December 10, 2008

Climate Change and Population Growth:

Impacts and an Urgent Call for Action

by Paul Severance

   The global problems of climate change, population growth and environmental degradation are confronting us as individuals, as nations, as the international community, with a choice that has never confronted humanity before:

1. (1)To act with great urgency to address looming global problems that are difficult to understand and fraught with uncertainties;  that are subtle in terms of impacts we can see; that are long-term rather than immediate; that will require major shifts in many of our economic and social systems and our individual lifestyles (and therefore generate opposition from powerful interests); and that will require an unprecedented level of international cooperation.
   

or

2. (2) To continue with business-as-usual, or take half measures. 
   

    While predictions about causes, effects and impacts are imprecise at best (we are in uncharted territory here), it appears that comprehensive and top priority action on an international level in the near future has the potential for substantial mitigation of climate change.

    The consequences of  the second choice are the risks of greater damage throughout the world than our inaction has already guaranteed in the relative short-term (20 - 40 years) and likely catastrophic damage in the second half of the 21st century, the 22nd century and beyond.

    When the world faced the possible cataclysm of Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan conquering much or all of the globe, there was a massive mobilization and redirection of resources to meet the threat.  Individual commitment to the cause and willingness to sacrifice was vast; national commitment on the part of the allied nations was complete; and international cooperation was at the highest level.

    Now we face the test of whether we can respond with equal commitment to another threat of great magnitude, but one which is a lot more subtle in it’s approach.  It could be our final exam.

    In this paper, I hope to describe some of the evidence of these problems,  point to anticipated impacts, and discuss in a rather broad way the kind of solutions we need to create. 

    The bottom line is responsibility.  We, especially in America and the West (with more of the rest of the world joining us), have become very short-term, materialistic, and self-centered societies.  As individuals, we tend to be consumption-oriented.  As nations, economic growth tends to be our highest value - and most of our policies focus on the next quarter or the next election cycle.  But the problem of a rapidly warming Earth is a long-term problem, and requires long-term planning and commitments.  This problem is our responsibility - we are creating it.  Sadly, the effects will be felt most deeply by others:  in the short term, persons in other parts of the world who will be most affected by the pollution we create; and in the longer term, future generations who will suffer the consequences of what we do and fail to do.

    A word about my primary sources:  There is a good deal of guesswork in all the discussion of global warming.  There have been scientists raising alarms about this for the past 20 years -most notably in the U.S. NASA scientist James Hansen. Other scientists (often with financial backing from the oil companies) have dismissed much of this as wild speculation.  These days there is a huge stream of analysis and advocacy on the topic of climate change.  New environmental groups continue to be born to join the long-established groups who are raising the alarm.  And there are those who dismiss these groups as wild-eyed, tree-hugging lefties.  I have decided for the purposes of this paper to rely on very conservative sources - which is not a problem, as they are plenty scary enough.

1. • The Garnaut Climate Change Report was developed for the government of Australia, and published in November, 2008. 
   

2. •The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Synthesis Report is a consensus document, reflecting only what a large number of scientists and governments around the world could all agree on, and therefore by nature is very conservative.  And its findings are substantially more dire than the IPCC third report in 2001.
   

3. •Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World is a report published in November, 2008 by the Bush Administration’s National Intelligence Council.
   

4. •The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change is a 2006 document that was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain.
   

5. •Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge is report prepared by the Population Information Program of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in the year 2000.
   

    All of these reports were produced as the result of long processes involving many scientists and economists in developing and reviewing the data.  They display a clear pattern in that the more recently published they are, the more dire their predictions are.  This reflects, I believe, the growth in scientific knowledge and consensus with the passage of time.  Generally, these predictions have been found to be overly conservative:  for instance, the melting of the Greenland ice cap has been happening considerably faster than predicted by earlier analyses.

    I chose to rely heavily on these documents because I believe their sources have great credibility.  No one would call any of these wild-eyed, tree-hugging lefties.   

    At the same time, everyone in the field of climate research acknowledges that there are unknowns and uncertainties.  About the thrust of these reports, however, there is broad agreement.  The Garnaut Report (2008) says (p. xvii) that while there are “large uncertainties” in the science and that climate scientists have differing views on many details -

“There is no doubt about the position of most reputed specialists in climate

science, in Australia and abroad, on the risks of climate change (Chapter 2). There

is no doubt about the position of the leaders of the relevant science academies in

all of the major countries.1 The outsider to climate science has no rational choice

but to accept that, on a balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right in

pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate change.”

    This assessment of the consensus in the scientific community matches up with everything I have found in my research.

Global Warming

    It is absolutely clear that the Earth’s temperatures are rising.  Eleven of the past twelve years have seen recorded temperatures that are among the hottest twelve years since 1850 when global temperature  recording began. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007).  The IPCC also says that temperatures in the Northern hemisphere 1950 -1999 were likely the highest 50 year temperatures in the past 1300 years. (2008).  Temperature changes in much of the Northern hemisphere between 1970 and 2004 have averaged between 1 and 2 ℃. (IPCC 2007).  That trend will continue.  For the foreseeable future the issue of how much higher temperatures will rise, with what effects, will be up to us all worldwide.

    It is also clear why temperatures are rising.  Every single one of my reference materials points to one cause: the increase in human-generated greenhouse gases.   Yes, global temperatures have gone up and down throughout the history of the Earth.  And those changes happen in geologic time: in the last three million years, cycles of glacials and interglacials have involved fluctuations in 40,000 - 100,000 year time scales. (Wikipedia).  The rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution is happening    on a totally different time scale, and is being caused by rapid build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to emissions resulting from human activities, especially use of fossil fuels.  There have always been emissions of greenhouse gases due to other sources, but it is the rapid increase in the level of emissions that is causing the rapid warming we are experiencing.

    When emissions of GHGs from all sources exceed the Earth’s capacity to disperse these gases from the atmosphere, the concentrations in the atmosphere grow.  “Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004.” (IPCC, 2007, p. 36). 

    “The current current concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. (Stern, 2006).  The higher the concentration of these gases which serve to hold in heat, the higher the Earth’s temperatures become.   The IPCC states unequivocally “The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 (another greenhouse gas) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.  Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use . . .” (2007, p. 37).

    Despite all of the reports referenced in this paper and earlier reports, and despite worldwide concern over global warming, the rate of GHG emissions is continuing to grow.  To stabilize (never mind reducing) concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would have to be reduced to the level at which GHGs are dispersed by the Earth’s natural processes.  And that “is more than 80% below the absolute level of current annual emissions.” (Stern, 2006).

    So the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are growing and will continue to grow until huge changes in emissions are accomplished.  Which means that temperatures will continue to rise.  What will that mean for humanity?

    I will first discuss the general effects and impacts that scientists agree global warming will have.   Those include:

1. •Melting of polar ice caps
   

2. •Warming of the oceans
   

3. •Sea level rise
   

4. •Flooding of coastal and low-lying land
   

5. •Melting glaciers
   

6. •Diminution of fresh water supplies
   

7. •Acidification of the ocean
   

8. •Disappearing coral reefs and the sea life that depends on them and the food chain above.
   

9. •Changes in agriculture, very likely with a net loss of productive agricultural land.
   

10. •Climate change migration (due to loss of land to sea water, and to regional loss of agricultural production).
    

11. •Greater problems with disease.
    

12. •Increase in damaging weather events.
    

13. •Significant species extinctions - with effects on the rest of the environment those species are a part of; and effects on humans, such as availability of food and the loss of potentially valuable medicines.
    

    The extent of each of these impacts obviously depends on how much global warming happens.  And we are truly moving into uncharted territory, where predictions are very uncertain.  There is lots of sophisticated computer-modeling going on in the scientific community which can tell us a lot, but the variables are immense, and so much is unknown.  I will touch on a few of the predictions contained in my reference materials and other reading I have done.

    On the basis of current trends, “average global temperatures will rise of 2 - 3℃ within the next fifty years or so.”  (Stern, p. 6).  Global warming in this range will have impacts such as:

1. •The melting of glaciers will both create flooding and significantly reduce water supplies, “eventually threatening one-sixth of the world’s population . . .” (Stern, p. 6)
   

2. •Hundreds of millions of people could be left with inadequate food due to decreasing crop yields due to drought and desertification.
   

3. •Rising sea levels and floods will threaten millions of people.  “According to one estimate, by the middle of the (current) century, 200 million people may become permanently displaced . . .” (Stern, p. 6)
   

4. •Major disease threats.  Warming creates movement of disease-causing organisms.  As they move into new areas, they interact with populations who have little or no immunity.  On top of that, spreading malnutrition due to crop failures will make millions of people more vulnerable to disease.  The IPCC report (2007) cites the potential emergence of a global pandemic with a possible result that “ tens to hundreds of millions of Americans within the US Homeland would become ill and deaths would mount into the tens of millions.  Outside the US, critical infrastructure degradation and economic loss on a global scale would result as approximately a third of the worldwide population became ill and hundreds of millions died.” (p. 75).
   

5. •Scientists project that warming will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in many parts of the world affecting millions of people. (IPCC, 2007).
   

6. •Large scale migrations, both internal and international, that are likely to result from many of the above impacts, will themselves have significant impacts including disease transmission, food shortages, and human conflict.
   

    Positive feedback loops could accelerate and intensify global warming and its impacts.  An example is that as ice disappears from polar regions, heat from the sun which is reflected away from the Earth by the ice will instead be absorbed by the land and the ocean - raising temperatures further and causing further expansion of the sea.

    The National Intelligence Council report (2007) provided some possible scenarios to illustrate the risks we are facing, even in the near term.  One of those is presented in the form of an imaginary Presidential  diary entry dated October 1, 2020.  It describes an evacuation of New York City due to the combination of higher sea level and a hurricane. (With global warming, hurricanes have moved North and intensified).  Here a few quotes from this scenario:

1. •“But we were warned that we needed to decentralize our energy generation and improve the robustness of our infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events.  Tragically, we did not heed this advice.”
   

2. •“We all have been focused on boosting or maintaining greater economic growth. . . But we have not prepared sufficiently for the toll that irresponsible growth is having on the environment.
   

3. •And the concluding sentence: “The cumulation of disasters, needed cleanups, permafrost melting, lower agricultural yields, growing health problems, and the like are taking a terrible toll, much greater than we anticipated 20 years ago.”
   

(IPCC, 2007, p. 58-59)

    Depending on actions taken by individuals, nations, and the international community in the next decade and beyond, global warming could exceed 3℃, which would magnify all of the impacts discussed above.  And another risk must be considered:  If the world proceeds with business-as-usual and then faces declining fossil fuel energy resources plus the impacts on food, water and other resources we have been discussing, the risk of international conflict over diminishing resources would be great.  The National Intelligence Council (2008) says (p. 63):

“ Perceptions of energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their

future access to energy supplies.  In the worst case, this could lead to interstate

conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources to be

essential to maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.”

And in a world with proliferating weapons of mass destruction . . . .

    If emissions continue to grow, some scenarios project a global temperature rise exceeding 5 ℃ by the end of the 21st century.  This would take humanity into totally unknown territory.   Sea level rise could reach 7 meters when the Antarctic ice mass melts.    “Such changes would transform the physical geography of the world.  A radical change in the physical geography of the world must have  powerful implications for the human geography - where people live, and how they live their lives.”  (Stern, 2008, p. 4)  Or, as the Population Information Program [PIP] at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health asks (2000): “Can we assume that life on earth as we know it can continue no matter what the environmental conditions?  Or are we setting the stage for an eventual sixth extinction - our own?” (p. 45).

The Impact of Population Growth

    Between 1700 and 2000, the world’s population grew tenfold.  That population growth obviously has been a major factor in the amount of fossil fuel we have burned, and therefore in the emissions that have caused the build-up of GHG in the atmosphere. 

    Population is now projected to grow by nearly 2 ½ billion by the middle of this century.  Most of that growth will occur in areas of the world which will be most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming we have been discussing, especially diminished food supplies and scarcity of fresh water.  These  2 ½  billion people will also require energy consumption to keep them warm, cook their food, produce goods and services for them, etc.  The PIP report (2000) quotes Richard E. Benedick, former US assistant secretary of state, as saying “ There is no question that improving standards of living for the current poor of the world, plus providing for the billions still to come, will increase global demand for food, water, energy, wood, housing, sanitation, and disposal of wastes.”  So projected population growth will exacerbate virtually all of the impacts of global warming.  

Uncertainty

    As I have mentioned a number of times in this paper, there are lots of uncertainties about details of climate science, especially when it comes to making predictions.  Until now, these uncertainties have been used to argue against any kind of serious action to address the problem in the U.S.  And those arguments have worked.  For example, only recently, after many years of discussion, has the U.S. Congress raised the CAFE requirements for new automobile mileage.  And those requirements are so weak that U.S. automobiles won’t have to achieve mileage standards until 2020 that the European Union, Japan and China have in place right now.

    But, as the Stern report (2008) argues, “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenarios.” (p. 17).  If we wait for certainty before we take high priority action, we risk condemning future generations to catastrophe they will be able to do nothing to stop. 

    It is important to remember that it will take years to have an impact on the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.  Once we decide to reduce emissions to the point that we are not increasing those concentrations, it will take years to reach that goal because, as I outlined above, that would require cutting emissions by 80% - obviously a very challenging goal to meet, and one which would take many years to accomplish.  And reaching that goal would only stabilize the concentrations in the atmosphere - and therefore would only stop the increase in global warming, not reduce temperatures.  It is for this reason that scientists are saying that there is nothing we can do that would mitigate global warming and its effects in the first half of this century.  The Stern report (2008) puts it this way:  “The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times.  What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years.” (p. 1)

    But it is extremely urgent that we act now: “On the other hand, what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.” (Stern, 2008, p. 1).   

What Can We Do?

    The bottom line, of course, is that we must make the first of the choices that I outlined at the beginning of this paper.  Despite the uncertainties; despite the subtle nature of the threats; despite the fact that these are long term, not immediate, threats; despite the fact that an effective response will require very major changes in the way we function; despite the voices which will urge us to go slow, to not upset the industrial apple cart; despite the difficulties and the sacrifices we in the West will need to make to generate worldwide cooperation:  Despite all of that, we must act as if the future well-being of humanity - maybe even it’s survival - depends on us.  Because it does.

    The specific actions that will be required include:

1. •There must be stringent and decreasing caps on carbon emissions worldwide that are enforced - most likely through a cap and trade system.
   

2. •There must be massive investment in clean energy technology.
   

3. •There must be massive investment in energy efficiency.  That includes especially energy efficient transportation, and energy efficient buildings.
   

4. •As nuclear energy will likely be needed to meet the world’s energy needs in a low-carbon energy world, there must be massive investment to find workable answers to the safety / disposal of nuclear waste.  The dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation utilizing nuclear waste in the short term, and the burdens on future generations of highly toxic material that lasts for centuries are huge problems. 
   

5. •There must be massive investment in measures to adapt to the climate change that is already inevitable in the next few decades.  The imaginary New York scenario in the NIC report (2008) may happen unless preparations are made that do not resemble preparations for Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.  And such scenarios may happen in many coastal areas around the world.
   

6. •Deforestation must be halted.  This will require finding (and funding) incentives that  will lead those nations which have rainforests (and did not substantially contribute to the GHGs which are at the heart of the problem) to find it within their self-interest and within their capability to stop deforestation.
   

7. •Population growth must be substantially reduced in order to help those nations deal with the shortages of fresh water and food they will be facing as a result of global warming.  This will be a challenge because the international community cannot force this to happen.  We must provide effective assistance to those nations, and can be very difficult, especially when we don’t understand the cultures involved.
   

8. •It would be valuable to effectively promote a more vegetarian diet worldwide.  Raising grain to feed animals is a terribly inefficient way to produce food.  It takes 15 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound of meat.  A vegetarian diet results in a lot more food and better health.  Further, the meat industry is a large producer of methane, a GHG, and other pollutants.
   

    Garnaut (2008) argues persuasively that the only real hope for effectively addressing the potentially catastrophic impacts of global warming is a worldwide commitment, with methods of assuring compliance, to meeting a goal to achieve and maintain a specific atmospheric concentration of GHGs.  Anything more vague will lead to backsliding and failure. 

“ . . each country benefits from a national point of view if it does less of the

mitigation itself, and others do more.  If all countries act on this basis, without

forethought, communication, and cooperation, there will be no resolution of the

dilemna.  Future generations will judge the outcome to have been insufficient and unsatisfactory.” (Garnaut, 2008, page xviii).

    Garnaut (2008) argues for setting the goal at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at 450 ppm with some room for overshooting, to keep global warming and its impacts within an acceptable range.  That admittedly will be a very difficult target.  And every year that goes by without a global action plan in place and working puts that target more and more out of reach.

    The international climate conference to be held in Copenhagen, which is scheduled to run from November 30 through December 11, 2009, will be absolutely critical.  It is the last international meeting on this topic scheduled before the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012,  The hope for future generations is that in 2012 a new treaty with a specific target and  enforceable commitments will be adopted by all the nations in the world - or at least all the nations who are responsible for any significant levels of GHG emissions.

Leadership by the United States is Essential

    The Kyoto Protocol was undermined by:

1. •Developing nations’ unwillingness to hinder their development just as it is really getting going - given that Western industrial nations had caused most of the global warming while accomplishing their own economic development.
   

2. •The United States’ unwillingness to sign any agreement without the participation of the developing nations.
   

    This dynamic must change at Copenhagen.  I would argue that the primary responsibility lies with the United States.  The U.S. has been by far the largest source of the 70% increase in global GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004. 

    The kind of international agreement and cooperation that is needed will be very unlikely unless a plan is developed that is seen as fair - especially by the developing nations.  The Garnaut report argues that Australia (which like the U.S. is a developed nation with high per capita GHG emissions) must be willing to accept the principle that developing countries must be allowed a catch-up time of higher emissions on the way to a system that provides for equal per capita emissions:

“It is unlikely that any allocation of a global trajectory for emissions entitlements

will be seen as being fair if it is not based on the idea that, sooner or later, there will

be equal per capita rights to use the atmosphere’s limited capacity to absorb more

greenhouse gases. To be seen as being practical, it will need to allow some time

to move from the currently highly unequal assumption of emissions rights across

countries, to equal per capita rights. The basis thought to be most likely to be

successful is what has become known as ‘contraction and convergence’, modified

to allow faster growth in emissions from fast-growing developing countries for a

transition period.” (Garnaut, 2008, p. xxiv).

    If there is to be a hope for a solution - which will require a massive, cooperative international effort - the United States must move from being a hold-out (as with Kyoto) to being a leader.  Adoption of a policy like that proposed in the Garnaut (2008) report would be a start. 

    The Iroquois Confederation in North America have lived by this principle in their Great Law: "In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation...”  The welfare of the seventh generation from now depends on the world’s superpower, the United States, adopting that principle NOW (well, OK, after January 20th).  The Garnaut report (2008) calls on Australia to be willing to make a unilateral commitment to a major reduction of GHG emissions in the absense of a near-term international agreement.  The idea is that nations must be willing to commit to sacrifice and  to step into leadership while there is still a chance.  While the commitment of individual nations will not be enough, that may be an essential first step.  And the impact of that step depends on the power of the nation taking it.  I desperately hope for the sake of my grandchildren’s grandchildren that the United States will step into leadership.

Individual Action Is Vital

    Finally, we must make a difference as individuals.  Some argue that individual actions, eg. recycling, are simply feel-good measures with no chance of making enough of a difference to matter.  In one sense, this is valid.  A solution does require urgent action at the national and international levels, and in the absence of that, the actions of individual environmentalists will make little difference.

    However, until we as individuals care enough for future generations to live responsibly, we are unlikely to demand responsibility from our leaders.  And until we do both, there is little chance of the kind of national and international policies that will make a difference.

Reference List

Garnaut, Ross. (2008) Garnaut climate change report - introduction and synopsis of key points.  Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved December 7, 2008 from http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/GarnautClimateChangeReview-FinalReport-IntroductionandSynopsisofKeyPoints/$File/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Introduction%20and%20Synopsis%20of%20Key%20Points.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2007).  Climate change 2007: Synthesis report.  Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

National Intelligence Council [NIC]. (2008). Global trends 2025: A transformed world. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf

Population Information Program [PIP], Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. (2000). Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge.  Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m15/m15print.shtml

Stern, Sir N. (2006). The Stern review: The economics of climate change, executive summary.  Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf

Business and Environmental Leaders Release

Landmark Blueprint for Climate Protection Legislation

Broad and Diverse Coalition Presents Consensus Approach on Major Climate Initiatives

Washington, D.C. (January 15, 2009)

    The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) today unveiled a comprehensive and detailed set of integrated policy recommendations for developinglegislation that would create an environmentally effective and economically sustainable nationalclimate protection program.

   

    The landmark document – titled A Blueprint for Legislative Action – echoes the sense of

urgency that President-elect Obama has articulated regarding the need for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

    

    Developed through two years of intensive analysis and consensus-building among 26

corporations and five environmental organizations, the Blueprint offers policymakers a clear

path forward endorsed by a coalition representing a broad swath of the economy and diverse

environmental interests.

   

    "In the past, the U.S. has proven that we have the will, the capabilities and the courage to invest

in innovation – even in difficult times," said Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of GE. "Today, cap-and-

trade legislation is a crucial component in fueling the bold clean energy investments necessary to catapult the US again to preeminence in global energy and environmental policy,strengthen the country's international competitiveness, and create millions of rewarding new American jobs."

   

    USCAP believes that strong climate legislation is a critical element of any effort to stimulate

investment and innovation in low-carbon technologies. The Blueprint provides specific

guidelines for the Administration and Congress to enact legislation that both protects the

environment and facilitates the necessary transition to a vibrant, low-carbon economy. That

includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent of 2005 levels by 2050 through an

economy-wide cap-and-trade program.

   

    “The health of our economy and the safety of our climate are inextricably linked, except nature

doesn’t do bail-outs,” noted Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute.

“USCAP has redefined what is possible. If the diverse membership of USCAP can find common

ground, Congress can agree on effective legislation.”

   

    USCAP noted that every year of delay in controlling emissions increases the risk of unavoidable

consequences that could necessitate even steeper greenhouse gas reductions in the future, at

substantially greater economic cost and social disruption.

   

    The Blueprint details steps for creating a mandatory, economy-wide cap-and-trade program,

coupled with cost containment measures and complementary policies addressing a federal

technology research development and deployment program, coal technology, transportation,

and building and energy efficiency.

   

    Expanding significantly on USCAP’s 2007 groundbreaking Call for Action, the Blueprint includes

an aggressive emission reduction schedule, further details on the scope of coverage for the

cap-and-trade program, and recommendations for how to include as much of the U.S. economy

under the cap as administratively and politically feasible.

   

    Highlights from the Blueprint include:

• Requiring an 80 percent emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2050: National

climate legislation should include aggressive emission reduction targets that can be

achieved at manageable costs to the economy. The targets and timetables in the

Blueprint are consistent with the schedule proposed by President-elect Obama.

• Allowing the ample use of offsets to manage program costs: Offsets should be used

to help meet compliance obligations and should be environmentally additional, verifiable,

permanent, measurable, and enforceable. Other cost containment measures to limit

price spikes and volatility are detailed in the Blueprint.

• Using the value of emissions allowances to protect consumers and businesses

while advancing climate program goals: USCAP believes the distribution of

allowance value should facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy for consumers

and businesses, provide capital to support new low- and zero-GHG-emitting

technologies, and address the need for humans and the environment to adapt to climate

change. A significant portion of allowances should be initially distributed to capped

entities and particularly disadvantaged economic sectors. The Blueprint identifies

principles to guide the fair and equitable allocation of allowance value to mitigate costs

to consumers and impacted sectors of the economy.

• Creating incentives for technology development and deployment: In addition to

outlining the design and function of a cap-and-trade system, the Blueprint details

complementary measures for coal, technology transformation, transportation, and

buildings and energy efficiency that are needed to facilitate rapid technology

transformation and to ensure that actual reductions in emissions occur across the

economy. These measures are presented as necessary components of the cap-andtrade

recommendations.

    A summary overview of the Blueprint for Legislative Action as well as the full text of USCAP’s

recommendations are available online at www.us-cap.org.

###

United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations

that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require

significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

USCAP Members:

������ Alcoa ● AIG ● Boston Scientific ● BP America ● Caterpillar ● Chrysler ● ConocoPhillips ● John Deere ● Dow ●

Duke Energy ● DuPont ● Environmental Defense Fund ● Exelon ● Ford ● FPL Group ● GE ● GM ● Johnson &

Johnson ● Marsh ● Natural Resources Defense Council ● The Nature Conservancy ● NRG Energy ● PepsiCo ●

Pew Center On Global Climate Change ● PG&E ● PNM Resources ● Rio Tinto ● Shell ● Siemens ● World

Resources Institute ● Xerox ●