Global Warming

New Articles on Global Warming

United Eco-action Fund has compiled the following from identified sources in order to provide information to its site visitors about Global Warming.

Remarks by the President on Global Warming and Climate Change
THE WHITE HOUSE, Office of the Press Secretary, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., October 22, 1997

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Vice President, to all of you who are here. I thank especially the members of Congress who are here, the leaders of labor and business who are here, all the members of the administration, and especially the White House staff members that the Vice President mentioned and the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the EPA, and the others who have helped us to come to this moment. On the way in here we were met by the leaders of the National Geographic, and I complimented them on their recent two-part series on the Roman Empire. It's a fascinating story of how the Empire rose, how it sustained itself for hundreds of years, why it fell, and speculations on what, if any, relevance it might have to the United States and, indeed, the West. And one of the gentlemen said, well, you know, we got a lot of interesting comments on that, including a letter referencing a statue we had of the bust of Emperor Vespasian. And one of our readers said, why in the world did you put a statue of Gene Hackman in a piece on the Roman Empire? (Laughter.) And I say that basically to say, in some senses, the more things change, the more they remain the same. (Laughter.) For what sustains any civilization, and now what will sustain all of our civilizations, is the constant effort at renewal, the ability to avoid denial and to proceed into the future in a way that is realistic and humane, but resolute.

Six years ago tomorrow, not long after I started running for President, I went back to my alma mater at Georgetown and began a series of three speeches outlining my vision for America in the 21st century -- how we could keep the American Dream alive for all of our people, how we could maintain America's leadership for peace and freedom and prosperity, and how we could come together across the lines that divide us as one America. And together, we've made a lot of progress in the last nearly five years now that the Vice President and I have been privileged to work at this task. At the threshold of a new century, our economy is thriving, our social fabric is mending, we've helped to lead the world toward greater peace and cooperation. I think this has happened, in no small measure, in part because we had a different philosophy about the role of government. Today, it is smaller and more focused and more oriented toward giving people the tools and the conditions they need to solve their own problems and toward working in partnership with our citizens. More important, I believe it's happened because we made tough choices but not false choices. On the economy, we made the choice to balance the budget and to invest in our people and our future. On crime, we made the choice to be tough and smart about prevention and changing the conditions in which crime occurs. On welfare, we made the choice to require work, but also to support the children of people who have been on welfare. On families, we made the choice to help parents find more and better jobs and to have the necessary time and resources for their children. And on the environment, we made the choice to clean our air, water, and land, to improve our food supply, and to grow the economy. This kind of common sense approach, rooted in our most basic values and our enduring optimism about the capacity of free people to meet the challenges of every age must be brought to bear on the work that remains to pave the way for our people and for the world toward a new century and a new millennium.

Today we have a clear responsibility and a golden opportunity to conquer one of the most important challenges of the 21st century -- the challenge of climate change -- with an environmentally sound and economically strong strategy, to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases in the United States and throughout the industrialized and the developing world. It is a strategy that, if properly implemented, will create a wealth of new opportunities for entrepreneurs at home, uphold our leadership abroad, and harness the power of free markets to free our planet from an unacceptable risk; a strategy as consistent with our commitment to reject false choices. America can stand up for our national interest and stand up for the common interest of the international community. America can build on prosperity today and ensure a healthy planet for our children tomorrow. In so many ways the problem of climate change reflects the new realities of the new century. Many previous threats could be met within our own borders, but global warming requires an international solution. Many previous threats came from single enemies, but global warming derives from millions of sources. Many previous threats posed clear and present danger; global warming is far more subtle, warning us not with roaring tanks or burning rivers but with invisible gases, slow changes in our surroundings, increasingly severe climatic disruptions that, thank God, have not yet hit home for most Americans. But make no mistake, the problem is real. And if we do not change our course now, the consequences sooner or later will be destructive for America and for the world.

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists have concluded that if the countries of the world do not work together to cut the emission of greenhouse gases, then temperatures will rise and will disrupt the climate. In fact, most scientists say the process has already begun. Disruptive weather events are increasing. Disease-bearing insects are moving to areas that used to be too cold for them. Average temperatures are rising. Glacial formations are receding. Scientists don't yet know what the precise consequences will be. But we do know enough now to know that the Industrial Age has dramatically increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, where they take a century or more to dissipate; and that the process must be slowed, then stopped, then reduced if we want to continue our economic progress and preserve the quality of life in the United States and throughout our planet. We know what we have to do. Greenhouse gas emissions are caused mostly by the inefficient burning of coal or oil for energy. Roughly a third of these emissions come from industry, a third from transportation, a third from residential and commercial buildings. In each case, the conversion of fuel to energy use is extremely inefficient and could be made much cleaner with existing technologies or those already on the horizon, in ways that will not weaken the economy but in fact will add to our strength in new businesses and new jobs. If we do this properly, we will not jeopardize our prosperity -- we will increase it.

With that principle in mind, I'm announcing the instruction I'm giving to our negotiators as they pursue a realistic and effective international climate change treaty. And I'm announcing a far-reaching proposal that provides flexible market-based and cost-effective ways to achieve meaningful reductions here in America. I want to emphasize that we cannot wait until the treaty is negotiated and ratified to act. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's people, enjoys 22 percent of the world's wealth, but emits more than 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. We must begin now to take out our insurance policy on the future. In the international climate negotiations, the United States will pursue a comprehensive framework that includes three elements, which, taken together, will enable us to build a strong and robust global agreement.

First, the United States proposes at Kyoto that we commit to the binding and realistic target of returning to emissions of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. And we should not stop there. We should commit to reduce emissions below 1990 levels in the five-year period thereafter, and we must work toward further reductions in the years ahead. The industrialized nations tried to reduce emissions to 1990 levels once before with a voluntary approach, but regrettably, most of us -- including especially the United States -- fell short. We must find new resolve to achieve these reductions, and to do that we simply must commit to binding limits.

Second, we will embrace flexible mechanisms for meeting these limits. We propose an innovative, joint implementation system that allows a firm in one country to invest in a project that reduces emissions in another country and receive credit for those reductions at home. And we propose an international system of emissions trading. These innovations will cut worldwide pollution, keep costs low, and help developing countries protect their environment, too, without sacrificing their economic growth.

Third, both industrialized and developing countries must participate in meeting the challenge of climate change. The industrialized world must lead, but developing countries also must be engaged. The United States will not assume binding obligations unless key developing nations meaningfully participate in this effort. As President Carlos Menem stated forcefully last week when I visited him in Argentina, a global problem such as climate change requires a global answer. If the entire industrialized world reduces emissions over the next several decades, but emissions from the developing world continue to grow at their current pace, concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will continue to climb. Developing countries have an opportunity to chart a different energy future consistent with their growth potential and their legitimate economic aspirations. What Argentina, with dramatic projected economic growth, recognizes is true for other countries as well: We can and we must work together on this problem in a way that benefits us all. Here at home, we must move forward by unleashing the full power of free markets and technological innovations to meet the challenge of climate change.

I propose a sweeping plan to provide incentives and lift road blocks to help our companies and our citizens find new and creative ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

First, we must enact tax cuts and make research and development investments worth up to $5 billion over the next five years -- targeted incentives to encourage energy efficiency and the use of cleaner energy sources.

Second, we must urge companies to take early actions to reduce emissions by ensuring that they receive appropriate credit for showing the way.

Third, we must create a market system for reducing emissions wherever they can be achieved most inexpensively, here or abroad; a system that will draw on our successful experience with acid rain permit trading.

Fourth, we must reinvent how the federal government, the nation's largest energy consumer, buys and uses energy. Through new technology, renewable energy resources, innovative partnerships with private firms and assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from major federal projects, the federal government will play an important role in helping our nation to meet its goal. Today, as a down payment on our million solar roof initiative, I commit the federal government to have 20,000 systems on federal buildings by 2010.

Fifth, we must unleash competition in the electricity industry, to remove outdated regulations and save Americans billions of dollars. We must do it in a way that leads to even greater progress in cleaning our air and delivers a significant down payment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, two-thirds of the energy used to provide electricity is squandered in waste heat. We can do much, much better.

Sixth, we must continue to encourage key industry sectors to prepare their own greenhouse gas reduction plans. And we must, along with state and local government, remove the barriers to the most energy efficient usage possible. There are ways the federal government can help industry to achieve meaningful reductions voluntarily, and we will redouble our efforts to do so.

This plan is sensible and sound. Since it's a long-term problem requiring a long-term solution, it will be phased in over time. But we want to get moving now. We will start with our package of strong market incentives, tax cuts, and cooperative efforts with industry. We want to stimulate early action and encourage leadership. And as we reduce our emissions over the next decade with these efforts, we will perform regular reviews to see what works best for the environment, the economy, and our national security. After we have accumulated a decade of experience, a decade of data, a decade of technological innovation, we will launch a broad emissions trading initiative to ensure that we hit our binding targets. At that time, if there are dislocations caused by the changing patterns of energy use in America, we have a moral obligation to respond to those to help the workers and the enterprises affected -- no less than we do today by any change in our economy which affects people through no fault of their own. This plan plays to our strengths -- innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship. Our companies already are showing the way by developing tremendous environmental technologies and implementing common sense conservation solutions. Just yesterday, Secretary Pena announced a dramatic breakthrough in fuel cell technology, funded by the Department of Energy research -- a breakthrough that will clear the way toward developing cars that are twice as efficient as today's models and reduce pollution by 90 percent. The breakthrough was made possible by our path-breaking partnership with the auto industry to create a new generation of vehicles. A different design, producing similar results, has been developed by a project funded by the Defense Advanced Research Products Agency and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Science and Technology. The Energy Department discovery is amazing in what it does. Today, gasoline is used very inefficiently in internal combustion engines -- about 80 percent of its energy capacity is lost. The DOE project announced yesterday by A.D. Little and Company uses 84 percent of the gasoline directly going into the fuel cell. That's increased efficiency of more than four times traditional engine usage. And I might add, from the point of view of all the people that are involved in the present system, continuing to use gasoline means that you don't have to change any of the distribution systems that are out there. It's a very important, but by no means the only, discovery that's been made that points the way toward the future we have to embrace. I also want to emphasize, however, that most of the technologies available for meeting this goal through market mechanisms are already out there -- we simply have to take advantage of them. For example, in the town of West Branch, Iowa, a science teacher named Hector Ibarra challenged his 6th graders to apply their classroom experiments to making their school more energy efficient. The class got a $14,000 loan from a local bank and put in place easily available solutions. The students cut the energy use in their school by 70 percent. Their savings were so impressive that the bank decided to upgrade its own energy efficiency. (Laughter.) Following the lead of these 6th graders -- (laughter) -- other major companies in America have shown similar results. You have only to look at the proven results achieved by companies like Southwire, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kraft, Interface Carpetmakers, and any number of others in every sector of our economy to see what can be done. Our industries have produced a large group of efficient new refrigerators, computers, washer/dryers, and other appliances that use far less energy, save money, and cut pollution. The revolution in lighting alone is truly amazing. One compact fluorescent lamp, used by one person over its lifetime, can save nearly a ton of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, and save the consumer money. If over the next 15 years everyone were to buy only those energy-efficient products marked in stores with EPA's distinctive "Energy Star" label, we could shrink our energy bills by a total of about $100 billion over the next 15 years and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite these win-win innovations and commitments that are emerging literally every day, I know full well that some will criticize our targets and timetables as too ambitious. And, of course, others will say we haven't gone far enough. But before the debate begins in earnest, let's remember that over the past generation, we've produced tremendous environmental progress, including in the area of energy efficiency, at far less expense than anyone could have imagined. And in the process, whole new industries have been built. In the past three decades, while our economy has grown, we have raised, not lowered, the standards for the water our children drink. While our factories have been expanding, we have required them to clean up their toxic waste. While we've had record numbers of new homes, our refrigerators save more energy and more money for our consumers. In 1970, when smog was choking our cities, the federal government proposed new standards for tailpipe emissions. Many environmental leaders claim the standards would do little to head off catastrophe. Industry experts predicted the cost of compliance would devastate the industry. It turned out both sides were wrong. Both underestimated the ingenuity of the American people. Auto makers comply with today's much stricter emissions standards for far less than half the cost predicted, and new cars emit on average only 5 percent of the pollutants of the cars built in 1970. We've seen this pattern over and over and over again. We saw it when we joined together in the '70s to restrict the use of the carcinogen, vinyl chloride. Some in the plastics industry predicted massive bankruptcies, but chemists discovered more cost-effective substitutes and the industries thrived. We saw this when we phased out lead and gasoline. And we see it in our acid rain trading program -- now 40 percent ahead of schedule -- at costs less than 50 percent of even the most optimistic cost projections. We see it as the chlorofluorocarbons are being taken out of the atmosphere at virtually no cost in ways that apparently are beginning finally to show some thickening of the ozone layer again. The lesson here is simple: Environmental initiatives, if sensibly designed, flexibly implemented, cost less than expected and provide unforeseen economic opportunities. So while we recognize that the challenge we take on today is larger than any environmental mission we have accepted in the past, climate change can bring us together around what America does best -- we innovate, we compete, we find solutions to problems, and we do it in a way that promotes entrepreneurship and strengthens the American economy. If we do it right, protecting the climate will yield not costs, but profits; not burdens, but benefits; not sacrifice, but a higher standard of living. There is a huge body of business evidence now showing that energy savings give better service at lower cost with higher profit. We have to tear down barriers to successful markets and we have to create incentives to enter them. I call on American business to lead the way, but I call upon government at every level -- federal, state, and local -- to give business the tools they need to get the job done, and also to set an example in all our operations. And let us remember that the challenge we face today is not simply about targets and timetables. It's about our most fundamental values and our deepest obligations.

Later today, I'm going to have the honor of meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians -- a man who has always stressed the deep obligations inherent in God's gift to the natural world. He reminds us that the first part of the word "ecology" derives from the Greek word for house. In his words, in order to change the behavior toward the house we all share, we must rediscover spiritual linkages that may have been lost and reassert human values. Of course, he is right. It is our solemn obligation to move forward with courage and foresight to pass our home on to our children and future generations. I hope you believe with me that this is just another challenge in America's long history, one that we can meet in the way we have met all past challenges. I hope that you believe with me that the evidence is clear that we can do it in a way that grows the economy, not with denial, but with a firm and glad embrace of yet another challenge of renewal. We should be glad that we are alive today to embrace this challenge, and we should do it secure in the knowledge that our children and grandchildren will thank us for the endeavor. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

"Global Warming Has Begun," say Scientists

The world's preeminent atmospheric scientists have now declared that global warming has begun and pollution from our cars, trucks, factories and power plants is a cause of it. The announcement came in a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the end of 1995. The IPCC is appointed by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization and consists of over 1500 leading climatologists and scientists from around the world.

This report confirms earlier warnings that global warming poses an unprecedented threat to our environment and our economy. The scientists predict that emissions from the use of fossil fuels will continue to amplify the greenhouse effect and precipitate a rise of 2 to 6 Fahrenheit in the Earth's average temperature in the next century. For comparison, today's average global temperature is only 5 to 9 Fahrenheit warmer than 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age. In this last century the Earth's average recorded temperature has risen by 1 Fahrenheit already. Never before has the Earth's climate changed so rapidly.

IPCC scientists warn that climbing temperatures and climatic instability will trigger (and may have already begun to cause) harm to the global environment. Climate change can cause a spread in the ranges of tropical diseases, perilous sea level rise, intensified storms, mass extinction of plant and animal species, and crop failures in many vulnerable regions.

NASA scientists have announced that 1995 was the hottest year on record. The year saw killer heat waves from Chicago to Moscow to parts of India, a record number of tropical storms in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and resurgent tropical diseases, like dengue fever. Dengue fever, a painful life-threatening disease endemic to tropical regions, broke out on the Texas border in the fall of 1995. 1996 began with devastating snow storms and floods along the East Coast, a major heat wave on the West Coast and aberrant weather patterns in the Heartland of the United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists report that these weather extremes, even the snow storms, are consistent with what global climate change is likely to bring.

The cause of global warming is the excessive buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere; primary among these is carbon dioxide. Today our atmosphere contains 28% more carbon dioxide than it did 100 years ago, and that percentage is rising drastically. Greenhouse pollution results from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas) in our cars, trucks, homes, and factories, and by the destruction of forests.

We must act now to curb global warming.

For more information contact:
Global Warming Team, (202) 547-1141
Dan Becker, Ann Mesnikoff, Ellen McBarnette

Excerpts from Statements on Climate Change by Foreign Leaders at Earth Summit, June 5, 1997

RYUTARO HASHIMOTO, PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN (June 23, 1997)

Immediately before coming here, I renewed my determination, together with the other leaders at the Summit of the Eight held in Denver, to preserve the global environment. I would like to stress two points: our responsibility to future generations, and global human security. Bearing these points in mind, it is necessary that each of us develop a strong consciousness and shoulder our responsibilities. We must change our lifestyles. Moreover, it is necessary to develop innovative environmental technologies and to promote their transfer to developing countries in order to foster sustainable development.

In light of the need today for a global effort to tackle environmental issues, the United Nations is assuming ever greater importance. Let us renew our pledge to cooperate with the United Nations.

Mr. President, Among our many environmental problems, global climate change stands out as a serious issue that directly affects not only the lives of people today but also the future existence of the human race. The Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be convened in our ancient capital of Kyoto in December. We must spare no effort to ensure a successful conclusion of the Conference. At the Denver Summit, the eight countries agreed that they intend to commit to meaningful, realistic and equitable targets that will result in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010. This is a message addressed to this special session as well. Let us also at this special session demonstrate, as the general will of the United Nations, our firm commitment to the success of the Kyoto Conference. I assure you that Japan is resolved to do its utmost in this regard, and I sincerely appeal to all the countries gathered here to extend their cooperation to the Kyoto Conference.

It goes without saying that we must strive, also from a medium- and long-term perspective, to solve the issue of global climate change. For example, if we want to stabilize the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a level about twice as high as it was before the Industrial Revolution, it will be necessary to reduce global per capita carbon dioxide emissions to one ton by the year 2100. This is a great challenge that cannot be met with the existing technology. And it will be necessary for the whole world to unite in order to achieve this objective. For this purpose, and to accelerate, with international cooperation, efforts to prevent global warming, I would like to propose an initiative, to be called the Comprehensive Strategy for the Prevention of Global Warming, or Green Initiative.

It will consist of two pillars: Green Technology and Green Aid. Under Green Technology, we would promote the efforts of developed countries in the development and dissemination of energy conservation technologies; the introduction of non-fossil energy sources such as photovoltaic power generation; the development of innovative energy and environmental technologies; and worldwide deforestation and preservation of forests. Under Green Aid, we would utilize ODA and private financial resources to cope with the issues of energy and global warming and promote cooperation with developing countries through the development of human resources.

I appeal to like-minded countries for their participation and cooperation ...

On the issue of global warming: Japan will promote transfer to developing countries of technologies related to the conservation of energy and new energy sources, including transfers under the scheme of Green Aid, to which I referred a moment ago.

Global Remedy for the Environment and Energy use: GREEN Initiative (Summary)

The GREEN Initiative is an action program to mitigate climate change concerns. Assuming that the concentration of C02 is to be stabilized at the level that is twice as high as the level before the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that the average level of C02 emission per capita in developed countries should be reduced from 3.5 carbon tons in 1990 to approximately 1.0 carbon tons by the year 2100. Therefore, under this initiative, Japan invites other developed countries to develop and diffuse "Green Technologies" and disseminate technologies to developing countries by "Green Aid."

Green Technology:
a) Development and diffusion of energy saving technologies
- Highly efficient energy saving technologies in industrial sector
- Energy saving consumer appliances and energy efficiency standards
b) Introduction of non-fossil fuel energy
- Very low cost solar energy
-Utra-low-emission-vehicles and those using electricity, etc.
-R&D for super high efficiency solar cells
-R&D on technologies for effective use of bio-energy
c) Promotion of global forestation and forest conservation
-R&D on plants with substantial durability for severe conditions such as the desert and combat desertification
-Enhanced activities of public sector and private business sector in global forestation.
d) Development of innovative energy and environment technologies
-C02 sequestration- (into ocean and aquifer) technologies
-Chemical and biological C02 fixation and utilization technologies

Green Aid:
a) ODA and private-based cooperation
-Utilized in the field of energy and environment
b) Human resources development
-Accelerated technical cooperation on measures to prevent climate change
c) Enabling environment
-Assistance to improve capabilities from social, economic and systemic perspectives
d) Information exchange
-Inventory of energy saving technologies that are applicable in developing countries

Implementation of the Green Initiative:
The Green Initiative will be implemented through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, through international organizations, including the International Energy Agency(IEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) and through a possibly UN organization.

Private sector is expected to play an important role in implementing the GREEN Initiative.

WIM KOK, PRIME MINISTER, NETHERLANDS, ON BEHALF OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (June 23, 1997)

The environment is a priority issue worldwide, both in public life and in the private sector. We have to salute the NGO's and other major groups in civil society for their essential contribution to the process of awareness raising. In a lot of countries and regions concrete activities have been undertaken in various sectors of the environmental realm, leading to investments amounting to billions of dollars.

However, a fair judgment of the present situation obliges us to be extremely attentive on environmental issues. We are in danger of passing thresholds beyond which serious damage will occur, some of it irreversible. And even if part of the damage would be reparable, it would be against an unnecessarily, or even unaffordable, high price. To safeguard future generations from this danger and burden it is our duty to act now.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Climate change is a global problem. The industrialized world should take the lead in reducing its emissions of greenhouse gasses. The developed countries should conclude a legally binding commitment in Kyoto. The European Union has agreed to a phased reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gasses of 15% below the 1990 level by the year 2010. Mandatory and recommended policies and measures, including harmonized ones, must ensure that this target is achieved.

HELMUT KOHL, CHANCELLOR, GERMANY (June 23, 1997)

The 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development showed the way towards a 21st-century global environment partnership. Since then much has been achieved, but unfortunately it is also true that the main trends of global pollution have still not been reserved. The crucial question is: How can we permanently safeguard the natural basis of life for a growing world population?

Here in New York, five years after Rio, we must set the course towards substantial progress. I see the following principal areas of action as both the necessity and the opportunity to take a major step forward:

First, the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Convention, held in Berlin in April 1995, laid the foundation for a global climate protection agreement. This Special Session of the General Assembly should ask the Conference to be staged in Kyoto at the end of this year to come up with an international agreement to markedly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. The industrial countries should adopt the agreed position of the European Union to cut the levels of the main greenhouse gases by 15 % by the year 2010.

Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption, June 1997

We are scientists who are familiar with the causes and effects of climatic change as summarized recently by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We endorse those reports and observe that the further accumulation of greenhouse gases commits the earth irreversibly to further global climatic change and consequent ecological, economic and social disruption. The risks associated with such changes justify preventive action through reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. In ratifying the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States agreed in principle to reduce its emissions. It is time for the United States, as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to fulfill this commitment and demonstrate leadership in a global effort.

Human-induced global climatic change is under way. The IPCC concluded that global mean surface air temperature has increased by between about 0.5 and 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years and anticipates a further continuing rise of 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century. Sea-level has risen on average 4-10 inches during the past 100 years and is expected to rise another 6 inches to 3 feet by 2100. Global warming from the increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere causes an amplified hydrological cycle resulting in increased precipitation and flooding in some regions and more severe aridity in other areas. The IPCC concluded that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." The warming is expected to expand the geographical ranges of malaria and dengue fever and to open large new areas to other human diseases and plant and animal pests. Effects of the disruption of climate are sufficiently complicated that it is appropriate to assume there will be effects not now anticipated.

Our familiarity with the scale, severity, and costs to human welfare of the disruptions that the climatic changes threaten leads us to introduce this note of urgency and to call for early domestic action to reduce U.S. emissions via the most cost-effective means. We encourage other nations to join in similar actions with the purpose of producing a substantial and progressive global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beginning immediately. We call attention to the fact that there are financial as well as environmental advantages to reducing emissions. More than 2000 economists recently observed that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which total benefits outweigh the total costs.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified by the United States and more than 165 other nations, calls for stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at levels that will protect human interests and nature. The Parties to the Convention will meet in December, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan to prepare a protocol implementing the convention. We urge that the United States enter that meeting with a clear national plan to limit emissions, and a recommendation as to how the U.S. will assist other nations in significant steps toward achieving the joint purpose of stabilization.

INITIAL SIGNATORIES: F. Sherwood Rowland, Peter H. Raven, John P. Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, Harold A. Mooney, George M. Woodwell

Dr. George M. Woodwell, Founder and Director of Woods Hole Research Center. Former President the Ecological Society of America, Dr. Woodwell is the recipient of the 1996 Heinz Environmental Award, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. John P. Holdren , Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government; He is a member of the NAS, and received one of the first MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowships in 1981.

Dr. William H. Schlesinger, James B. Duke Professor of Botany at Duke University. He is an expert on the global carbon cycle and the author of the widely adopted textbook, Biogeochemistry, An Analysis of Global Change (Academic Press-Second Edition, 1997).

Other initial signatories include: Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Ecology Professor at Oregon State University, Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Harold Mooney, Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology, Stanford University. Secretary-General of the International Council of Scientific Unions. Dr. Peter Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and the Home Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, Professor of Chemistry at the University of California at Irvine. Recipient - 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Economists' Letter on Global Warming

Endorsed by Over 2000 Economists including six Nobel Laureates

[Editor's Note: The following statement was sent to members of the American Economic Association on 3 January 1997 along with a letter signed by economists Kenneth J. Arrow (Stanford University, Stanford, California), Dale W. Jorgenson (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Paul R. Krugman (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts), William D. Nordhaus (Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut) and Robert M. Solow (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts). It is presented here in its original form, with only the format altered for presentation on the World Wide Web]

I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." As economists we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified.

II. Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards and these measures may in fact improve U.S productivity in the longer run.

III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required -- such as an international emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes.

[Editor's Note: The following letter was sent along with the Economists' Statement on Climate Change to members of the American Economic Association on 3 January 1997. It is signed by economists Kenneth J. Arrow (Stanford University, Stanford, California), Dale W. Jorgenson (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Paul R. Krugman (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts), William D. Nordhaus (Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut) and Robert M. Solow (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts).

January 3rd, 1997

Dear Colleague

As you may know, representatives of the world's nations will convene in Kyoto in December, 1997 to negotiate an international agreement addressing the threat of global climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. This presents a significant opportunity for the United States to exercise a leadership role in ensuring our long-term well-being. Conversely, a failure on the part of the US government to put forward a well-reasoned position would be a major environmental, economic, and diplomatic setback.

As the climate debate unfolds, it is imperative that public policy be guided by sound economics rather than misleading claims put forward by special interest groups. For this reason, we invite you to join us in endorsing the attached non-partisan consensus statement on the economics of climate change.

Once this statement has been signed by a large number of economists, it will be widely disseminated to leaders in the public and private sectors, and to the general media. This effort is being coordinated by Redefining Progress a non partisan, non-profit public policy organization.

Attached please find an endorsement form for your consideration. This letter and endorsement form are being sent to the membership of the American Economic Association. Please feel free to circulate it to your colleagues in case they are not on the AEA mailing list.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Kenneth J. Arrow, Dale W. Jorgenson, William D. Nordhaus, Paul R. Krugman, Robert M. Solow.

Ecologists' Statement on the Consequences of Climatic Change

Letter to President Clinton, dated 21 May 1997

[Editor's Note: The following statement was sent to President Clinton and members of his administration on 21 May 1997. It is signed by 21 scientists, including 7 members of the National Academy of Sciences, and 5 Past Presidents of the Ecological Society of America. It is presented here in its original form, with only minor changes made for presentation on the World Wide Web]

May 21, 1997
President Bill Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Clinton:

Climate change driven by emissions of greenhouse gases is projected to occur at a very rapid rate, significantly faster, on a sustained global basis, than rates of climatic change during the past 10,000 years (1). Rapid climate change coupled with pollution, habitat fragmentation and habitat loss may lead to the decline and disappearance of many plant and animal communities that might otherwise survive a future climate that is relatively stable but warmer.

We believe that this situation constitutes a dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, one that may not "allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change" as is called for in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). Accordingly, we believe that the prudent course would be to limit climate change to the lowest rates feasible given emissions that have already occurred. These correspond to global rates of warming of no more than 1 degree C per century.

Much of the current debate over limiting global climate change has focused on targets for stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations many decades in the future. However from an ecological standpoint, it is the rapid rate as well as the total magnitude of climate change projected to occur that is pertinent to the future well-being of plant and animal communities and to the continuous availability of goods and services they provide to our society.

Global mean temperature could increase by as much as 1-3.5 degrees C (2-6 degrees F), over the next 100 years. At higher latitudes, which include large portions of the United States, temperature increases could be much greater.

Rapid climate change is more dangerous to plant and animal communities than gradual climate change even if the total amount of change that eventually occurs is exactly the same.

During rapid climate change, disturbances like fires, floods, erosion, droughts, storms, pests and pathogen outbreaks may increase with adverse effects on ecosystem functions as important as water supply, soil fertility and carbon sequestration. After disturbance, aggressive, 'weedy' species, including exotics that out-compete native vegetation, may come to dominate these areas. In some US temperate forests, rapid climate change could lead to widespread tree mortality, wildfires and replacement of the forests by grasslands. Species that are long-lived, rare, or endangered will be severely disadvantaged.

In an increasingly developed world, there are fewer and fewer areas available in which native trees and plants can grow. Cities, highways, agricultural fields and other human activities limit available habitat and create barriers to the migration of plants and animals. In fact, many natural areas now can be considered 'islands' in a sea of developed land. Protected areas like national parks and forests were established with current climates in mind. Rapid climate shifts may reduce appropriate native habitats within protected areas while development outside the boundaries of the protected areas would make much of the neighboring new habitat unavailable and limit corridors for species to migrate to suitable new habitats. It would be difficult to imagine, for example, how the imperiled species of Everglades National Park, such as the Cape Sable Sparrow and American Crocodile, could migrate north into the urban and agricultural landscapes of coastal and central Florida and successfully re-establish themselves. Overall, climate change, in combination with existing anthropogenic habitat disruption and loss, could lead to steep declines in worldwide biodiversity. Furthermore, conditions for plant and animal communities are considerably less hospitable now than prior to the industrial revolution. In many cases, plant and animal populations are less healthy and ecosystems less resilient to further disturbance due to environmental stress from human-made pollutants and habitat degradation. These stresses may reduce significantly an individual's or ecosystem's ability to cope successfully with climate change.

Climate change may also result in rapid sea level rise. Rapid sea level rise causes beach erosion and threatens coastal marshes and mangrove forests. While many of these coastal natural areas have kept pace with historic rates of sea level rise, faster rates may lead to inundation of marshes and mangroves more rapidly than new wetlands can form. Onshore human development will further hamper new establishment of coastal natural areas. Loss of habitat for a substantial number of species of birds, fish, shellfish, microorganisms and animals could result. Marshes and mangroves also protect shorelines from storms and high tides and act as filters for pollutants such as sewage and other effluents. Their loss would lead to increased erosion and degradation of onshore human development.

It is difficult to quantify precisely the response of a particular species or group of species to climate change. Because there are only sparse records of this type of rapid climate change available, we have little to guide our estimations. Scientists do know the following. Climate determines the distributions of many species. Significant climate change has in the past and will in the future require many species to shift their ranges. Species vary in their ability and opportunities to adapt or migrate.

The rate of projected change is enough to threaten seriously the survival of many species. Pollution and human alteration of the landscape have reduced considerably the ability of plant and animal communities to adjust to rapid climate change. Ecosystems will experience a rate of sustained climate change that is unusually rapid and, for many areas, unprecedented during the past 10,000 years. The more rapid that rate, the more vulnerable to damage ecosystems will be.

We are performing a global experiment on our natural ecosystems for which we have little information to guide us. While plant and animal communities may be able to eventually adapt to a stable climate system that is warmer than the existing one, many species may not be able to survive a rapid transition to that new climate. The prudent course would be to limit climate change to the lowest rates feasible given current atmospheric accumulations of greenhouse gases. These correspond to global rates of warming of no more than 1 degree C per century.

Footnote (1): Climate Change 1995 - Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Editors R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss. Cambridge University Press, p. 21.

International Physicians' Letter on Global Climate Change & Human Health, June 23, 1997

Heads of State and Delegates to the United Nations General Assembly:

We are writing to you as physicians and health professionals concerned about the potentially devastating and possibly irreversible effects of climate change on human health and the environment. We urge you to take prompt and effective actions -- both domestically and internationally -- to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

There is mounting evidence that climate change, of the scale currently projected, would have pervasive adverse impacts on human health and result in significant loss of life. Potential impacts include increased mortality and illness due to heat stress and worsened air pollution, and increased incidence of vector-borne infectious diseases such as malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue, diseases related to water supply and sanitation, and food-borne illnesses. Expanding populations of pest species, impaired food production and nutrition, and extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, forest fires and windstorms would pose additional risks to human health. Infants, children and other vulnerable populations -- especially in already-stressed regions of the world -- would likely suffer disproportionately from these impacts.

As individuals trained in medicine and science, we strongly support the credibility and integrity of the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in December 1995. This report concludes for the first time that observed changes in climate are not simply the result of natural variability, but that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." The weight of the evidence and scientific consensus are sufficient to warrant immediate action.

As public health professionals who believe firmly in the wisdom of preventive action, we endorse strong policy measures to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, as called for in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Taking steps now to prevent disease, illness, and injury will not only diminish the potential for wide-spread human suffering but reduce the high costs of treating illnesses which might have been avoided.

We commend the commitment of many nations to negotiate an internationally binding and verifiable agreement establishing targets and timetables for meaningful reductions in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We strongly support this goal and ask for continued cooperation in moving the international community toward this objective by the end of 1997.

At the same time, we urge you to take immediate action to advance policies designed to increase efficiency in the use and production of energy around the world, and to accelerate the development and transfer of energy-saving and renewable energy technologies worldwide. Numerous studies, including IPCC's Second Assessment, conclude that such policies can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little or no cost. The time has come for the nations of the world to act. The science is credible, and the potential impacts profound. Prudence -- and a commitment to act responsibly on behalf of the world's children and all future generations -- dictate a prompt and effective response to climate change.

World Council of Churches - Petition
International Petition to Governments of Industrialized Countries

There is now strong scientific consensus that the atmosphere is warming as a result of human activity, and that this is likely to have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences. Climate change is a serious threat to the well-being of creation.

The effects of climate change are predicted to include: more intense storms, more floods, more droughts and more disease. To keep climate change within bearable limits, the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), must be significantly reduced.

Industrialized countries are the main source of these emissions while the first victims will be the small island states such as in the Pacific and low-lying coastal countries like Bangladesh.

Despite the clear risks, governments are slow to act.

In solidarity with those most likely to suffer from climate change, the signatories of this petition ask their government to take steps required to meet the danger: by fulfilling their promise made in the context of the Rio Earth Summit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; by establishing firm policy measures and adopting a binding international agreement which will achieve greater reductions in emissions after the year 2000, primarily through renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, reframing market incentives and new consumption patterns (without relying on an increase in nuclear power generation); and by initiating more forcefully the public debate on climate change issues, and increasing the citizens' active participation in finding solutions.

By signing this petition, we declare our commitment to accept the consequences of reductions for society, economy and our personal lives. We are prepared to take responsible steps in our own lives to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that such changes would improve the long-term quality of live for all.

The World Council of Churches, in conjunction with other international ecumenical and environmental organizations, has launched a petition campaign to increase public support for actions to reduce the polluting emissions leading to climate change. The campaign is focused on the industrialized countries which historically have been the major source of emissions. There are active campaigns being organized through the churches in most of the countries of Europe, as well as in Canada, the United States, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia. Signatures will be collected until January 1997. The signatures will be presented to national governments in the industrialized countries and to the United Nations in March 1997. A list of names for those co-ordinating the petition campaign is available or please contact Madeleen Helmer by e-mail at ecsiep@gn.apc.org if your region is not on the list.

* HOME *