.

html. 

35 See http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.

gov/snow/. 

36 See http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.

gov/scan/.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 129

and ground truthing satellite data, monitoring 

drought development, forecasting water supply, and 

predicting sustainability for cropping systems.

AmeriFLUX Network 

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.37 Its 

objectives are to collect critical new information to 

help define the current global CO2 budget, to enable 

improved projections of future concentrations of atmospheric CO2, and to enhance the understanding of 

carbon fluxes, net ecosystem production, and carbon 

sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere.

North American Carbon Program

NACP, a major focus of the USGCRP, is a multidisciplinary research program established to obtain the 

scientific understanding of North America’s carbon 

sources, sinks, and changes in carbon stocks needed to 

meet societal concerns and provide tools for decision 

makers. NACP is supported by a number of federal 

agencies through a variety of intramural and extramural funding mechanisms and award instruments. 

NACP relies upon a rich and diverse array of existing 

observational networks, monitoring sites, and experimental field studies in North America and its adjacent 

oceans. The program’s goals are to develop quantitative scientific knowledge, robust observations, and 

models to determine: the emissions and uptake of 

CO2, methane (CH4), and carbon monoxide (CO); 

the changes in carbon stocks; and the factors regulating these processes for North America and adjacent 

ocean basins. NACP also aims to develop the scientific 

basis to implement full carbon accounting on regional 

and continental scales. This is the knowledge base 

needed to design monitoring programs for natural and 

managed CO2 sinks and emissions of CH4; to support 

long-term quantitative measurements of fluxes, sources, and sinks of atmospheric CO2 and CH4; and to 

develop forecasts for future trends.

Glacier Monitoring

The United States operates a long-term “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 longterm mass balance monitoring programs at three widely 

spaced U.S. glacier basins to clearly sample different climate-glacier-runoff regimes—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.38 

Land Cover Characterization Program

This program was begun in 1995 to develop land cover 

and other land characterization databases to address 

national and international requirements that were 

becoming increasingly sophisticated and diverse. To 

meet these requirements, USGS develops multi-scale 

land cover characteristics databases used by scientists, 

resource managers, planners, and educators (Global 

and National Land Cover Characterization), and contributes to the understanding of the patterns, characteristics, and dynamics of land cover across the United 

States and the globe (Urban Dynamics and Land Cover Trends). The program also conducts research to 

improve the utility and efficiency of large-area land 

cover characterization and land cover characteristics 

databases. 

The initial goal to develop a global 1-km (0.6-mi) land 

cover characteristics database was achieved in 1997. 

Current efforts focus on revising the database utilizing 

input from users around the world. USGS, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre generated the initial 

1-km (0.6-mi) resolution Global Land Cover Characteristics database using NOAA Advanced Very-HighResolution Radiometer data from April 1992 through 

March 1993. The database was built on a continentby-continent basis using standard map projections and 

1-km (0.6-mi) nominal spatial resolution; each continental database contains unique elements based on the 

geographic aspects of the specific continent. The continental databases are combined to make seven global 

data sets, each representing a different landscape based 

on a particular classification legend.39

National Ecological Observatory Network

NEON is a planned continental-scale research platform for discovering and understanding the impacts 

of climate change, land-use change, and invasive species on ecology.40 NEON would be a national observatory, not a collection of regional observatories. It is 

currently in the planning and development stages. 

NEON would consist of distributed sensor networks 

and experiments, linked by advanced cyber infrastructure to record and archive ecological data for at least 

30 years. Using standardized protocols and an open 

data policy, NEON would gather long-term data on 

ecological responses of the biosphere to changes in 

land use and climate, and on feedbacks from the geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. NEON would 

be designed to serve as a U.S. terrestrial contribution 

to GEOSS.

Space-Based Observations 

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 observational capa37 See http://public.ornl.gov/

ameriflux/. 

38 See http://ak.water.usgs.gov/

glaciology/. 

39 See http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/

glcc/glcc.html. 

40 See http://www.neoninc.org/.
130 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

bility to accurately monitor nearly all aspects of the 

total Earth system on a global basis. Currently, satellite systems monitor the evolution and impacts of El 

Niño and La Niña, weather phenomena, natural hazards, and 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; aerosol and three-dimensional cloud 

distributions; water distribution; and other climaterelated information. 

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 2001). These include 

instruments on the GOES and Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES),41 the series of 

Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites,42 the Landsats 5 and 7,43 and the Jason satellite44 measuring seasurface height, wind speed, and waves. Additional satellite missions in support of GCOS include (1) the 

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor for 

measuring solar irradiance;45 (2) the EOS Terra, 

Aqua, and Aura series; (3) the Sea-viewing Wide 

Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) for studying ocean 

and productivity, as well as aerosols;46 (4) the Shuttle 

Radar Topography Mission;47 and (5) the Tropical 

Rainfall Measuring Mission for measuring rainfall, 

clouds, sea-surface temperature, radiation, and lightning.48 A major upgrade to the GOES system, known 

as GOES-R, is under development, with a first launch 

scheduled for 2015.49 

POES 

Since 1979, the NOAA POES system has provided 

the nation with the longest time series of essential climate variables, including atmospheric temperature, 

water vapor, clouds, ozone, vegetation, and sea and 

land surface temperature.

GOES

Since the 1980s GOES has provided essential information on the diurnal cycle of clouds, and has been 

used as a key data set for the International Satellite 

Cloud Climatology Project. GOES has also been used 

to study the diurnal cycle of sea surface temperature.

Jason Altimeter Series 

Global sea level rise is the most obvious manifestation 

of climate change in the ocean. It directly threatens 

coastal infrastructure through increased erosion, more 

frequent storm-surge flooding, and loss of habitat 

through drowned wetlands. The only feasible way to 

accurately determine global sea level rise is through 

satellite altimetry, the systematic collection of sea level 

observations, gathered today by the ongoing Jason 

series of satellite missions. These observations suggest 

that sea level rise is accelerating; in particular, the value of approximately 3.1 millimeters (0.12 inches) per 

year from altimeters over the past 15 years is almost 

twice the estimate of approximately 1.7 mm (0.07 in) 

per year from tide gauges over the past century. 

The Jason series is being transitioned as a research endeavor from NASA and the Centre National d’Etudes 

Spatiales (the French Space Agency) to NOAA and 

the European Organisation for the Exploitation of 

Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT, NOAA’s 

operational satellite counterpart in Europe) for joint 

implementation as a sustained operational capability. 

NOAA and EUMETSAT have already assumed responsibility for the ground system and operation of 

the Jason-2 satellite launched in June 2008. Additionally, with funding requested in the President’s fiscal 

year (FY) 2010 budget (OMB 2009), NOAA plans to 

begin developing Jason-3, a joint mission with 

EUMETSAT. Assuming resources are made available 

on schedule, a joint Jason-3 could be launched in late 

2013, in time to overlap at least the last 6 months of 

the design life of Jason-2, thus helping ensure the continuity of the climate record of global sea level.

Ocean Surface Vector Wind Measurements

NASA’s QuikSCAT (or Quick Scatterometer) scans 

the ocean surface to measure wind speed and direction, providing observations over the open ocean 

where other tools, such as buoys, ships, and reconnaissance flights, are sparse or unavailable. Over time, 

these data have proved useful to NOAA for marine 

and tropical cyclone forecasts. In November 2009, 

NASA announced performance degradation of the 

QuikSCAT satellite. 

NOAA and NASA continue to pursue short-term 

and long-term strategies to replace these space-based 

scatterometry measurements. NOAA is using data 

from the Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) onboard 

the Meteorological Operational (MetOp) satellite 

operated by EUMETSAT. NOAA and NASA have 

signed a letter of intent to collaborate on science and 

obtain Oceansat-2 data from the Indian Space Research Organisation. NOAA and NASA have also had 

discussions with the Japanese Aerospace Exploration 

Agency (JAXA) about flying a U.S.-developed scatterometer instrument on a future JAXA satellite.50

The Afternoon Train (“A-Train”)

A collaboration between NASA and the space agencies of Canada and France, the A-Train (Afternoon 

Train) is a key Sun-synchronous, Earth-orbiting satellite formation that studies the atmosphere.51 The ATrain constellation consists of five satellites flying in 

close proximity to each other. A sixth satellite, the 

Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), was to have 

been added to the A-Train constellation in early 2009, 

but experienced a launch failure in February 2009. 

41 See http://www.oso.noaa.gov/

poes/. 

42 See http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/. 

43 See http://landsat.usgs.gov/. 

44 See http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.

gov/mission/jason-1.html. 

45 See http://acrim.jpl.nasa.gov/. 

46See http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.

gov/SeaWiFS/. 

47 See http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/

srtm/. 

48 See http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/. 

49 See http://www.goes-r.gov/. 

50 See http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/

sat/gcom/index_e.html. 

51 See http://nasascience.nasa.

gov/earth-science/a-train-satelliteconstellation.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 131

The first satellite in the A-Train constellation, Aqua, 

was launched in 2002; the second satellite, Aura, was 

launched in July 2004; and the CloudSat, CALIPSO, 

and PARASOL satellites were launched in April 2006. 

The A-Train satellites cross the equator within a few 

minutes of one another at around 1:30 p.m. local solar 

time. By combining the different sets of observations 

from the A-Train, a better understanding of atmospheric composition, clouds, and aerosols has led and 

is leading to major advances in atmospheric knowledge. More details on the five A-Train components follow.

NASA Aura—The NASA Aura satellite was launched 

with four instruments to extensively monitor the composition of the atmosphere.52 Two of these instruments, the Microwave Limb Sounder and HighResolution Dynamics Limb Sounder, obtain highly 

resolved altitude profiles of the stratosphere and upper 

troposphere for understanding photochemical and dynamical processes in these altitude ranges. The Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer obtains column and 

partial altitude profiles for ozone and tropospheric trace 

gases, while the Ozone Monitoring Instrument obtains 

nearly daily global ozone column maps, as well as columns for other important air quality parameters. Aura 

observes the atmosphere to answer the following three 

high-priority environmental questions: (1) Is the 

Earth’s ozone layer recovering? (2) Is air quality getting 

worse? and (3) How is the Earth’s climate changing?

PARASOL—A French Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales microsatellite project,53 PARASOL has improved the characterization of cloud and aerosol microphysical and radiative properties. This advance has 

substantially increased our understanding of the radiative impact of clouds and aerosols, which in turn has 

led to improving numerical modeling of these processes in general circulation models.

CALIPSO and CloudSat—NASA’s highly complementary CALIPSO54 and CloudSat55 satellites provide 

new, three-dimensional perspectives of how clouds 

and aerosols form, evolve, and affect weather and climate. Both satellites fly in formation as part of the 

NASA A-Train constellation, providing the benefits 

of near simultaneity and thus the opportunity for synergistic measurements made with complementary 

techniques. 

NASA Aqua—The NASA Aqua satellite is designed to 

acquire precise atmospheric and oceanic measurements that provide a greater understanding of these 

components in the Earth’s climate.56 Other instruments on Aqua, such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument, provide regional-to-global land cover, sea surface 

temperature, and ocean color. Data from the A-Train 

instruments will help answer these important questions: (1) What are the aerosol types, and how do satellite observations match global emission and transport models? (2) How do aerosols contribute to the 

Earth radiation budget, and to what extent are they a 

climate forcing? (3) How does cloud layering affect 

the Earth radiation budge? (4) What is the vertical 

distribution of cloud water/ice in cloud systems? and 

(5) What is the role of polar stratospheric clouds in 

ozone loss and denitrification of the Arctic vortex?

AIRS—Additional advances have been achieved by 

exploiting new thermal sounder measurements from 

the Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder (AIRS). Global 

retrievals from AIRS have proven valuable to understand the distribution as well as the transport mechanisms of CO, CH4, and CO2 in the middle troposphere with respective precisions of 10, 1.5, and 0.5 

percent. NOAA has incorporated the lessons learned 

from AIRS into operational carbon products from the 

EUMETSAT Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI), which launched aboard the MetOp-A 

satellite in 2006. NOAA is planning to continue these 

products with the NPOESS Cross-track Infrared 

Sounder (CrIS). The currently scheduled IASI and 

CrIS missions will allow the creation of a 20-year record of satellite thermal sounder-derived carbon trace 

gases, along with self-consistent ozone, temperature, 

moisture, and cloud information.

Other Recent NASA Missions

Other recent NASA missions include the following:

ICESat—The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite, 

launched in 2003, has been measuring surface elevations of ice and land, vertical distributions of clouds 

and aerosols, vegetation-canopy heights, and other 

features with unprecedented accuracy and sensitivity.57 The primary purpose of ICESat has been to acquire time series of ice-sheet elevation changes for determining the present-day mass balance of the ice 

sheets, to study associations between observed ice 

changes and polar climate, and to improve estimates of 

the present and future contributions of ice melt to 

global sea level rise.

SORCE—The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment satellite, also launched in 2003, is equipped with 

four instruments that measure variations in solar radiation much more accurately than previous measurements and observe some of the spectral properties of 

solar radiation for the first time.58

GRACE—The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) twin satellites celebrated their seventh anniversary in orbit in March 2009, completing a 

successful primary mission that has provided improved ongoing estimates of the Earth’s gravity field.59

In conjunction with other data and models, GRACE 

has provided observations of terrestrial water storage 

changes, ice-mass variations, ocean-bottom pressure 

changes, and sea level variations.

52 See http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/. 

53 See http://smsc.cnes.fr/

PARASOL/. 

54 See http://www.nasa.gov/

mission_pages/calipso/main/. 

55 See http://cloudsat.atmos.

colostate.edu/. 

56 See http://aqua.nasa.gov/. 

57 See http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/. 

58 See http://lasp.colorado.edu/

sorce/index.htm. 

59 See http://www.csr.utexas.edu/

grace/.
132 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Planned Missions

NASA plans to launch the following four missions 

over the next several years: 

Glory—2010 launch: Glory will measure black carbon 

soot and other aerosols, as well as total solar irradiance.

Aquarius—2010 launch: Aquarius will measure global 

sea surface salinity.

NPOESS Preparatory Project—2011 launch: This 

project will demonstrate advanced technology for atmospheric sounding, providing continuity of weather 

and climate observations following EOS-PM (Terra) 

and EOS-AM (Aqua). It will supply data on atmospheric and sea surface temperatures, humidity soundings, land and ocean biological productivity, and cloud 

and aerosol properties.

Global Precipitation Measurement—2013 launch: 

The Global Precipitation Measurement mission will 

study global precipitation (rain, snow, and ice).

Data Management

Data management is an important aspect of any systematic observing effort. U.S. agencies have unique 

mandates for climate-focused and -related systematic 

observations, and for the attendant data processing, 

archiving, and use of the important information from 

these observing systems.

Integrated Earth Observations

Cooperative efforts by USGCRP and USGEO agencies 

are moving toward providing integrated and more easily 

accessible Earth observations. Currently operating 

USGCRP systems for data management and distribution highlighted in the 2007 Our Changing Planet report include NASA’s Global Change Master Directory 

and Earth Observing System Data and Information 

System, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (USGCRP 

and SGCR 2006). DOE’s Carbon Dioxide Information 

Analysis Center (CDIAC) provides comprehensive, 

long-term data management support, analysis, and information services to the global climate research community and the general public. The CDIAC data collection is designed to answer questions pertinent to both 

the present-day carbon budget and temporal changes in 

carbon sources and sinks. The data sets provide quantitative estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emission rates, 

atmospheric concentration levels, land-atmosphere 

fluxes, ocean-atmosphere fluxes, and oceanic concentrations and inventories. The data holdings also support 

the NACP. NOAA’s Climate Services Portal aggregates 

NOAA climate data, products, and services and serves 

as a touchstone for inquiries, interactive public dialogue, education, climate assessment information, and 

user requests. 

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center’s (NCDC’s) 

Climate Data Online site provides climate data from 

multiple stations around the world. Plans for 2007 

and 2008 included the IPY participation through a 

focus on polar climate observations via NCDC’s 

World Data Center for Meteorology.60 Finally, efforts 

are being explored to improve climate data integration 

in the Pacific Islands region and produce more useful, 

end-user-driven climate products. 

PRICIP AND PaCIS 

The Pacific Region Integrated Climatology Information Products (PRICIP) project61 is an example of a 

region-wide collaborative activity under the auspices 

of the Pacific Climate Information System (PaCIS).62

PRICIP is a regional path-finding activity with the 

goal of developing a national comprehensive coastal 

climatology program. It aims to improve our understanding of patterns and trends of storm frequency 

and intensity—“storminess”—within the Pacific region and develop a suite of integrated information 

products that can be used by emergency managers, 

mitigation planners, government agencies, and decision makers in key sectors, including water and natural 

resource management, agriculture and fisheries, transportation and communication, and recreation and 

tourism.

PRICIP is exploring how the climate-related processes 

that govern extreme storm events are expressed within 

and between three thematic areas: heavy rains, strong 

winds, and high seas. It involves analyses of historical 

records collected throughout the Pacific region, and the 

integration of these climatological analyses with nearreal-time observations to put the current weather into a 

longer-term perspective. PaCIS provides a programmatic framework to integrate ongoing and future climate 

observations, operational forecasting services, and climate projections, research, assessment, data management, outreach, and education to address the needs of 

American Flag and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands.

Integrated Data and Environmental Applications 

Center

NOAA’s Integrated Data and Environmental Applications (IDEA) Center helps meet critical regional 

needs for ocean, climate, and ecosystem information 

to protect lives and property, support economic development, and enhance the resilience of Pacific Island 

communities in the face of changing environmental 

conditions.63 This region-wide data integration activity (1) integrates regional observations, research, assessment, and services, and provides a prototype for a 

next-generation NOAA data center; (2) strengthens 

the delivery of ocean, climate, and ecosystem data 

products and information services to the diverse Pacific Island user community; (3) supports NOAA research and service programs in the Pacific; (4) supports the emergence of regional ocean- and 

climate-observing systems and information services 

that are responsive to the needs of Pacific Island com60 See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

oa/wdc/. 

61 See http://www.pricip.org/. 

62 See http://www.ideademo.org/

pacis. 

63 See http://www.ideademo.org/.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 133

munities, governments, and businesses via the evolving 

PaCIS program; (5) supports integrated ecosystem 

science and services needed for Pacific Island ocean 

and coastal resource management programs; and (6) 

continues NOAA/U.S. leadership in the emergence of 

a global environmental observing system (e.g., GCOS, 

GOOS, IOOS, and GEOSS).

National Integrated Drought Information System

Droughts have far-reaching impacts on many aspects 

of our daily lives, from water management to health to 

energy consumption and conservation. To mitigate 

these impacts, NOAA, other federal and state agencies, partners, and countries developed the plan for the 

National Integrated Drought Information System 

(NIDIS). NIDIS is a dynamic and accessible droughtrisk information system that was created in response 

to extended drought conditions, especially in the western United States, over the past decade. 

In 2007, the United States unveiled a new, interactive 

Web site called the U.S. Drought Portal (USDP) that 

allows the public and civic managers to monitor U.S. 

drought conditions, get forecasts, assess the impacts of 

drought on their communities, and learn about possible mitigation measures.64 This Web site is useful 

internationally as nations work to coordinate drought 

preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery activities, and it fits in well with drought-related bilateral 

activities the United States is engaged in with partners 

in Canada and Mexico. 

In 2008, NOAA, along with its partners, including 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), began 

to institute geographic information system (GIS) 

mapping capabilities into the USDP. In 2009, the program will work to integrate enhanced GIS capabilities 

into the USDP. Additionally, communities will be 

unveiled in the portal, serving as a location for subject 

matter experts to share improvements in drought 

monitoring, forecasting, and mitigation. These communities will also serve as a coordinating and communications mechanism for NIDIS regional pilot projects. NIDIS was featured at the 2007 GEO-IV Plenary 

Session as a major contribution to GEOSS.

State of the Climate Report

Produced in partnership with WMO and numerous 

national and international partners, the annual State 

of the Climate Report–Using Earth Observations to 

Monitor the Global Climate,

65 consists of operational 

monitoring, analysis, and reporting on atmosphere, 

ocean, and land surface conditions from the global to 

local scale. By combining historical data with current 

observations, this report places today’s climate in historical context and provides perspectives on the extent 

to which the climate continues to vary and change, as 

well as the effect that climate is having on societies and 

the environment. 

More than 150 scientists from over 30 countries are 

now part of an annual process of turning raw observations collected from the global array of observing systems into information that enhances the ability of 

decision makers to understand the state of the Earth’s 

climate and its variation and change during the past 

year, with context provided by decades to centuries of 

climate information. Many observational and analytical systems are unique to countries or regions of the 

world. Nevertheless, through this effort, the information from each system is openly shared, which is essential to transitioning data to operational use and filling 

critical gaps in current knowledge about the state of 

the global climate system. A State of the Climate Report is distributed through publication in the Bulletin 

of the American Meteorological Society each year,66 and 

is translated into other languages and distributed to all 

187 WMO member nations. The report seeks to provide details on as many of the essential climate variables (ECVs) as possible, as identified in the GCOS 

Second Adequacy Report.67 Since this report began 

monitoring ECVs in 2001, and in line with the recently published 2008 edition, the number of reported 

ECVs has more than doubled to nearly 25.

Earth Observing System Data and Information 

System 

NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) provides convenient mechanisms for locating and accessing products of interest 

either electronically or via orders for data on media. 

EOSDIS facilitates collaborative science by providing 

sets of tools and capabilities, such that investigators 

may provide access to special products (or research 

products) from their own computing facilities. 

EOSDIS has an operational EOS Data Gateway 

(EDG) that provides access to the data holdings at all 

the Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) 

and participating data centers from other U.S. and 

international agencies. Currently, there are 14 EDGs 

around the world that permit users to access Earth 

science data archives, browse data holdings, select data 

products, and place data orders.

Eight NASA DAACs, representing a wide range of 

Earth science disciplines, comprise the data archival 

and distribution functions of EOSDIS. The DAACs 

carry out the responsibilities for processing certain 

data products from instrument data, archiving and 

distributing NASA’s Earth science data, and providing 

a full range of user support. More than 2,100 distinct 

data products are archived at and distributed from the 

DAACs. These institutions are custodians of Earth 

science mission data until the data are moved to longterm archives. They ensure that data will be easily accessible to users. 

NASA and NOAA have initiated a pilot project to 

develop a prototype system for testing candidate ap64 See http://drought.gov. 

65 See http://www.noaa.

gov/features/climate/

climatemonitoring2.html. 

66 See http://www.ametsoc.org/

PUBS/bams/. 

67 An archive of these reports 

from 2000 to 2007 can be found 

at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/

climate/research/state-of-climate.
134 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

proaches for moving MODIS data into long-term 

NOAA archives. This pilot project is part of the evolution of NOAA’s Comprehensive Large Array-data 

Stewardship System (CLASS). Acting in concert with 

their users, DAACs provide reliable, robust services to 

those whose needs may cross traditional discipline 

boundaries, while continuing to support the particular 

needs of their respective discipline communities. The 

DAACs are currently serving a broad and growing 

user community at an increasing rate. CLASS is 

NOAA’s online facility for the distribution of NOAA 

and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) POES data, 

NASA mission data, NOAA GOES data, and derived 

data. CLASS is an electronic library of NOAA environmental data that provides capabilities for finding 

and obtaining such satellite data.68

Global Observing System Information Center

The transition of the Global Observing System Information Center (GOSIC) from a developmental activity at the University of Delaware to an operational 

global data facility at NOAA’s NCDC was completed 

on behalf of and with the concurrence of the global 

observing community in October 2006. GOSIC provides information; facilitates easier access to data and 

information produced by GCOS, GOOS, and GTOS 

and their partner programs; provides explanations of 

the various global data systems, as well as an integrated 

overview of the myriad global observing programs, 

which includes online access to their data, information, and services; and offers a search capability across 

international data centers, to enhance access to a 

worldwide set of observations and derived products.69

Technology for Global Change

The United States has committed not only to improving the science to better understand global climate 

change, but also to promoting the development and 

deployment of technologies to reduce GHG emissions. These efforts are targeted at increasing energy 

end-use efficiency and supplying energy with greatly 

reduced GHG emissions to meet the nation’s goals of 

reducing GHG emissions and stabilizing GHG atmospheric concentrations at a level that avoids dangerous 

human interference with the climate system. To address these challenges, the Obama administration and 

Congress are working together to spur a revolution in 

clean energy technologies.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program 

The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program 

(CCTP) was established administratively in 2002, and 

authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.70 CCTP 

developed its August 2005 Vision and Framework for 

Strategy and Planning (CCTP 2005) and September 

2006 Strategic Plan (CCTP 2006) to guide and prioritize the federal government’s climate technology efforts. 

CCTP’s strategic vision has six complementary goals: 

(1) reducing emissions from energy end use and infrastructure, (2) reducing emissions from energy supply, 

(3) capturing and sequestering CO2, (4) reducing 

emissions of other GHGs, (5) measuring and monitoring emissions, and (6) bolstering the contributions 

of basic science. DOE serves as the lead agency for the 

CCTP effort. Twelve agencies participate in the interagency coordination efforts of CCTP. Eight of these 

fund activities are included in the CCTP portfolio. 

In FY 2009, approximately $5.2 billion was appropriated for CCTP activities. ARRA provided over $25 

billion in additional funding for CCTP research and 

development (R&D) activities across a broad portfolio 

of GHG mitigation options, including high-performance buildings; efficient manufacturing; advanced 

vehicles; clean biofuels; wind, solar, geothermal, and 

nuclear power; carbon capture and sequestration; advanced energy storage; a more intelligent electric grid; 

and techniques for reducing emissions and/or increasing uptake of CO2 in agriculture and forestry. ARRA 

also provided $400 million for establishing the Advanced Research and Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) within DOE to overcome the long-term and 

high-risk technological barriers to the development of 

clean energy technologies.71 

Energy End Use and Infrastructure 

Major sources of GHGs are closely tied to the use of 

energy in transportation, residential and commercial 

buildings, and industrial processes. Improving energy 

efficiency and reducing the intensity of GHG emissions in these sectors can significantly reduce overall 

GHG emissions. In addition, improving the infrastructure of the electricity transmission and distribution grid can reduce GHG emissions by making power 

generation more efficient and by providing expanded 

use and grid access of low-emission electricity from 

renewable energy technologies, including wind, solar, 

and geothermal power. 

Key research activities include DOE’s nationwide plan 

to modernize the electric grid, enhance the security of 

the U.S. energy infrastructure, and ensure reliable electricity delivery to meet growing demand. The R&D 

program is focused on technologies that reduce GHG 

emissions and contribute to energy independence and 

economic growth by improving the reliability, efficiency, flexibility, functionality, and security of the nation’s 

electricity delivery system. The emphasis is on development of advanced transmission technologies, including 

more efficient cables and conductors to reduce energy 

loss; strengthening the reliability of the electric grid by 

enhancing real-time visualization tools; and developing 

a “smart grid” system with enhanced intelligence and 

connectivity.

Several U.S. agencies (DOE, Department of Transportation [DOT], DOD, Environmental Protection Agen68 See http://www.nsof.class.noaa.

gov/saa/products/welcome. 

69 See http://gosic.org. 

70 See http://www.

climatetechnology.gov/. 

71 See http://arpa-e.energy.gov/.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 135

cy [EPA], and NASA) are working on cost-effective 

automotive technologies that increase fuel efficiency 

and produce ultra-low pollution and GHG emissions. 

Under the Clean Automotive Technology Program, 

EPA facilitates collaboration with the automotive industry through innovative research to achieve ultralow-pollution emissions, increase fuel efficiency, and 

reduce GHGs. By developing cost-effective technologies, the program encourages manufacturers to produce cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The 

DOT Federal Transit Administration’s National 

Fuel Cell Bus Program develops and demonstrates 

fuel cell transit bus technology.72 In addition, DOE’s 

Vehicle Technologies Program supports R&D to 

make vehicles more efficient and capable of operating 

on non-petroleum fuels.73

Other DOT programs include efforts to improve travel activity, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and enhance 

vehicle and system operations. Aviation yields GHG 

emissions that have the potential to influence global 

climate. To identify opportunities for GHG emission 

reductions in the aviation sector, DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently launched the 

Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative. Currently, measuring and tracking fuel efficiency from 

aircraft operations provide the data for assessing the 

improvements in aircraft and engine technology, operational procedures, and the airspace transportation 

system that reduce aviation’s contribution to CO2

emissions. The FAA’s Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative is a government–private-sector 

coalition that focuses the efforts of commercial aviation to engage the emerging alternative fuels industry.74 With support from NASA, the FAA recently 

launched the Continuous Lower Energy Emissions 

and Noise Program to advance maturing engine and 

aircraft technologies for quick fusion into the fleet in 

order to achieve increases in fuel efficiency (which is 

directly related to CO2 emissions) and reduction in 

nitrogen oxide emissions (which affects distributions 

of ozone and methane—both of which are GHGs). 

These strategies to improve the transportation system 

can reduce GHG emissions, lead to environmental 

benefits, reduce oil use, improve America’s energy security, and benefit the economy.

Reducing energy consumption and transforming the 

carbon footprint of the built environment through 

the development of technologies that will enable costcompetitive, zero-energy buildings, and supporting 

the advancement of clean and efficient industrial 

technologies and processes are other areas of research 

that could yield significant emission reductions both 

domestically and globally. At the July 9, 2009, Group 

of Eight (G8) meetings in L’Aquila, Italy, the Major 

Economies Forum countries (G8 + China, India, 

South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia) announced a Global Partnership to drive transformational low-carbon, climate-friendly technologies. A 

commitment was made to dramatically increase and 

coordinate public-sector investments in research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of these 

technologies, with a view to doubling such investments by 2015, while recognizing the importance of 

private investment, public-private partnerships and 

international cooperation, including regional innovation centers. The United States will lead on “efficiency,” which includes both buildings and industrial sector efficiency. Technology Action Plans and 

roadmaps will be developed along with recommendations for further progress. Drawing on global best 

practice policies, the Global Partnership will undertake to remove barriers, establish incentives, enhance 

capacity building, and implement appropriate measures to aggressively accelerate deployment and transfer of key existing and new low-carbon technologies, 

in accordance with national circumstances. 

Energy Supply 

Global and domestic energy supplies are dominated 

by fossil fuels that emit CO2 when burned. The transition to a low-carbon energy future will require the 

availability of cost-competitive low- or zero-carbon 

energy supply technologies. 

Renewable energy includes a range of different technologies that can play an important role in reducing 

GHG emissions. The United States currently invests 

considerable resources in wind, wave, tidal, hydropower, solar photovoltaics, and biomass technologies. 

In FY 2009, CCTP-related investments in renewable 

energy technologies included a combined $800 million. For example, DOE is helping meet America’s 

increasing energy needs by working with wind industry partners to develop clean, domestic, innovative 

wind energy technologies that can compete with conventional fuel sources. DOE’s Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program efforts have culminated in 

some of industry’s leading products today and have 

contributed to record-breaking industry growth.75

DOE’s Biomass Program also conducts R&D in four 

key areas of technology required to produce biomass 

feedstocks and convert them to useful biofuels and 

value-added products: feedstocks, processing and conversion, integrated biorefineries, and infrastructure.76

USDA’s Biomass Research and Development Initiative addresses feedstock development, biofuels and 

bio-based product development, and biofuel development analysis.77 All projects are implemented in accordance with a life-cycle perspective that considers 

both direct and indirect environmental and economic 

impacts. USDA’s Rural Development program provides (1) loan guarantees for the development, construction, and retrofitting of commercial-scale biorefineries; (2) grants to help pay for the development 

and construction costs of demonstration-scale biore72 See http://www.nrel.gov/

hydrogen/proj_fc_bus_eval.html. 

73 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/vehiclesandfuels/. 

74 See http://www.caafi.org/. 

75 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/windandhydro/. 

76 See http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/biomass/. 

77 See http://www.brdisolutions.

com/default.aspx.
136 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

fineries; (3) payments to biorefineries to replace fossil 

fuels used to produce heat or power with renewable 

biomass; and (4) loan guarantees to rural residents, 

agricultural producers, and rural businesses for energy 

efficiency and renewable energy systems, energy audits, and technical assistance for projects ranging 

from biofuels to wind, solar, geothermal, methane gas 

recovery, advanced hydro, and biomass.78 

Advanced fossil -based power and fuels are areas of 

particular interest for the United States. With coal 

likely to remain one of the nation’s most widely used 

energy resources for the foreseeable future, the United 

States is actively funding applied R&D of advanced 

coal technologies that improve efficiency and reduce the 

intensity of CO2 emissions. These activities are conducted through such programs as the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative, a cost-shared partnership between the government and industry to develop and demonstrate advanced coal-based power generation technologies.79

Concerns about resource availability, energy security, 

air quality, and climate change suggest a larger role for 

nuclear power as an energy supply choice. A key mission of DOE’s nuclear energy R&D program is to plan 

and conduct applied research in advanced reactor and 

fuel and waste management technologies. The aim of 

these efforts is to enable nuclear energy to be used as a 

safe, advanced, cost-effective source of reliable energy 

that will help address climate change by reducing 

GHG emissions. The Generation IV Nuclear Energy 

Systems program is investigating the next-generation 

reactor and fuel-cycle systems, which represent a significant leap in economic performance, safety, and 

proliferation resistance.80 Fusion energy is a potential 

major new source of energy that, if successfully developed, could be used to produce electricity and possibly 

hydrogen. Fusion has features that make it an attractive option from both environmental and safety perspectives. However, the technical hurdles of fusion 

energy are very high, and with a commercialization 

objective of 2050, its impact will not be felt until the 

second half of the century. 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a central 

element of CCTP’s strategy, because for the foreseeable future, fossil fuels will continue to be the world’s 

most widely used forms of energy. Global energy models suggest that with current global coal use patterns, it 

will not be possible to stabilize atmospheric GHG 

concentrations at acceptable levels. Thus, a realistic 

approach is to find ways to “sequester” the CO2 produced when fossil fuels—especially coal—are used. 

The term carbon sequestration describes a number of 

technologies and methods to capture, transport, and 

store CO2 or remove it from the atmosphere. These 

include capturing carbon (or CO2), geologic storage of 

CO2, and terrestrial sequestration in natural environs. 

Advanced techniques to capture gaseous CO2 from 

energy and industrial facilities and store it permanently in geologic formations are under development. In 

2008, the G8 nations called for advancing CCS internationally, resulting in 20 major demonstrations by 

2020; the United States agreed to sponsor at least 10 

of these. Central to these U.S. demonstrations is 

DOE’s core Carbon Sequestration Program, which 

emphasizes technologies that capture CO2 from large 

point sources and store the emissions in geologic formations capable of holding vast amounts of CO2. The 

Carbon Sequestration Program is complemented by 

other DOE programs that seek to significantly reduce 

the overall cost of integrated plants that will produce 

electricity and other co-products while capturing and 

sequestering CO2.

81 The focus is on CO2 capture from 

both new and existing coal plants. 

In 2003, DOE launched a nationwide network of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships that 

include 43 U.S. states, four Canadian provinces, three 

Native American nations, and over 350 organizations.82 The partnerships’ main focus is on determining the best approaches for sequestration in their regions and taking the initial steps to develop the 

infrastructure that will be needed for eventual largescale deployment. This includes examination of regulatory needs. Small-scale validation testing of 35 sites 

involving terrestrial and geologic sequestration technologies began in 2005. During 2009–2012, CO2 injection will begin for nine large-scale geologic storage 

tests that will be carried out by the seven regional partnerships. These tests will be of sufficient scale to allow 

the partnerships to address the kinds of challenges 

that will be encountered for commercial projects. 

Terrestrial sequestration—removing CO2 from the 

atmosphere and sequestering it in trees, soils, or other 

organic materials—has proven to be a low-cost means 

for long-term carbon storage. The DOE-supported 

Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems consortium provides research on mechanisms that can 

enhance terrestrial sequestration. In addition, USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service operates the Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Agricultural Carbon 

Enhancement Network (GRACEnet) at 31 locations 

around the country to measure and predict carbon 

sequestration and GHG emissions across a range of 

agricultural systems, land and animal management 

practices, soils, and climate zones.83 Elements of 

GRACEnet include the development and use of standardized measurement methods, process model development, data base development, and the development 

of guidelines for producers. 

Other Greenhouse Gases 

A main component of the U.S. strategy is to reduce 

other GHGs, such as CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and fluorocarbons. 

78 See http://www.rurdev.usda.

gov/. 

79 See http://www.netl.doec.gov 

80 See http://www.ne.doe.gov/

GenIV/neGenIV1.html. 

81 See http://www.netl.doe.gov/

technologies/carbon_seq/. 

82 See http://fossil.energy.gov/

sequestration/partnerships/index.

html. 

83 See http://www.ars.usda.

gov/research/programs/

programs.htm?np_

code=204&docid=17271.
Chapter 8 | Research and Systematic Observation 137

Improvements in methods and technologies to detect 

and either collect or prevent CH4 emissions from various sources—such as landfills, coal mines, natural gas 

pipelines, and oil and gas exploration operations—can 

prevent this GHG from escaping to the atmosphere. 

Reducing CH4 emissions may also have a positive benefit in reducing local ozone problems, as CH4 is a 

long-lived ozone precursor. In agriculture, improved 

management practices for fertilizer applications and 

livestock waste can reduce CH4 and N2O emissions 

appreciably. 

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs), and SF6 are all high global warming potential 

(GWP) gases. HFCs and PFCs are used as substitutes 

for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons and are used 

in or emitted during complex manufacturing processes. Advanced methods to reuse, recycle, and reduce the 

leakage of these chemicals and to use lower GWP alternatives are being explored. 

Programs aimed at reducing particulate matter have led 

to significant advances in fuel combustion and emission 

control technologies to reduce U.S. black carbon aerosol emissions. Reducing emissions of black carbon, soot, 

and other chemical aerosols can have multiple benefits, 

including better air quality and public health and, in 

some cases, can reduce radiative forcing. 

Measuring and Monitoring 

To meet future GHG emission measurement requirements, a wide array of sensors, measuring platforms, 

monitoring and inventorying systems, and inference 

methods are being developed. Many of the baseline measurement, observation, and sensing systems used to advance climate change science are being developed as part 

of CCSP. CCTP’s efforts focus primarily on validating 

the performance of various climate change technologies, 

such as in terrestrial and geologic sequestration. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology is testing, developing, and making available to researchers a wide variety 

of measurement and monitoring tools and techniques 

to aid in the development of technologies to mitigate 

climate change.

Basic Science 

Basic scientific research is a fundamental element of 

CCTP. Tackling the dual challenges of addressing 

climate change and meeting growing world energy 

demand is likely to require discoveries and innovations that can shape the future in often unexpected 

ways. The CCTP framework aims to strengthen the 

basic research enterprise through strategic research 

that supports ongoing or projected research activities 

and exploratory research involving innovative concepts. President Obama has committed to doubling 

federal investment in the basic sciences. 

DOE will continue to support the 46 Energy Frontier 

Research Centers (EFRCs) that are addressing current 

fundamental scientific roadblocks to clean energy and 

energy security.84 These centers will address the full 

range of energy research challenges in renewable and 

low-carbon energy, energy efficiency, energy storage, 

and cross-cutting science. The EFRCs will take advantage of new capabilities in nanotechnology, light 

sources that are a million times brighter than the sun, 

supercomputers, and other advanced instrumentation.

DOE’s multidisciplinary Energy Innovation Hubs will also 

address basic science, technology, and economic and policy 

issues. The hubs will support cross-disciplinary R&D focused on the barriers to transforming energy technologies 

into commercially deployable materials, devices, and systems. They will advance promising areas of energy science 

and technology from their early stages of research to the 

point where the risk level will be low enough for industry 

to deploy them into the marketplace. 

Established by DOE in 2009, ARPA-E is modeled 

after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

which was created during the Eisenhower administration in response to the Russian Sputnik program, 

which launched the world’s first artificial satellite. The 

purpose of ARPA-E is to advance high-risk energy 

research projects that can yield revolutionary changes 

in how energy is produced, distributed, and used.85

ARRA has provided $400 million for ARPA-E.

Multilateral Research and Collaboration

The United States believes that well-designed multilateral collaborations focused on achieving practical results can accelerate development and commercialization of new technologies. Thus, the United States has 

initiated or joined a number of multilateral technology collaborations in hydrogen, carbon sequestration, 

nuclear energy, and fusion that address many energyrelated concerns (e.g., energy security, climate change, 

and environmental protection). The following initiatives are examples of U.S. multinational collaboration.

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 

The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) 

is a multilateral U.S. initiative that provides a framework for international collaboration on sequestration 

technologies.86 Established at a June 2003 ministerial 

meeting held in Washington, D.C., CSLF consists of 

23 members, including 22 national governments representing both developed and developing countries, as 

well as the European Commission. The CSLF’s main 

focus is assisting the development of technologies to 

separate, capture, transport, and store CO2 safely over 

the long term; making carbon sequestration technologies broadly available internationally; and addressing 

broader issues relating to carbon capture and storage, 

such as regulation and policy. To date, CSLF has endorsed 20 international research projects, five of 

which involve the United States. 

84 See http://www.science.doe.gov/

bes/EFRC.html. 

85 See http://arpa-e.energy.gov/. 

86 See http://www.cslforum.org/.
138 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Generation IV International Forum 

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a 

multilateral partnership of 10 countries and the European Commission that is fostering international cooperation in R&D for the next generation of safer, more 

affordable, and more proliferation-resistant nuclear 

energy systems.87 This new generation of nuclear power plants could produce electricity and hydrogen with 

substantially less waste and without emitting any air 

pollutants or GHG emissions. Since its creation in 

July 2001, GIF has established a legal basis for collaboration through a treaty-level Framework Agreement 

(2005) and implementing arrangements (2007 onward). The United States supports collaboration in 

two of the systems: the Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR) and the Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR). The 

primary mission of the VHTR is to provide carbonfree process heat for cogeneration and many potential 

industrial applications, including hydrogen production, while the SFR’s primary mission is the closing of 

the nuclear fuel cycle.

ITER 

In January 2003, President Bush announced that the 

United States was joining the negotiations for the 

construction and operation of the international fusion 

experiment ITER.88 The goal of this collaborative 

project is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion as an energy source. If successful, ITER will advance progress toward producing 

clean, abundant, commercially available fusion energy 

by the end of the century. Toward this goal, the seven 

ITER partners signed an agreement in November 

2006 to construct the project; site preparation began 

in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France, in January 2007; 

and construction began in 2009. 

Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development 

and Climate 

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development 

and Climate (APP) is an innovative effort to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy 

technologies.89 The seven APP partner countries (Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Korea, and the 

United States) collectively account for more than half 

of the world’s economy, population, and energy use. 

They produce about 65 percent of the world’s coal, 62 

percent of the world’s cement, 52 percent of world’s 

aluminum, and more than 60 percent of the world’s 

steel. They have committed to collaborate and work 

with the private-sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national air pollution reduction, and 

climate change in ways that promote sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. The APP focuses on expanding investment and trade in cleaner energy technologies, goods, and services in key market 

sectors. The partners have approved eight public– 

private-sector task forces covering aluminum, buildings and appliances, cement, coal mining, power generation and transmission, renewable energy and 

distributed generation, steel, and cleaner fossil energy 

technologies. 

87 See http://www.gen-4.org/. 

88 See http://www.iter.org/. 

89 See http://www.

asiapacificpartnership.org/.
F

ederal agencies’ climate change education, training, and outreach efforts seek to ensure that 

individuals and communities understand the 

essential principles of Earth’s climate system and the 

impacts of climate change, and are able to evaluate and 

make informed and responsible decisions with regard 

to actions that may affect the climate. Increasing our 

resilience to these impacts depends not only upon our 

ability to understand climate science and the implications of climate change, but also upon our ability to 

integrate and use that knowledge effectively. Changes 

in our economy and infrastructure as well as changes 

in individual attitudes, societal norms, and government policies will be required to alter the impact of 

climate change on human lives. Individuals, communities, and countries will be called on to implement 

effective management strategies for critical institutional and natural resources to ensure the stability of 

both human and natural systems as temperatures rise.

As nations and the international community seek 

solutions to global climate change over the coming 

decades, a more comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to fostering public climate literacy—one that 

includes economic and social considerations—will 

play a vital role in knowledgeable planning, decision 

making, and governance. Increased efforts to integrate 

social sciences into federal agencies’ educational and 

outreach programs would help to ensure informed 

decision making and effective systems-level responses 

to climate change. This integration offers a significant 

challenge to the nation’s diverse educational systems. 

It is imperative that these responses to climate change 

Education, Training, 

and Outreach

9
1

 See http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/

research/climate/mediacoverage.

php.

140 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

are supported by sustained and robust educational 

initiatives to develop a climate-literate citizenry and 

skilled workforce.

Updates Since the 2006 U.S. Climate 

Action Report

Climate change education, training, and outreach 

efforts have expanded significantly since the last U.S. 

Climate Action Report was released in 2006. Since 

then, federal programs to support formal educational 

initiatives on climate change have expanded considerably. These programs involve K–12 and ungraduate 

curricula and postgraduate professional development 

programs, as well as informal education programs conducted in museums, parks, nature centers, zoos, and 

aquariums across the country. 

Federal Programmatic Coordination

Increased coordination across the federal agencies is 

critical to increasing public climate literacy in the 

United States. A Climate Change Education Interagency Working Group was formed in 2008 to coordinate an integrated national approach to climate 

change education. This coordination mechanism is an 

outgrowth of discussions within the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP) Communications Interagency Working Group (CIWG) and the 

federal science agencies currently conducting climate 

research, and climate change education and outreach. 

This Interagency Working Group consists of senior 

staff members of the USGCRP member agencies that 

have climate and climate change education programs. 

Their primary responsibilities are to:

�	serve as a forum in the USGCRP for the development of a national climate and climate change education strategy that is inclusive of all USGCRP 

members, 

�	coordinate climate education activities and priorities across the USGCRP members, and 

�	make recommendations to agency management on 

all aspects of federal agencies’ climate and climate 

change educational activities. 

It is critical that climate scientists and climate science 

agencies play a more active role in the dissemination of 

their findings. The public and students at all levels—in 

both formal and informal learning settings—must 

have access to climate data in ways that foster climate 

literacy and informed decision making. The federal 

agencies are working with social scientists to determine the most effective ways to communicate with 

students and the public about how Earth’s climate is 

changing. In an effort to extend their education and 

outreach programs and maximize their impact, federal 

agencies are addressing the following questions: How 

can local high-impact activities be scaled up and serve 

as national models? What are effective climate change 

literacy professional development opportunities for 

policy decision makers at all levels? How do we assess 

changes in individuals’ understanding of Earth’s climate system and the decisions they make about their 

actions? How can nationally representative assessments of public knowledge and understanding of climate change help identify common knowledge gaps, 

misunderstandings, sources of confusion, and key concepts the American public needs to understand about 

climate change?

Table 9-1 at the end of this chapter presents an extensive listing of federal agencies’ online, climate-relevant 

education resources. 

Overview of National Efforts to

Engage the United States on Climate

Change

During the period of this U.S. Climate Action Report

(2006–2010), nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) and the federal government conducted major 

communications campaigns to raise awareness and 

educate the nation and the world about global warming. On May 24, 2006, the popular film An Inconvenient Truth was released, featuring former U.S. Vice 

President Al Gore’s efforts to educate citizens about 

global warming. Many colleges and high schools use 

the film to complement their science curricula. 

Roughly one year later, Vice President Gore and other 

celebrities conducted “Live Earth”—a 24-hour music 

concert spanning seven continents and delivering a 

worldwide call to action to address climate change. 

During the performances, viewers were invited to support a seven-point pledge to adopt solutions to address 

climate change. Subsequently, “Live Earth” launched a 

multi-year campaign to encourage individuals, corporations, and governments to take action. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) Fourth Assessment on Climate Change was 

published in a series of reports in 2007. The first report issued by Working Group 1, titled The Physical 

Science Basis, was published on February 2, 2007. Later in 2007, the second and third IPCC reports were 

released and then completed by a summary Synthesis 

Report released on November 17, 2007. Collectively, 

the IPCC’s fourth climate assessment updated, clarified, and strengthened societal understanding of the 

causes and effects of climate change. The reports also 

bolstered climate science lessons used in classrooms 

and in public outreach efforts. Later in 2007, former 

Vice President Gore and the IPCC shared the 2007 

Nobel Peace Prize. 

Perhaps not coincidentally, news media coverage of 

climate change began to change in 2007, with the 

number of articles on the subject increasing substantially (Figure 9-1).1

 Recent studies on the role of mass 
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 141

Figure 9-1 2004–2009 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global 

Warming

In 2007, news media coverage of climate change increased substantially. Recent studies on the role 

of mass media in communicating climate science, mitigation, and adaptation have been mixed or 

more positive.

media in communicating climate science, mitigation, 

and adaptation have been mixed or more positive 

(Boykoff and Boykoff 2007).

In March 2008, a group of 11 organizations led by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) produced a publication titled Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science. One year 

later, the USGCRP issued a revised and expanded second version of this publication, with endorsement by its 

13 federal agency members and an expanded list of partners that includes 24 institutions and organizations 

(available online at http://www.globalchange.gov/). 

Numerous reports and studies by various social scientists documented increasing public awareness and concern regarding climate change and the need for individuals and governments to take action to address the 

problem. The 2008 U.S. presidential election debates 

and campaign speeches placed an unprecedented emphasis on the importance of addressing climate 

change. The U.S. Congress began new climate change 

education-focused programs at three federal agencies—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and NOAA—while other agencies 

launched major education and outreach programs to 

help promote public climate literacy. 

Efforts by state and local governments, universities, 

schools, and NGOs are essential complements to federal programs that educate industry and the public 

regarding climate change. State environment and energy agencies continue to provide teacher training, 

often in cooperation with universities and local utility 

companies. Local school systems are adopting climate 

change curricula and activities at the middle and high 

school levels. Universities are joining forces with 

NGOs to educate staff and students about the importance of energy efficiency and are instituting new, sustainable practices on campuses across the country. 

From wildlife conservation groups (e.g., National 

Wildlife Federation, National Council for Science and 

the Environment, National Environmental Education 

Foundation, and Council of Environmental Deans 

and Directors), to science-based organizations (e.g., 

American Meteorological Society, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, and Federation of 

Earth Science Information Partners), to education 

organizations (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061, Association of 

Science-Technology Centers, and National Science 

Teachers Association), a variety of NGOs conduct 

programs and surveys, produce brochures and kits, 

and write media articles to alert the public to the science underlying, impacts of, and possible solutions to 

climate change. 

Industry also plays a role in education, training, and 

outreach. Several corporations have contributed to the 

National Park Service’s efforts to communicate energy 

efficiency messages. 

Because of these efforts, segments of the American 

public are better informed about climate change and 

better equipped to act on that information. The 

USGCRP 2009 Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States report states that “future climate change 

and its impacts depend on choices made today” (Karl 

et al. 2009). As such, the nation has a considerable way 

to go in comprehending and realizing the implications 

of climate change. The Climate Literacy publication 

captures this concept well in its Guiding Principle B:

Reducing human vulnerability to the impacts of climate change depends not only upon our ability to understand climate science, but also upon our ability to 

integrate that knowledge into human society. Decisions 

that involve Earth’s climate must be made with an 

understanding of the complex inter-connections among 

the physical and biological components of the Earth 

system as well as the consequences of such decisions on 

social, economic, and cultural systems.

Federal Agency Education, Training, 

and Outreach Program Overviews

A number of federal agencies provide state and local 

governments, industry, NGOs, and the public with 

information about national and global climate change 

research and risk assessment studies, U.S. mitigation 

activities, and policy development. They work both 

independently and in partnership with other agencies, 

NGOs, and industry toward the common goal of increasing awareness about the potential environmental 

and societal challenges posed by climate change. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGCRP is responsible for communicating with a 

variety of stakeholders nationally and globally on 
142 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

issues related to climate variability and climate change 

science and coordinating the federal agencies’ climate 

change education programs. The CIWG leads efforts 

to coordinate interagency education and communications activities.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA is committed to the development of a society 

that is environmentally responsible and utilizes effective, science-based problem-solving skills. Improvements in societal stewardship of natural resources extend directly from effective formal and informal 

education systems. NOAA’s climate education programs support the development of strong and comprehensive education materials about climate and oceanic 

and atmospheric sciences. NOAA is committed to 

supporting and facilitating system-wide change of the 

formal education system to build educators’ capacity 

to produce climate-literate citizens. Such change requires engagement and participation across the spectrum of the education community—including policymakers, academic institutions, professional 

associations, teachers, and students. 

Informal education plays a critical role in developing 

climate-literate citizens. To help equip informal education institutions with modern instructional resources and interdisciplinary methods for teaching Earth 

system science, NOAA pioneered Science On a 

Sphere® (SOS). The animated global data sets projected onto this 6-foot-diameter sphere, with live or prerecorded interpretive narration, show members of the 

lay public cause-and-effect relationships at work in the 

global climate system. SOS® is now operating in more 

than 40 informal education venues across the United 

States and internationally, and more locations are being planned. 

NOAA is engaged in the improvement of both formal 

and informal education systems because these venues 

are important to the development of literate citizens 

and to the long-term maintenance of their skills, 

knowledge, and attitudes. Partnerships and collaboration are integral to sustaining and scaling up NOAA’s 

ability to promote public climate literacy. 

U.S. Department of Energy

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research 

Facility Education and Outreach Program is involved 

in climate change educational outreach in the communities and regions hosting ARM data-gathering field 

sites. The program also provides educational resources 

to a global audience through its Web site.2 The goal of 

the program is to develop basic science awareness and 

increase critical thinking skills focusing on environmental science and climate change for K–12 students. 

In addition, the program supports relationship building among teachers, students, scientists, and the community. Lesson plans, puzzles, and related materials 

are made available at the Web site. The site also includes the “Ask a Scientist” interface that provides the 

opportunity for anyone to pose questions to ARM 

scientists. Questions and answers are posted on the 

Web site.

Additionally, DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) funds partners to develop 

curricula and implement standardized, high-quality 

training programs. These projects are aimed at creating 

a pipeline beginning at the K–12 level and extending 

through the postgraduate level to ensure the ongoing 

development of a workforce to invent and scale up 

clean energy and energy efficiency technologies and 

processes over the long term. Education and workforce training are critical parts of EERE’s mission, 

which is to create an energy-literate generation of 

skilled workers, leaders, and innovators who will produce affordable, abundant, and clean energy, thus accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy and 

ensuring U.S. global competitiveness.

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

As the steward of the world’s foremost system of national parks, the fundamental mission of the National 

Park Service (NPS), as articulated in the 1916 NPS 

Organic Act is: “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for 

future generations.” Nearly 100 years later, this still 

holds true, as the NPS manages 392 natural and cultural sites, including 58 National Parks, 18 National 

Recreation Areas, and 20 National Preserves and Reserves. Together, these units cover over 84 million 

acres (more than 3.5 percent of the nation’s total area) 

across 49 states. Park units are found in diverse locations, from remote areas to urban settings, and in all of 

the country’s climatic zones. Recognizing its role as 

the model for national park systems around the world, 

NPS has increased its support of education on climate 

change and environmental stewardship through several innovative programs. 

U.S. Geological Survey

As the nation’s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource 

conditions, issues, and problems. The agency’s diversity of scientific expertise enables it to carry out largescale, multidisciplinary investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers, 

planners, and other customers. USGS climate change 

science efforts include the development and implementation of the framework for a comprehensive, 2

 See http://education.arm.gov.
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 143

national climate effects research and monitoring 

network; continuation of the rigorous scientific research that provides the data, new knowledge, inputs 

to modeling, and other outcomes that are required to 

understand, assess, adapt to, and mitigate climate 

change; and efforts to build partnerships and to translate scientific findings into real-life applications and 

decision-support tools.

U.S. Department of Transportation

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) developed many programs to address the questions 

raised by the public, government employees, state and 

local agencies, and other transportation stakeholders 

about climate change. For example, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has several programs that 

provide information about the benefits of public transit and how to reduce the environmental impacts of 

transportation. FTA’s Environmental Management 

Systems Training, in particular, offers training for 

public transit agencies to assess and reduce the environmental impact of their operations, including their 

carbon footprint. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) targets metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local transportation agencies to 

provide information on their climate science and mitigation strategies. In 2008, the FHWA hosted three 

peer exchanges, which allowed senior staff of MPOs 

and state departments of transportation to come together and share information about integrating adaptation and mitigation strategies into the transportation planning process. These efforts are in addition to 

a DOT-wide effort to educate federal and state employees about a variety of transportation and climate 

change issues, which includes the Transportation and 

Climate Change Clearinghouse Web site. The site 

serves as a one-stop source of information about transportation and climate change topics, and is intended 

for use by the transportation community and general 

public. DOT is committed to engaging federal employees and all invested parties on the topic of climate 

change, especially as it relates to transportation.

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NASA supports extensive education, training, and 

public awareness on climate change that take advantage of NASA’s unique observational, research, and 

modeling assets. NASA outreach includes a Science 

Education Program, which sponsors educational activities at all levels of formal and informal education 

and creates inspiring new educational products based 

on NASA observations and technologies. NASA also 

produces informational materials and participates in 

public events in order to engage directly with young 

people and citizen scientists on a broad range of scientific topics, including climate change. 

U.S. National Science Foundation

Consistent with its mission to support research and 

education across a broad range of science and engineering disciplines, NSF funds research and education 

in numerous areas related to global climate change, 

from training of undergraduate and graduate students 

in climate change research, to education and cognition 

research on how to better communicate the complex 

science of climate to lay audiences, to efforts to improve public understanding of climate change, to 

research on climate-related decision making. NSF’s 

Directorates for Geosciences; Biological Sciences; Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; Education 

and Human Resources; Mathematics and Physical Sciences; Computer and Information Science and Engineering; and the Office of Polar Programs participate 

in the USGCRP and provide access to climate-related 

results from principal investigators. 

NSF is the principal federal agency charged with promoting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. To this end, NSF supports the development of a diverse and well-prepared 

scientific and technical workforce, and a scientifically 

literate citizenry. NSF investments in climate change 

education occur through a variety of core programs 

aimed at strengthening STEM education. Among the 

projects currently being supported through these investments are the Communicating Climate Change 

(C3) project, to build the capacity of science centers 

and Long-Term Ecological Research centers to engage 

the public in climate change science; Seasons of 

Change, an effort to identify “dominant climate forcings, feedbacks, and component linkages driving 

change in the Arctic system seasonality”; Creating a 

Learning Community for Solutions to Climate 

Change, an effort to engage scientists and other experts in creating curricular resources to teach about 

climate change; and a National Academies Roundtable on Climate Change Education, to develop a national strategy for climate change education.

Smithsonian Institution

The Smithsonian is addressing the global challenge of 

climate change with special exhibitions and ongoing 

research. Smithsonian collections related to the evidence about, impact of, and response to climate 

change provide a unique and accessible resource for 

public education. Smithsonian scientists and curators 

regularly engage the museums’ millions of U.S. and 

foreign visitors on climate change issues, from the perspectives of science, history, and art. The Smithsonian 

has also brought its outreach online to reach an even 

wider audience. In September 2009, a Smithsonian 

online climate change conference drew more than 

3,700 participants in 82 countries and U.S. territories 

and in all 50 states. The three-day conference approached the subject from myriad Smithsonian 
144 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

disciplines, from wildlife management to paleontology 

to art history. Ten Smithsonian units took part, along 

with NSF, the GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment) program, the 

Corporation for National and Community Service, 

and others. Such events support the Smithsonian’s 

core mission to promote the “increase and diffusion of 

knowledge.”

U.S. Agency for International Development

As a the foreign assistance arm of the U.S. government, the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) plays a leadership role in delivering climate 

change-related international assistance to over 40 developing and transition countries. With headquarters 

in Washington, D.C., USAID has field offices in many 

regions of the world—namely, sub-Saharan Africa, 

Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and Eurasia. USAID works in close 

partnership with private voluntary organizations, indigenous groups, universities, American businesses, 

international organizations, other governments, trade 

and professional associations, faith-based organizations, and other U.S. government agencies.

USAID’s Global Climate Change Program incorporates climate change considerations into development 

projects, supporting on-the-ground programs to 

achieve climate change results and strengthen economic growth. Climate change education, training, 

and outreach are a cornerstone of USAID’s activities, 

providing the foundation for sustainable actions. Capacity building for improved decision making through 

applied science and access to information is increasingly important. Building on clean energy, sustainable 

landscapes, and adaptation strategies, USAID will 

continue to integrate education, outreach, and training into its development mission to contribute to reducing the threat of climate change around the world.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

As the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) 

chief intramural scientific research body, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is responsible for research on the impacts of agricultural practices on climate change, and the impacts of climate change on 

agriculture. Although ARS has no formal educational 

mechanism to disseminate research information to the 

general public, it employs a number of less formal 

means to communicate and make use of research advances.

All USDA scientific research publications are submitted with an Interpretive Summary that is used for 

timely news releases. In addition, through collaboration with university scientists, climate change research 

information is provided to state and county cooperative extension agencies for release to identified producers. Also, all USDA field locations publish informative brochures and technical reports that describe 

their work and the impact of the research findings on 

stakeholders’ interests.

National Institute of Food and Agruculture 

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

(NIFA), formerly the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, is the primary USDA agency that supports extramural research, 

extension, and education by providing $1.2 billion 

annually in competitive and state-designated formula 

funds. NIFA also supports a number of research, education, and extension funding programs on climate 

change.

U.S. Forest Service

All U.S. Forest Service (USFS) national efforts in climate change education, training, and public awareness 

are based on the scientific expertise and findings of the 

agency’s more than 500 scientists. The USFS Research 

and Development program conducts a wide variety of 

climate change research, investigating how climate 

change is and may be affecting terrestrial and freshwater natural resources and ecosystems. These results 

are made available to professional resource managers 

and the public through a variety of Web sites and publications. USFS also provides climate change education resources to educators and students through a 

variety of programs. One of these is The Natural Inquirer, a science education journal based on published 

Forest Service science, targeted for U.S. and international middle school students. A Climate Change 

Edition of The Natural Inquirer, focused on contemporary research findings regarding climate change 

and wildfires and the impact of a changing climate on 

wildlife and stream temperatures, will be published in 

2010. In addition, EUGENE (Ecological Understanding as a Guideline for Evaluation of Nonformal 

Education)—a broadly applicable, user-friendly Webbased environmental education evaluation instrument 

that assesses student knowledge on limits, regulation, 

and adaptation related to climate change—will assist 

educators in the evaluation and improvement of their 

climate change programs and will increase accountability in climate change education.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Climate change information, education, and outreach 

at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

have traditionally been coordinated through the Climate Change Division (CCD) in the Office of Air 

and Radiation. Besides managing EPA’s Climate 

Change Web site, CCD has produced educational 

and informational materials that reach a wide range of 

audiences. In addition, CCD provides outreach programs that educate decision makers and the public 

about opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas 
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 145

emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate 

change that humans and nature are already facing.

EPA’s Environmental Education Division’s grant program distributes over $3 million a year to formal and 

informal education programs across the country that 

educate learners of all ages about the reasons for and 

ways to solve environmental problems. For the last 

several years a good percentage of those funds went 

specifically to climate change education programs.

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research 

in the Office of Research and Development manages 

fellowship and other programs at the undergraduate, 

graduate, and postdoctoral levels, all of which have 

climate change educational components. In particular, 

the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) fellowship 

program has attracted and supported approximately 

1,400 of America’s new generation of environmental 

scientists, engineers, and policymakers since 1995. 

EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection and 

Aging Initiatives provides information and outreach 

to populations particularly vulnerable to the effects of 

climate change.
146 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 K–12 Students

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Global Learning 

and Observations 

to Benefit the 

Environment 

GLOBE is a worldwide hands-on, primary and secondary school-based 

science and education program. GLOBE observations and measurements 

include atmosphere and climate, hydrology, land cover and phenology, and 

soils. GLOBE students, teachers, and scientists collaborate on inquiry-based 

investigations of the environment and the Earth system, working in close 

partnership with NASA and NSF Earth System Science Projects, on research 

topics related to the carbon cycle, watersheds, seasons, and biomes and 

extreme environments. Understanding Earth as an interconnected system is at 

the core of the GLOBE program. Partner: National Science Foundation (NSF)

K–12 Students, 

K–12 Teachers

Formal/Informal http://www.globe.gov/

Signals of Spring In Signals of Spring, middle and high school students investigate migration 

patterns of land and marine animals. Animal location data relayed from small 

satellite transmitters are overlaid onto maps of topography, vegetation, sea 

surface temperature, and other NASA Earth data, prompting students to 

pose, research, and analyze questions about the many factors affecting the 

migration and health of different species. Students use online journals, which 

are then read and commented on by Earth scientists and wildlife biologists. The 

program provides teacher training, which can be conducted on site or by live, 

interactive Webcasts.

K–12 Students, 

K–12 Teachers

Formal http://www.

signalsofspring.net/

3D-View (Virtual 

Interactive 

Environmental 

Worlds)

Project 3D-VIEW is a comprehensive curriculum engaging students in Earth 

system science with immersive three-dimensional (3D) views. The program 

combines NASA mission data with 3D technologies in grades 5 and 6 as 

students “explore” five units: lithosphere (land), hydrosphere (water), biosphere 

(life), atmosphere (air), and Earth systems. A project goal is for students to 

understand Earth system science topics and science-based decision making, 

preparing them for high school and beyond. Using simple Web interfaces and 

a custom viewer, students explore 3D stereo views to learn traditional science 

content. Project 3D-VIEW provides teacher training and is aimed at increasing 

student achievement in middle school science by using 3D technology to help 

students to truly understand abstract concepts.

K–12 Students, 

K–12 Teachers

Formal http://www.3dview.org/

Students’ Cloud 

Observations 

On-Line 

S’COOL is a component of NASA’s CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant 

Energy System) instrument. CERES instrument measures the amount of energy 

reflected and emitted by the Earth system and focuses on understanding 

how clouds affect these energy transfers. Participating students make basic 

weather observations and record the types and features of clouds in the sky at 

the time the satellite passes over their location. The data are then submitted to 

NASA (by Web, e-mail, fax, or mail) for entry into an online database. Students 

can access their results as well as those from other participating schools 

using the S’COOL Web site (which is available in seven languages). Satellite 

observations for matching times are also posted so that students can compare 

their observations to those of the satellite, and scientists can evaluate CERES’ 

performance. Participants receive instructional materials and information 

necessary for reporting results.

K–12 Students, 

K–12 Teachers

Formal/Informal http://science-edu.

larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/

index.php

Earth Climate 

Course: What 

Determines a 

Planet’s Climate?

The Earth Climate Course is a set of student activities and teacher’s guides 

designed to connect NASA Earth science research with the teaching 

and learning of core science and mathematics concepts and skills, while 

addressing national education standards. The four modules cover: (1) 

Temperature Variations and Habitability, (2) Modeling Hot and Cold Planets, 

(3) Using Mathematical Models to Investigate Planetary Habitability, and (4) 

How Do Atmospheres Affect Planetary Atmospheres. Scientific inquiry and 

the tools used to do research play a major role in the lessons. Presented with 

a science problem, students seek answers and consensus by experimenting 

with physical and computer models, collecting and analyzing their own 

measurements, and conducting comparisons with real-world data from 

satellites and ground-based observations.

K–12 Students, 

K–12 Teachers, 

Undergraduate 

Students

Formal http://icp.giss.nasa.

gov/education/

modules/eccm/

Table 9-1 Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 147

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 K–12 Students (Continued)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

EPA Climate Change 

Kids Site

This popular environmental education Web site provides a wealth of resources 

for students and educators. Graphically engaging and interactive, it includes 

information about science, what we can do to make a difference, resources for 

educators and administrators, games (e.g., multiple-choice tests, hangman, 

word searches, crosswords), and more. One feature is a greenhouse gas 

calculator for classrooms, which instructs students about steps they can take 

to reduce their carbon “footprint”—measured in pounds of carbon dioxide 

annually—and what those reductions can mean for the environment. This site 

will be undergoing a revision to update it and improve its accessibility in 2010. 

K–12 Students Formal (K–12) http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/kids

Climate Change 

Emission Calculator 

Kit (Climate CHECK)

High school students can investigate the link between everyday actions at their 

high school, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. Using Climate 

CHECK, students can learn about climate change, estimate their school’s 

greenhouse gas emissions, and conceptualize ways to mitigate their school’s 

climate impact. Students gain detailed understandings of climate change 

drivers, impacts, and science; produce an emission inventory and action plan; 

and can submit the results of their emission inventory to their school district. 

K–12 Students Formal (K–12) http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/wycd

Global Warming 

Wheel Card 

Classroom Activity 

Kit

A hand-held wheel card and other resources in this kit created by EPA help 

middle school students estimate their classroom’s and their household’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. The activities in the kit encourage critical thinking 

skills and new ideas about ways to reduce the students’ personal, family, 

school, and community contributions to climate change.

K–12 Students Formal (K–12) http://www.epa.

gov/climatechange/

emissions/wheel_card.

htm

Climate for Action 

Campaign

Children suffer disproportionately from the health effects of some 

environmental hazards, and climate change could increase some of those 

hazards. EPA’s Climate for Action Campaign educates young people about 

climate change and its effects on children’s health, and encourages them 

to take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These “climate 

ambassadors” will in turn educate others and mobilize their communities to 

“create a new climate for action.” 

K–12 Students/ 

Public

Formal/Informal http://www.epa.gov/

climateforaction/

U.S. National Science Foundation

Discovery 

Research K–12

The program seeks to enable significant advances in pre-K–12 student and 

teacher learning of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) disciplines through development, study, and implementation of 

resources, models, and technologies for use by students, teachers, and 

policymakers. 

K–12 Students Formal (K–12) http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_id=500047

 K–12 Teachers

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

American 

Meteorological 

Society Education 

Program

This AMS program promotes the teaching of atmospheric, oceanographic, 

and hydrologic sciences through pre-college teacher training and instructional 

resource material development. It also promotes instructional innovation at the 

introductory college course level. All programs promote activity directed toward 

greater human resource diversity in the sciences AMS represents. To date, over 

100,000 teachers have received training and instructional resources, which 

have benefited millions of students. Partners: NSF, NASA

K–12 Teachers, 

Introductory 

College Teachers

Formal (K–12) http://www.ametsoc.

org/amsedu/

Climate Literacy 

(“Climate Smart”) 

through National 

Marine Sanctuaries

NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries works with partnering organizations to 

offer bilingual (Spanish and English) education to audiences in California on 

environmental threats, including climate change.

K–12 Teachers, 

K–12 Students, 

Public

Formal (K–12) http://sanctuaries.noaa.

gov/education/merito/

welcome.html

Climate Program 

Office CommEd: 

Climate Literacy

This program takes an audience-focused approach to promoting climate 

science literacy among the public. It communicates the challenges, processes, 

and results of NOAA-supported climate science through stories and data 

visualizations on the Web and in popular media, and provides information to 

a range of audiences to enhance society’s ability to plan for and respond to 

climate variability and change. Partner: U.S. Global Change Research Program

K–12 Teachers Formal (K–12) http://climate.noaa.gov/

education/

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
148 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 K–12 Teachers (Continued)

Multicultural 

Education for 

Resource Issues 

Threatening Oceans 

As part of the Climate Smart Sanctuaries initiative, NOAA’s National Marine 

Sanctuaries are developing a climate literacy program called MERITO, which 

is based on the Climate Literacy Essential Principles. 

K-12 Teachers, 

K-12 Students, 

Public

Formal/Informal http://sanctuaries.noaa.

gov/education

NSTA Learning 

Center

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) collaborates with NOAA, 

NASA, and NSF on the NSTA Learning Center to provide a variety of climatefocused online learning experiences to fit the learning style and content needs 

of 3 million science teachers. Accessible 24 hours a day, The Learning Center 

is NSTA’s e-professional development portal for teachers of science. Partners: 

NSF, NASA

K–12 Teachers Formal/Informal http://learningcenter.

nsta.org/

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

MY NASA DATA MY NASA DATA works to make NASA Earth science data accessible to the 

K–12 and citizen scientist communities. The principal activity of the project is 

to create “micro sets” from large scientific data sets, and to wrap these with 

tools, lesson plans, and supporting documentation for teachers’ classroom use. 

Climate change-related lesson plans are available for middle and high school. 

K–12 Teachers, 

K–12 Students, 

Citizen Scientists

Formal/Informal http://mynasadata.larc.

nasa.gov/ClimChg_

lessons.html

Global Climate 

Change Education 

The GCCE project extends the results of NASA’s Earth Science Program to 

the education community by sponsoring unique and stimulating opportunities 

for global climate and Earth system science education. GCCE is designed to 

improve the quality of the nation’s STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics) education and enhance students’ and teachers’ literacy about 

global climate and Earth system change from elementary grades to lifelong 

learners. Partners: Related programs at NSF and NOAA

K–12 Teachers, 

Undergraduate 

Students, Formal 

(K–12 and 

Undergraduate)

Formal/Informal http://www.nasa.gov/

offices/education/

programs/descriptions/

Global_Climate_

Change_Education_

Project.html

Earth System 

Science Education 

Alliance 

ESSEA is an NSF-supported program implemented by the Institute for Global 

Environmental Strategies to improve the quality of geoscience instruction for 

pre-service and in-service K–12 teachers. The program is based on a series 

of online courses for teachers that are offered by more than 40 participating 

universities. The inquiry-based and place-based course modules provide 

teachers with the content knowledge and tools they need to incorporate Earth 

system science into their curricula. ESSEA modules are also available online 

as teacher resources. ESSEA was initially developed through NASA support, 

and many of the course modules use NASA data and content. Some examples 

of ESSEA course modules include black carbon, Brazilian deforestation, coral 

reefs, Hurricane Katrina, stratospheric ozone, and sea ice. Additional funding 

from NASA and NOAA is being used to expand the course modules, including 

climate change-related resources. Partners: NSF, NOAA

K–12 Teachers, 

Pre-service 

Teachers

Formal http://esseacourses.

strategies.org/

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Forest Service 

Climate Change 

Educator Resources 

USFS has several interrelated programs to help forests, grasslands, and 

humans mitigate and adapt to the effects of global climate change. This Web 

site contains a variety of resources for researchers, managers, educators, and 

the public on climate change issues and science, and provides links to free 

climate change education resources.

K–12 

Teachers/K–12 

Students/Public

Formal/Informal http://www.fs.fed.us/

climatechange/

Green Schools In partnership with the American Forest Foundation–Project Learning Tree, 

USFS selected five schools in Washington, D.C., to pilot the GreenSchools 

Initiative. The program provides training and funding for diverse and 

underserved pre-K–12 public schools. Students and teachers investigate 

environmental issues at their schools and engage with their community in 

ongoing service-learning projects that create green and healthy learning 

environments. Partner: American Forest Foundation – Project Learning Tree

Pre-K–12 

Teachers/

Pre-K–12 

Students/Public

Formal/Informal http://www.plt.org/cms/

pages/21_23_242.

html

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 149

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 K–12 Teachers (Continued)

Washington, D.C., 

Green Summer 

Jobs Program

USFS is joining Anacostia Urban Tree House partners to train the on-theground supervisors of the Washington, D.C., Mayor’s Green Summer Job 

Corps program, which introduces young District residents to green-collar 

career paths. The program uses a combination of substantive work projects 

and traditional educational sessions to increase job readiness, connect youths 

to the environment within their communities, and improve the District’s 

environment overall. Broadly, this program complements the District’s efforts 

in combating climate change, restoring its waterways, and increasing its green 

infrastructure by engaging youths and preparing them to be part of a future 

skilled labor force. Partner: DC Mayor’s Green Summer Job Corps program

K–12 

Teachers/K–12 

Students/Public

Formal/Informal http://green.

dc.gov/green/cwp/

view,a,1233,q,461478.

asp

U.S. National Science Foundation

Innovative 

Technology 

Experiences for 

Students and 

Teachers

 ITEST addresses the growing U.S. demand for professionals and information 

technology workers and seeks solutions to help ensure the breadth and depth 

of the STEM workforce. ITEST supports research studies to address questions 

about how to find solutions.

K-12 Students, 

K-12 Teachers

Formal (K-12) http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_id=5467

Graduate Students

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Climate and Society 

Master’s Program

This program enables understanding of climate science, decision processes, 

and social needs to deliver management strategies that incorporate climate. 

The International Research Institute has developed the core courses of the 

program for Climate and Society in collaboration with renowned Columbia 

University faculty in climate, engineering, policy, public health, economics, 

political science, statistics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

Graduate Students Formal (Grad) http://www.columbia.

edu/cu/climatesociety/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science To Achieve 

Results (STAR) 

Fellowship Program 

The STAR fellowship program exists to help the U.S. meet its current and 

projected human resource needs in the environmental science, engineering, 

and policy fields by encouraging promising students to obtain advanced 

degrees and pursue careers in these areas. The program has provided 

a steady stream of well-trained environmental specialists to meet such 

challenges as climate change, and has also supported environmental research 

in engineering and in the physical, biological, health, and social sciences. A 

new topic area in the program focuses exclusively on global change.

Graduate Students Formal (Grad) http://www.epa.gov/

ncer/fellow/

U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)

Integrative Graduate 

Education and 

Research 

Traineeship Program 

This program has been developed to meet the challenges of educating U.S. 

Ph.D. scientists and engineers who will pursue careers in research and 

education, with the interdisciplinary backgrounds, deep knowledge in chosen 

disciplines, and technical, professional, and personal skills to become, in their 

own careers, leaders and creative agents for change.

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Grad) http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

 Undergraduate and Graduate Students

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture (NIFA)

Higher Education 

Challenge Grants

The CSREES/NIFA grant program addresses national priorities in the 

development of higher education programs and curricula.

Undergraduate 

and Graduate 

Students

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.csrees.

usda.gov/

1890 CapacityBuilding Grants 

Program

The CSREES/NIFA grant program addresses capacity building in teaching, 

research, and extension in national priorities. The program supports the 

development of courses, curricula, and faculty development in these priorities.

Undergraduate 

and Graduate 

Minority Students, 

Faculty, Scientists, 

and Extension 

Agents

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad) and Informal 

Education

http://www.csrees.

usda.gov

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
150 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 Undergraduate and Graduate Students (Continued)

U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)

Significant 

Opportunities 

in Atmospheric 

Research in Science 

The SOARS undergraduate-to-graduate bridge program is designed to broaden 

participation in the atmospheric and related sciences. The program is equal 

parts research internship, learning community, and mentoring. Partner: 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Undergraduate 

Students

Formal (Undergrad) http://www.soars.ucar.

edu/

Ecosystem Studies 

Program

This program investigates whole-system ecological processes and 

relationships across a diversity of spatial and temporal (including paleo) 

scales to advance understanding of: (1) material and energy fluxes and 

transformations within and among ecosystems; (2) the relationships between 

structure, including complexity, and functioning of ecosystems; (3) ecosystem 

dynamics and trajectories of ecosystem development through time; and (4) 

linkages among ecosystems at different spatial and temporal scales.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Population and 

Community Ecology 

Program

This program supports fundamental studies in the broadly defined areas of 

population and community ecology. Topics include the population dynamics 

of individual species, demography, and fundamental ecological interactions 

affecting populations, communities, and their environments. Themes include, 

but are not limited to: population regulation; food-web structure and trophic 

dynamics; competition, predation, mutualism. and parasitism; mechanisms of 

coexistence and the maintenance of species diversity; community assembly; 

paleoecology; landscape ecology; conservation and restoration biology; 

behavioral ecology; and macroecology. The program particularly encourages 

studies that can be applied to a wide range of habitats and taxa across 

multiple spatial and temporal scales.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/ 

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Emerging Topics 

in Biogeochemical 

Cycles 

ETBC proposals should be interdisciplinary and address biogeochemical 

processes and dynamics within and/or across one or more of the following 

systems: terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric. The program encourages 

proposals that focus on nonlinear dynamics and/or on interactions and 

thresholds in climate, ecological, and/or hydrological systems. The goals of 

this effort are to increase understanding of how biological systems respond 

to changing physical and chemical conditions and influence the physical and 

chemical characteristics of soils and sediments, air, or water.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

pubs/2009/nsf09030/

nsf09030.jsp

Multi-Scale 

Modeling 

The MSM program seeks to support projects that focus on the development 

and/or integration of environmental models that link local, regional, and global 

scales. Proposals are encouraged that have the potential to dramatically 

improve understanding of how small- and large-scale processes lead to 

non-linearities and activation thresholds, as well as to improve predictive 

capabilities. Projects could address, but are not limited to, such topics as 

the carbon cycle, climate, population dynamics, food webs, biodiversity, 

biogeochemical cycles, and hydrological processes. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

pubs/2009/nsf09032/

nsf09032.jsp

Emerging Frontiers 

in Research and 

Innovation 

The EFRI Office is launching a new funding opportunity for interdisciplinary 

teams of researchers to embark on rapidly advancing frontiers of fundamental 

engineering research. For this solicitation, the EFRI Office will consider 

proposals that aim to investigate emerging frontiers in (1) Renewable Energy 

Storage and (2) Science in Energy and Environmental Design: Engineering 

Sustainable Buildings. This solicitation will be coordinated with other NSF 

Directorates, as well as with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and EPA. 

Partners: DOE, EPA

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_ summ.

jsp?pims_

Energy for 

Sustainability

This program supports fundamental research and education in energy 

production, conversion, and storage, and is focused on environmentally friendly 

and renewable energy sources.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Environmental 

Engineering

The goal of this program is to encourage transformative research that applies 

scientific principles to minimize solid, liquid, and gaseous discharges into 

land, inland and coastal waters, and air that result from human activity, and 

to evaluate the adverse impacts of these discharges on human health and 

environmental quality.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 151

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 Undergraduate and Graduate Students (Continued)

Environmental 

Implications 

of Emerging 

Technologies

This program seeks fundamental and basic research to establish and 

understand outcomes as a result of the implementation of new technologies, 

such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. The program also supports 

research on the development and refinement of sensors and sensor network 

technologies that can be used to measure a wide variety of physical, chemical, 

and biological properties of interest in characterizing, monitoring, and 

understanding environmental impacts.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Environmental 

Sustainability

This program supports engineering research with the goal of promoting 

sustainable, engineered systems that support human well-being and that are 

also compatible with sustaining natural (environmental) systems that provide 

ecological services vital for human survival. The long-term viability of natural 

capital is critical for many areas of human endeavor. This program typically 

considers long time horizons and may incorporate contributions from the social 

sciences and ethics.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Decision, Risk 

and Management 

Sciences 

This program supports scientific research directed at increasing the 

understanding and effectiveness of decision making by individuals, groups, 

organizations, and society. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, doctoral 

dissertation research, and workshops are funded in the areas of judgment 

and decision making; decision analysis and decision aids; risk analysis, 

perception, and communication; societal and public policy decision making; 

and management science and organizational design.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Climate and LargeScale Dynamics The goals of this program are to: (1) advance knowledge about the processes 

that force and regulate the atmosphere’s synoptic and planetary circulation, 

weather, and climate; and (2) sustain the pool of human resources required for 

excellence in synoptic and global atmospheric dynamics and climate research.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Climate Process and 

Modeling Teams 

This concept aims to speed development of global coupled climate models 

and reduce uncertainties in climate models by bringing together theoreticians, 

field observationalists, process modelers, and the large modeling centers to 

concentrate on the scientific problems facing climate models today. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Paleo Perspectives 

on Climate Change 

The goal of research funded under the interdisciplinary P2C2 solicitation is 

to utilize key geological, chemical, and biological records of climate system 

variability to provide insights into the mechanisms and rate of change that 

characterized Earth’s past climate variability, the sensitivity of Earth’s climate 

system to changes in forcing, and the response of key components of the Earth 

system to these changes.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Paleoclimate NSF supports research on the natural evolution of Earth’s climate, with the 

goal of providing a baseline for present variability and future trends through 

improved understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes 

that influence climate over the long term.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Global Ocean 

Ecosystems 

Dynamics Program: 

Pan-Regional 

Synthesis

As the culmination of a series of solicitations for U.S. GLOBEC, this solicitation 

seeks a broader understanding of climate impacts on marine ecosystems 

that builds upon findings from the three regional U.S. GLOBEC studies: the 

Northwest Atlantic, the Northeast Pacific, and the Southern Ocean.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Collaboration in 

Mathematical 

Geosciences 

CMG aims to enable collaborative research at the intersection of mathematical 

sciences and geosciences, and to encourage cross-disciplinary education. 

Projects should fall within one of three broad themes: (1) conducting 

mathematical and statistical modeling of complex geosystems, (2) 

understanding and quantifying uncertainty in geosystems, or (3) analyzing 

large/complex geoscience data sets. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
152 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 Undergraduate and Graduate Students (Continued)

Environment, 

Society, and the 

Economy 

The Intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations and the Directorate 

for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences will consider proposals that 

describe new research efforts relating to the integrated study of environment, 

society, and economics. Interdisciplinary teams of researchers are strongly 

encouraged. Projects are expected to involve researchers in the geosciences 

and social and behavioral sciences, but may also include other disciplines.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

pubs/2009/nsf09031/

nsf09031.jsp

CHE-DMR-DMS 

Solar Energy 

Initiative 

The SOLAR initiative supports interdisciplinary efforts by groups of researchers 

from the NSF Divisions of Chemistry (CHE), Materials Research (DMR), and 

Mathematical Sciences (DMS) to address the scientific challenges of highly 

efficient harvesting, conversion, and storage of solar energy. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_id

Antarctic Earth 

Sciences Program

Beneath its thick ice sheets, Antarctica is a dynamic and diverse continent 

with mountains, volcanoes, deserts, meteorites, dinosaur fossils, and some 

of Earth’s most ancient crust. The Antarctic Earth Sciences Program supports 

research to interpret this rich history and the processes that shape Antarctica 

today.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Antarctic Glaciology 

Program

This program is concerned with the study of the history and dynamics of 

all naturally occurring forms of snow and ice, including floating ice shelves, 

glaciers, and continental and marine ice sheets. Program emphases include 

paleoenvironments from ice cores, ice dynamics, numerical modeling, glacial 

geology, and remote sensing of ice sheets. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Antarctic Ocean 

and Atmospheric 

Sciences

Antarctic oceanic and tropospheric studies focus on the structure and 

processes of the ocean-atmosphere environment and their relationships with 

the global ocean, the atmosphere, and the marine biosphere. As part of the 

global heat engine, the Antarctic has a major role in the world’s transfer of 

energy. Its ocean-atmosphere system is known to be both an indicator and a 

component of climate change.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Antarctic Organisms 

and Ecosystems

The goal of this program is to improve understanding of Antarctic organisms 

and their interactions within the biosphere and geosphere. The program 

supports projects directed at all levels of biological organization, from 

molecular, cellular, and organismal, to communities and ecosystems, up to 

regional and global scales. Investigators are encouraged to develop and apply 

theory and innovative technologies to understand how organisms adapt to and 

live in high-latitude environments and how populations and ecosystems may 

respond to global change.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Arctic Natural 

Sciences Program

Areas of special program interest include marine and terrestrial ecosystems, 

Arctic atmospheric and oceanic dynamics and climatology, Arctic geological 

and glaciological processes, and their connectivity to lower latitudes.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Arctic Observing 

Network 

Compared with much of the rest of the planet, the Arctic is a data-sparse 

region where large, rapid, and system-wide environmental change is occurring. 

The Arctic Observing Network aims to enhance the environmental observing 

infrastructure required for the scientific investigation of Arctic environmental 

change and its global connections.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Arctic System 

Science Program

The Arctic system behaves in ways that we do not understand fully, and has 

demonstrated the capacity for rapid and unpredictable change with global 

ramifications. Because the Arctic is pivotal to the dynamics of our planet, it is 

critical that we understand this complex and interactive system.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Interdisciplinary 

Training for 

Undergraduates 

in Biological and 

Mathematical 

Sciences 

The goal of this activity is to enhance undergraduate education and training 

at the intersection of the biological and mathematical sciences and to better 

prepare undergraduate biology or mathematics students to pursue graduate 

study and careers in fields that integrate the mathematical and biological 

sciences.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Professionals

Formal (Grad) http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 153

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

Informal Educators, Public

U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)

Informal Science 

Education 

ISE invests in projects that promote lifelong learning of STEM in a wide 

variety of informal settings. Funding is provided for projects that advance 

understanding of informal STEM learning, develop and implement innovative 

strategies and resources for informal STEM education, and build the national 

professional capacity for research, development, and practice in the field.

Informal 

Educators, Public

Informal http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Earth to Sky: Climate 

Change Professional 

Development for 

Informal Educators

Earth to Sky is an ongoing and expanding partnership between NASA, the 

National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

providing professional development for informal educators to access and use 

relevant NASA science, data, and educational products in their work. 

Partners: NPS, USFWS

Informal Educators Training http://www.earthtosky.

org/

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Environmental 

Literacy Grants 

Program

The NOAA Office of Education supports applications for projects designed to 

build capacity within NOAA’s Science On a Sphere (SOS)® Users Collaborative 

Network (Network) to enhance the educational use of spherical display 

systems as public exhibits, environmental literacy projects in support of K–12 

education, and Free-Choice Learning projects that will create new, or capitalize 

on existing, networks of institutions, agencies, and/or organizations to provide 

common messages about key concepts in Earth system science.

Formal/Informal 

Educators

Formal/Informal http://www.oesd.noaa.

gov/funding_opps.html

Ocean Education 

Grants for AZAAccredited 

Aquariums

The NOAA Office of Education issued a request for applications to support 

education projects in aquariums accredited by the Association of Zoos and 

Aquariums that are designed to engage the public in activities that increase 

ocean and/or climate literacy and the adoption of a stewardship ethic.

Informal Educators Informal http://www.oesd.noaa.

gov/funding_opps.html

Science On a Sphere SOS® is a spherical display system approximately 6 feet in diameter that 

shows “movies” of animated Earth system dynamics. NOAA supports the use 

of SOS® in public exhibits as part of a focused effort to increase environmental 

literacy. The institutions that currently have NOAA’s SOS®, as well as other 

partners who are creating content and educational programming for these 

systems, have formed a collaborative network. Partners: NASA, DOE

Informal Educators Informal http://www.sos.noaa.

gov/; http://www.oesd.

noaa.gov/network/

International Action 

on Global Warming

IGLO is a project of the Association of Science-Technology Centers, an 

international organization of science centers and museums dedicated to 

furthering the public understanding of science. IGLO is designed to raise 

worldwide public awareness about global warming and the particular ways 

that the polar regions profoundly influence Earth’s climate, environments, 

ecosystems, and human society. IGLO’s activities present the best of current 

research to an international audience and explain how global warming affects 

their daily lives. Partners: NSF, NASA

Informal Educators Informal http://astc.org/iglo/

 Formal/Informal Educators

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

Climate Literacy: 

The Essential 

Principles of Climate 

Sciences—A Guide 

for Individuals and 

Communities

This guide presents important information for individuals and communities to 

understand Earth’s climate, the impacts of climate change, and approaches 

for adapting to and mitigating change. Principles in the guide can serve as 

discussion starters or launching points for scientific inquiry. The guide can also 

serve educators who teach climate science as part of their science curricula, 

and is available to help individuals of all ages understand how climate 

influences them—and how they influence climate. The guide was compiled by 

an interagency group led by NOAA. 

Formal/Informal 

Educators

Formal/Informal http://globalchange.

gov/resources/

educators/climateliteracy

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
154 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

 Formal/Informal Educators (Continued)

Climate Change, 

Wildlife and 

Wildlands Toolkit for 

Formal and Informal 

Educators

This new toolkit is an updated and expanded version of the award-winning, 

popular Climate Change, Wildlife and Wildlands Toolkit for Teachers and 

Interpreters, first published in 2001. It profiles climate stewards in all 11 

eco-regions. For example, students can participate in programs that grow 

native plants for wetland and dune restoration projects, or help protect 

terrapins endangered by sea level rise, or train citizen scientists to monitor 

bird migrations and spring “budbursts.” The new kit is designed for classroom 

teachers and informal educators in parks, refuges, forest lands, nature centers, 

zoos, aquariums, science centers, etc., who work with the middle school grade 

level. EPA, in partnership with six other federal agencies (NPS, USFWS, NOAA, 

NASA, USDA/USFS, Bureau of Land Management), developed the kit to aid 

educators in teaching how climate change is affecting our nation’s wildlife and 

public lands, and how everyone can become climate stewards. 

Formal/Informal 

Educators

Formal/Informal http://globalchange.

gov/resources/

educators/toolkit/

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Office of Education: 

Environmental 

Literacy Grants 

This program supports applications for projects designed to build capacity 

within NOAA’s Science On a Sphere (SOS)® Users Collaborative Network to 

enhance the educational use of spherical display systems as public exhibits, 

environmental literacy projects in support of K–12 education, and FreeChoice Learning projects that create new, or capitalize on existing, networks 

of institutions, agencies, and/or organizations to provide common messages 

about key concepts in Earth system science.

Formal/Informal 

Educators

Formal/Informal http://www.oesd.noaa.

gov/funding_opps.html

NOAA’s International 

Polar Year Program 

Throughout the 2007–2009 period of the International Polar Year (IPY), NOAA 

and several other federal agencies were involved in numerous educational 

programs and activities to help educators and students understand the polar 

regions, as well as continuing stewardship of Earth. NOAA’s Climate Program 

Office and Office of Education coordinated the NOAA-wide IPY education and 

outreach activities and other agencies’ activities that focused primarily on 

teacher professional development, as well as developing materials for use in 

classrooms, science centers, and museums. Additionally, “The Arctic: A Friend 

Acting Strangely” exhibition was developed by the Smithsonian Institution’s 

National Museum of Natural History with a grant from NOAA’s Arctic Research 

Office. The exhibition puts a human face on warming in the Arctic by exploring 

how changes have been observed and documented by scientists and polar 

residents alike. Partners: Smithsonian Institution, NASA, NSF, USGS

Formal/Informal 

Educators

Formal/Informal http://ipy.noaa.gov/ and 

http://forces.si.edu/

arctic/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Environmental 

Education Grant 

Program

This program distributes over $3 million annually to formal and informal 

education organizations across the nation to provide environmental education 

programs to learners of all ages. Many of these grants have been awarded 

to climate change education programs over the last several years, including 

public school districts, privately run nature centers, public and private colleges 

and universities, and community organizations. 

Formal/Informal 

Educators

Formal/Informal http://www.epa.gov/

enviroed/

General Audiences (Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, K–12 Students, K–12 Teachers, Informal Educators, Professionals, Public)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture (NIFA)

Higher Education 

Challenge Grants

This grant program addresses national priorities in the development of higher 

education programs and curricula.

Undergraduate 

and Graduate 

Students

Formal (Undergrad/

Grad)

http://www.csrees.

usda.gov/

U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)

National STEM 

Education 

Distributed 

Learning 

NSDL aims to establish a national network of learning environments and 

resources for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

education at all levels. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, K–12 

Students, K–12 

Teachers, 

Professionals, 

Public

Formal/Informal http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 155

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

General Audiences (Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, K–12 Students, K–12 Teachers, Informal Educators, Professionals, Public) (Continued)

Dynamics of 

Coupled Natural 

and Human 

Systems 

CNH promotes quantitative, interdisciplinary analyses of relevant human and 

natural system processes and complex interactions among human and natural 

systems at diverse scales.

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, K–12 

Teachers

Formal (K–12, 

Undergrad, Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Geoscience 

Education 

GeoEd aims to improve the quality of geoscience education at all educational 

levels; increase the number and competency of Earth and space science 

teachers at K–12 levels; demonstrate the relevance of the geosciences by 

identifying and promoting traditional and nontraditional career opportunities in 

the field; increase the number of students enrolling in geoscience courses and 

degree programs at all educational levels; increase the number of students 

drawn from groups underrepresented in STEM fields in geoscience courses 

and degree programs; and increase the public’s understanding of geosciencerelated issues. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, K–12 

Teachers, 

Professionals

Formal (K–12, 

Undergrad, Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Centers for Ocean 

Science Education 

Excellence 

With 12 Centers and a Central Coordinating Office located throughout the 

United States, each COSEE Center is a consortium of one or more ocean 

science research institutions, informal science education organizations, and 

formal education entities. COSEE is funded primarily by NSF, with support from 

NOAA. In addition to the work at the Centers, the program engages in networklevel activities, such as scientist-educator partnerships, ocean literacy, and 

promoting ocean careers. Partner: NOAA

Graduate 

Students, K–12 

Teachers and 

Students, Informal 

Educators, 

Professionals

Formal (K–12, 

Undergrad, Grad), 

Informal

http://www.cosee.net

Arctic Research and 

Education Program

Arctic research spans the major STEM fields and is often multi- or 

interdisciplinary. Research in the Arctic has clear applications for education and 

outreach at many levels. The region itself is an interesting hook for teaching 

about life, physical, and social sciences, and concepts such as ocean and 

atmosphere circulation, climate, Earth system science, animal migrations, and 

life in extreme environments. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, K–12 

Teachers, 

Professionals

Formal (K–12 

Undergrad, Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Organization 

of Projects on 

Environmental 

Research in the 

Arctic 

This program seeks proposals for activities to foster and sustain collaboration 

among projects funded by NSF that contribute to the U.S. Arctic environmental 

change research effort. 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students, K–12 

Teachers, 

Professionals

Formal (K–12 

Undergrad, Grad)

http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.

jsp?pims_

Public

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Snow and 

Ice Data Center 

The Center manages about 60 NOAA data sets, and publishes several new 

data sets each year, with an emphasis on in situ data, digitizing old and 

sometimes forgotten but valuable analog data, and data sets from operational 

communities, such as the U.S. Navy. The Center also helps develop educational 

pages, created Google EarthTM files that enable the public to overlay databased images on a virtual globe, and houses many photographic prints of 

glaciers, taken from both the air and the ground. Partners: NSF, NASA

Public Informal http://nsidc.org/data/

virtual_globes/

Sea Grant NOAA’s Sea Grant is a nationwide network of 32 university-based programs 

that work with coastal communities. The National Sea Grant College Program 

engages this network of the nation’s top universities in conducting scientific 

research, education, training, and extension projects designed to foster 

science-based decisions about the use and conservation of natural resources 

and to increase coastal resiliency. The Sea Grant network is engaged in a 

multifaceted and diverse series of programs to address climate change in 

coastal and Great Lakes regions.

Public Formal/Informal http://www.seagrant.

noaa.gov/

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
156 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

Public (Continued)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Climate Change and 

Health Effects on 

Older Adults 

This Web page is the top site the public sees on Google when searching for 

information about older adults and climate change. A fact sheet entitled “It’s 

Too Darn Hot: Planning for Excessive Heat Events” was developed and has 

been widely disseminated throughout aging and public health networks. Now in 

its second printing, this fact sheet was translated into 15 languages. “Beat the 

Heat” posters highlighting key messages about steps to take during extreme 

heat are available in English and Spanish and have been shared in senior 

centers around the country. 

Public Informal http://www.epa.gov/

aging/resources/

climatechange/index.

htm; http://www.epa.

gov/aging/resources/

factsheets/itdhpfehe/

index.htm

Climate Change Managed by EPA’s Climate Change Division, this Web site is rated number one 

for “climate change” hits in the Google search engine. It offers comprehensive 

information accessible to U.S. and international visitors—communities, 

individuals, businesses, states and localities, and governments. The site 

features information about climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions 

and inventories, health and environmental effects, U.S. climate policy, 

mitigation and adaptation opportunities, educational resources, and EPA’s 

varied activities on the issue. In response to public inquiries, a “Frequent 

Questions” database was added in 2009; other updates and improvements 

are planned for 2010. Many informational fact sheets and tools can be 

downloaded for printing. 

Public Formal/Informal http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange

Individual Emissions 

Calculator

This calculator is one of the most popular features of the Climate Change Web 

site. Individuals can use it to get a “ballpark” estimate of personal or family 

greenhouse gas emissions, and also explore the impact of taking various 

actions to reduce emissions. Newspapers and other media outlets frequently 

feature this useful tool to help consumers learn about their own habits’ effects 

on energy consumption and climate change. 

Public Formal/Informal http://www.epa.

gov/climatechange/

emissions/ind_

calculator.html

Climate “Back 

to Basics” 

Informational 

Materials

Among the resources available on the climate change site and in print form 

is a series of What You Can Do fact sheets and Web pages that provide over 

25 easy steps readers can take to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

but also increase energy efficiency and save resources. A related science 

education resource for adults and students is the brochure “Frequently Asked 

Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics.” The 

brochure addresses key questions about this issue by restating in easy-tounderstand language the most current climate science from widely accepted, 

peer-reviewed scientific literature. 

Public Formal/Informal http://www.epa.

gov/climatechange/

wycd; www.epa.

gov/climatechange/

downloads/Climate_

Basics.pdf

Climate Friendly 

Parks

EPA worked closely with the National Park Service to establish this program 

to provide national parks with management tools and resources to address 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects in the parks. In some 

cases, local communities, nonprofit organizations, and others have taken on 

projects and programs to enhance this joint partnership over the last few years. 

This program provides awareness-raising and educational activities through 

staff and community workshops, instruction in the use of greenhouse gas 

inventory tools, and pledges for park visitors to reduce their carbon footprint. 

Partner: National Park Service

Public/

Professionals

Informal http://www.nps.gov/

climatefriendlyparks

Climate Change 

Indicators in the 

United States

This path-breaking report presents 24 indicators, each describing trends in 

some way related to the state, causes, and effects of climate change. The 

indicators focus primarily on the United States, but in some cases present 

global trends to provide context or a basis for comparison. Indicators are 

divided into five chapters: Greenhouse Gases, Weather and Climate, Oceans, 

Snow and Ice, and Human Society and Ecosystems. Data sources come 

from EPA, other government agencies, academia, and nongovernmental 

organizations. 

Public/

Professionals

Formal/Informal Under development

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 157

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

Public (Continued)

Climate Ready 

Estuaries 

This program works with EPA’s National Estuary Program and other coastal 

managers to assess climate change vulnerabilities, develop and implement 

adaptation strategies, engage and educate stakeholders, and share the 

lessons learned with other coastal managers. The program’s Web site offers 

information on climate change impacts on estuaries in various U.S. regions, 

access to tools and resources to monitor changes, and information to help 

managers develop adaptation plans for estuaries and coastal communities. 

By fostering information sharing among estuary managers and communities 

around America’s coasts, this program promotes adaptation to a changing 

climate. 

Public/

Professionals

Training www.epa.gov/cre

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Forest Service 

Research Web Site

This site provides online access to USFS climate change research. Public Formal/Informal http://www.fs.fed.us/

research/climate/usfscc-research.shtml

Climate Change in 

the Southern Region

This Web site provides information on upcoming climate change seminars, 

climate-related reading materials, regional and agency climate initiatives, 

and tips for reducing one’s carbon footprint. Additionally, leaders from various 

resource areas participate in region-wide climate change seminars, discussing 

such topics as region-specific information, adaptation, carbon, and planning.

Public Formal/Informal http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.

us/climate/index.php

Treesearch This online search engine provides access to almost 30,000 USFS 

publications, including over 4,500 climate change-related publications for the 

general public and land managers.

Public Formal/Informal http://www.treesearch.

fs.fed.us

i-Tree i-Tree is a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite that provides 

urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools. The i-Tree tools help 

professionals in communities of all sizes to strengthen their urban forest 

management and advocacy efforts by quantifying the structure of community 

trees and the environmental services that trees provide, including those that 

mitigate the effects of climate change.

Public/

Professionals

Formal/Informal http://www.itreetools.

org/

Task Force on 

Traditional Forest 

Knowledge

This USFS Research and Development and International Union of Forest 

Research Organizations task force provides information on traditional forest 

knowledge and practices related to climate change.

Public/

Professionals

Formal/Informal http://www.iufro.org/

science/task-forces/

traditional-forestknowledge/

National Report 

on Sustainable 

Forests—2010

This draft report provides access to a public review draft in preparation for its 

2010 release. It is designed for the general public and managers. 

Public/

Professionals

Formal/Informal http://www.fs.fed.us/

research/sustain/

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Atmospheric 

Radiation 

Measurement 

Climate Research 

Facility

The ARM program provides online materials to develop basic science 

awareness related to climate change and supports community outreach in 

ARM program site regions.

Public Formal/Informal http://education.arm.

gov

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

Hydrogen Working 

Group

In 2009, the Hydrogen Working Group distributed $900,000 to five projects 

with a focus on outreach.

Public, 

Government

Informal http://hydrogen.dot.

gov/

University 

Transportation 

Centers

This program awards grants to universities across the United States to advance 

the state of the art in transportation research and develop the next generation 

of transportation professionals. 

Public University http://utc.dot.gov/

Transportation and 

Climate Change 

Clearinghouse 

This Web site aims to serve as a one-stop source of information for the 

transportation community on transportation and climate change issues. 

Intended for use by all levels of government, private industry, and nonprofit 

organizations, the site provides a forum to share information, learn about new 

research, and understand practices and approaches being used to address 

the linkages between transportation and climate change. The Clearinghouse 

is funded jointly through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

and DOT’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. 

Public Online http://www.climate.

dot.gov

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
158 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

Public (Continued)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Global Climate 

Change: NASA’s 

Eyes on the Earth

This Web resource for educators, citizen scientists, and the public includes the 

planet’s vital signs, feature stories, visualizations, and links to NASA missions 

involved in investigating climate change.

Public, K–12 

Students, K–12 

Teachers, Informal 

Educators

Informal http://climate.nasa.gov/

Earth Observatory The award-winning Earth Observatory’s Web site’s mission is to share with the 

public the images, stories, and discoveries about climate and the environment 

that emerge from NASA and Earth science research, including satellite 

missions, in-the-field research, and climate models.

Public, K–12 

Students, K–12 

Teachers, Informal 

Educators

Informal http://earthobservatory.

nasa.gov/

Professionals

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Coastal Training 

Program

This program provides up-to-date scientific information and skill-building 

opportunities to individuals who are responsible for making decisions that 

affect coastal resources. Through this program, National Estuarine Research 

Reserves can ensure that coastal decision makers have the knowledge and 

tools they need to address critical resource management issues of concern to 

local communities. 

Professionals Training http://www8.nos.

noaa.gov/publicnerrs/

training.aspx

Coastal Resource 

Managers Training 

and Capacity 

Building

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center works with other federal agencies to impart 

information, services, and technology to the nation’s coastal resource 

managers. This community includes state coastal zone management and 

natural resource management offices, research reserves, sanctuaries, and 

Sea Grant offices. Each of these organizations has the difficult task of helping 

coastal communities balance the often competing demands for coastal 

resources.

Professionals Training http://oceanservice.

noaa.gov/topics/coasts/

training/

Responding to 

Climate Change: A 

Workshop for Coral 

Reef Managers

Resources from a global series of workshops are distributed to coral reef 

managers to support their learning of how to predict where coral bleaching will 

occur, measure coral reef resilience, and assess the socioeconomic impacts 

of climate damage. The aim is to help managers develop response strategies 

for coping with climate change. NOAA, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority, and The Nature Conservancy host the workshops. These partners 

joined with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature on A Reef 

Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching, the book that inspired these workshops. 

Partners: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The Nature Conservancy

Professionals Training http://coralreefwatch.

noaa.gov/satellite/

education/workshop/

index.html

Training Program in 

Climate Services

NOAA’s National Weather Service initiated a training program in climate 

services in 2001 to increase the knowledge base of its field staff. It included 

about 25 hours of online distance learning material, a 5-day virtual course on 

Climate Variability and Change, and a 3-day residence course on Operational 

Climate Services. Due to the continuing interest in global and regional climate 

variability and change as well as their local impacts on socioeconomic 

development, this training program is expanding.

Professionals, 

Graduate 

Students, 

Educators

Training http://www.nws.noaa.

gov/om/csd/pds/

DistanceLearning.shtml

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Climate Change 

Resource Center: 

Information and 

Tools for Land 

Managers

The Center is a joint project of USFS’s Pacific Northwest Research Station 

and Rocky Mountain Research Station. This Web-based resource summarizes 

climate change research for resource managers, provides implications for 

management based on the scientific findings, and contains video presentations 

from scientists describing their findings.

Professionals Formal/Informal http://www.fs.fed.us/

ccrc/

Western Wildland 

Environmental 

Threat Assessment 

Center

The Center’s mission is to generate and integrate knowledge and information 

to provide credible prediction, early detection, and quantitative assessment 

of environmental threats in the western United States. The Center provides 

regional online access to the general public and land managers. 

Professionals Formal/Informal http://www.fs.fed.

us/wwetac/threats/

climate_change.html

Eastern Forest 

Environmental 

Threat Assessment 

Center

The Center is an interdisciplinary resource that develops new technology and 

tools to anticipate and respond to emerging eastern forest threats, including 

climate change. Center researchers work with other scientists nationally 

as well as with a variety of federal, state, and local government agencies, 

universities, and nongovernmental partners to address these threats. The 

Center provides regional online access to the general public and land 

managers.

Professionals Formal/Informal http://www.

forestthreats.org/

climate-change

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Chapter 9 | Education, Training, and Outreach 159

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

Professionals (Continued)

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)/National Park Service (NPS)

Climate Leadership 

In Parks (CLIP) Tool

This Microsoft Excel-based calculator is designed for parks to assess their 

greenhouse gas emissions. It focuses on operational activities—electricity use, 

transportation, waste and wastewater treatment, and other greenhouse gasemitting activities—inside parks. While this tool has a method for calculating 

forest carbon flux, it is not the most up-to-date tool, nor is it specific enough 

to adequately represent park forest carbon storage/emissions. For parks that 

want to include forest carbon in their reporting, NPS recommends that they use 

the latest forest models to calculate the flux, and then enter the numbers into 

the CLIP tool. 

Professionals Training http://www.nps.gov/

climatefriendlyparks/

index.html

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

Regional Climate 

Change Response 

Centers

The eight DOI regional centers—serving Alaska, the Northeast, the Southeast, 

the Southwest, the Midwest, the West, the Northwest, and the Pacific 

regions—synthesize existing climate change impact data and management 

strategies, help resource managers put them into action on the ground, and 

engage the public through education initiatives.

Professionals Training http://www.doi.gov/

news/09_News_

Releases/091409.html

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

Climate Change 

Forums

DOT’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting offers this 

ongoing series to raise awareness of the many and varied perspectives of 

American industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. 

Professionals 

(government 

employees)

Classroom/Briefing 

Style

U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Partnership for AiR 

Transportation

Noise and 

Emissions 

Reduction 

PARTNER is a leading aviation cooperative research organization and an 

FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence. It fosters 

break-through technological, operational, policy, and workforce advances for 

the betterment of mobility, economy, national security, and the environment. 

The organization comprises 9 universities and 51 advisory board members. 

PARTNER has funded outreach and educational activities, and the research of 

more than 200 master’s and Ph.D. students, many in climate research.

Professionals 

(aviation 

stakeholders, 

including 

airlines, airports, 

manufacturers, 

the public, and 

government 

organizations)

Formal/Informal http://www.partner.aero

U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Peer Exchanges on 

Transportation and 

Climate Change 

Mitigation and 

Adaptation Issues

Conducted in 2008, these workshops allowed senior staff from a variety 

of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state departments of 

transportation (DOTs) from across the country to come together to share 

information, experiences, and challenges regarding how both climate change 

mitigation and adaptation issues can be integrated into the transportation 

planning process. FHWA (with support from the American Association of 

State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conducted a peer exchange 

on adaptation of transportation infrastructure to climate change impacts in 

December 2008. Partner: AASHTO

Professionals 

(state DOTs, local 

transportation 

agencies, MPOs)

Formal/Informal http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/hep/climate/

resources.htm or http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/

planning/statewide/

pwsacci.htm

Highways & 

Climate Change 

DOT’s Office of Planning, Environment and Realty’s Web site provides 

information on FHWA research, publications, and resources related to climate 

change science, policies, and actions. Visitors will also find some current state 

and local practices in adapting to climate change and reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions, and the Transportation and Climate Change Newsletter.

Professionals 

(state DOTs, local 

transportation 

agencies, MPOs, 

public)

Formal/Informal http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/hep/climate/

index.htm; http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/

hep/climatechange/

newsletter/index.htm

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
160 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Program Name Description Audiences Learning Setting Web Site

Professionals (Continued)

U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Education 

and Outreach 

Conferences

FTA organizes, sponsors, and participates in numerous conferences as 

part of its outreach efforts, including conferences and sessions geared 

toward education on environmental and climate change issues. In 2009, 

FTA sponsored and participated in climate change panels at the annual 

Transportation Research Board conference, the Rail-Volution conference, the 

American Public Transportation Association sustainability workshop, and the 

New Partners for Smart Growth conference.

Professionals 

(transit agencies, 

state and local 

governments, 

academics)

Conferences http://www.fta.dot.

gov/news/news_

events_415.html 

Transit and 

Environmental 

Sustainability 

This Web site provides the public and transit agencies with information on 

the environmental benefits of transit (including reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions), FTA activities to support sustainability, and information on what 

transit agencies are doing across the country to reduce the environmental 

impacts of transportation.

Professionals 

(transit agencies, 

state and local 

governments, 

public)

Web Site http://www.fta.dot.gov/

planning/planning_

environment_8510.

html 

National Transit 

Institute

Established under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 

the NTI provides training, education, and clearinghouse services in support 

of U.S. public transportation and quality of life. NTI courses on transportation 

planning, environmental review, transit-oriented development, and 

transportation and land use are particularly relevant to climate change issues.

Professionals 

(transit agency 

staff, public 

transportation, 

transit industry 

private companies)

Classroom and 

Online Courses

http://www.ntionline.

com/ 

Environmental 

Management 

Systems Training 

and Assistance

FTA sponsors training for public transit agencies to continually assess and 

reduce the environmental impact of their operations. Training and technical 

assistance include workshops, on-site technical support visits, electronic 

software, and consultation. During the 18-month training period, each agency 

develops an environmental management system suited to its needs.

Professionals 

(transit agencies)

Workshops, 

On-Site Technical 

Support Visits, 

Electronic Software, 

Consultation

http://www.fta.

dot.gov/planning/

environment/planning_

environment_227.html 

Table 9-1 (Continued) Federal Climate Change Programs Grouped by Primary Audience
Appendices

Appendices 161
162 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Appendix A: 

Emission 

Trends A

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007CO2 Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 1 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Base year ( 1990 ) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg)

1. Energy 4,870,953.27 4,836,985.34 4,936,119.34 5,063,791.85 5,149,752.90 5,201,233.13 5,375,999.90 5,464,358.29 5,497,051.13 5,577,645.24

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 4,836,844.15 4,803,782.01 4,903,588.99 5,029,995.51 5,115,919.64 5,167,081.83 5,344,184.55 5,432,694.24 5,467,404.39 5,547,011.49

1. Energy Industries 1,820,634.08 1,818,266.55 1,829,956.81 1,912,854.25 1,938,171.63 1,954,574.11 2,028,073.81 2,097,640.10 2,185,937.48 2,196,703.572. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 834,203.71 820,587.80 859,330.47 845,258.56 854,409.80 862,557.10 896,469.91 900,700.99 853,821.95 828,918.19

3. Transport 1,436,605.15 1,396,569.98 1,446,753.58 1,492,574.68 1,536,849.54 1,567,436.09 1,603,248.65 1,627,139.89 1,650,444.90 1,720,181.804. Other Sectors 552,259.71 566,412.85 571,144.07 583,555.67 577,249.83 578,843.59 619,202.36 596,848.13 549,032.05 569,344.17

5. Other 193,141.50 201,944.84 196,404.07 195,752.36 209,238.84 203,670.93 197,189.84 210,365.15 228,168.01 231,863.76

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 34,109.12 33,203.32 32,530.35 33,796.33 33,833.26 34,151.30 31,815.34 31,664.05 29,646.74 30,633.76

1. Solid Fuels IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO

2. Oil and Natural Gas 34,109.12 33,203.32 32,530.35 33,796.33 33,833.26 34,151.30 31,815.34 31,664.05 29,646.74 30,633.76

2. Industrial Processes 197,622.92 185,599.17 188,123.22 185,342.00 191,408.79 198,584.35 198,200.97 201,177.86 197,639.68 194,664.61

A. Mineral Products 54,079.29 52,453.88 53,152.90 54,951.90 57,411.73 61,127.15 62,617.93 63,699.61 65,031.29 66,054.32

B. Chemical Industry 23,566.36 23,369.71 24,588.15 24,770.76 25,900.88 25,335.69 25,304.46 25,875.88 27,055.43 25,609.06C. Metal Production 119,977.27 109,775.58 110,382.17 105,619.33 108,096.18 112,121.50 110,278.58 111,602.36 105,552.95 103,001.23D. Other Production NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

E. Production of Halocarbons and SF6

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO

3. Solvent and Other Product Use NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE

4. Agriculture

A. Enteric FermentationB. Manure ManagementC. Rice CultivationD. Agricultural Soils E. Prescribed Burning of SavannasF. Field Burning of Agricultural ResiduesG. Other 

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry(2) -833,312.75 -851,158.63 -837,851.17 -779,963.93 -904,804.98 -842,885.19 -761,102.39 -836,046.07 -732,305.85 -686,851.10

A. Forest Land -529,273.49 -571,489.63 -564,608.35 -524,816.68 -563,902.11 -568,151.87 -543,329.69 -566,674.83 -500,461.50 -435,441.31B. Cropland -20,175.45 -22,118.72 -33,574.35 -35,057.79 -36,745.27 -12,947.30 -21,148.24 -19,889.29 -16,014.07 5,877.31

C. Grassland -69,001.74 -49,703.91 -29,828.28 -13,972.28 -96,315.76 -58,906.42 -113.60 -45,106.17 -12,728.90 -47,943.69D. Wetlands 1,033.48 962.28 919.55 980.58 937.87 1,017.94 872.25 1,037.48 1,084.22 1,154.91

E. Settlements -60,648.74 -62,825.20 -65,001.67 -67,178.13 -69,354.59 -71,531.05 -73,707.52 -75,883.98 -78,060.44 -80,236.90

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NEG. Other -155,246.82 -145,983.44 -145,758.07 -139,919.64 -139,425.12 -132,366.49 -123,675.60 -129,529.28 -126,125.16 -130,261.42

6. Waste IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE

A. Solid Waste Disposal on Land NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE

B. Waste-water HandlingC. Waste Incineration IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE

D. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total CO2 emissions including net CO2 from LULUCF 4,235,263.44 4,171,425.88 4,286,391.39 4,469,169.91 4,436,356.71 4,556,932.29 4,813,098.48 4,829,490.08 4,962,384.96 5,085,458.75

Total CO2 emissions excluding net CO2 from LULUCF 5,068,576.19 5,022,584.51 5,124,242.56 5,249,133.85 5,341,161.69 5,399,817.48 5,574,200.87 5,665,536.15 5,694,690.81 5,772,309.85

Memo Items:International Bunkers 114,329.60 123,567.53 115,588.68 104,003.73 106,489.22 101,620.41 108,308.43 111,092.04 120,332.95 102,459.82

Aviation 46,377.60 49,489.37 52,132.13 51,205.39 56,297.74 51,195.57 57,693.42 56,587.38 61,848.03 55,561.92

Marine 67,952.00 74,078.16 63,456.54 52,798.34 50,191.48 50,424.84 50,615.00 54,504.66 58,484.91 46,897.90

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NECO2 Emissions from Biomass 219,340.79 220,082.20 230,515.03 225,686.48 232,174.48 236,774.53 241,236.81 235,458.98 218,102.50 221,354.19

Note: All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES
Appendix A | Emission Trends 163

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007CO2 Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 2 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change from base to latest reported year

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) %

1. Energy 5,753,192.29 5,676,392.94 5,725,316.43 5,785,075.45 5,865,681.40 5,910,830.29 5,830,206.44 5,919,451.52 21.53

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 5,723,473.25 5,647,271.04 5,695,363.30 5,756,310.03 5,837,253.92 5,881,080.19 5,800,379.21 5,890,484.85 21.78

1. Energy Industries 2,300,662.09 2,263,809.72 2,273,168.45 2,302,469.44 2,333,871.91 2,400,534.15 2,347,137.23 2,417,976.57 32.81

2. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 844,553.58 839,115.92 842,053.96 844,277.95 844,607.28 828,008.27 844,505.28 845,415.82 1.34

3. Transport 1,772,568.94 1,748,893.27 1,786,899.10 1,782,181.60 1,830,672.19 1,855,548.29 1,858,382.71 1,864,111.44 29.76

4. Other Sectors 597,284.45 582,938.69 581,272.90 615,244.74 595,566.44 579,796.52 527,901.66 554,976.35 0.495. Other 208,404.20 212,513.44 211,968.88 212,136.30 232,536.11 217,192.97 222,452.33 208,004.68 7.70

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 29,719.04 29,121.90 29,953.13 28,765.42 28,427.48 29,750.10 29,827.23 28,966.67 -15.08

1. Solid Fuels IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO IE,NE,NO 0.00

2. Oil and Natural Gas 29,719.04 29,121.90 29,953.13 28,765.42 28,427.48 29,750.10 29,827.23 28,966.67 -15.08

2. Industrial Processes 193,216.55 174,662.49 173,359.36 168,930.68 173,691.29 171,074.83 175,897.22 174,938.59 -11.48

A. Mineral Products 64,514.74 63,868.84 65,321.71 65,056.15 70,248.55 71,285.60 73,859.38 69,442.20 28.41

B. Chemical Industry 24,210.16 20,080.99 21,391.06 19,886.44 21,016.52 20,334.61 19,832.55 21,526.11 -8.66

C. Metal Production 104,491.64 90,712.66 86,646.59 83,988.09 82,426.22 79,454.62 82,205.28 83,970.28 -30.01

D. Other Production NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

E. Production of Halocarbons and SF6

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO 0.00

3. Solvent and Other Product Use NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE 0.00

4. Agriculture

A. Enteric FermentationB. Manure ManagementC. Rice CultivationD. Agricultural Soils E. Prescribed Burning of SavannasF. Field Burning of Agricultural ResiduesG. Other 

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry(2) -708,737.38 -736,975.85 -1,019,122.24 -1,256,125.55 -1,285,822.59 -1,113,812.87 -1,041,773.03 -1,053,548.12 26.43

A. Forest Land -399,675.24 -489,904.29 -754,103.55 -1,028,558.70 -1,044,794.02 -871,739.16 -791,694.96 -809,631.52 52.97

B. Cropland -20,272.80 -845.54 1,873.13 -3,472.07 -4,619.69 -4,465.72 -5,247.42 -5,698.80 -71.75

C. Grassland -83,352.93 -57,734.31 -71,396.80 -31,199.75 -31,240.83 -31,290.80 -31,326.57 -31,362.65 -54.55

D. Wetlands 1,227.28 1,140.27 1,000.95 983.07 1,194.82 1,078.91 878.94 1,010.50 -2.22

E. Settlements -82,413.36 -84,589.83 -86,766.29 -88,942.75 -91,119.21 -93,295.68 -95,472.14 -97,648.60 61.01

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

G. Other -124,250.32 -105,042.16 -109,729.67 -104,935.34 -115,243.66 -114,100.42 -118,910.87 -110,217.05 -29.01

6. Waste IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE 0.00

A. Solid Waste Disposal on Land NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE 0.00

B. Waste-water HandlingC. Waste Incineration IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE 0.00D. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

Total CO2 emissions including net CO2 from LULUCF 5,237,671.46 5,114,079.58 4,879,553.55 4,697,880.58 4,753,550.10 4,968,092.25 4,964,330.63 5,040,841.99 19.02

Total CO2 emissions excluding net CO2 from LULUCF 5,946,408.84 5,851,055.43 5,898,675.79 5,954,006.13 6,039,372.69 6,081,905.12 6,006,103.66 6,094,390.11 20.24

Memo Items:International Bunkers 98,965.90 97,046.95 104,628.27 100,392.03 114,869.20 111,487.07 110,519.62 108,755.77 -4.88

Aviation 57,693.74 58,180.80 63,215.60 55,615.00 60,784.92 56,423.97 54,563.91 52,739.81 13.72

Marine 41,272.16 38,866.16 41,412.67 44,777.03 54,084.29 55,063.10 55,955.71 56,015.96 -17.57

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

CO2 Emissions from Biomass 227,276.44 203,163.58 204,350.53 209,537.43 224,825.39 231,481.40 240,385.63 247,829.09 12.99

Note: All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES
164 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007 CH4 Submission 2009 v1.1 (Part 1 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Base year ( 1990 ) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg)

1. Energy 12,651.50 12,582.00 12,488.81 11,963.67 12,076.10 11,969.96 12,064.61 11,871.58 11,677.96 11,257.74

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 577.52 578.58 590.88 565.39 553.71 546.77 551.23 510.59 475.04 470.87

1. Energy Industries 26.99 26.69 26.83 28.25 28.61 27.45 28.54 29.57 31.54 31.57

2. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 82.52 81.01 83.52 83.56 87.00 88.63 90.19 91.98 86.30 86.04

3. Transport 213.73 207.45 207.47 204.27 200.47 194.20 185.55 176.68 167.56 157.24

4. Other Sectors 250.56 259.58 269.33 245.59 233.85 233.00 243.62 208.93 186.18 192.57

5. Other 3.71 3.86 3.74 3.72 3.77 3.48 3.33 3.43 3.46 3.46

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 12,073.98 12,003.42 11,897.93 11,398.28 11,522.39 11,423.20 11,513.38 11,360.99 11,202.92 10,786.87

1. Solid Fuels 4,290.85 4,155.70 4,077.32 3,551.44 3,631.23 3,585.27 3,583.39 3,521.73 3,508.75 3,329.88

2. Oil and Natural Gas 7,783.13 7,847.72 7,820.61 7,846.84 7,891.16 7,837.92 7,929.99 7,839.26 7,694.17 7,457.00

2. Industrial Processes 88.46 85.23 89.35 93.82 97.71 100.30 101.31 104.49 104.76 103.41

A. Mineral Products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

B. Chemical Industry 42.22 44.19 45.30 49.02 51.81 53.02 55.37 58.40 59.96 60.38

C. Metal Production 46.24 41.04 44.05 44.79 45.90 47.28 45.93 46.09 44.80 43.04

D. Other ProductionE. Production of Halocarbons and SF6

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO

3. Solvent and Other Product Use 4. Agriculture 8,161.33 8,230.38 8,419.81 8,420.24 8,713.50 8,873.04 8,668.59 8,643.63 8,751.29 8,715.01

A. Enteric Fermentation 6,342.30 6,357.38 6,557.05 6,565.84 6,687.95 6,837.01 6,723.17 6,594.89 6,528.64 6,498.54

B. Manure Management 1,446.92 1,509.02 1,451.75 1,491.07 1,595.61 1,641.54 1,577.75 1,655.91 1,808.70 1,784.94

C. Rice Cultivation 339.21 333.19 374.79 334.24 391.13 362.90 331.75 356.24 376.26 394.87

D. Agricultural Soils NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE

E. Prescribed Burning of Savannas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

F. Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 32.89 30.80 36.22 29.09 38.82 31.59 35.92 36.60 37.69 36.66

G. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 218.36 190.15 284.79 175.92 525.89 292.85 832.85 162.34 217.74 772.75

A. Forest Land 218.36 190.15 284.79 175.92 525.89 292.85 832.85 162.34 217.74 772.75

B. Cropland NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

C. Grassland NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

D. Wetlands NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

E. Settlements NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO

6. Waste 8,240.20 8,328.94 8,406.04 8,408.19 8,379.05 8,088.92 7,937.43 7,619.79 7,306.02 7,243.56

A. Solid Waste Disposal on Land 7,105.30 7,173.42 7,227.68 7,221.48 7,171.62 6,870.91 6,711.18 6,373.85 6,056.73 5,984.13

B. Waste-water Handling 1,119.66 1,138.10 1,158.76 1,161.67 1,176.65 1,183.28 1,186.66 1,202.14 1,201.60 1,206.02

C. Waste Incineration NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

D. Other 15.24 17.42 19.60 25.04 30.77 34.73 39.59 43.80 47.68 53.42

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total CH4 emissions including CH4 from LULUCF 29,359.85 29,416.72 29,688.80 29,061.84 29,792.25 29,325.06 29,604.79 28,401.83 28,057.76 28,092.48

Total CH4 emissions excluding CH4 from LULUCF 29,141.49 29,226.57 29,404.01 28,885.92 29,266.36 29,032.21 28,771.94 28,239.49 27,840.02 27,319.73

Memo Items:International Bunkers 8.04 8.71 7.73 6.68 6.55 6.43 6.61 6.95 7.48 6.19

Aviation 1.51 1.60 1.63 1.60 1.73 1.58 1.75 1.71 1.86 1.68

Marine 6.53 7.11 6.10 5.08 4.82 4.85 4.86 5.24 5.63 4.51

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

CO2 Emissions from Biomass

Note: All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES
Appendix A | Emission Trends 165

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007CH4 Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 2 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change from base to latest reported year

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg)

%

1. Energy 11,380.90 11,252.09 11,001.27 10,872.90 10,468.41 9,831.58 9,795.39 9,795.51 -22.57

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 478.23 452.15 435.90 437.43 436.83 439.33 415.01 423.81 -26.62

1. Energy Industries 32.58 32.31 32.49 33.61 34.02 35.49 33.70 34.79 28.88

2. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 87.42 83.20 81.02 80.74 84.89 84.12 86.93 84.54 2.44

3. Transport 150.25 144.54 127.74 117.45 111.72 105.24 98.95 92.67 -56.64

4. Other Sectors 204.56 187.92 190.83 201.35 201.69 210.15 191.14 207.77 -17.08

5. Other 3.42 4.18 3.81 4.28 4.50 4.33 4.28 4.05 9.08

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 10,902.67 10,799.94 10,565.37 10,435.47 10,031.58 9,392.24 9,380.39 9,371.69 -22.38

1. Solid Fuels 3,231.16 3,195.35 2,998.34 2,990.45 3,046.74 2,984.45 3,043.19 3,016.85 -29.69

2. Oil and Natural Gas 7,671.50 7,604.60 7,567.03 7,445.02 6,984.84 6,407.79 6,337.20 6,354.85 -18.35

2. Industrial Processes 103.73 93.84 93.61 92.34 98.45 86.16 83.25 82.46 -6.78

A. Mineral Products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

B. Chemical Industry 59.34 54.86 56.39 54.78 59.44 51.70 48.21 48.83 15.66

C. Metal Production 44.39 38.98 37.22 37.56 39.01 34.46 35.03 33.63 -27.27

D. Other ProductionE. Production of Halocarbons and SF6

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO 0.00

3. Solvent and Other Product Use 4. Agriculture 8,596.63 8,634.38 8,665.36 8,692.89 8,663.34 8,832.54 8,894.49 9,047.06 10.85

A. Enteric Fermentation 6,398.46 6,362.80 6,381.62 6,410.32 6,368.96 6,474.14 6,579.88 6,617.96 4.35

B. Manure Management 1,803.59 1,870.96 1,924.78 1,916.11 1,892.31 1,991.37 1,993.34 2,093.30 44.67

C. Rice Cultivation 356.84 363.78 325.20 328.37 360.22 326.10 281.97 293.32 -13.53

D. Agricultural Soils NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE NA,NE 0.00

E. Prescribed Burning of Savannas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

F. Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 37.73 36.84 33.77 38.09 41.84 40.93 39.30 42.47 29.14G. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 982.60 573.34 863.00 553.19 313.62 676.21 1,488.53 1,381.15 532.51

A. Forest Land 982.60 573.34 863.00 553.19 313.62 676.21 1,488.53 1,381.15 532.51B. Cropland NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

C. Grassland NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

D. Wetlands NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

E. Settlements NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO 0.00

6. Waste 7,083.96 6,926.00 7,038.35 7,346.49 7,252.75 7,321.56 7,451.46 7,566.06 -8.18

A. Solid Waste Disposal on Land 5,824.65 5,688.59 5,802.62 6,109.60 6,009.43 6,088.08 6,211.43 6,327.42 -10.95

B. Waste-water Handling 1,199.62 1,177.35 1,174.98 1,167.65 1,169.04 1,158.91 1,164.62 1,159.85 3.59

C. Waste Incineration NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

D. Other 59.69 60.06 60.75 69.24 74.28 74.57 75.41 78.78 416.90

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

Total CH4 emissions including CH4 from LULUCF 28,147.82 27,479.65 27,661.59 27,557.81 26,796.56 26,748.04 27,713.12 27,872.24 -5.07

Total CH4 emissions excluding CH4 from LULUCF 27,165.21 26,906.31 26,798.59 27,004.62 26,482.94 26,071.83 26,224.59 26,491.09 -9.09

Memo Items:International Bunkers 5.70 5.49 5.87 5.99 7.03 6.99 7.00 6.96 -13.47

Aviation 1.74 1.76 1.89 1.68 1.83 1.70 1.63 1.58 4.42

Marine 3.96 3.73 3.98 4.31 5.21 5.29 5.38 5.38 -17.62

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

CO2 Emissions from Biomass

Note: All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES
166 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010 TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007 N O2 Submission 2009 v1.1 (Part 1 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Base year ( 1990 ) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg)

1. Energy 183.77 189.97 200.39 207.87 213.77 217.62 221.87 224.47 223.63 220.09

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 183.77 189.97 200.39 207.87 213.77 217.62 221.87 224.47 223.63 220.09

1. Energy Industries 27.56 27.22 27.67 28.83 29.01 29.08 30.57 31.28 31.91 31.92

2. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 13.47 13.25 13.68 13.64 14.18 14.40 14.69 14.96 14.15 14.15

3. Transport 136.38 143.01 152.66 159.41 164.83 168.49 170.76 172.95 172.67 169.02

4. Other Sectors 4.69 4.83 4.93 4.59 4.43 4.40 4.64 4.11 3.69 3.84

5. Other 1.67 1.65 1.45 1.41 1.32 1.24 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.16

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE

1. Solid Fuels IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE2. Oil and Natural Gas IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE

2. Industrial Processes 113.84 112.65 108.58 112.57 119.72 127.76 130.20 110.34 95.18 90.83

A. Mineral Products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

B. Chemical Industry 113.84 112.65 108.58 112.57 119.72 127.76 130.20 110.34 95.18 90.83

C. Metal Production NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

D. Other ProductionE. Production of Halocarbons and SF6

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO

3. Solvent and Other Product Use 14.21 13.81 13.02 14.80 14.80 14.80 14.80 15.74 15.74 15.74

4. Agriculture 686.34 704.66 671.32 724.08 698.35 695.55 750.35 709.30 749.63 676.89

A. Enteric FermentationB. Manure Management 38.92 40.69 39.71 41.15 41.28 41.62 40.90 42.35 43.20 43.53

C. Rice CultivationD. Agricultural Soils 646.22 662.80 630.27 681.83 655.59 652.70 708.08 665.50 704.95 631.91

E. Prescribed Burning of Savannas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

F. Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 1.20 1.17 1.33 1.10 1.47 1.23 1.37 1.45 1.48 1.44

G. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 4.89 4.77 5.73 5.66 8.34 6.43 10.14 5.59 5.39 9.43

A. Forest Land 1.65 1.45 2.19 1.50 3.94 2.46 6.39 1.97 2.44 6.59

B. Cropland IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NEC. Grassland IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IED. Wetlands 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02

E. Settlements 3.22 3.31 3.53 4.14 4.39 3.96 3.74 3.61 2.93 2.83

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

G. Other IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO

6. Waste 13.04 13.48 14.05 14.62 15.32 15.62 16.25 16.59 17.19 18.09

A. Solid Waste Disposal on LandB. Waste-water Handling 11.90 12.18 12.58 12.74 13.01 13.02 13.28 13.30 13.62 14.08

C. Waste Incineration IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE

D. Other 1.14 1.31 1.47 1.88 2.31 2.60 2.97 3.28 3.58 4.01

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total N O emissions including N 2 O from LULUCF 2 1,016.08 1,039.35 1,013.10 1,079.60 1,070.29 1,077.78 1,143.61 1,082.03 1,106.77 1,031.06

Total N O emissions excluding N 2 O from LULUCF 2 1,011.20 1,034.57 1,007.37 1,073.94 1,061.95 1,071.35 1,133.46 1,076.44 1,101.38 1,021.64

Memo Items:International Bunkers 3.40 3.64 3.42 3.13 3.21 3.05 3.25 3.29 3.56 3.07

Aviation 1.74 1.84 1.87 1.84 1.99 1.82 2.01 1.96 2.13 1.93

Marine 1.66 1.81 1.55 1.29 1.22 1.23 1.23 1.33 1.43 1.14

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

CO2 Emissions from Biomass

Note:

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES

All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.
Appendix A | Emission Trends 167

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007N O2 Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 2 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change from base to latest reported year

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) %

1. Energy 218.53 208.43 194.98 184.95 177.09 167.32 156.37 145.76 -20.68

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 218.53 208.43 194.98 184.95 177.09 167.32 156.37 145.76 -20.68

1. Energy Industries 33.40 32.55 32.73 33.50 33.72 34.49 33.74 34.38 24.77

2. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 14.41 14.14 13.85 13.93 14.61 14.58 15.07 14.71 9.27

3. Transport 165.51 156.62 143.40 132.15 123.34 112.88 102.68 91.58 -32.85

4. Other Sectors 4.07 3.86 3.81 4.07 4.08 4.13 3.72 3.95 -15.81

5. Other 1.14 1.26 1.19 1.31 1.35 1.23 1.15 1.14 -32.06

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE 0.00

1. Solid Fuels IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE 0.002. Oil and Natural Gas IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE IE,NA,NE 0.00

2. Industrial Processes 90.78 73.85 81.74 78.85 77.02 79.21 77.96 89.16 -21.68

A. Mineral Products NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

B. Chemical Industry 90.78 73.85 81.74 78.85 77.02 79.21 77.96 89.16 -21.68

C. Metal Production NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

D. Other ProductionE. Production of Halocarbons and SF6

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO 0.00

3. Solvent and Other Product Use 15.74 15.74 14.15 14.15 14.15 14.15 14.15 14.15 -0.38

4. Agriculture 706.18 758.59 717.00 700.43 728.15 726.91 721.01 719.60 4.85

A. Enteric FermentationB. Manure Management 45.13 46.19 45.91 44.74 45.33 45.85 46.99 47.40 21.80

C. Rice CultivationD. Agricultural Soils 659.56 710.91 669.69 654.26 681.16 679.42 672.40 670.65 3.78

E. Prescribed Burning of Savannas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

F. Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 1.49 1.50 1.39 1.44 1.66 1.63 1.62 1.56 29.50

G. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 11.75 9.67 11.79 9.81 8.31 10.55 16.21 15.71 221.43

A. Forest Land 7.83 5.05 7.24 5.03 3.16 5.65 11.24 10.50 535.55

B. Cropland IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE IE,NE 0.00

C. Grassland IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE 0.00

D. Wetlands 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 -2.37

E. Settlements 3.90 4.60 4.54 4.76 5.13 4.88 4.96 5.19 61.29

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

G. Other IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO 0.00

6. Waste 18.85 19.28 19.09 19.87 20.55 20.93 21.14 21.61 65.72

A. Solid Waste Disposal on LandB. Waste-water Handling 14.37 14.78 14.53 14.68 14.98 15.33 15.49 15.70 31.98

C. Waste Incineration IE IE IE IE IE IE IE IE 0.00

D. Other 4.48 4.50 4.56 5.19 5.57 5.59 5.66 5.91 416.90

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

Total N O emissions including N 2 O from LULUCF 2 1,061.83 1,085.56 1,038.75 1,008.07 1,025.28 1,019.07 1,006.85 1,005.99 -0.99

Total N O emissions excluding N 2 O from LULUCF 2 1,050.08 1,075.89 1,026.96 998.26 1,016.97 1,008.51 990.64 990.29 -2.07

Memo Items:International Bunkers 3.00 2.97 3.18 3.02 3.42 3.29 3.24 3.18 -6.33

Aviation 2.00 2.02 2.17 1.93 2.10 1.95 1.87 1.82 4.42

Marine 1.01 0.95 1.01 1.09 1.32 1.34 1.37 1.37 -17.62

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.00

CO2 Emissions from Biomass

Note:

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES

All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.
168 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007HFCs, PFCs and SF6 Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 1 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Base year ( 1990 ) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg)

Emissions of HFCs(3) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 36,924.10 33,540.69 38,282.65 38,755.86 44,050.24 61,803.33 71,168.28 81,040.87 96,880.42 94,853.65

HFC-23 3.13 2.81 3.12 2.85 2.72 2.84 2.69 2.60 3.41 2.64HFC-32 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02HFC-41 IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO

HFC-43-10mee C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NOHFC-125 IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO 0.01 0.04 0.29 0.58 0.91 1.21 1.53

HFC-134 C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NOHFC-134a IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO 0.83 3.57 8.58 19.54 26.20 32.88 36.05 40.00

HFC-152a C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NOHFC-143 C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NOHFC-143a IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.25 0.40 0.58 0.80

HFC-227ea C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NOHFC-236fa IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08

HFC-245ca C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NOUnspecified mix of listed HFCs(4) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 331.04 640.05 648.53 656.99 658.63 1,590.70 2,780.98 3,452.19 4,076.77 4,203.48

Emissions of PFCs(3) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 20,759.93 17,774.74 16,539.87 16,507.74 15,167.42 15,587.02 16,600.19 15,222.69 14,029.04 13,961.47

CF4 2.55 2.16 1.99 1.96 1.75 1.75 1.86 1.68 1.47 1.46

C2F6 0.45 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.47 0.49 0.49C 3F8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00C4F10 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO

c-C4F8 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NOC5F12 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NOC6F14 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NOUnspecified mix of listed PFCs(4) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO

Emissions of SF6(3) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 32,787.70 31,399.66 31,592.00 31,043.81 29,535.10 28,080.98 27,314.39 25,551.89 22,535.93 22,891.96

SF6 1.37 1.31 1.32 1.30 1.24 1.17 1.14 1.07 0.94 0.96

Note: All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES
Appendix A | Emission Trends 169

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007HFCs, PFCs and SF6 Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 2 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change from base to latest reported year

(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (Gg) %

Emissions of HFCs(3) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 100,098.22 96,905.86 104,307.81 101,361.21 112,376.34 116,073.33 119,072.79 125,531.42 239.97

HFC-23 2.47 1.70 1.82 1.07 1.49 1.37 1.21 1.48 -52.78

HFC-32 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.27 0.40 0.56 0.91 1.33 100.00

HFC-41 IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO IE,NA,NO 0.00

HFC-43-10mee C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO 0.00

HFC-125 1.87 2.15 2.44 2.80 3.22 3.67 4.39 5.25 100.00

HFC-134 C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO 0.00

HFC-134a 44.01 46.89 49.33 51.27 53.28 54.23 54.36 52.78 100.00

HFC-152a C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO 0.00

HFC-143 C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO 0.00

HFC-143a 1.09 1.41 1.78 2.19 2.65 3.20 3.78 4.40 100.00

HFC-227ea C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO 0.00

HFC-236fa 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 100.00

HFC-245ca C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO C,IE,NA,NO 0.00

Unspecified mix of listed HFCs(4) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 4,045.51 3,965.97 4,517.98 5,178.10 5,559.65 5,917.87 6,194.60 6,482.85 1,858.34

Emissions of PFCs(3) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 13,479.45 6,979.60 8,711.06 7,077.89 6,125.08 6,194.63 6,030.44 7,479.87 -63.97

CF4 1.48 0.67 0.88 0.67 0.55 0.56 0.51 0.69 -73.03

C2F6 0.41 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.32 -30.10C 3F8 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 1,417.03

C4F10 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO 0.00

c-C4F8 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 100.00

C5F12 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO 0.00

C6F14 C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,IE,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO C,NA,NE,NO 0.00Unspecified mix of listed PFCs(4) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO NA,NE,NO 0.00

Emissions of SF6(3) - (Gg CO2 equivalent) 19,199.54 18,761.05 18,122.79 18,207.16 17,756.95 17,893.06 17,026.87 16,458.76 -49.80

SF6 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.71 0.69 -49.80

Note: All footnotes for this table are given at the end of the table on sheet 5.

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES
170 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007SUMMARY Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 1 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Base year ( 1990 ) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

 CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg)

CO2 emissions including net CO2 from LULUCF 4,235,263.44 4,171,425.88 4,286,391.39 4,469,169.91 4,436,356.71 4,556,932.29 4,813,098.48 4,829,490.08 4,962,384.96 5,085,458.75

CO2 emissions excluding net CO2 from LULUCF 5,068,576.19 5,022,584.51 5,124,242.56 5,249,133.85 5,341,161.69 5,399,817.48 5,574,200.87 5,665,536.15 5,694,690.81 5,772,309.85

CH4 emissions including CH4 from LULUCF 616,556.93 617,751.11 623,464.81 610,298.60 625,637.28 615,826.21 621,700.54 596,438.37 589,213.01 589,942.12

CH4 emissions excluding CH4 from LULUCF 611,971.33 613,757.88 617,484.23 606,604.31 614,593.49 609,676.45 604,210.74 593,029.25 584,640.47 573,714.28

N O emissions including N 2 O from LULUCF 2 314,985.77 322,197.59 314,060.21 334,677.36 331,790.72 334,113.02 354,518.38 335,429.09 343,099.44 319,630.09

N O emissions excluding N 2 O from LULUCF 2 313,470.93 320,717.41 312,283.69 332,922.90 329,204.20 332,119.16 351,373.55 333,695.17 341,428.62 316,707.45

HFCs 36,924.10 33,540.69 38,282.65 38,755.86 44,050.24 61,803.33 71,168.28 81,040.87 96,880.42 94,853.65

PFCs 20,759.93 17,774.74 16,539.87 16,507.74 15,167.42 15,587.02 16,600.19 15,222.69 14,029.04 13,961.47

SF6 32,787.70 31,399.66 31,592.00 31,043.81 29,535.10 28,080.98 27,314.39 25,551.89 22,535.93 22,891.96

Total (including LULUCF) 5,257,277.87 5,194,089.67 5,310,330.93 5,500,453.29 5,482,537.48 5,612,342.86 5,904,400.25 5,883,172.99 6,028,142.80 6,126,738.05Total (excluding LULUCF) 6,084,490.17 6,039,774.89 6,140,425.01 6,274,968.47 6,373,712.14 6,447,084.43 6,644,868.01 6,714,076.03 6,754,205.30 6,794,438.66

Base year ( 1990 ) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

 CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg)

1. Energy 5,193,603.06 5,160,098.15 5,260,504.40 5,379,469.73 5,469,619.64 5,520,063.22 5,698,135.18 5,783,247.60 5,811,613.44 5,882,285.73

2. Industrial Processes 325,243.41 305,025.99 310,075.03 308,517.81 319,325.85 345,768.84 355,773.21 359,393.67 362,791.93 356,700.76

3. Solvent and Other Product Use 4,404.02 4,281.69 4,037.02 4,587.52 4,587.52 4,587.52 4,587.52 4,879.50 4,879.50 4,879.504. Agriculture 384,152.60 391,282.02 384,925.21 401,290.41 399,470.61 401,954.09 414,647.53 401,397.92 416,163.86 392,850.32

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry(5) -827,212.31 -845,685.22 -830,094.08 -774,515.18 -891,174.66 -834,741.57 -740,467.76 -830,903.04 -726,062.50 -667,700.62

6. Waste 177,087.09 179,087.04 180,883.36 181,103.00 180,708.52 174,710.76 171,724.56 165,157.34 158,756.57 157,722.35

7. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total (including LULUCF)(5) 5,257,277.87 5,194,089.67 5,310,330.93 5,500,453.29 5,482,537.48 5,612,342.86 5,904,400.25 5,883,172.99 6,028,142.80 6,126,738.05

(5) Includes net CO2, CH4 and N O from LULUCF. 2(3) Enter actual emissions estimates. If only potential emissions estimates are available, these should be reported in this table and an indication for this be 

provided in the documentation box. Only in these rows are the emissions expressed as CO2 equivalent emissions. 

(4) In accordance with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines, HFC and PFC emissions should be reported for each relevant chemical. However, if it is not 

possible to report values for each chemical (i.e. mixtures, confidential data, lack of disaggregation), this row could be used for reporting aggregate figures for HFCs and PFCs, respectively. Note that the unit used for this row is Gg of CO2 equivalent and that appropriate notation keys should be entered in the 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSGREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES

(1)

cells for the individual chemicals. 

The column "Base year" should be filled in only by those Parties with economies in transition that use a base year different from 1990 in accordance 

with the relevant decisions of the COP. For these Parties, this different base year is used to calculate the percentage change in the final column of this table. 

(2) Fill in net emissions/removals as reported in table Summary 1.A. For the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for 

emissions positive (+). 
Appendix A | Emission Trends 171

TABLE 10 EMISSION TRENDS Inventory 2007SUMMARY Submission 2009 v1.1(Part 2 of 2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change from base to latest reported year

 CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) (%)

CO2 emissions including net CO2 from LULUCF 5,237,671.46 5,114,079.58 4,879,553.55 4,697,880.58 4,753,550.10 4,968,092.25 4,964,330.63 5,040,841.99 19.02

CO2 emissions excluding net CO2 from LULUCF 5,946,408.84 5,851,055.43 5,898,675.79 5,954,006.13 6,039,372.69 6,081,905.12 6,006,103.66 6,094,390.11 20.24

CH4 emissions including CH4 from LULUCF 591,104.15 577,072.62 580,893.47 578,713.95 562,727.77 561,708.94 581,975.56 585,317.05 -5.07

CH4 emissions excluding CH4 from LULUCF 570,469.46 565,032.48 562,770.39 567,097.01 556,141.75 547,508.47 550,716.44 556,312.80 -9.09

N O emissions including N 2 O from LULUCF 2 329,168.37 336,524.87 322,013.18 312,501.78 317,835.74 315,910.27 312,124.05 311,857.84 -0.99

N O emissions excluding N 2 O from LULUCF 2 325,524.81 333,525.98 318,357.20 309,459.55 315,259.52 312,638.86 307,099.01 306,988.74 -2.07

HFCs 100,098.22 96,905.86 104,307.81 101,361.21 112,376.34 116,073.33 119,072.79 125,531.42 239.97

PFCs 13,479.45 6,979.60 8,711.06 7,077.89 6,125.08 6,194.63 6,030.44 7,479.87 -63.97

SF6 19,199.54 18,761.05 18,122.79 18,207.16 17,756.95 17,893.06 17,026.87 16,458.76 -49.80

Total (including LULUCF) 6,290,721.21 6,150,323.57 5,913,601.85 5,715,742.55 5,770,371.99 5,985,872.47 6,000,560.33 6,087,486.93 15.79

Total (excluding LULUCF) 6,975,180.33 6,872,260.40 6,910,945.04 6,957,208.94 7,047,032.33 7,082,213.46 7,006,049.20 7,107,161.69 16.81

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Change from base to latest reported year

 CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) CO2 equivalent (Gg) (%)

1. Energy 6,059,934.22 5,977,299.97 6,016,786.57 6,070,742.36 6,140,416.84 6,169,162.03 6,084,385.29 6,170,343.23 18.81

2. Industrial Processes 356,315.05 322,171.53 331,806.83 321,960.17 335,893.15 337,598.92 343,943.73 353,779.52 8.77

3. Solvent and Other Product Use 4,879.50 4,879.50 4,387.15 4,387.15 4,387.15 4,387.15 4,387.15 4,387.15 -0.38

4. Agriculture 399,444.64 416,485.79 404,242.71 399,683.72 407,657.36 410,825.55 410,297.98 413,064.72 7.53

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry(5) -684,459.12 -721,936.83 -997,343.18 -1,241,466.39 -1,276,660.34 -1,096,340.99 -1,005,488.87 -1,019,674.76 23.27

6. Waste 154,606.92 151,423.60 153,721.78 160,435.54 158,677.84 160,239.81 163,035.05 165,587.07 -6.49

7. Other NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00

Total (including LULUCF)(5) 6,290,721.21 6,150,323.57 5,913,601.85 5,715,742.55 5,770,371.99 5,985,872.47 6,000,560.33 6,087,486.93 15.79

(5) Includes net CO2, CH4 and N O from LULUCF. 2(3) Enter actual emissions estimates. If only potential emissions estimates are available, these should be reported in this table and an indication for this be 

provided in the documentation box. Only in these rows are the emissions expressed as CO2 equivalent emissions. 

(4) In accordance with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines, HFC and PFC emissions should be reported for each relevant chemical. However, if it is not 

possible to report values for each chemical (i.e. mixtures, confidential data, lack of disaggregation), this row could be used for reporting aggregate figures for HFCs and PFCs, respectively. Note that the unit used for this row is Gg of CO2 equivalent and that appropriate notation keys should be 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSGREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND SINK CATEGORIES

(1)

entered in the cells for the individual chemicals. 

The column "Base year" should be filled in only by those Parties with economies in transition that use a base year different from 1990 in accordance 

with the relevant decisions of the COP. For these Parties, this different base year is used to calculate the percentage change in the final column of this table.

(2) Fill in net emissions/removals as reported in table Summary 1.A. For the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for 

emissions positive (+). 
172 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

SUMMARY 2 SUMMARY REPORT FOR CO2 EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS Inventory 2007

(Sheet 1 of 1) Submission 2009 v1.1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCE AND CO2

(1) CH4 N2O HFCs (2) PFCs (2) SF6(2) Total

SINK CATEGORIES

Total (Net Emissions) (1) 5,040,841.99 585,317.05 311,857.84 125,531.42 7,479.87 16,458.76 6,087,486.93

1. Energy 5,919,451.52 205,705.62 45,186.09 6,170,343.23

A. Fuel Combustion (Sectoral Approach) 5,890,484.85 8,900.08 45,186.09 5,944,571.01

1. Energy Industries 2,417,976.57 730.57 10,657.92 2,429,365.07

2. Manufacturing Industries and Construction 845,415.82 1,775.24 4,561.61 851,752.68

3. Transport 1,864,111.44 1,946.01 28,389.41 1,894,446.85

4. Other Sectors 554,976.35 4,363.22 1,224.81 560,564.37

5. Other 208,004.68 85.03 352.34 208,442.05

B. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 28,966.67 196,805.54 IE,NA,NE 225,772.22

1. Solid Fuels IE,NE,NO 63,353.76 IE,NE 63,353.76

2. Oil and Natural Gas 28,966.67 133,451.79 IE,NA,NE 162,418.46

2. Industrial Processes 174,938.59 1,731.76 27,639.12 125,531.42 7,479.87 16,458.76 353,779.52

A. Mineral Products 69,442.20 NA NA 69,442.20

B. Chemical Industry 21,526.11 1,025.51 27,639.12 NA NA NA 50,190.74

C. Metal Production 83,970.28 706.25 NA NA 3,836.03 2,973.25 91,485.81

D. Other Production NE NE

E. Production of Halocarbons and SF6 16,999.76 NA,NE NA,NE 16,999.76

F. Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6

(2) 108,531.66 3,643.84 13,485.51 125,661.00

G. Other NA,NO NA,NO NA,NO NA NA NA NA,NO

3. Solvent and Other Product Use NA,NE 4,387.15 4,387.15

4. Agriculture 189,988.21 223,076.51 413,064.72

A. Enteric Fermentation 138,977.19 138,977.19

B. Manure Management 43,959.32 14,693.81 58,653.14

C. Rice Cultivation 6,159.75 6,159.75

D. Agricultural Soils(3) NA,NE 207,900.52 207,900.52

E. Prescribed Burning of Savannas NA NA NA

F. Field Burning of Agricultural Residues 891.95 482.18 1,374.13

G. Other NA NA NA

5. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry(1) -1,053,548.12 29,004.25 4,869.11 -1,019,674.76

A. Forest Land -809,631.52 29,004.25 3,255.32 -777,371.95

B. Cropland -5,698.80 NE IE,NE -5,698.80

C. Grassland -31,362.65 NE IE -31,362.65

D. Wetlands 1,010.50 NE 5.09 1,015.59

E. Settlements -97,648.60 NE 1,608.69 -96,039.91

F. Other Land NE NE NE NE

G. Other -110,217.05 NA,NO IE,NA,NO -110,217.05

6. Waste IE,NA,NE 158,887.20 6,699.87 165,587.07

A. Solid Waste Disposal on Land NA,NE 132,875.92 132,875.92

B. Waste-water Handling 24,356.87 4,868.21 29,225.08

C. Waste Incineration IE NE IE IE,NE

D. Other NA 1,654.41 1,831.66 3,486.07

7. Other (as specified in Summary 1.A) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Memo Items: (4)

International Bunkers 108,755.77 146.09 986.08 109,887.94

Aviation 52,739.81 33.16 562.70 53,335.67

Marine 56,015.96 112.93 423.39 56,552.27

Multilateral Operations NE NE NE NE

CO2 Emissions from Biomass 247,829.09 247,829.09

Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions without Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 7,107,161.69

Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions with Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 6,087,486.93

(2) Actual emissions should be included in the national totals. If no actual emissions were reported, potential emissions should be included. 

(3) Parties which previously reported CO2 from soils in the Agriculture sector should note this in the NIR.

(4) See footnote 8 to table Summary 1.A.

CO2 equivalent (Gg )

(1) For CO2 from Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry the net emissions/removals are to be reported. For the purposes of reporting, the signs for removals are always negative (-) and for emissions positive (+). 
Appendix B | Bibliography 173

Appendix B: 

Bibliography

Backlund et al. 2008—Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, 

B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, R. 

B

Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, 

and R. Shaw. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in 

the United States. Final Report—Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 362 pp. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm>

Baron et al. 2008—Baron, J.S., L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott. 

Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources. Final Report—Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee 

on Global Change Research. Ed. S.H. Julius and J.M. West. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 873 pp. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/final-report/>

Bell et al. 2007— Bell, M.L., R. Goldberg, C. Hogrefe, P.L. Kinney, K. Knowlton, B. Lynn, J. Rosenthal, C. 

Rosenzweig, and J. Patz . “Climate Change, Ambient Ozone, and Health in 50 U.S. Cities.” Climate Change

82(1-2): 61-76. DOI 10.1007/s10584-0069166-7. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/7380101v7q674581/>

Beller-Simms et al. 2008—Beller-Simms, N., H. Ingram, D. Feldman, N. Mantua, K.L. Jacobs, and A.M. Waple, 

eds. Decision-Support Experiments and Evaluations Using Seasonal-to-Interannual Forecasts and Observational 

Data: A Focus on Water Resources. Final Report—Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3. A Report by the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Asheville, NC: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, 192 pp. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-3/final-report/>

Boykoff and Boykoff 2007— Boykoff, M.T., and J.M. Boykoff. “Climate Change and Journalistic Norms: A Case-Study 

of U.S. Mass-Media Coverage.” Geoforum. <www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff07-geoforum.pdf>

Brekke et al. 2009—Brekke, L.D., J.E. Kiang, J.R. Olsen, R.S. Pulwarty, D.A. Raff, D.P. Turnipseed, R.S. Webb, 

and K.D. White. Climate Change and Water Resources Management: A Federal Perspective. U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1331. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 65 pp. 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/> 

CCTP 2005—U.S. Climate Change Technology Program. Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning.

DOE/PI-0003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. <http://www.climatetechnology.gov/vision2005/>

CCTP 2006—U.S. Climate Change Technology Program. Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Energy. <http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/index.htm>

CENR 2008—Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global 

Change on the United States. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council. <http://www.

climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/>

CEPA 2006—California Environmental Protection Agency. Report to the Governor and Legislature. State of 

California, Climate Action Team. <http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html>

Chang et al. 2009—Chang, P.S., J. Zorana, J.M. Sienkiewicz, R. Knabb, M. Brennan, D.G. Long, and M. Freeber. 

“Operational Use and Impact of Satellite Remotely Sensed Ocean Surface Vector Winds in the Marine Warning and 

Forecasting Environment.” Oceanography 22(2). <manati.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/SVW_nextgen/22.2_chang.pdf>

Creyts et al. 2007—Creyts, J., A. Derkach, S. Nyquist, K.Ostrowski, and J. Stephenson. Reducing Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? McKinsey & Company. December 2007. <http://www.mckinsey.com/

clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp>

CTIC 2004—Conservation Technology Information Center. National Crop Residue Management Survey 2004. 

“Conservation Tillage and Other Tillage Types in the United States: 1990–2004.” <http://www.conservationinformation.org/index.asp?site=1&action=crm_results>
174 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

Dillaha 2007—Dillaha, Theo. "Global Assessment of Best Practices in Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Soil and Water Conservation Society, Tampa, Florida, July 

21, 2007. <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p168284_index.html>

Ebi et al. 2008—Ebi, K.L., F.G. Sussman, and T.J. Wilbanks. Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health 

and Welfare and Human Systems. Final Report—Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6. A Report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Ed. J.L. Gamble. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 204 pp. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/final-report/>

EOP/CEA 2010—Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisers. The Economic Impact of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Second Quarterly Report. January 13, 2010. <www.whitehouse.gov/administration/.../cea/Economic-Impact/>

Fagre et al. 2009—Fagre, D.B., C.W. Charles, C.D. Allen, C. Birkeland, F.S. Chapin III, P.M. Groffman, G.R. 

Guntenspergen, A.K. Knapp, A.D. McGuire, P.J. Mulholland, D.P.C. Peters, D.D. Roby, and G. Sugihara. Thresholds 

of Climate Change in Ecosystems. Final Report—Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2. A Report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/>

FR 2010—Federal Register 75(88): 25324; May 7, 2010.

Franco and Sanstad 2006—Franco, G., and A.H. Sanstad. Climate Change and Electricity Demand in California. Final white paper. California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2005-201-SF. <http://www.energy.ca.

gov/.../CEC-500.../CEC-500-2005-201-SF.PDF>

GEO 2005—Group on Earth Observations. The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) 10-Year 

Implementation Plan. <http://earthobservations.org/ag_partorg.shtml>

Haynes et al. 2007—Haynes, R.W., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, P.J. Ince, R. John, and X. Zhou. The 2005 RPA 

Timber Assessment Update. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-699. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 212 pp. <http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr699/>

Holdren 2009—Holdren, John P. Climate Services: Solutions from Commerce to Communities: Hearing before the 

United States Senate Committee on Science, Transportation, and Commerce. 111th Cong., 1st Sess. <http://

commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=f878f04f-68c7-4ee8-

812f-059eb7207478&Witness_ID=ab57b04d-ecc7-4b74-8029-f39cd6450819>

Houghton et al. 2001—Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, 

and C.A. Johnson, eds. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 881 pp. <http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/>

IPCC 1996—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Second Assessment—Climate Change 1995. A Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, IPCC. <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf>

IPCC 2000—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management 

in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Ed. J. Penman et al. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/>

IPCC 2001—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. Ed. J.T. Houghton, 

Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. <http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/>

IPCC 2003—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use 

Change and Forestry. Ed. J. Penman, M. Gytarsky, T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L. Buendia, K. 

Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe, and F. Wagner. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Hayama, 

Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/

gpglulucf.html>

IPCC 2006—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories. Ed. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe. Prepared by the IPCC Task Force 

on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. 

<http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html>
Appendix B | Bibliography 175

IPCC 2007—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_

fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm>

IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environment 

Programme, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Energy Agency. Revised 

1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Ed. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. 

Treanton, I. Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D.J. Griggs, and B.A. Callender. Paris: OECD. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.

or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html>

IRG and CRC-URI 2009—International Resources Group and The Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode 

Island. Adapting to Coastal Climate Change: A Guidebook for Development Planners. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for 

International Development. <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/pub_outreach/index.html> 

IWGEO and NSTC/CENR 2005—Interagency Working Group on Earth Observations and National Science 

and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Strategic Plan for the U.S. 

Integrated Earth Observation System. Washington, DC. <usgeo.gov/docs/EOCStrategic_Plan.pdf>

Jacob and Winner 2009—Jacob, D.J., and D.A. Winner. “Effect of Climate Change on Air Quality.” Atmospheric Environment 43: 51-63. <http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/gcap/>

Karl et al. 2006—Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray, eds. Temperature Trends in the Lower 

Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1. Report 

by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, 

DC. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/>

Karl et al. 2009—Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray, eds. Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States: A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge, UK, 

and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. <http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientificassessments/us-impacts/download-the-report>

Leibensperger et al. 2008—Leibensperger, E.M., L.J. Mickley, and D.J. Jacob. “Sensitivity of U.S. Air Quality to 

Mid-latitude Cyclone Frequency and Complications of 1980-2006 Climate Change.” Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Physics 8: 7075-7086. <www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/.../acpd-8-12253-2008-print.pdf>

Lubowski et al. 2006a—Lubowski, Ruben, Marlow Vesterby, Shawn Bucholtz, Alba Baez, and Michael J. 

Roberts. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002. Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-14). May. 

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib14/>

Lubowski et al. 2006b—Lubowski, Ruben, Andrew Plantinga, and Robert Stavins. “Land-Use Change and 

Carbon Sinks: Econometric Estimation of the Carbon Sequestration Supply Function.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51(2): 135-152. <ksghome.harvard.edu/.../Carbon_Sequestration_Costs_w_

Lubowski_Plantinga.pdf>

McCarthy et al. 2001—McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White, eds. Climate 

Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press, 1,032 pp. <http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/>

Mills 2005—Mills, E. “Insurance in a Climate of Change.” Science 309(5737): 1040-1044. LBNL-57943. 

<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5737/1040>

NAS/NRC 2001—National Academies, National Research Council. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of 

Some Key Questions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.

php?record_id=10139>

NAS/NRC 2007—National Academies, National Research Council, Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. <http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11820 - orgs>

NAS/NRC 2009—National Academies, National Research Council. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to 

Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 3. <http://www.nap.

edu/catalog/12595.html>
176 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

NAST 2000—National Assessment Synthesis Team. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 620 pp. <http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/

nationalassessment/00Intro.pdf>

OMB 2009—Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2010. 

<http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/index.html>

ORNL 2009—Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy and Transportation Science Division. Results from the 

U.S. DOE 2007 Save Energy Now Assessment Initiative: DOE’s Partnership with U.S. Industry to Reduce Energy 

Consumption, Energy Costs, and Carbon Dioxide Emission. Detailed Assessment Opportunity Data Report. 

ORNL/TM-2009/074. Oak Ridge, TN. April 2009. <http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/

partners/results.cfm>

Parmesan and Yohe 2003—Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. “A Globally Coherent Fingerprint of Climate Impacts 

Across Natural Systems.” Nature 421(January 2, 2003): 37-42. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/

n6918/abs/nature01286.html>

Peart et al. 1995—Peart, R.M., R.B. Curry, C. Rosenzweig, J.W. Jones, K.J. Boote, and L.H. Allen, Jr. “Energy and 

Irrigation in South Eastern U.S. Agriculture Under Climate Change.” Journal of Biogeography 22(4/5): 635-642. <http://

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0305-0270(199507%2F09)22%3A4%2F5%3C635%3AEAIISE%3E 2 .0 .CO%3B2-9>

Pew 2009—Pew Center on Climate Change. “Climate Change 101: State Action.” <http://www.pewclimate.

org/docUploads/Climate101-State-Jan09.pdf>

Prymak 2009—Prymak, Bill. “Energy Assessments: What Are the Benefits to Small and Medium Facilities?” 

Golden, CO: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, February 19, 2009. 

<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/pdfs/webcast_2009-0219_small_medium_assessment_benefits.pdf>

Rose et al. 2001—Rose, J.B., P.R. Epstein. E.K. Lipp, B.H. Sherman, S.M. Bernard, and J.A. Patz. “Climate 

Variability and Change in the United States: Potential Impacts on Water- and Foodborne Diseases Caused by 

Microbiologic Agents.” Environmental Health Perspectives 109(suppl 2): 211–221. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.

gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240668/>

Rosenzweig et al. 2007—Rosenzweig, C., D.C. Major, K. Demong, R. Horton, C. Stanton, and M. Stults. 2007. 

“Managing Climate Change Risks in New York City’s Water System: Assessment and Adaptation Planning.” 

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12(8): 1391-1409. <http://www.springerlink.com/

content/u1k8435q45q47615/>

Rubin 2009—Rubin, E.S. “A Performance Standards Approach to Reducing CO2

 Emissions from Electric Power 

Plants.” Coal Initiative Series. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. <http://www.pewclimate.org/whitepapers/coal-initiative/performance-standards-electric>

Savonis et al. 2008—Savonis, M.J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter, eds. Impacts of Climate Variability and Change 

on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Study. Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment 

Product 4.7. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 445 pp. <http://www.climatescience.gov/

Library/sap/sap4-7/final-report/>

Scheffer et al. 2001—Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. “Catastrophic Shifts in 

Ecosystems.” Nature 413 (October 11, 2001): 591-596. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6856/

abs/413591a0.html>

Skog 2008—Skog, K. “Carbon Storage in Forest Products for the United States.” Forest Products Journal 58(6): 56-72.

Smith and Heath 2004—Smith, J.E., and L.S. Heath. “Carbon Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in 

the United States, 1952–2040.” Environmental Management 33(4): 433-442. <http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7948>

Smith et al. 2008—Smith, J.E., L.S. Heath, and M.C. Nichols. U.S. Forest Carbon Calculation Tool: Forest-Land 

Carbon Stocks and Net Annual Stock Change. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 28 pp. <http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/12394>

Smith et al. 2009—Smith, W. Brad, Patrick D. Miles, Charles H. Perry, and Scott A. Pugh. Forest Resource of the 

United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rept. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 336 pp. <http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/7334>
Appendix B | Bibliography 177

Tester et al. 2006—Tester, J.W., et al. The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems 

(EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century: Interdisciplinary Panel Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html>

Titus et al. 2009—Titus, J.G., K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, 

and S.J. Williams. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. Final Report—Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 320 pp. <http://

www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-1/final-report/>

Tompkins and Adger 2004—Tompkins, E.L., and W.N. Adger. “Does Adaptive Management of Natural 

Resources Enhance Resilience to Climate Change?” Ecology and Society 9(2): 10. <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/>

Turner et al. 2003—Turner, B.L.I., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. 

Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. “A Framework for 

Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 

8074-8079. <http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8074.abstract>

UNFCCC 2003— United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Review of the Implementation 

of Commitments and of Other Provisions of the Convention. National Communications: Greenhouse Gas Inventories From Parties Included in Annex I to the Convention. UNFCCC Guidelines on Reporting and Review. FCCC/

CP/2002/8. March 28 2003. <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop8/08.pdf>

UNFCCC 2006—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Updated UNFCCC Reporting 

Guidelines on Annual Inventories Following Incorporation of the Provisions of Decision 14/CP.11. FCCC/

SBSTA/2006/9. August 18, 2006. <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbsta/eng/09.pdf>

USAID 2007—U.S. Agency for International Development. Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A 

Guidance Manual for Development Planning. Washington, DC. <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/docs/reports/cc_vamanual.pdf>

USAID 2010—U.S. Agency for International Development. “USAID Global Climate Change Program.” 

<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/>

U.S. CCSP 2007—U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1a. Washington, DC: July 2007. <http://www.gcrio.

org/orders/popup_image.php?pID=187&osCsid=8im1m1iakfd9j8306sk1v5qlr0>

U.S. CCSP 2008—U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Observations Working Group. The United States 

National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate for 2008: National Activities with Respect to the Global 

Climate Observing System (GCOS) Implementation Plan. Prepared for submission to the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/UNFCCC-report.htm>

U.S. CCSP/GCRP 2006–2009—U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research. “Information on Synthesis and Assessment Products: Summary Information.” <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-summary.php>

USDA 2008—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Global Change Program Office, Office of the Chief Economist. 

U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990–2005. Technical Bulletin No. 1921. Washington, 

DC. August 2008. <http://usda.gov/oce/global_change/AFGGInventory1990_2005.htm>

USDA/USFS 2009—U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and National 

Analysis Program. “Forest Inventory Data Online.” <http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/fido/>

U.S. DOC/BEA 2008—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Current-Dollar and 

“Real” Gross Domestic Product.” <http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls>

U.S. DOC/BEA 2009a—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Table 1.1.6. Real Gross 

Domestic Product, Chained Dollars (Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars).” Last updated August 27, 2009. <http://

www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=6&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr>

U.S. DOC/BEA 2009b—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Table 1.1.1: % 

Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates).” Last 

updated August 27, 2009. <www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2009/08%20August/0809_gdpecon.pdf>
178 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

U.S. DOC/BEA 2009c—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Value Added by 

Industry: 1998–2008.” <www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm>

U.S. DOC/BEA 2009d—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “U.S. International 

Trade in Goods on a Balance of Payments Basis. Exhibits 1 & 18: U.S. International Trade in Goods and 

Services—Annual Revision for 2008.” <www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2008pr/.../exh18.pdf>

U.S. DOC/Census 2008a—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. “International Database 

(IDB).” <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html>. 

U.S. DOC/Census 2008b—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. “U.S. National Population 

Projections (2008).” <http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/files/nation/summary/np2008-t1.xls>

U.S. DOC/Census 2009a—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. “New Privately Owned 

Housing Units Started in the United States by Purpose and Design.” U.S. Census Manufacturing and Construction Division. <http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html>

U.S. DOC/Census 2009b—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. “U.S. & World Population 

Clock.” Accessed November 1, 2009. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popcld.html>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 

United States Detailed National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate: United States Global Climate Observing 

System Program. Submitted to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change. Silver Spring, MD. <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/usgcos/documents/soc_long.pdf>

U.S. DOE/EERE 2010—U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Building Technologies Program. Building America.” <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2002—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2002 With Projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2002). Washington, DC. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/

oiaf/archive/aeo02/index.html>

U.S.DOE/EIA 2003—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2003 Commercial 

Buildings Energy Consumption Survey—Overview of Commercial Buildings Characteristics. <http://www.eia.doe.

gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/introduction.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2004—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “U.S. Uranium 

Reserves by State.” June 2004. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2005—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Summary.” <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2006analysispapers/epa2005_summary.html> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2006—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2006 With Projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2006). Washington, DC. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/

oiaf/archive/aeo06/index.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2007—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Capacity Additions, 

Retirements, and Changes by Energy Source, 2007.” <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_16_a.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2008a— U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy 

Review. “Supplemental Tables on Petroleum Product Prices.” DOE/EIA-0035(2008/09). Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2008b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. International Energy 

Annual 2006. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2008c—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-923, "Power 

Plant Operations Report." <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/2008forms/consolidate_923.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2008d—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Renewable Energy 

Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2008.” <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/

renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. An Updated Annual 

Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and 

Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook. SR-OIAF/2009-03. Washington, DC: April 2009. <http://www.eia.

doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html>
Appendix B | Bibliography 179

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 

2008. DOE/EIA-0384(2008). Washington, DC: June 2009. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009c. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. International Energy 

Outlook 2009. DOE/EIA-0484(2009). Washington, DC. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009d—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Table 1.1 Primary Energy 

Overview.” Monthly Energy Overview. Washington, DC. August 2009. <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0101.xls>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009e—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Coal Reserves: 

Current and Back Issues.” February 3, 2009. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/reserves.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009f—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Coal Report: 

2007. DOE/EIA-0584 (2007). February 2009. <www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009g—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Energy in Brief.” 

April 23, 2009. <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009h—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2009. Washington, DC. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/leg_reg.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009i—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Net Generation by Energy 

Source: Total (All Sectors).” August 14, 2009. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009j—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Electricity Net 

Generation From Renewable Energy by Energy Use Sector and Energy Source, 2004–2008.” July 2009. <http://

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table11.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009k—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Electricity Demand.” <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009l—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Weekly United 

States Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Import Volume (Dollars per Barrel).” September 10, 2009. 

<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTOTUSA&f=W>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009m—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Oil: Crude and 

Petroleum Products Explained—Where Our Oil Comes From.” <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/

index.cfm?page=oil_where>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2009n—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Emissions of 

Greenhouse Gases Report. DOE/EIA-0573(2008); revised December 8, 2009. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/

oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#industrial>

U.S. DOE/FEMP 2007—U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program. “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.” <http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/eisa.html>

U.S. DOI/BOR 2005—U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Water 2025: Preventing Crises 

and Conflict in the West. Washington, DC. <http://www.usbr.gov/uc/crsp/GetSiteInfo>

U.S. DOI/USGS 2008—U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. “Assessment of 

Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States.” USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3082. 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/>

U.S. DOL/BLS 2009—U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the 

Current Population Survey.” Series ID: 14000000. Series title: Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rate. 

Viewed on October 20, 2009. <http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_

id=LNS14000000>

U.S. DOS 2002—U.S. Department of State. U.S. Climate Action Report 2002: Third National Communication 

of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Washington, DC: May 2002. <http://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/>

U.S. DOS 2007—U.S. Department of State. U.S. Climate Action Report 2006: Fourth National Communication 

of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Washington, DC: July 2007. <http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/car/>

U.S. DOT 2006—U.S. Department of Transportation, Center for Climate Change and Environmental 

Forecasting. Strategic Plan 2006–2010. Washington, DC. <http://climate.volpe.dot.gov/plan/splan_2006.pdf>
180 U.S. Climate Action Report 2010

U.S. DOT/BTS 2008—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National 

Transportation Statistics. Tables 1-3 1-11, 1-32, 1-37, 1-38, 1-46b, 3-1a, 4-6. Washington, DC. October 2008. 

<http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/>

U.S. DOT/BTS 2010—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “National 

Transportation Statistics.” <http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics≥

U.S. DOT/BTS 2009a—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Airline Fuel Costs 

and Consumption (U.S. Carriers–Scheduled): January 2000–October 2009.” <http://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp>

U.S. DOT/BTS 2009b—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “All Carriers–All Airports.” <http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1>

U.S. DOT/BTS 2009c—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. U.S. Air 

Carrier Traffic Statistics. <http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/datadisp.xml>

U.S. EPA and Jacoby 2008—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Jacoby Development Inc. “Atlantic 

Station: 2008 Project XL Report.” <http://www.atlanticstation.com/concept_green_projectXL08.php>

U.S. EPA/OAP 2006a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Excessive Heat Events 

Guidebook. EPA 430-B-06-005. Washington DC. <http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/about/heatguidebook.html>

U.S. EPA/OAP 2006b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Global 

Anthropogenic Emissions of Non-CO2

 Greenhouse Gases 1990–2020. Washington, DC: June 2006. <http://www.

epa.gov/climatechange/economics/international.html>

U.S. EPA/OAP 2008—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 2008 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2006. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

emissions/usgginventory.html>

U.S. EPA/OAP 2009—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. EPA 430 R 09-004. Washington, DC: April 2009. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>

U.S. EPA/OAQPS 2008—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data. “1970–2007 Average Annual 

Emissions, All Criteria Pollutants in MS Excel.” <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html> 

U.S. EPA/ORD 2009—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Assessment 

of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on GroundLevel Ozone. An Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program. EPA/600/R-07/094. Washington, DC. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=203459>

U.S. EPA/OSW 2008— U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Municipal Solid Waste 

in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. EPA530-R-08-010. Washington, DC. November 2008. <www.epa.

gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf>

U.S. EPA/OTAQ 2010—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

“EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel 

Economy for Cars and Trucks.” EPA-420-F-10-014. April. <http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/

regulations/420f10014.htm#2>

USGCRP and SGCR 2006—U.S. Global Change Research Program and Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research. Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2007. A Supplement to 

the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2007. <http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2007/default.htm>

Williams et al. 2008—Williams, C.F., M.J. Reed, R.H. Mariner, J. DeAngelo, and S.P. Galanis, Jr. “Assessment of Moderateand High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States.” USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3082. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/>

Zervas 2001—Zervas, C. Sea Level Variations of the United States: 1854–1999. NOAA Technical Report NOS 

CO-OPS 36. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. 

<http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pub.html#sltrends>