Climate Change

From the executive summary: "New observations and new research have increased our understanding of past, current, and future climate change since the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was published in May 2014. This Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is designed to capture that new information and build on the existing body of science in order to summarize the current state of knowledge and provide the scientific foundation for the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4). Since NCA3, stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean. This report concludes that 'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.' The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, the three warmest years on record for the globe, and continued decline in arctic sea ice. These trends are expected to continue in the future over climate (multidecadal) timescales. Significant advances have also been made in our understanding of extreme weather events and how they relate to increasing global temperatures and associated climate changes. Since 1980, the cost of extreme events for the United States has exceeded $1.1 trillion; therefore, better understanding of the frequency and severity of these events in the context of a changing climate is warranted."

"The impacts of climate change-including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise-are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. [...] The Federal Government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience. In doing so, agencies should promote: (1) engaged and strong partnerships and information sharing at all levels of government; (2) risk-informed decision-making and the tools to facilitate it; (3) adaptive learning, in which experiences serve as opportunities to inform and adjust future actions; and (4) preparedness planning." This order was amended on December 16, 2014 by EO 13683, which can be found at the following link: [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29625.pdf].

"The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) fulfills that mandate in two volumes. This report, Volume II, draws on the foundational science described in Volume I, the 'Climate Science Special Report' (CSSR). Volume II focuses on the human welfare, societal, and environmental elements of climate change and variability for 10 regions and 18 national topics, with particular attention paid to observed and projected risks, impacts, consideration of risk reduction, and implications under different mitigation pathways. Where possible, NCA4 Volume II provides examples of actions underway in communities across the United States to reduce the risks associated with climate change, increase resilience, and improve livelihoods. This assessment was written to help inform decision-makers, utility and natural resource managers, public health officials, emergency planners, and other stakeholders by providing a thorough examination of the effects of climate change on the United States."

In the Intelligence Community's (IC) analysis of the possible impacts of climate change on national security over the next 20 years, the IC takes as a scientific baseline the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change. This memorandum does not assess effects on the homeland, nor does it evaluate the science of the IPCC reports. [...] Long-term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These in turn will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years. These effects will be all the more pronounced as people continue to concentrate in climate-vulnerable locations, such as coastal areas, water-stressed regions, and ever-growing cities. [...]Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years through the following pathways: [1] Threats to the stability of countries. [2] Heightened social and political tensions. [3] Adverse effects on food prices and availability. [4] Increased risks to human health. [5] Negative impacts on investments and economic competitiveness. [6] Potential climate discontinuities and secondary surprises.

From the Document: "The effects of climate change are already being felt across the nation. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital. The impacts of extreme weather events -- from more severe droughts and wildfires in the West, to more powerful hurricanes and record heat waves -- are hitting communities across the country. These changes come with far-reaching consequences and real economic costs. […] One year later, the Administration has made real progress in advancing the goals in the President's Climate Action Plan. Already, the Administration has announced new efficiency standards, permitted renewable energy projects on public lands, and proposed carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants. Alongside our State, Tribal, local, and private sector partners, we are taking steps to make our communities more resilient to the effects of severe weather; and we are working with other countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases internationally. […] The Administration has taken decisive new steps under the Climate Action Plan to move to cleaner sources of power and improve energy efficiency across our economy. Already, the policies implemented since the President's Plan was released are expected to cut nearly 3 billion tons of carbon pollution between 2020 and 2025. That is an amount equivalent to taking more than 600 million cars off the road for a year."

"While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged. Through steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our children's health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment. In 2009, President Obama made a pledge that by 2020, America would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels if all other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well. Today, the President remains firmly committed to that goal and to building on the progress of his first term to help put us and the world on a sustainable long-term trajectory. Thanks in part to the Administration's success in doubling America's use of wind, solar, and geothermal energy and in establishing the toughest fuel economy standards in our history, we are creating new jobs, building new industries, and reducing dangerous carbon pollution which contributes to climate change. In fact, last year, carbon emissions from the energy sector fell to the lowest level in two decades. At the same time, while there is more work to do, we are more energy secure than at any time in recent history. In 2012, America's net oil imports fell to the lowest level in 20 years and we have become the world's leading producer of natural gas -- the cleanest-burning fossil fuel."

This is from the July 30, 2009 hearing, "Climate Change and National Security," before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. From Barbara Boxer's opening statement: "In 2003, the Defense Department commissioned a study that found the U.S. '… will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, with large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruptions and conflict will be endemic features of life.' A 2007 report conducted by Center for Naval Analyses found the United States could more frequently be drawn into situations of conflict 'to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists.' And just last September, the NATO Secretary General said that global warming will '...sharpen the competition over resources, notably water; it will increase the risks to coastal regions; it will provoke disputes over territory and farming land; it will spur migration; and it will make fragile states even more fragile.' […] The steps we take to address global warming, including incentives for the development of clean energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and algae fuel, and developing a fleet of electric and other highly efficient vehicles, will help lessen our dependence on foreign oil." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Warner, Dennis McGinn, Jonathan Powers, and David B. Rivkin.

This testimony compilation is from the July 29, 2014 hearing on 'Examining the Threats Posed by Climate Change' before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Taken from the statement of Carl Hedde, "One significant component of our business is providing catastrophe risk insurance to our clients. Due to our history of insuring natural catastrophes (Nat Cats), Munich Re was one of the first companies in the industry to recognize the impact that weather-related events and a changing climate could have on its business model and customers. To address this, the company formed a GEO Risks research unit 40 years ago. The department's goal is to assess scientific research around weather and geophysical events, contribute to scientific discussions with our own research, and feed scientific findings into our business model, where applicable. The GEO Risks group also studies the impact of catastrophic events through a thorough analysis of historical loss patterns. This work helps us to better understand and incorporate this knowledge into our underwriting decisions. The insurance industry relies heavily on historical loss information to make business decisions. However, the use of historical data assumes that the risk we see today is the same as it was in the past. This is not always the case. If a clear, verifiable trend is identified in relation to a certain risk, the trend must be taken into account in the models for them to yield meaningful risk estimates. One area where we do see an upward trend is in regard to losses from weather catastrophes, which, over time, have increased in both frequency and severity. In the U.S., socioeconomic changes have played a substantial role in this increase, but do not explain the entirety of the changes. It is likely that changes in climate, whether from natural variability or due to man's influence, are also playing a role in these trends." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Carl G. Hedde, Kirstin Jacobs, Bill Mook, Bjorn Lomborg and Raymond J. Keating.

"Climate change will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security. The Department is responding to climate change in two ways: adaptation, or efforts to plan for the changes that are occurring or expected to occur; and mitigation, or efforts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (Roadmap ) focuses on the Department's climate change adaptation activities. The Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) articulates the Department's sustainability vision to maintain our ability to operate into the future without decline in the mission or the supporting natural and man‐made systems. The actions set forth in this Roadmap will increase the Department's resilience to the impacts of climate change, which is a key part of fulfilling this vision ."

"In accordance with the direction in Executive Order 13653, this issuance establishes policy and assigns responsibilities to provide the DoD with the resources necessary to assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of climate change. This involves deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the DoD to: [1] Facilitate federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and nonprofit sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience, and to implement the 2014 DoD Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. [2] Help safeguard U.S. economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources. [3] Provide for the continuity of DoD operations, services, and programs."

"Changes in climate patterns and their impact on the physical environment can create profound effects on populations in parts of the world and present new challenges to global security and stability. Failure to anticipate and mitigate these changes increases the threat of more failed states with the instabilities and potential for conflict inherent in such failures. Because of the increasing importance of climate change on US security, the Defense Science Board was charged with examining the need to adapt, manage, and mitigate the consequences of climate change. This report begins with an overview of the impacts of climate change over recent decades while recognizing uncertainty about the pace of future changes. It examines the political consequences of climate change as it relates to national and international security, with special attention to the African continent due to the vulnerability of African nations with high potential to intersect with United States national interests. Within this context, the study examined the roles of the Department of Defense and the national security community writ large in responding to effects of climate change in both the United States and in key areas of the globe."

"The National Climate Assessment assesses the science of climate change and its impacts across the United States, now and throughout this century. It documents climate change related impacts and responses for various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and private decision-making at all levels. A team of more than 300 experts (see page 98), guided by a 60-member National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (listed on page vi) produced the full report -- the largest and most diverse team to produce a U.S. climate assessment. Stakeholders involved in the development of the assessment included decision-makers from the public and private sectors, resource and environmental managers, researchers, representatives from businesses and non-governmental organizations, and the general public. More than 70 workshops and listening sessions were held, and thousands of public and expert comments on the draft report provided additional input to the process. The assessment draws from a large body of scientific peer-reviewed research, technical input reports, and other publicly available sources; all sources meet the standards of the Information Quality Act. The report was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, the 13 Federal agencies of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Federal Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability."

"Climate change threatens human health and well-being in the United States. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Climate and Health Assessment has been developed to enhance understanding and inform decisions about this growing threat. This scientific assessment, called for under the President's Climate Action Plan, is a major report of the sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) process. The report responds to the 1990 Congressional mandate to assist the Nation in understanding, assessing, predicting, and responding to human-induced and natural processes of global change. The agencies of the USGCRP identified human health impacts as a high-priority topic for scientific assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based, and, where possible, quantitative estimation of observed and projected climate change related health impacts in the United States. The USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment has been developed to inform public health officials, urban and disaster response planners, decision makers, and other stakeholders within and outside of government who are interested in better understanding the risks climate change presents to human health."

"This report assesses the science of climate change and its impacts across the United States, now and throughout this century. It integrates findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) with the results of research and observations from across the U.S. and around the world, including reports from the U.S. National Research Council. This report documents climate change related impacts and responses for various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and private decision-making at all levels."

"The concerns over climate change, often termed 'global warming,' have emerged both in the United States and internationally as major policy issues. Reports in 2007 of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided additional scientific underpinnings for these concerns, and the number of proposals and international meetings devoted to these issues has grown significantly during this year, as discussed in this report. The first treaty to address climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was completed and opened for signature in 1992. The resulting Kyoto Protocol, which was completed in 1997 and entered into force in February 2005, committed industrialized nations that ratify it to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of the six major greenhouse gases. The United States has not ratified the Protocol, and thus is not bound by its provisions. In March 2001, the Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and subsequently announced a U.S. policy for climate change that relies on voluntary actions to reduce the 'greenhouse gas intensity' (ratio of emissions to economic output) of the U.S. economy by 18% over the next 10 years. As of November 2007, the UNFCCC Secretariat listed 174 nations and the European Union as parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Annual meetings of the parties continue, and attention at the meeting in Bali, Indonesia, December 3-14, 2007, will focus on finding agreement on a framework for negotiating a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. Major challenges include finding agreement on the nature of commitments, if any, that would prove acceptable to all major players: current parties, developing countries that are major emitters, and the United States."

"As a participant in several international agreements on climate change, the United States has joined with other nations to express concern about climate change. However, at the national level the United States has not yet developed a comprehensive climate change policy. In the absence of a comprehensive policy direction, technological advances are creating alternatives to the traditional approaches to climate change (mitigation and adaptation). If deployed, these new technologies could modify the Earth's climate on a large scale. Moreover, these new technologies may become available to foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use unilaterally--without authorization from the United States government or an international treaty. The term 'geoengineering' describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth's energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods."

This is the official website of the United States Global Change Research Program. "The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. […] Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP, which was known as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program from 2002 through 2008. The program is steered by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research under the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, overseen by the Executive Office of the President, and facilitated by an Integration and Coordination Office. During the past two decades, the United States, through the USGCRP, has made the world's largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research. Since its inception, the USGCRP has supported research and observational activities in collaboration with several other national and international science programs."

"This report surveys 'existing' law for legal issues that have arisen, or may arise in the future, on account of climate change and government responses thereto. At the threshold of many climate-change-related lawsuits are two barriers--whether the plaintiff has standing to sue and whether the claim being made presents a political question. Both barriers have forced courts to apply amorphous standards in a new and complex context. Efforts to mitigate climate change--that is, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions--have spawned a host of legal issues. The Supreme Court resolved a big one in 2007--the Clean Air Act (CAA), it said, does authorize EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to regulate GHG emissions. Quite recently, a host of issues raised by EPA's efforts to carry out that authority were resolved in the agency's favor by the D.C. Circuit. Another issue is whether EPA's 'endangerment finding' for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles will compel EPA to move against GHG emissions under other CAA authorities. Still other mitigation issues are (1) the role of the Endangered Species Act in addressing climate change; (2) how climate change must be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act; (3) liability and other questions raised by carbon capture and sequestration; (4) constitutional constraints on land use regulation and state actions against climate change; and (5) whether the public trust doctrine applies to the atmosphere."

"On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court rendered one of its most important environmental decisions of all time. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court held that greenhouse gases (GHGs), widely viewed as contributing to climate change, constitute 'air pollutants' as that phrase is used in the Clean Air Act (CAA). As a result, said the Court, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had improperly denied a petition seeking CAA regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles by saying the agency lacked authority over such emissions. This report presents a chronology of major federal agency actions, mainly by EPA, in the wake of Massachusetts v. EPA. Most of the listed actions trace directly or indirectly back to the decision-- EPA's 'endangerment finding' for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, the agency's standards for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, its interpretation of the phrase 'pollutants subject to regulation' (the CAA trigger for requiring 'best available control technology' for such pollutants in 'prevention of significant deterioration' areas), guidance for determining best available control technology for GHG emissions, the 'tailoring rule' (limiting the stationary sources that initially will have to install best available control technology and obtain CAA Title V permits based on GHG emissions), and recently announced settlements of litigation seeking to compel EPA to promulgate new source performance standards (NSPSs) for GHG emissions from electric generating units (power plants) and petroleum refineries. A few agency actions were included solely because of their relevance to climate change and their post-Massachusetts occurrence--for example, EPA's responses to California's request for a waiver of CAA preemption allowing that state to set its own limits for GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, and EPA's monitoring rule for GHG emissions."

From the Document: "Congressional inaction on climate change has led various entities to pursue climate change measures off Capitol Hill. Either in hopes of realizing substantive measures or to pressure Congress to act, such entities have looked to international forums, treaty negotiations, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action under the Clean Air Act, state and regional efforts, and-the topic here-common law suits, principally seeking to establish climate change impacts as a nuisance. Many argue that courts will (and should) be unreceptive to dealing with a global problem such as climate change through individual common law suits. [...] As well, nuisance law offers no clear standards to apply, asking courts, for example, to weigh vague policy factors. This is a recipe, it is argued, for inconsistent and confusing results from different courts. Questions of causation are also substantial: even if the court accepts that man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to climate change, how can a plaintiff show that a particular adverse impact was caused by climate change, and further was caused by the GHG emissions of the defendants? And should the defendants' contribution to worldwide GHG emissions be viewed as de minimis--too small for a court to bother with? Questions of remedy are likely to be particularly intractable: what amount of emission reduction, or monetary compensation, should be required of a defendant given the likely miniscule fraction of worldwide GHG emissions contributed by that defendant? Finally, the law affords courts several easy ways of blocking nuisance-based climate change litigation, discussed in Part II, should courts decide it is inappropriate. At a minimum, no one argues that piecemeal litigation is preferable to a coherent legislative scheme."