 |
 |
 | |||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
||
|
|
|
by Patricia Glick Table of Contents
In a new study the world’s preeminent atmospheric scientists conclude that global warming has begun (IPCC, 1995a,b). They project that it will bring expanding ranges of tropical diseases and other devastating health problems, perilous sea level rise, more intense tropical storms, extinction of countless plant and animal species, and failure of crops in the world’s most vulnerable regions. Some analysts have attempted to assess the dollar costs of these consequences of global warming. They estimate that global warming could cost as little as $59 billion or as much as $438 billion annually ($1993).1 This report critiques cost-benefit analysis, the key methodology used in these studies. It then highlights those global warming effects that cannot be given dollar values. This report concludes that letting global warming happen will cost far more than cost-benefit analyses predict. Certainly global warming will cost far more than taking energy efficiency steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions today. Numerous studies have already demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of improving energy efficiency, so we do not attempt to replicate those analyses here (See, for example, Alliance to Save Energy, et al., 1991; Geller, et al., 1992; Lovins and Lovins, 1991). Recommendations 1) Improve auto efficiency by raising mileage-per-gallon (CAFE) standards for new cars and light trucks. Raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in the U.S. to 45 miles per gallon for cars and 34 miles per gallon for light trucks by 2005 is the biggest single step the U.S. can take to curb global warming and reduce our dependence on oil. Cars and light trucks are responsible for over 20 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions (EIA, 1993, Table 8). If CAFE standards do not increase, and if the current rate of growth of vehicle miles traveled continues, CO2 emissions from the nation’s transportation sector will increase by as much as 40 percent by 2005 (Clark, 1991, p. 42). The key to improving the fuel economy of cars and light trucks is cost effective technology. By simply adding existing technology to their vehicles, automobile manufacturers can slash global warming pollution and save consumers money at the same time. More efficient engines and transmissions deliver the same acceleration as today’s gas guzzlers while saving gas. New materials and technologies are available that can make cars both lighter and stronger, reduce aerodynamic drag, and lower tire rolling resistance, all of which will improve vehicle efficiency without requiring smaller cars (U.S. OTA, October 1991, p.3). Honda proved this point when it produced the Honda Civic VX. The Civic VX performs as well as its twin, the Civic DX, and gets 55% better gas mileage because it incorporates these technologies. The difference in price: $700, which the average driver would recover at the gas pump in one to two years of driving. Further improving CAFE standards will help the economy. By saving 3 million barrels of oil daily, CAFE standards would curb our oil imports and energy costs and would lower our balance of trade deficit (one third of which is attributable to oil imports). A study by ACEEE shows that higher fuel economy will actually create jobs (Geller, 1992). Although some sectors of the economy, such as the oil industry, will experience some job losses, ACEEE estimates the auto industry alone will gain 47,000 new jobs. ACEEE found that money saved at the gas pump would be reinvested throughout the economy, creating a net increase of 244,000 new jobs nationwide. A Sierra Club/U.S. PIRG study (Freeman, et al., June, 1994) concluded that increased CAFE standards would save families as much as $576 per year at the gas pump. 2) Accelerate the rate of energy efficiency gains in industry, residential and commercial buildings through a combination of policy measures, including improving efficiency standards for lighting and appliances; implementing effective market incentives; promoting government investment in research and development programs; and ending fossil fuel subsidies. Energy efficiency improvements in the industrial, residential, and commercial sectors offer an effective and economical near-term strategy for mitigating global warming. Significant improvements in energy efficiency are not only technically feasible, but they make both economic and environmental sense. They slow CO2 buildup and reduce other energy-related pollution. Investments in energy efficiency technologies also provide households and businesses with significant savings by lowering energy costs. And a number of studies show that energy efficiency expenditures will lead to a net increase in employment in the U.S. (Geller, 1992; Krier and Goodman, 1992). In addition to improving efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, government must work to remove market barriers that discourage efficiency investments. In particular, both federal and state governments must work to send the right price signals to consumers by removing subsidies to fossil fuels, charging user fees for pollutants, and supporting tax incentives and other strategies for efficiency development. Government must also promote research and development of efficiency technologies and accelerate capital stock turnover through incentive and investment programs and by providing more information on the benefits of energy efficiency. 3) Accelerate research and development of solar and renewable energy technologies. Harnessing abundant renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power will be critical to curbing global warming in the future. The technological and economic outlook for renewable energy is favorable. For example, the new use of wind for energy, coupled with technological improvements, have brought the cost of wind energy spiraling down by 85% since 1981. Solar power, too, has seen remarkable advances as new photovoltaic cells, which convert more sunlight directly into electricity, are put into use. Continued investment in research and development of renewable energy and strong policy signals supporting their use will provide the world with a sustainable, environmentally sound source of energy in the longer term. 4) End Deforestation, Encourage Afforestation. Forests play a critical role in the natural carbon cycle. As trees grow, they absorb and store CO2 from the atmosphere. The carbon is released when trees die, are harvested, or are destroyed by fire. Curbing deforestation and encouraging replanting would help slow buildup of atmospheric CO2 and provide other environmental benefits, including the protection of watersheds, the provision of habitat for wildlife, and the preservation of areas for recreational use. In addition to reducing the use of fossil fuels, an effective global warming mitigation strategy should include efforts to eliminate the underlying causes of deforestation. For example, efforts to slow population growth and reduce poverty would lessen the pressures to clear forested land for agricultural use and development and to burn wood for fuel. The strategy should also focus on the elimination of perverse government incentives to timber companies, which promote deforestation over other "non-market" uses of forests.
In a new study the world’s preeminent atmospheric scientists conclude that global warming has begun (IPCC, 1995a). They project that it will bring expanding ranges of tropical diseases and other devastating health problems, perilous sea level rise, more intense tropical storms, extinction of countless plant and animal species and failure of crops in the world’s most vulnerable regions. Some analysts have attempted to assess the dollar costs of these consequences of global warming. They estimate that global warming could cost as little as $59 billion or as much as $438 billion annually ($1993).2 This report critiques the key methodology used in these studies. It then highlights those global warming effects that cannot be given dollar values. This report concludes that letting global warming happen will cost far more than cost-benefit analyses predict. Certainly it will cost far more than it will to take energy efficiency steps to curb global warming pollution today. Numerous other studies have already demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of steps to improve energy efficiency; we do not attempt to replicate those analyses here (see, for example, Alliance to Save Energy, et al., 1991; Geller, et al., 1992; Lovins and Lovins, 1991). Global Warming Will Cause Dramatic Changes to Our Climate As we burn oil, coal and natural gas, in our cars, trucks, power plants and factories, we are causing a dramatic buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is accelerating the naturally occurring greenhouse effect, causing global temperatures to rise much more quickly than they would under natural conditions. In reaching their conclusion that global warming has begun, the world’s 2500 leading scientists examined the available data (IPCC, 1995a,b). Some of this evidence is now familiar to many Americans: concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, have risen nearly 30% in the last 100 years. The average global temperature has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit over the same period. The ten warmest years in the past 100 have occurred since 1980. Glacial ice is retreating on five continents due to rising temperatures. Other evidence includes "increased evidence of drought, above-normal temperatures, winter-time precipitation and heavy rainstorms in many areas of the United States" since 1980 (Stevens, Sept. 26, 1995). The midwest heat wave during the summer of 1995, which killed 669 people (Star-Ledger Wire Services, July 19, 1995) came during one of the hottest summers on record. In fact, 1995 was the hottest year on record. Climatologists project that temperatures will rise 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius) by the end of the next century, and the planet will continue to warm well beyond the year 2100 (IPCC, 1995a, p. 5). While an average temperature change of only a few degrees Fahrenheit may not seem like much, consider by comparison that in the depths of the last ice age, when mile-high sheets of ice reached as far south as the Great Lakes, the Earth was only 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than it is today (Stevens, Jan. 14, 1996). Global warming will disrupt regional temperature and precipitation patterns, cause a rise in sea level, and is predicted to cause more severe tropical storms. The potential impacts of global warming and associated climate change on society and the planet’s ecology are staggering. Severe droughts in some areas could lead to massive crop failures and widespread forest fires. Rising sea levels will cause substantial flooding of coastal areas. Changing climate patterns will contribute to the spread of deadly vector-borne diseases such as malaria, cholera and dengue fever. Some of these effects will have identifiable costs; others, however, are difficult or impossible to quantify. Some opponents of actions to curb global warming argue that it will cost more to prevent global warming than it will to let it occur. They cite studies that, among other problems, fail to paint a complete picture of the problem. They place dollar values on some of the effects of global warming and ignore those effects that cannot be quantified. Climate Change is Too Expensive To appreciate how costly global warming and associated climate change will be, consider the economic repercussions of some recent isolated climatic events. While we do not know that global warming caused these disasters, their costs illustrate the significant impact that changes in climate can have on society.
Curbing Global Warming Pollution: The Best Insurance for the Money While we cannot say exactly what the effects on a specific town will be, the potential for the impacts to be catastrophic and irreversible is all too real. Given this risk, it is important to reduce global warming pollution now — to buy "insurance" against the potentially insurmountable costs — by reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and stopping deforestation. If we do nothing, society will face serious economic and ecological consequences. This "insurance policy" is more than affordable. There is overwhelming evidence that by improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy sources, the U.S. can save billions of dollars, create jobs, and improve the environment.
The True Costs of Global Warming Even the best estimates of the costs of global warming understate the true costs that climate change will impose on society since they ignore many important effects. The costs of global warming to society will go well beyond lost dollars. Not only will changes in climate bring economic hardship to many areas, but they will have serious social, cultural, political, and environmental implications, many of which cannot be put in dollar terms. For example, climate change will affect human health, species and ecosystems, the values of which are not determined in the conventional market system. In addition, the impacts of climate change will vary across regions and generations, and will therefore likely contribute to both political and social conflict. A Numbers Game Attempting to put a dollar value today on the how much global warming will cost tomorrow minimizes its true consequences. Global climate change will affect our lives in many ways. These will not be abstract or distant consequences, but ones that damage our health, our livelihoods, and our surroundings. Some of the consequences of global warming can be paid for — new roads to replace those that wash away, higher health care costs as tropical diseases spread, and increased costs of irrigating drought-stricken farmlands. Other consequences are beyond quantification — deaths, the trauma of more violent storms, the extinctions of plant and animal species. A number of analysts have measured the potential dollar costs of global warming’s impacts in an effort to compare the "benefits" of policies to curb global warming with the "costs" of doing so. Recent studies using this cost-benefit approach yield a wide range of estimated economic costs of climate change. For the U.S. alone, annual estimates range from a low of $59.2 billion per year by Nordhaus (1994), a vocal critic of actions to curb global warming, to $438.75 billion per year by Titus (1992). Some proponents of quantitative cost-benefit analysis argue that it provides policymakers with a consistent, unbiased, and understandable framework on which to base their decisions. It does not. Cost- benefit analysis has many flaws as a policy tool. Any effort to measure the impacts of global warming in dollar terms will significantly underestimate its true costs. Problems With Traditional (Quantitative) Cost-Benefit Analysis 1) Cost-benefit analysis ignores many effects that are hard to quantify. The biggest problem with traditional cost-benefit analysis is that it only accounts for those effects that can be given a dollar value — quantified. Many impacts of global warming, however, are difficult or impossible to put in dollar terms, such as human health effects, loss of wildlife habitat, and the loss of non-consumptive (e.g., non-timber) uses of forests and other resources — the "non-market" effects. Economists cannot put an accurate dollar value on life, increased illness, the loss of spectacular natural areas, or the loss of a plant or animal species. Some economists have actually tried to fix this problem, but with very limited success. There are several techniques available that attempt to quantify these non-market values, such as "contingent valuation," "hedonic pricing," and "opportunity cost" methods. However, these techniques often yield unpredictable and inaccurate results (IPCC, 1995c).3 For example, Bill Cline, in his 1992 analysis of the impacts of global warming on the U.S., includes an estimated value of species loss of more than $4 billion based on the opportunity cost of foregone timber operations. However, he admits that the value "could just as easily be an order of magnitude larger, or $40 billion annually" (Cline, 1992, p. 106). This revised estimate alone would raise his aggregate figure 66 percent! As a result, even cost-benefit analyses that use these valuation techniques likely ignore many significant impacts. In addition, most analysts choose not to use these valuation techniques because they are time consuming and complicated. Some people have also criticized economic valuation techniques as being "discriminatory" and "immoral" (See IPCC, 1995c; GCI, October 16, 1995). For example, many would argue that impacts such as the loss of human lives, irreversible harm to ecosystems, and the loss of intrinsically valuable property or resources should never be put in monetary terms because no quantitative cost-benefit analysis can adequately reflect their full value. 2) The biggest risks of global warming are hidden in aggregation. Cost-benefit analysis typically involves the aggregation, or summing up, of cost and benefit values. As a result, such analysis does not adequately reflect the distribution of impacts within countries, even though the regional effects of global warming are likely to vary considerably. Some areas may not be greatly affected by global warming — but others could be devastated. Similarly, global aggregates hide the distribution of impacts between countries. Impoverished regions and developing countries, whose resources and ability to adapt to rapid changes are limited, are particularly at risk. Even if there are isolated cases of so-called "winners" from global warming, the prospect of which is debatable, no one will be immune to the disruption that climate change will place on societies, economies, and ecosystems. The problems associated with estimating the costs of global warming are magnified at the global level. Very few studies have estimated the global economic costs of global warming, largely due to the difficulties in obtaining consistent data and to the significant complexities and uncertainty with respect to the interrelationships among the possible effects. The most prominent studies express global economic impacts as the sum of regional damage estimates, extrapolating those costs to other countries (See, for example, Fankhauser (1995) and Tol (1994)). However, in extrapolating the costs, economists frequently ascribe different values to the lives and property of people in rich developed countries compared to those in poor developing countries. Since most of the death and destruction that will result from global warming will occur in the latter, this method creates a distorted and inequitable picture of how global warming will affect global society. 3) Discounting undervalues the costs of global warming on future generations. Global warming is not going to happen all at once, and many of its most severe effects will occur over the next 20 to 100 years. To value these future effects in present terms, economists rely on a tool known as "discounting." Typically, the later in time a cost or benefit occurs, the less it matters in economic terms — you would regard $1 of future damage as being less important than $1 damage now, just as you would rather receive $1 now than wait until later to receive it. After all, you could invest the $1 today and earn interest. Or you may feel that you will be better off in the future and will not need the money as much then. Discounting reflects what economists call an individual’s "time preference" for money. Given the long time frame in which global warming impacts occur, the practice of discounting may seriously undervalue the significant harm that global warming will place on future generations. Precisely how economists measure the value of future costs and benefits depends on the size of the discount rate — the higher the rate, the lower the future benefits or costs are worth in today’s terms. For example, at a discount rate of 6 to 12%, which is the range that analysts most often use to evaluate the present value of capital projects, the value of very long term effects (say 100 years from now) will virtually disappear (See Nordhaus, 1994, pp. 122-35). But very long term effects are important. Damages of, say, $100 billion accruing in 100 years will certainly affect the quality of life of future generations; but at a discount rate of 10% its "present value" is only $7.25 million! If we allow global warming to continue unabated, we will surely commit future generations to a legacy of irreversible climate change with enormous economic and environmental consequences. Many scientists and economists agree, therefore, in order to ensure that studies are not biased against future generations, analysts should use a lower discount rate — a social rate — to evaluate the present value of future climate impacts.4 Several studies of the potential economic effects of global warming use a social discount rate of between 0.5% and 3.0%, recognizing that discounting future benefits at a lower rate will help ensure that policymakers do not undersell the value of our children’s and our grandchildren’s well-being (See Cline, 1992; Fankhauser, 1995; IPCC, 1995c). Discounting makes it easier to decide not to take actions to curb global warming today, because the costs of inaction do not seem so large. But by making the decision today to not curb global warming pollution, we are making the decision to expose our children and grandchildren to the full costs of the consequences as they occur. We are passing the buck! 4) Cost-benefit analysis typically focuses on a snapshot of future impacts, even though the effects of global warming will continue indefinitely. Both scientific and economic studies of the impacts of global warming tend to focus on the impacts at a given point in time in the future. The conventional technique is to identify the impacts of a "benchmark doubling" of carbon dioxide, which refers to the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that trap heat by the same amount that would be trapped by a doubling of carbon dioxide alone. The corresponding warming as a result of this benchmark is estimated to be in the range of 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (or 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100 (IPCC, 1995a, p. 5). Studying global warming under this benchmark scenario allows both scientists and economists to make consistent comparisons between current and future climate trends. It is important to note, however, that the choice of this benchmark is completely arbitrary. This "snapshot" analysis obscures the fact that global warming will not occur instantaneously, nor will it stop once this benchmark is reached. A notable exception to this snapshot analysis is a recent study by William Cline (1992). In addition to estimating the economic costs of global warming from a benchmark doubling of CO2, Cline also looks at the potential costs of "very-long-term" warming. According to Cline, "Because global warming is cumulative and irreversible on a time scale of centuries, a much longer horizon [than 2050] should be considered" (Cline, 1992, p. 4). Under this longer time horizon of two to three centuries, Cline points out that there is likely to be "far greater warming than associated with benchmark doubling and thus much greater ecological and economic damage" (Cline, 1992, p. 43). Beyond the Economics Because of the many problems with quantitative cost-benefit analysis, it is an inadequate tool for policymakers to use as they decide how to curb global warming. Rather, policymakers should consider more comprehensive, multidisciplinary analyses — those that emphasize the economic, environmental, and social implications of global warming — using a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. The following section summarizes some of the potential impacts of global warming in a number of sectors, using this multidisciplinary perspective, in order to illustrate the numerous ways in which global warming will likely affect society. The costs from disasters alone, such as severe storms, floods, and droughts, could total hundreds of billions of dollars. Coastal impacts and losses to the insurance industry could mount into the trillions. Add to this the impacts that cannot be put in dollar terms, such as impacts on human lives, species, and ecosystems, and it is painfully clear that the economic and social implications of global warming will likely be overwhelming.
While precisely when and where the effects of global warming will occur is uncertain, each of us will face the impacts in one way or another. Some of the impacts are:
This section highlights these and other potential effects of global warming on numerous sectors of society based on existing literature on the subject. We identify effects on human health; coastal communities; agriculture; forests; hurricanes; the insurance industry; population migration; species and ecosystems; water resources and fisheries; energy demand and supply; air quality; and infrastructure investment. The information presented here is by no means comprehensive. But it illustrates the degree to which quantitative cost-benefit studies fail to include the full costs of global warming. Health Impacts: Increased Illness and Death from Tropical Diseases and Heat Waves Changes in climate due to global warming are expected to have a major impact on human health. More extreme temperatures and precipitation and greater frequency and severity of storms, floods, and droughts will likely lead to increased deaths, illnesses and injuries. Global warming will directly kill hundreds of Americans from exposure to extreme heat during summer months. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that extreme heat is currently responsible for an average of at least 240 deaths annually in the United States (Colburn, July 18, 1995). Yet, according to Anthony J. McMichael, Professor of Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, that higher summer temperatures in both temperate and tropical countries could increase the rates of serious illness and death from heat-related causes by as much as six times the current level, with the greatest impact falling on the sick and elderly (McMichael, 1993, p. 143). The record heat wave in July of 1995 killed at least 669 people in the U.S., exemplifying the risk that extreme heat places on human mortality (Star-Ledger Wire Services, July 19, 1995). Increased illness and deaths as a result of the heat could cost society billions of dollars in health care expenditures, diminished worker productivity, and increased use of air conditioning — not to mention the social costs associated with pain and suffering and the loss of loved ones. Global warming will also expand the ranges of many infectious diseases, including malaria, dengue fever, and cholera, as the vectors that carry such diseases expand their ranges in a warmer world and as human populations migrate. The World Health Organization projects tens of millions more cases of malaria and other infectious diseases (Stone, February 17, 1995). The Dutch health ministry predicts that more than a million people may die annually as a result of the impact of global warming on malaria transmission in North America and Northern Europe (Epstein, February 3, 1995, p. 7). The effects of the recent El Niño provide an indication of how sensitive diseases can be to changes in climate. According to a recent Harvard University study, warming waters in the Pacific Ocean likely contributed to the severe outbreak of cholera that led to thousands of deaths in Latin American countries (Allen, March 6, 1995). And since 1981, the number of cases of dengue fever has risen significantly in South America and has begun to spread into the U.S. (See Figure 1). According to health experts, "The current outbreak [of dengue], with its proximity to Texas, is at least a reminder of the risks that a warming climate might pose." (Dawson, October 24, 1995). Another striking example of how climate can affect disease is the deadly 1993 outbreak of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the Southwestern U.S. A six year drought killed off most predators of the rodents that carry the hantavirus. Without interference from predators, rodent populations swelled. The population ballooned further as an extraordinary wet season ended the drought and caused the rodents’ food supply to grow, bringing the rodents — and the virus — into contact with humans (Morse, September 11-12, 1995). While it is difficult to prove that any particular outbreak was caused or exacerbated by global warming, such incidents provide a hint of what might occur as global warming escalates. Dr. Paul Epstein on the Harvard School of Public Health and a member of the IPCC has concluded that this hantavirus outbreak and other recent disease outbreaks are a harbinger of things to come. Dr. Epstein states that "If tropical weather is expanding it means that tropical diseases will expand. We’re seeing malaria in Houston, Texas" (Allen, March 6, 1995). Treatments for some of these diseases exist, but at a cost. The global market for antimalarial drugs, for example, is estimated at over $100 million (Foster, June 1994). And over time, research into new drugs will be necessary if warmer temperatures enable parasites to evolve greater resistance to pesticides and medicine (McMichael, 1993, p. 158). In many regions of the world, malaria is already resistant to the least expensive, most widely distributed drugs (Foster, June 1994). The increased incidence of diseases will also add to society’s expenditures for hospitalization and other health care, the cost of lost productivity, and the trauma of illness and death. The U.S. spent $751.8 billion in 1991 on health care (according to SAUS 1994, Table 148). Even a 0.5 percent increase in health care expenditures as a result of global warming would impose additional annual costs of over $3.8 billion (Cline, 1992, p.118). In addition, epidemics create numerous secondary costs, including losses in tourism, business travel, and international trade. For example, the 1994 outbreak of plague in India cost $2 billion in lost revenues to hotels, airlines, and other businesses (Epstein, September 11-12, 1995). Well beyond these dollar costs are the incalculable losses in human lives and the enormous suffering that health problems such as physical injuries, starvation, and tropical diseases can bring. Coastal Impacts: Rising Seas, Coastal Inundation, Forced Evacuations A potentially devastating outcome of global warming is the impact that expanding seawater and melting glaciers and ice sheets will have on sea level. Scientists predict that global warming will likely raise sea level by 50 cm (based on a possible range of 15- 95 cm) by 2100, much faster than the worldwide average sea level rise of 10 to 15 centimeters during the last century (IPCC, 1995b; IPCC, 1990a; U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 124). This poses a serious threat to low lying and coastal zones, many of which are already weakened by overdevelopment, pollution, and other problems. Sea level rise could lead to wetland loss, loss of dry land, beach erosion, saltwater intrusion into groundwater, rivers, and estuaries, infrastructure damage, and loss of habitat for numerous species of plants and animals. In addition, communities may face the enormous costs of building dikes, replenishing beaches, elevating infrastructure, and taking other defensive measures to fend off the encroaching seas. An increase in sea level would affect a large portion of the world’s population. For example, nearly half of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties (SAUS, 1994, Table 38). Individual states, such as Florida and California, have hundreds of miles of coastline and are therefore particularly vulnerable to rising seas. The EPA estimates that a one foot sea level rise would erode shorelines by over 100 feet throughout the Southeast (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 334), and efforts to replenish sand over the next century would cost billions of dollars. Sea level rise endangers more than just coastal infrastructure. It also threatens an important resource for recreation and tourism, commercial fishing, and other economic activities, as well as a critical habitat for numerous species of plants and animals. The potential tourism losses alone could be substantial. According to a recent study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), there were over 180 million visitors to ocean and bay beaches in 1993, and these visitors provided tens of billions of dollars to local economies (See Table 1) (NRDC, August 1994, p.7). Other countries face an even greater threat from sea level rise. The vast majority of Australia’s population lives in coastal cities, and rising seas could harm the country’s entire economy. Egypt, which depends on the Nile delta and lakes just inland of the coast for much of its food production, could face a displacement of 16 percent of its population if sea level rises just 1.5 feet (Corson, 1990, p. 233). A rise of just a few inches could completely inundate island nations in the South Pacific and the Caribbean (Revkin, 1992, p. 130). The Netherlands would have to spend billions of dollars to supplement its extensive dike system (Goemans, 1986). Around the world, the economic and environmental impacts of sea level rise will be staggering. In the U.S. alone, the EPA estimates that a one meter sea level rise by the year 2100 (the upper end of the IPCC’s estimate) will require $91.25 to $138.75 billion in cumulative capital costs to protect developed areas with bulkheads and levees and by pumping sand (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 123). It will also result in a loss of 25 to 80 percent of U.S. coastal wetlands, which would harm fisheries and recreation, flood protection, and habitat for numerous species of migratory birds (EPA, 1989, p. 123; Fankhauser, 1995, p. 32; IPCC, 1995a). Myers and Kent (1995) estimate that worldwide coastal protection costs and land loss could be in the order of $17.5 trillion to $20 trillion over a 50 year period (Myers and Kent, June 1995, p. 152). Agriculture Impacts: Droughts, Floods, and Regional Famines Scientists predict that global warming will significantly change patterns of agricultural production. More moderate temperatures or increased precipitation may lead to a marginal gain in agricultural productivity in some regions. But increased heat stress, decreased soil moisture, greater frequency and severity of drought and floods, and the proliferation of harmful insects and disease will likely devastate agricultural yields in many others, affecting the availability of food in world markets and raising food prices. When the likelihood of catastrophic events such as droughts and floods is factored in, it is easy to see that the impacts on agriculture will be expensive. For example, the severe drought in the U.S. in 1988 lowered crop yields by 30 percent, cost an estimated $40 billion ($1988), and significantly increased the world price of grain (McMichael, 1993, p. 162; Cline, 1992, p. 89). Scientists predict a 5 to 50 percent increase in the frequency and severity of droughts and floods as a result of global warming (Rind, et al., 1990). Based on the $40 billion figure, a 5 to 50 percent increase in the incidence of severe droughts as a result of global warming could lead to annual drought-related agricultural losses of as much as $18 billion (Cline, 1992, p. 94). Global climate change is also expected to produce northward shifts in cultivated land, with some regions faring worse than others. In the U.S., for example, states that depend on agriculture as a primary economic activity, such as those in the Southeast and the Southern Plains, could face severe economic disruption if global warming lowers agricultural yields. Worldwide, the most harmful effects of global warming on agriculture will likely fall on areas that can least afford them. For example, many developing countries, which already face problems of hunger due to overpopulation, political strife, and existing climatic events such as droughts, will likely experience additional famines as global warming reduces crop yields (Reilly, 1995; Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994). The consequences of increased famine will extend beyond the directly affected regions. Developed countries, for example, could face an increase in humanitarian and financial responsibility to assist those countries in need. Further reductions in crop yields could have a significant impact on both domestic and world food prices. Several studies assume that farmers will be able to adapt to changing climate conditions by switching crops, altering fertilization and irrigation patterns, and even relocating (Wolfe, 1995, p. 10; VandeVeer and Pierce, 1994, p. 595). The costs of such adaptation, however, are likely to be quite high. For example, changes in crops may require considerable investments in new farm equipment in order to accommodate different planting and harvesting requirements. And agricultural expansion into regions that become more favorable for certain crops could create significant problems in those areas due to factors such as competing pressures for land use and changing infrastructure needs such as the development of dams and reservoirs for irrigation. Forest Impacts: Die-offs and Regional Species Losses Scientists predict that global warming will have a significant effect on the function and composition of forests in many regions. Temperature extremes, changes in precipitation patterns, the increased intensity and frequency of wildfires and storms, pests and diseases, and even increases in air pollution will affect both forest survival and growth rates (Peters and Lovejoy, 1992, p. 245). According to the IPCC, a warming of 1-3.5 degrees Celsius could shift some forest zones northward by 150-550 kilometers (or approximately 100-350 miles) (IPCC, 1995b, p. 5). And in North America, an equivalent doubling of CO2 could shift the ranges of birch, sugar maple, hemlock, and beech trees north by as much as 300-600 miles (Corson, 1990, p. 233). Since trees will die much more rapidly than they can grow, global warming will likely result in a net loss of forestry resources well into the next century. Cline (1992), for example, indicates that the U.S. could expect up to a 40 percent loss of forests from a benchmark doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Based on timber values alone, this loss could add up to $4.3 billion per year.5 However, the EPA projects that this figure could reach much higher once the total value of timber products to the economy, including such processes as manufacturing, marketing, transport, and construction, are taken into consideration (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 75). Regions dependent on forests for other commodities, such as the maple syrup producing states of New England and the Midwest, could also face devastating losses. EPA projects that by 2050 the range for sugar maple could shift north of all but the northernmost tip of New England. This possibility has serious implications for the maple syrup industry, which currently provides up to $40 million annually to the regional economy (See Figure 2) (North American Maple Syrup Council). Estimating the total loss in the value of forest resources that could result from global warming is difficult because many benefits of avoiding forest loss due to global warming cannot be put in monetary terms. Nevertheless, estimates of the monetary impacts provide at least a rough indication of how devastating a significant loss of forests could be to the U.S. and world economies. The estimated economic losses to timber companies and other direct use industries as a result of global warming are significant. The figures, however, do not reflect the important benefits that forests provide, including provision of species habitat, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, scenic vistas, reduction in air pollution, screening of noise, etc. A rough attempt by Titus to quantify at least some of these values places the possible loss of forests in the U.S. at $30 to $75 billion per year (Titus, 1992, p. 401), but even these figures are likely well below the true costs to society. Storm Impacts: More Severe and Costly Hurricanes Climate scientists predict that as the Earth warms, rising ocean temperatures will result in changes in climate patterns and more intense hurricanes. For example a rise in ocean temperatures of only a few degrees could increase the destructive potential of hurricanes by as much as 40 to 50 percent (Emanuel, 1987, p. 485).6 Similarly, the number of tropical storms will increase 50 percent with a benchmark doubling of CO2 (Haarsma, 1993, pp. 247-57). The 1995 hurricane season has provided a glimpse at what may be in store as global warming continues. The 1995 season was one of the most active and destructive on record. One after the other, 8 hurricanes and 11 more named storms killed scores of people and caused costly damage throughout the Caribbean and the southern U.S. People in south Florida and the Carolinas have no difficulty relating to the damages that hurricanes can bring. Hurricane Andrew caused an estimated $30 billion in total losses to the area around Homestead, Florida. Had the most powerful part of the hurricane struck heavily populated Miami a few miles to the north, the destruction could have been much greater, perhaps over $100 billion (U.S. OTA, 1993, p. 165). Hurricane Hugo, which was one of the most powerful storms ever to strike the East Coast of the U.S., caused billions of dollars of damage to South Carolina. Table 2 identifies the enormous economic costs that a severe hurricane would cause if it were to strike our increasingly populated coastal areas. The impacts of hurricanes go beyond damages to homes and buildings. The cost of Hurricane Hugo in 1989, for example, has been recorded by the National Hurricane Center at $7.16 billion (Boeck, June 1, 1995). Yet the U.S. OTA reports that the hurricane also cost $8 billion in lost revenue to the tourism industry; a $1 billion loss in timberlands; $320 million in damages to agriculture from salt contamination and high winds; $3 million in damage to fishing vessels; and nearly $10 million in shore erosion (U.S. OTA, 1993, p. 189). In addition, society must contend with deaths, pain and suffering due to injuries, and stresses of losing property and perhaps becoming homeless. Insurance Industry Impacts: Rising Premiums, Coverage Cutbacks, and Possible Bankruptcy While the oil, coal and automobile industries contend that they speak for all industry when they question the need to curb global climate change, the insurance industry has begun to speak out about the costs of not acting. Natural disasters carry with them enormous economic costs, and the insurance industry may be the first sector to feel the brunt of the impacts. A recent study by the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction shows that the number of deaths and damage from severe floods, droughts, and tropical storms has been rising at an increasing rate over the past 20 years (See Figure 3). This onslaught of disasters worldwide has raised awareness among many insurance and reinsurance officials that increased calamities that may result from global warming would pose serious problems for the industry. The response of the insurance industry to recent disasters illustrates how insurance companies may react if global warming results in an increase in catastrophic events. For example, the barrage of storms in the Caribbean and the Pacific over the past decade led to an increase in insurance premiums and a decrease in coverage, with some insurance and reinsurance companies temporarily withdrawing coverage in these areas altogether (Pearce, et al., 1995; Berz and Conrad, 1993; Dlugolecki, et al., 1994, 1995; Leggett, 1993). "Given only a slight increase in the scope for windstorms, drought-related wildfires, and floods, the $1.4 trillion insurance industry would be in danger of global collapse," according to Greenpeace (Leggett, 1990, p. 17). This collapse would, in turn, cause numerous ripple effects in the economy as insurance companies raised rates to unaffordable levels or dropped coverage to some sectors completely. These losses will not fall solely on private insurance companies. In situations where insurance is necessary but insurance companies are unwilling to take the risk, the federal government — and the taxpaying public — becomes the underwriter, such as under the federal flood insurance program (Smithsonian Institution, 1994, p. 205). Island and Coastal Population Impacts: Inundations May Create Environmental Refugees Global warming could force hundreds of millions of people to migrate from areas facing sea level rise, severe drought, or other severe climate impacts (Leggett, 1990, p. 128). Coupled with the existing problem of rapid population growth, regional and international migration due to the loss of "productive" land would exacerbate the hardship and stress for refugees and the communities to which they migrate. A recent study by Norman Myers for the Climate Institute indicates that environmental problems such as desertification, deforestation, and drought, have already driven at least 25 million people from their homelands worldwide (Myers, June 1995, p. 1). These "environmental refugees" comprise 44 percent of all refugees, and their numbers could dramatically increase as environmental problems continue to grow. Worldwide, it is predicted that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by the effects of climate change (Leggett, 1990, p. 128). The economic costs of migration depend on a number of factors, such as how far refugees must travel and whether the areas to which they travel are willing or able to accommodate them. Host countries must incur direct maintenance and resettlement costs for refugees, as well as indirect costs such as outlays to counter diseases. Migration to cities due to reductions in agricultural productivity and other problems in rural areas could lead to increased unemployment and other stresses associated with rapid urbanization. In addition to the economic costs, there are a number of social costs associated with population migration. For example, increased migration could expose the hosts and/or refugees to new infectious diseases against which they have no natural immunity. As they leave their homelands, refugees may leave behind places of cultural, religious or historic significance. Without ancestral burial grounds or holy sites their culture may change or disappear, causing enormous anxiety and adversity. Biodiversity Impacts: Loss of Species and Ecosystems Studies of the potential impacts of global warming have largely focused on the physical and human impacts, such as sea level rise, effects on agriculture, losses in timber resources, and impacts on human health. More recently, however, studies have begun to look at the effects on environmental concerns, such as the loss of species and biological diversity (Markham, et.al., 1993, p. 12). Rising temperatures, the proliferation of disease, loss of habitat through storms, floods, and fires, and other impacts of global warming threaten numerous species of plants and animals. Most species cannot tolerate rapidly changing habitat conditions. Many are therefore likely to become extinct (Peters and Lovejoy, 1992, p. 7). As with forests and impacts on human health, it is impossible to identify the total value of lost species in terms of dollars. Species and ecosystems are valuable "for their own sake." Therefore, any attempt to assign a monetary value to them will underestimate their true worth. Nevertheless, identifying at least part of the value of species in monetary terms provides a useful illustration of the importance of biodiversity to society — and raises the awareness that such resources are not "free." Take, for example, the ecological — and economic — importance of coral reefs. Reefs not only provide habitat for thousands of species of plants and animals (including a third of all fish species), but they are also a significant resource for tourism, fishing, medical research, and other benefits (Corson, 1990, p. 137). In the Caribbean, marine-based tourism generates billions of dollars through transportation, food, lodging, services, and local purchases. In 1988, Caribbean tourism was estimated to generate more than $8.5 billion, of which divers and other special-interest tourists accounted for up to one-fifth (Dixon and Sherman, 1990, p. 179). In addition, healthy reefs protect shorelines from erosion by acting as self-repairing breakwaters. They therefore help reduce the need for expenditures on beach protection or replenishment. Evidence is mounting, however, that the world’s coral reefs, already severely threatened by dredging, coral-collecting, dynamite fishing, and other destructive activities, face increasing danger of coral "bleaching" from warming tropical waters. The EPA reports that warmer than usual temperatures in tropical waters have already been implicated in the increased incidence and severity of coral bleaching and death worldwide (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 143). Communities that depend on coral reefs for tourism, fishing, and other uses stand to lose billions of dollars a year. Other forms of wildlife provide similar economic benefits. In 1985, over 109 million people participated in wildlife-related recreation, including bird-watching and feeding, and wildlife photography (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988). People spent $4.5 billion on equipment and generated $17.9 billion through their activities (Gray, 1993, p. 98). The loss of such wildlife and habitat would harm both the economy and people’s ability to enjoy nature. Global warming could also cost society lost opportunities for using certain species for medicines and other purposes in the future. Over 40 percent of the prescription drugs sold in the U.S. contain chemicals originally derived from wild species (Corson, 1990, p. 103). The economic value of plant-based drugs provides at least a hint of the value of biodiversity to society. In the U.S., the market value of prescription and over-the-counter drugs in 1985 was estimated at $19.8 billion ($1990) (Pearce, 1993, p. 86). Worldwide, they totaled to over $84 billion. If species die off due to the impacts of human-induced climate change, we limit the opportunities of coming generations to discover important new medicines. It is important to recognize that these figures represent merely the "tip of the iceberg" of the consequences of global warming on species and ecosystems. Economic values do not capture the important role that every species plays in the Earth’s ecological systems; nor do they reflect the fact that once a species is extinct, it is gone forever. Fresh Water Impacts: Threatened Drinking and Irrigation Water from Regional Drying and Saltwater Intrusion Scientists predict that changes in precipitation, saltwater intrusion into fresh water reservoirs, higher temperatures, and other impacts of global warming will have major impacts on regional water resources (Fankhauser, 1995, p. 40; IPCC, 1995b, p. 6). In some areas, greater precipitation will lead to excess runoff, erosion, and flooding; in others, less precipitation, increased evaporation, and reduced winter snowpack will dramatically reduce water supplies. In each case, the costs to society will likely be enormous. While they were not necessarily the result of global warming, recent floods illustrate the devastating impacts that too much water can place on economies — and lives. For example, the Midwest flood of 1993 surpassed all previous U.S. floods in terms of precipitation amounts, record river stages, flood duration, persons displaced, crop and property damage, and economic impact (CEQ, 1995, p. 59). Flood damages in the nine affected states were an estimated $15.6 billion, and at least 38 people died as a direct result of the flooding. Even Western states that are usually stricken with drought could face their share of floods (CEQ, 1995, p. 60). The 1993 winter floods in the Southwest yielded damages of $392 million ($228.9 million in Arizona and $163.7 million in California), and led to 17 deaths. If global warming continues, such losses could become much more commonplace. Droughts can also have serious economic and social implications. The potential economic impacts alone are significant. Decreased water supplies will affect agriculture, fisheries, recreational opportunities, and the ability of river barges to transport goods efficiently. For example, low flow conditions in the Mississippi River during the 1988 drought brought barge traffic to a halt, disrupting the movement of numerous commodities including coal, agricultural chemicals, and petroleum products, causing economic losses of millions of dollars (Glantz, 1988, p. 243). And years of drought in California have contributed to numerous fires, including the 1991 fire in Oakland that destroyed 3,000 homes, killed 25 people, and caused an estimated $1.5 billion in damages (Smithsonian Institution, 1994, p. 110). If the frequency and severity of droughts increases as a result of global warming, the costs will be much higher. A recent study on the effects of global warming in California suggests that a 30 percent decrease in stream flows could cause direct economic damages amounting to over $225 million per year by the year 2020 (Knox, 1991, p. 82). The impacts of reduced water supplies will go well beyond the dollar costs. Poor countries, in particular, will likely face substantial social and environmental costs as the frequency and severity of droughts increases. In developing countries, severe drought is often accompanied by malnutrition and starvation. For example, the persistent drought of the 1980s in the Sahelian region of Africa caused millions of deaths and brought tens of millions more to the brink of starvation (McMichael, 1993, p. 151). Droughts have also led to considerable civil strife. As precipitation patterns shift due to global warming, and as population growth places additional strains on water resources, the impacts will likely be devastating. Fisheries Impacts: Reduced Food Production, Regional Devastation to Industry and Tourism Global warming is expected to devastate many of the world’s commercial, recreational, and sport fishing industries. Temperature changes, poor water quality, salt water encroachment, and altered stream flows, combined with the existing stresses of overfishing, pollution, and competing uses for water, pose a serious threat to the distribution and composition of fish populations. For example, global warming could result in an estimated 8 percent decrease in fish yields worldwide (Fankhauser, 1995, p. 39). In the U.S., where fishing industries contributed $14 billion to the economy in 1986, this would amount to an annual loss of as much as $1.2 billion. Communities that depend on fisheries for their economic well-being could face significant losses. For example, global warming will likely diminish fish and shellfish populations in Louisiana and throughout the Southeast, placing a major strain on the region’s economy (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 323). Global warming could also have a disastrous effect on recreational fishing. A recent EPA report shows that the availability of various cool and cold water fish species, particularly several species of trout, would be vastly diminished as water temperatures change. According to the study, 8 to 10 states could face a complete loss of cool water fishing in 50 to 60 years, with 11 to 16 additional states experiencing a 50% loss (U.S. EPA, April 1995, p. ix). The associated economic losses are estimated to be as much as $277 million per year by 2100. Beyond the economic loss is the harm that losses in fish populations will place on ecosystems. Each species plays an important role in the workings of our natural environment. The loss of any species will likely change forever the balance of nature. Energy Impacts: Rising Air Conditioning Demand Yielding Increased Pollution, Reduced Hydropower Many areas will face an increased demand for electricity and gasoline as summer temperatures rise and the demand for air conditioning in buildings and automobiles grows. This increase in energy use will result in numerous costs to society, including increased capital and maintenance costs for utilities, higher energy bills for consumers, and environmental costs such as increased air pollution and carbon emissions. The potential economic costs alone are significant. The U.S. EPA estimates that by 2010, a global-warming-induced increase in U.S. electricity demand to run air conditioners in buildings could lead to as much as $7.6 billion per year in additional costs for capital, fuel, operation and maintenance each year, increasing to $42-$92 billion per year by 2055 (EPA, 1989, p. 192). William Nordhaus suggests that the net effect of global warming on energy use will be low given the possibility that some cooler areas in northern regions could experience a decrease in energy consumption in winter months as requirements for space heating diminish (Nordhaus 1991, p. 32-2). There are, however, several reasons to believe that the costs associated with increased air conditioning in the summer will outweigh any possible reduction in the use of energy for heating. First, air conditioning in buildings is fueled by electricity and is usually run at peak hours, while heating in those regions is generally fueled with natural gas and is run at off-peak hours. Since the economic and the environmental costs of electricity are higher than they are for natural gas, the cost of cooling a house one degree is likely to be more than the cost of heating it one degree. Second, many northern communities are not well equipped with the ability to cool buildings. Even if they install air conditioners, they cannot easily change their heat-intolerant infrastructure, nor can they easily acclimate to the disamenities of extreme heat (Kalkstein, September 11-12, 1995). Global warming could also affect the supply of energy in some regions as reductions in river flows due to droughts could restrict the ability of utilities to generate hydropower electricity. This could lead to disruptions in service and higher energy costs, particularly in Western states that rely on hydropower for a significant portion of their electricity. Utilities in these areas may ultimately find themselves on the market for alternative energy resources as a result. Given the potential changes in the supply and demand for energy, utilities will likely need to restructure their capacity and generation requirements. If they do not consider the potential impacts of global warming in their long-term planning process, utilities will face significant planning and economic risks. (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 195). Air Quality Impacts: Increased Air Pollution from Increased Energy Use Our continued reliance on fossil fuels creates a vicious cycle of pollution. As we burn coal and oil in our power plants and factories and gasoline in our cars, we worsen chronic air pollution problems such as acid rain and urban smog — and we cause global warming. In turn, global warming will serve to exacerbate air pollution. A number of studies demonstrate that surface- level ozone concentrations and fine particulate (PM10) pollution will increase with a rise in temperature (Cline, 1992, p. 130; EPA, 1989, p. 205). In addition, higher temperatures accelerate the oxidation rates of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide to sulfuric and nitric acids, the precursors of acid rain (Gery, et al., 1987).7 More air pollution will require increased costs for pollution control. For example, the EPA projects that the aggregate cost to reduce additional volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by the amount necessary to keep ozone standards constant could be as much as $3.5 billion ($1989) each year (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 215). Of course, the direct costs of mitigating pollution reflect only part of the price society must pay for environmental degradation. Air pollution imposes significant costs on society — disease and death; damage to forests, crops, and buildings; and diminished tourism. For example, the effect of ozone pollution on crops alone could result in annual losses of up to $5.8 billion (MacKenzie and Mohamed, p. 300). Air pollution is also responsible for a number of human health problems, including respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia. According to Dr. Joel Schwartz, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, current air pollution concentrations are responsible for 70,000 early deaths per year and over 100,000 excess hospitalizations for heart and lung disease in the U.S. This could increase 10 to 20 percent in the U.S. as a result of global warming, with significantly greater increases in countries that are more polluted to begin with (Schwartz, September 11-12, 1995). By lowering greenhouse gas emissions through a reduction in our use of fossil fuels, we will see twin benefits — less global warming and lower levels of air pollution. Infrastructure Impacts: Huge Costs For Building, Raising or Relocating Dikes, Bridges, Roads, Sewage Systems Global warming will place significant strain on urban infrastructure. Sea level rise, changes in water supply, and increased frequency of storms will require many cities to build or improve dikes and levees, raise roads and bridges, improve drainage systems, invest in additional reservoirs, and improve wastewater treatment facilities. Global warming could require additional urban infrastructure investments in the U.S. of as much as $10.8 billion (Cline, 1992, p. 127). These costs will be required to respond to climate impacts on water supply, sewer, and drainage systems. Coastal cities such as Miami, for example, could face hundreds of millions of dollars to raise roads and bridges, to repair or relocate sewer pipes, to construct levees, and to improve drainage to protect them from the effects of sea level rise (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 241). New York City could face up to $3.7 billion to ensure safe drinking water (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 243). Global warming poses a significant threat to the long term efficacy of infrastructure investments made today. These are investments that must be made now and are predicted to last for 50 to 100 years. Global warming, however, will likely place demands on urban roads, bridges, and other parts of the infrastructure. It is important, therefore, to consider the potential for global warming in water resource planning and other infrastructure investment decisions to avoid climate-change-related regrets — and costs — later (U.S. OTA, p.234).
Scientists have no doubt that if human-induced greenhouse gas emissions continue at the present rate, the buildup of these gases in the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to rise — perhaps by as much as 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the next century — and will create significant changes in the global climate (IPCC, 1995a, p. 5). The impacts of global warming threaten nearly every aspect of society. Many physical effects, such as sea level rise, effects on agriculture and forests, and impacts on human health, will translate into huge economic costs. The loss of life, the extinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems, and numerous other effects will place additional burdens on our — and our children’s — quality of life. We do not have details today of what the localized effects of global warming will be. But scientists predict with certainty that continued emissions of greenhouse gases at current rates will cause significant global warming and subsequent climate change, the effects of which may be catastrophic and irreversible (IPCC, 1995a). Given this risk it is important to buy "insurance" against the potentially insurmountable costs — by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases and halting deforestation. If we do nothing, society will no doubt face serious ecological and economic consequences. No Time To Waste Postponing action until later will only increase the future costs of curbing global warming. Rather than taking decisive action now, however, some industries and governments advocate postponing action until we know more about future climate change. This is misguided. The longer we continue the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, the faster we will have to reduce emissions in the future to stabilize their concentration in the atmosphere at "safe" levels (IPCC, 1995a, p. 2). Such rapid response will likely be more expensive than well planned and executed efficiency measures that we can undertake today. In addition, the continued burning of fossil fuels under business as usual will contribute to acid rain, urban smog, and other environmental and health problems. It is also unlikely that technological advances in 20 to 30 years will spontaneously yield lower-cost options for reducing emissions. Without proactive measures to promote new energy efficiency or renewable energy technologies, their development is not likely to change. Implementing policy measures now to lower greenhouse gas emissions will help create the impetus for industry to make such innovations. Risky Business Given the potential enormity of the impacts of global warming on society, we must act now to curb global warming pollution. In the face of potentially devastating future losses, reducing risk makes economic sense. An individual’s decision to buy insurance exemplifies this risk aversity. Most of us do not think twice about buying fire insurance for our homes even though we are not certain that our houses will burn. Investing in insurance helps us avoid insurmountable costs if extreme events do occur. In 1991, the U.S. alone spent over $300 billion in premiums just for health and property insurance, a clear indication of our desire to invest in security in an uncertain world (SAUS, 1994, Tables 829-30). The rationale behind an individual’s risk averse behavior applies equally to society as a whole. As Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the foremost experts in interdisciplinary climate research, puts it, "... A prudent society hedges against potentially dangerous future outcomes, just as a prudent person installs insulating glass, repairs a roof, waterproofs a cellar, or buys insurance" (VanDeVeer and Pierce, p. 597). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has endorsed this insurance principle with respect to curbing global warming. Article 3 of the Convention calls for Parties to take "precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of global warming and mitigate its adverse effects," stressing that "lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures" (IEA, 1994, p. 195). Curbing Global Warming Makes Economic and Environmental Sense The most effective way to curb global warming is to wean the world from its dependence on fossil fuels — by investing in energy efficiency and by switching to renewable energy sources. Doing so provides insurance against the threat of global warming and generates the added benefits of reducing a broad array of environmental ills, from smog and acid rain to deterioration of the ozone layer. Numerous studies show that the world can significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, at little or no cost — and perhaps even at a net savings once the value of other environmental benefits are factored in (National Academy of Sciences; U.S. OTA, 1991; Lovins and Lovins, 1991; Alliance to Save Energy, et al., 1991). In addition, investments in clean energy can lead to increased jobs and a stronger economy. Recent studies by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and Greenpeace show that every dollar invested in efficiency and renewables creates at least twice as many jobs as the same amount invested in dirty energy (Geller, et al., 1992; Greenpeace, June 1993). And by developing energy efficiency and renewable technologies, U.S. companies can gain a competitive edge in the global market. The U.S. can afford to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions today. Indeed, with the risk of facing catastrophic effects due to global warming, we cannot afford not to.
1) Improve auto efficiency by raising mileage-per-gallon (CAFE) standards for new cars and light trucks. Raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in the U.S. to 45 miles per gallon for cars and 34 miles per gallon for light trucks by 2005 is the biggest single step the U.S. can take to curb global warming and reduce our dependence on oil. Cars and light trucks are responsible for over 20 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions (EIA, 1993, Table 8). If CAFE standards do not increase, and if the current rate of growth of vehicle miles traveled continues, CO2 emissions from the nation’s transportation sector will increase by as much as 40 percent by 2005 (Clark, 1991, p. 42). The key to improving the fuel economy of cars and light trucks is cost effective technology. By simply adding existing technology to their vehicles, automobile manufacturers can slash global warming pollution and save consumers money at the same time. More efficient engines and transmissions deliver the same acceleration as today’s gas guzzlers while saving gas. New materials and technologies are available that can make cars both lighter and stronger, reduce aerodynamic drag, and lower tire rolling resistance, all of which will improve vehicle efficiency without requiring smaller cars (U.S. OTA, October 1991, p.3). Honda proved this point when it produced the Honda Civic VX. The Civic VX performs as well as its twin, the Civic DX, and gets 55% better gas mileage because it incorporates these technologies. The difference in price: $700, which the average driver would recover at the gas pump in one to two years of driving. Further improving CAFE standards will help the economy. By saving 3 million barrels of oil daily, CAFE standards would curb our oil imports and energy costs and would lower our balance of trade deficit (one third of which is attributable to oil imports). A study by ACEEE shows that higher fuel economy will actually create jobs (Geller, 1992). Although some sectors of the economy, such as the oil industry, will experience some job losses, ACEEE estimates the auto industry alone will gain 47,000 new jobs. ACEEE found that money saved at the gas pump would be reinvested throughout the economy, creating a net increase of 244,000 new jobs nationwide. A Sierra Club/U.S. PIRG study (Freeman, et al., June, 1994) concluded that increased CAFE standards would save families as much as $576 per year at the gas pump. 2) Accelerate the rate of energy efficiency gains in industry, residential and commercial buildings through a combination of policy measures, including improving efficiency standards for lighting and appliances; implementing effective market incentives; promoting government investment in research and development programs; and ending fossil fuel subsidies. Energy efficiency improvements in the industrial, residential, and commercial sectors offer an effective and economical near-term strategy for mitigating global warming. Significant improvements in energy efficiency are not only technically feasible, but they make both economic and environmental sense. They slow CO2 buildup and reduce other energy-related pollution. Investments in energy efficiency technologies also provide households and businesses with significant savings by lowering energy costs. And a number of studies show that energy efficiency expenditures will lead to a net increase in employment in the U.S. (Geller, 1992; Krier and Goodman, 1992). In addition to improving efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, government must work to remove market barriers that discourage efficiency investments. In particular, both federal and state governments must work to send the right price signals to consumers by removing subsidies to fossil fuels, charging user fees for pollutants, and supporting tax incentives and other strategies for efficiency development. Government must also promote research and development of efficiency technologies and accelerate capital stock turnover through incentive and investment programs and by providing more information on the benefits of energy efficiency. 3) Accelerate research and development of solar and renewable energy technologies. Harnessing abundant renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power will be critical to curbing global warming in the future. The technological and economic outlook for renewable energy is favorable. For example, the new use of wind for energy, coupled with technological improvements, have brought the cost of wind energy spiraling down by 85% since 1981. Solar power, too, has seen remarkable advances as new photovoltaic cells, which convert more sunlight directly into electricity, are put into use. Continued investment in research and development of renewable energy and strong policy signals supporting their use will provide the world with a sustainable, environmentally sound source of energy in the longer term. 4) End Deforestation, Encourage Afforestation. Forests play a critical role in the natural carbon cycle. As trees grow, they absorb and store CO2 from the atmosphere. The carbon is released when trees die, are harvested, or are destroyed by fire. Curbing deforestation and encouraging replanting would help slow buildup of atmospheric CO2 and provide other environmental benefits, including the protection of watersheds, the provision of habitat for wildlife, and the preservation of areas for recreational use. In addition to reducing the use of fossil fuels, an effective global warming mitigation strategy should include efforts to eliminate the underlying causes of deforestation. For example, efforts to slow population growth and reduce poverty would lessen the pressures to clear forested land for agricultural use and development and to burn wood for fuel. The strategy should also focus on the elimination of perverse government incentives to timber companies, which promote deforestation over other "non-market" uses of forests.
Adams, R. M., B. A. McCarl, D. J. Dudek and J. D. Glyer. 1988. "Implications of Global Climate Change for Western Agriculture." Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 13(2): 348-356. Allen, Scott. March 6, 1995. "Early Warning? Resurgence in Infectious Diseases Linked to Warming Planet, Harvard Scientists Say." The Boston Globe. Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists. 1991. America’s Energy Choices — Investing in a Strong Economy and a Clean Environment. Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists. Ayres, R. U. and J. Walter. 1991. "The Greenhouse Effect: Damages, Costs and Abatement." Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 1., pp. 237-270. Barbier, Edward B. February, 1989. "The Global Greenhouse Effect — Economic Impacts and Policy Considerations." Natural Resources Forum. Bertz, G.A., and Conrad, K. 1993. "Winds of Change." The Review. Boeck, Scott and Elys A. McLean. June 1, 1995. "USA Snapshots — A look at statistics that shape the nation: Costliest hurricanes." USA Today. Booth, William. September 2, 1995. "Tracking a Tempestuous Season — New Head of Hurricane Center Contends With Record Number of Storms." The Washington Post. Brown, Lester and Christopher Flavin. 1988. "The Earth’s Vital Signs." State of the World, 1988. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company. Cairncross, Frances. 1992. Costing the Earth — The Challenge for Governments, The Opportunities for Business. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Clark, Sarah L. 1991. Fight Global Warming — 29 Things You Can Do. New York, N.Y.: Environmental Defense Fund. Cline, William R. 1992. The Economics of Global Warming. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics. Clinton, William J. and Albert Gore, Jr. October, 1993. The Climate Change Action Plan. Washington, D.C. Colburn, Don. July 18, 1995. "When Heat Kills." Washington Post Health. Corson, Walter H., ed. 1990. The Global Ecology Handbook — What You Can Do about the Environmental Crisis. Washington, D.C.: The Global Tomorrow Coalition. Costanza, Robert, ed. 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1995. Environmental Quality 24. Washington, D.C. Dawson, Bill. October 24, 1995. "Warming climate invites dengue fever to Texas." The Houston Chronicle. Houston, Texas. Dixon, John A. and Paul B. Sherman. 1990. Economics of Protected Areas — A New Look at Benefits and Costs. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Dlugolecki, A., D. Clement, C. Elvy, G. Kirby, J. Palutikoff, R. Salthouse, C. Toomer, S. Turner, and D. Witt. 1994. The Impact of Changing Weather Patterns on Property Insurance. Report, Chartered Insurance Institute, London. Dlugolecki, A.F., K.M. Clark, D. McCauley, J.P. Palutikof and W. Yambi. 1995. "Financial Services." IPCC, Second Assessment Report of Working Group II, forthcoming. Easterling, William E., Pierre R. Crosson, Norman J. Rosenberg, Mary S. McKenney, and Kenneth D. Frederick. 1992. "Methodology for Assessing Regional Economic Impacts of and Responses to Climate Change: The MINK Study." Economic Issues in Global Climate Change — Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources. (John M. Reilly and Margot Anderson, eds.) Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Emanuel, Kerry A. April, 1987. "The Dependence of Hurricane Intensity on Climate." Nature 326, no. 2, pp. 483-85. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1993. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 1985-1990. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration. Epstein, Paul R. February 3, 1995. Press Briefing. Washington, D.C. Epstein, Paul R. September 11-12, 1995. Presentation at the "Conference on Human Health and Global Climate Change," sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council and the Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Fankhauser, Samuel. 1995. Valuing Climate Change — The Economics of the Greenhouse. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd. Field, Barry C. 1994. Environmental Economics — An Introduction. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Flavin, Christopher. November-December, 1988. "The Heat is On." World Watch. Washington, D.C.: The Worldwatch Institute. Foster, S. June 1994. "Economic Prospects for a New Antimalarial Drug." Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Freeman, Ted, Mike Friedly, Dan Becker, and Anna Aurilio. June, 1994. Cashing In at the Pump — A State-by-State Analysis of Fuel Cost Savings from Higher Fuel Economy Standards. Washington, D.C.: Sierra Club and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). Geller, Howard, John DeCicco, and Skip Laitner. 1992. Energy Efficiency and Job Creation: The Employment and Income Benefits from Investing in Energy Conserving Technologies. Washington, D.C.: The American Council for An Energy-Efficient Economy. Gery, M. W., R. D. Edmond, and G. Z. Whitten. 1987. Tropospheric Ultraviolet Radiation: Assessment of Existing Data and Effect on Ozone Formation. EPA Report 600/3-87-047. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Global Commons Institute (GCI). October 16, 1995. "A Second Defeat for Economists Over Value of Human Life." Press Release. London. Glantz, Michael H., ed. 1988. Societal Responses to Regional Climate Change: Forecasting by Analogy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Goemans, T. 1986. "The Sea Also Rises. The Ongoing Dialogue of the Dutch with the Sea. In J. G. Titus, ed., Effects of Changes in Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate, vol. 4. Gore, Al. 1992. Earth in the Balance — Ecology and the Human Spirit. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books. Gray, Gary G. 1993. Wildlife and People — The Human Dimensions of Wildlife Ecology. Chicago, Ill.: University of Illinois Press. Greenpeace. June 1993. Energy for Employment — How to Heat Up the Economy, Not the Planet. Washington, D.C. Gubler, D. J. and Trent, D. W. Infectious Agents and Disease 1994. New York, N.Y.: Rowen Press. Haarsma, R.J., J.F.B. Mitchell and C.A. Senior. 1993. "Tropical Disturbances in a GCM." Climate Dynamics, Vol. 8. Hayes, Rich. June, 1994. Draft Report, "An Extension of Cline’s Global Warming Benefit-Cost Model." Berkeley, Calif.: Energy and Resources Group. Houghton, John. 1994. Global Warming — The Complete Briefing. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing. Howard, Ross. August 10, 1995. "Sockeye shortage halts B.C. salmon fishery." The Globe and Mail. Howard, Ross. August 11, 1995. "West Coast sockeye fishery shut down." The Globe and Mail. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995a. IPCC Working Group I 1995 Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995b. Working Group II Second Assessment Report — Summary for Policymakers: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation Options. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995c. Summary for Policymakers: Second Assessment Report, Working Group III. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990a. Climate Change — The IPCC Scientific Assessment: Report Prepared for IPCC by Working Group I. New York, N.Y. World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990b. Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Report Prepared for IPCC by Working Group II. New York, N.Y.: World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990c. Climate Change — The IPCC Response Strategies. New York, N.Y.: World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. International Energy Agency (IEA). 1994. Climate Change Policy Initiatives: 1994 Update. Volume 1, OECD Countries. Paris, France. Kalkstein, Laurence. September 11-12, 1995. Presentation at the "Conference on Human Health and Global Climate Change," sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council and the Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Kane, Sally, John Reilly, and Rhonda Bucklin. 1989. Implications of the Greenhouse Effect for World Agricultural Commodity Markets. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Knox, Joseph B. and Noreen G. Dowling, eds. Global Climate Change and California: Potential Impacts and Responses. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Krier, Betty and Ian Goodman. 1992. Energy Efficiency: Opportunities for Employment. Boston, Mass: The Goodman Group Limited. Leggett, Jeremy. "The Threats of Climate Change: A Dozen Reasons to Fear for the Future." Climate Action Network NGO Conference "Rio is Not Enough," 27th March 1995, Berlin. Leggett, Jeremy. 1993. Climate Change and the Insurance Industry. Solidarity among the Risk Community. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. Leggett, Jeremy, ed. 1990. Global Warming — The Greenpeace Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lovins, Amory B., and L. Hunter Lovins. 1991 "Least-Cost Climatic Stabilization." Old Snowmass, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Institute. Lovins, Amory B., L. Hunter Lovins, Florentin Krause, and Wilfrid Bach. 1989. Least-Cost Energy — Solving the CO2 Problem. Old Snowmass, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Institute. MacKenzie, James J. and Mohamed T. El-Ashry, eds. 1989. Air Pollution’s Toll of Forests and Crops. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Markham, Adam, Nigel Dudley, and Sue Stolton. 1993. Some Like it Hot — Climate Change, Biodiversity and the Survival of Species. Gland, Switzerland: World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF). McMichael, A. J. 1993. Planetary Overload — Global Environmental Change and the Health of the Human Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgenstern, Richard D. May, 1991. "Towards a Comprehensive Approach to Global Climate Change Mitigation." American Economic Review 81, no. 2. Morse, Stephen S. September 11-12, 1995. Presentation at the "Conference on Human Health and Global Climate Change," sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council and the Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Myers, Norman and Jennifer Kent. June, 1995. Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena. Washington, D.C.: The Climate Institute. Naar, Jon and Alex J. Naar. 1993. This Land is Your Land — A Guide to North America’s Endangered Ecosystems. New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial. National Academy of Sciences. 1991. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). August 1994. Testing the Waters IV — The Unsolved Problem of U.S. Beach Pollution. New York, N.Y.: NRDC. Nordhaus, William D. 1994a. Managing the Global Commons — The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Nordhaus, William D. 1994b. "Expert Opinion on Climate Change." American Scientist, Volume 82. Nordhaus, William D. July, 1991. "To Slow Or Not To Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect." The Economic Journal, 101. North American Maple Syrup Council. Personal conversation with Lynn Reynolds. Norton, Bryan G. 1991. Toward Unity among Environmentalists. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. September, 1994. Trends ’93 — A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Pearce, David. 1993. Economic Values and the Natural World. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Pearce, David, Anil Markandya, and Edward B. Barbier. 1991. Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications. Peters, Robert L. and Thomas E. Lovejoy, eds. 1992. Global Warming and Biological Diversity. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Postel, Sandra. 1987. "Stabilizing Chemical Cycles." State of the World, 1987. New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company. Reilly, J. 1995. "Climate Change and Global Agriculture: Recent Findings and Issues." American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Volume 77. Revkin, Andrew. 1992. Global Warming — Understanding the Forecast. New York, N.Y.: American Museum of Natural History and Environmental Defense Fund. Rind, D., R. Goldberg, J. Hansen, C. Rosenzweig, and R. Ruedy. 1990. "Potential Evapotranspiration and the Likelihood of Future Drought." Journal of Geophysical Research 95, no. D7: 9983-10004. Rosenzweig, C. and M. L. Parry. January 13, 1994. "Potential Impact of Climate Change on World Food Supply." Nature 367: 133-8 Schneider, Stephen H. 1989. Global Warming — Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? New York, N.Y.: Vintage Books. Schwartz, Joel. September 11-12, 1995. Presentation at the "Conference on Human Health and Global Climate Change," sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council and the Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Sierra Club. July, 1989. "Global Warming — Climate in Crisis." Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution. 1994. Nature on the Rampage. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. Star-Ledger Wire Services. Wednesday, July 19, 1995. "Heat’s Grim Toll." The Star-Ledger. Stevens, William K. January 14, 1996. "Blame Global Warming for the Blizzard." The New York Times. Stevens, William K. May 23, 1995. "More Extremes Found in Weather Pointing to Greenhouse Gas Effect." The New York Times. Stone, Richard. February 17, 1995. "If the Mercury Soars, So May Health Hazards." Science, Vol. 267. Titus, James G. 1992. "The Costs of Climate Change to the United States." Global Climate Change: Implications, Challenges and Mitigation Measures (S.K Majumdar, L.S. Kalkstein, B. Yarnal, E.W. Miller, and L.M. Rosenfeld, eds.). The Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Tol, R.S.J. 1994. The Damage Costs of Climate Change: Towards More Comprehensive Calculations (revised version), Wording Document W94/?, Free University Amsterdam, forthcoming. Turner, R. Kerry, David Pearce, and Ian Bateman. 1993. Environmental Economics — An Elementary Introduction. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. OTA). 1993. Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. OTA). October 1991. Improving Automobile Fuel Economy — New Standards, New Approaches. Washington, D.C. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. OTA). February 1991. Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994 (SAUS). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April, 1995. Ecological Impacts From Climate Change: An Economic Analysis of Freshwater Recreational Fishing. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 1992. "Energy." Climate Change Discussion Series, 230-F-92- 002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Environmental Investments — The Cost of a Clean Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. The Potential Effects of Climate Change on the United States (Joel B. Smith and Dennis Tirpak, eds.). Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce. United Nations Environment Programme. 1993. The Impact of Climate Change. UNEP/GEMS Environment Library, No. 10. VanDeVeer, Donald and Christine Pierce. 1994. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book — Philosophy, Ecology, Economics. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. The Washington Post. August 24, 1995. "Three New Tropical Storms Whirl ’95 Into Record Book." Washington, D.C. Wolfe, David W. December 4-5, 1995. "Potential Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Supply." Presentation at the Conference on Sustainable Development and Global Climate Change sponsored by the Center for Environmental Information. Arlington, Virginia. World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction (WCNDR). May 1994. Disasters Around the World — A Global and Regional View.Yokohama, Japan. Zabinski, Catherine and Davis, Margaret B. Hard Times Ahead for Great Lakes Forests: A Climate Threshold Model Predicts Responses to CO2-induced Climate Change. Volume D.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and support in developing this report: Project Supervisor Special thanks go to Rich Hayes, Chair of Sierra Club’s CAFE/Global Warming Campaign Steering Committee, for providing excellent technical advice; to Louise Comeau, Director of Sierra Club of Canada’s Energy and Atmosphere Campaign, for her useful suggestions regarding the tone of the report; to Jeff Bocan, David Ellenberger, and Chris Lee, Sierra Club staffers, for their assistance in shepherding this report through its final edits; to Kevin Cook and Jennifer Kurz, Sierra Club interns, for their superior research assistance and editorial comments; and to Dan Kress, my husband, for his invaluable technical — and moral — support through the duration of this Project. The Sierra Club’s Understanding Green Markets Project was made possible by a generous grant from The Joyce Foundation. Any errors in this report are the sole responsibility of the author. Additional Copies of this report are available for $5.00 each
from Sierra Club, 408 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Up to Top |
