Climate change

БОЛЬШАЯ ЛЕНИНГРАДСКАЯ БИБЛИОТЕКА - РЕФЕРАТЫ - Climate change

Climate change

Report on The State Department Climate Action: Introduction and Overview

International Activities

No single country can resolve the problem of global climate change.

Recognizing this, the United States is engaged in many activities to

facilitate closer international cooperation. To this end, the U.S.

government has actively participated in international research and

assessment efforts (e.g., through the IPCC), in efforts to develop and

implement a global climate change strategy (through the FCCC Conference of

the Parties and its varied subsidiary bodies and through the Climate

Technology Initiative), and by providing financial and technical assistance

to developing countries to facilitate development of mitigation and

sequestration strategies (e.g., through the Global Environment Facility

(GEF)). Bilateral and multilateral opportunities are currently being

implemented, with some designed to capitalize on the technological

capabilities of the private sector, and others to work on a government-to-

government basis.

In the existing Convention framework, the United States has seconded

technical experts to the FCCC secretariat to help implement methodological,

technical, and technological activities. U.S. experts review national

communications of other Parties and are helping to advance the development

of methodologies for inventorying national emissions.

The United States has been active in promoting next steps under the

Convention. It has encouraged all countries to take appropriate analyses of

their own circumstances before taking action--and then act on these

analyses. It has suggested--and, where possible, has demonstrated--flexible

and robust institutional systems through which actions can be taken, such

as programs to implement emission-reduction activities jointly between

Parties, and emission-trading programs. The United States has also sought

to use its best diplomatic efforts to prod those in the international

community reluctant to act, seeking to provide assurances that the issue is

critical and warrants global attention. Through these efforts, the ongoing

negotiations are expected to successfully conclude in late 1997. The

successful implementation of the Convention and a new legal instrument will

ensure that the potential hazards of climate change will never be realized.

As a major donor to the GEF, the United States has contributed

approximately $190 million to help developing countries meet the

incremental costs of protecting the global environment. Although the United

States is behind in the voluntary payment schedule agreed upon during the

GEF replenishment adopted in 1994, plans have been made to pay off these

arrears.

The principles of the U.S. development assistance strategy lie at the

heart of U.S. bilateral mitigation projects. These principles include the

concepts of conservation and cultural respect, as well as empowerment of

local citizenry. The U.S. government works primarily through the U.S.

Agency for International Development (USAID). In fact, mitigation of global

climate change is one of USAID's two global environmental priorities. Other

agencies working in the climate change field, including the Environmental

Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and

the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, are also active internationally.

Projects fit into various general categories, such as increasing the

efficiency of power operation and use, adopting renewable-energy

technologies, reducing air pollution, improving agricultural and livestock

practices, and decreasing deforestation and improving land use.

Perhaps none of the U.S. programs is as well known as the U.S. Country

Studies Program. The program is currently assisting fifty-five developing

countries and countries with economies in transition to market economies

with climate change studies intended to build human and institutional

capacity to address climate change. Through its Support for National Action

Plans, the program is supporting the preparation of national climate action

plans for eighteen developing countries, which will lay the foundation for

their national communication, as required by the FCCC. More than twenty-

five additional countries have requested similar assistance from the

Country Studies Program.

The United States is also committed to facilitating the commercial transfer

of energy-efficient and renewable-energy technologies that can help

developing countries achieve sustainable development. Under the auspices of

the Climate Technology Initiative, the U.S. has taken a lead role in a task

force on Energy Technology Networking and Capacity Building, the efforts of

which focus on increasing the availability of reliable climate change

technologies, developing options for improving access to data in developing

countries, and supporting experts in the field around the world. The United

States is also engaged in various other projects intended to help countries

with mitigation and adaptation issues. The International Activities chapter

focuses on the most important of these U.S. efforts.

Introduction and Overview

Since the historic gathering of representatives from 172 countries at

the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, issues of environmental

protection have remained high on national and international priorities.

Climate change is one of the most visible of these issues--and one in which

some of the most significant progress has been made since the 1992 session.

Perhaps the crowning achievement in Rio was the adoption of the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). This Convention

represented a shared commitment by nations around the world to reduce the

potential risks of a major global environmental problem. Its ultimate

objective is to:

Achieve ј stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic human

interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved

within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to

climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to

enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

However, since the 1992 Earth Summit, the global community has found

that actions to mitigate climate change will need to be more aggressive

than anticipated. At the same time, the rationale for action has proven

more compelling. Few "Annex I" countries (the Climate Convention's term for

developed countries, including Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) member countries and countries with economies in

transition to market economies) have demonstrated an ability to meet the

laudable, albeit nonbinding, goal of the Convention--"to return emissions

of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the end of the decade." While

voluntary programs have demonstrated that substantial reductions are

achievable at economic savings or low costs, the success of these programs

has been overshadowed by lower-than-expected energy prices as well as

higher-than-expected economic growth and electricity demand, among other

factors.

Recognizing that even the most draconian measures would likely be

insufficient to reverse the growth in greenhouse gases and return U.S.

emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000, new U.S. efforts are

focusing most intensively on the post-2000 period. Thus, while some new

voluntary actions have already been proposed (and are included in this

report), an effort to develop a comprehensive program to address rising

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is being developed in the context of the

ongoing treaty negotiations and will be reported in the next U.S.

communication.

In spite of difficulties in meeting a domestic goal to return emissions

to their 1990 levels, the U.S. commitment to addressing the climate change

problem remains a high priority. President Clinton, in remarks made in

November 1996, both underlined U.S. concerns and exhorted the nations of

the world to act:

“We must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These

gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our

health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they

continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating

ј. We must stand together against the threat of global warming. A

greenhouse may be a good place to raise plants; it is no place to nurture

our children. And we can avoid dangerous global warming if we begin today

and if we begin together.”

Difficulties in meeting the "aim" of the Climate Convention prompted

the international community, gathered at the first meeting of the

Conference of the Parties to the FCCC (held in Berlin, Germany, in March

1995), to agree on a new approach to addressing the climate change problem.

At their first session, the Parties decided to negotiate a new legal

instrument containing appropriate next steps under the Convention. At the

Second Conference of the Parties (COP-2), the United States expressed its

view that the new agreement should include three main elements:

a realistic and achievable binding target (instead of the hortatory goals

and nonbinding aims of the existing Convention),

flexibility in implementation, and

the participation of developing countries.

Each of these elements was included in a Ministerial Declaration agreed

to at COP-2, and the United States expects that a legal instrument

containing these elements will be one of the outcomes from the Third

Conference of the Parties, to be held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.

As international negotiations continue on a new legal commitment, the

United States is assessing options for a domestic program. The results of

this analytical effort are being used to inform the U.S. negotiating

positions, and will subsequently be used to develop compliance strategies

to meet any commitments established under the new regime.

While the Parties involved in the negotiations are determining next

steps for collective action, all countries are still actively pursuing the

programs adopted earlier in the decade to control emissions. This document

describes the current U.S. program. It represents the second formal U.S.

communication under the FCCC, as required under Articles 4.2 and 12. As

with the Climate Action Report published by the United States in 1994, it

is a "freeze frame"--a look at the current moment in time in the U.S.

program. This report does not predict additional future activities. Nor is

it intended to be a substitute for existing or future decision-making

processes--whether administrative or legislative--or for additional

measures developed by or with the private sector.

This document has been developed using the methodologies and format

agreed to at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the

FCCC, and modified by the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties

and by sessions of the Convention's Subsidiary Body on Scientific and

Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. The United

States assumes that this communication, like those of other countries--and

like the preceding U.S. communication--will be subject to a thorough

review, and discussed in the evaluation process for the Parties of the

Convention. Even though the measures listed in this report are not expected

to reduce U.S. emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2000, the United

States believes that many of the climate change actions being implemented

have been successful at reducing emissions, send valuable signals to the

private sector, and may be appropriate models for other countries. The U.S.

experience should also ensure that future efforts are more effective in

reversing the rising trend of emissions and returning U.S. emissions to

more environmentally sustainable levels.

The Science

The 1992 Convention effort was largely predicated on the scientific and

technical information produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) in its 1990 report. The IPCC consists of more than two

thousand of the world's best scientists with expertise in the physical,

social, and economic sciences relevant to the climate issue. The United

States stands firmly behind the IPCC's conclusions. As the actions being

taken by the United States ultimately depend on the nation's understanding

of the science, it is important to at least briefly review this information

here.

The Earth absorbs energy from the sun in the form of solar radiation.

About one-third is reflected, and the rest is absorbed by different

components of the climate system, including the atmosphere, the oceans, the

land surface, and the biota. The incoming energy is balanced over the long

term by outgoing radiation from the Earth-atmosphere system, with outgoing

radiation taking the form of long-wave, invisible infrared energy. The

magnitude of this outgoing radiation is affected in part by the temperature

of the Earth-atmosphere system.

Several human and natural activities can change the balance between the

energy absorbed by the Earth and that emitted in the form of long-wave

infrared radiation. On the natural side, these include changes in solar

radiation (the sun's energy varies by small amounts--approximately 0.1

percent over an eleven-year cycle--and variations over longer periods also

occur). They also include volcanic eruptions, injecting huge clouds of

sulfur-containing gases, which tend to cool the Earth's surface and

atmosphere over a few years. On the human-induced side, the balance can be

changed by emissions from land-use changes and industrial practices that

add or remove "heat-trapping" or "greenhouse" gases, thus changing

atmospheric absorption of radiation.

Greenhouse gases of policy significance include carbon dioxide (CO2);

methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and

their substitutes, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); the long-lived

fully fluorinated hydrocarbons, such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and ozone

(O3). Although most of these gases occur naturally (the exceptions are the

CFCs, their substitutes, and the long-lived PFCs), the concentrations of

all of these gases are changing as a result of human activities.

For example, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen

about 30 percent since the 1700s--an increase responsible for more than

half of the enhancement of the trapping of the infrared radiation due to

human activities. In addition to their steady rise, many of these

greenhouse gases have long atmospheric residence times (several decades to

centuries), which means that atmospheric levels of these gases will return

to preindustrial levels only if emissions are sharply reduced, and even

then only after a long time. Internationally accepted science indicates

that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases will raise atmospheric

and oceanic temperatures and could alter associated weather and circulation

patterns.

In a report synthesizing its second assessment and focusing on the

relevance of its scientific analyses to the ultimate objective of the

Convention, the IPCC concluded:

Human activities--including the burning of fossil fuels, land use, and

agriculture--are changing the atmospheric composition. Taken together, they

are projected to lead to changes in global and regional climate and climate-

related parameters, such as temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture.

Some human communities--particularly those with limited access to

mitigating technologies--are becoming more vulnerable to natural hazards

and can be expected to suffer significantly from the impacts of climate-

related changes, such as high-temperature events, floods, and droughts,

potentially resulting in fires, pest outbreaks, ecosystem loss, and an

overall reduction in the level of primary productivity.

The IPCC also concluded that, given the current trends in

emissions, global concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to

grow significantly through the next century and beyond, and the

adverse impacts from these changes will become greater. The remainder

of this report seeks to elucidate the programs, policies, and measures

being taken in the United States to begin moving away from this trend

of increasing emissions, and to help move the world away from the

trend of globally increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

|Principal Conclusions of the IPCC's Second Assessment Report |

|While the basic facts about the science of climate have been |

|understood and broadly accepted for years, new information is |

|steadily emerging--and influencing the policy process. In 1995, the |

|IPCC released its Second Assessment Report, which not only validated |

|most of the IPCC's earlier findings, but because of the considerable |

|new work that had been undertaken during the five years since its |

|previous full-scale assessment, broke new ground. The report is |

|divided into three sections: physical sciences related to climate |

|impacts; adaptation and mitigation responses; and cross-cutting |

|issues, including economics and social sciences. |

|The Climate Science |

|Human activities are changing the atmospheric concentrations and |

|distributions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. |

|Global average temperatures have increased about 0.3-0.6°C (about |

|0.5-1.0°F) over the last century. |

|The ability of climate models to simulate observed trends has |

|improved--although there is still considerable regional uncertainty |

|with regard to changes. |

|The balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human |

|influence on global climate. |

|Aerosol sulfates (a component of acid rain) offset some of the |

|warming by greenhouse gases. |

|The IPCC mid-range scenario projects an increase of 2.0°C (3.7°F) by |

|2100 (with a range of 1.0-3.5°C (about 1.8-6.3°F). |

|The average global warming projected in the IPCC mid-range scenario |

|is greater than any seen in the last ten thousand years. |

|Sea level is projected to rise (due to thermal expansion of the |

|oceans, and melting of glaciers and ice sheets) by about 50 |

|centimeters (20 inches) by 2100, with a range of 15-95 centimeters |

|(about 6-38 inches). |

|Even after a stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations, |

|temperatures would continue to increase for several decades, and sea |

|level would continue to rise for centuries. |

|Vulnerability, Likely Impacts, and Possible Responses |

|Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse |

|effects on human health. Direct and indirect effects can be expected |

|to lead to increased mortality. |

|Coastal infrastructure is likely to be extremely vulnerable. A |

|50-centimeter (20-inch) rise in sea level would place approximately |

|120 million people at risk. |

|Natural and managed ecosystems are also at risk: forests, |

|agricultural areas, and aquatic and marine life are all susceptible. |

| |

|However, adaptation and mitigation options are numerous. Significant |

|reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically possible |

|and can be economically feasible, using an extensive array of |

|technologies and policy measures that accelerate technology |

|development, diffusion, and transfer. |

|Socioeconomic Issues |

|Early mitigation may increase flexibility in moving toward a |

|stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. |

|Economic risks of rapid abatement must be balanced against risks of |

|delay. |

|Significant "no regrets" opportunities are available in most |

|countries. Next steps must recognize equity considerations. |

|Costs of stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels in OECD countries |

|could range considerably (from a gain of $60 billion to a loss of |

|about $240 billion) over the next several decades. |

National Circumstances

In responding to the threat of global climate change, U.S. policymakers

must consider the special circumstances created by a unique blend of

challenges and opportunities. The National Circumstances chapter of this

report attempts to explain the particular situation in the United States--

including its climate, natural resources, population trends, economy,

energy mix, and political system--as a backdrop for understanding the U.S.

perspective on global climate change.

The United States is unusual in that it encompasses a wide variety of

climate conditions within its borders, from subtropical to tundra. This

diversity complicates the discussion of impacts of global climate change

within the United States because those impacts would vary widely. This

diversity also adds to U.S. emission levels, as heating and cooling demands

drive up emissions. Recent record levels of precipitation--both in snowfall

and rain--consistent with what could be expected under a changed climate,

have raised the awareness of climate impacts at the local and regional

levels, and may make it somewhat easier to predict the effects of increased

precipitation.

The United States also is uncommonly rich in land resources, both in

extent and diversity. U.S. land area totals about 931 million hectares (2.3

billion acres), including grassland pasture and range, forest, and

cropland. Forested land has been increasing, while grasslands and croplands

are slowly declining and being converted to other uses. The decline in

wetlands has slowed significantly as a result of the "no net loss" policy

being implemented.

With just over 265 million people, the United States is the third most

populous country in the world, although population density varies widely

throughout the country, and is generally very low. Although population

increase is moderate from a global perspective, it is high relative to the

average for all industrialized countries. Moreover, the number of

households is growing rapidly. These and other factors drive U.S. emissions

to higher per capita rates than those in most other countries with higher

population densities, smaller land areas, or more concentrated distribution

of resources to population centers.

The U.S. market economy is based on property rights and a reliance on

the efficiency of the market as a means of allocating resources. The

government plays a key role in addressing market failures and promoting

social welfare, including through the imposition of regulations on

pollutants and the protection of property rights, but is cautious in its

interventions. Thus, the infrastructure exists to limit emissions of

greenhouse gases--although the strong political and economic preference is

to undertake such controls through flexible and cost-effective programs,

including voluntary programs and market instruments, where appropriate.

U.S. economic growth averaged 3 percent annually from 1960 to 1993, and

employment nearly tripled as the overall labor force participation rate

rose to 66 percent. The service sector--which includes communications,

utilities, finance, insurance, and real estate--has grown rapidly, and now

accounts for more than 36 percent of the economy. The increasing role of

trade in the U.S. economy heightens concerns about the competitiveness

effects of climate policies.

During the 1980s, the U.S. budget deficit grew rapidly, as did the

ratio of debt to gross domestic product, and a political consensus emerged

on the goal of a balanced budget. The result is a tighter federal budget

with many competing priorities.

The United States is the world's largest energy producer and consumer.

Abundant resources of all fossil fuels have contributed to low prices and

specialization in relatively energy-intensive activities. Energy

consumption has nearly doubled since 1960, and would have grown far more,

because of growth in the economy, population, and transportation needs, had

it not been for impressive reductions in U.S. energy intensity. Industrial

energy intensity has declined most markedly, due to structural shifts and

efficiency improvements. In the residential and commercial sectors,

efficiency improvements largely offset the growth in the number and size of

both residential and commercial buildings. Likewise, in the transportation

sector, efficiency moderated the rise in total fuel consumption from 1973

to 1995 to only 26 percent, despite dramatic increases in both the number

of vehicles and the distances they are driven. Fossil fuel prices below

levels assumed in the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan, however, have

contributed to the unexpectedly large growth in U.S. emissions.

While unique national circumstances point to the reasons for the

current levels (and increases) in U.S. emissions, they also suggest the

potential for emission reductions. Successful government and private-sector

programs are beginning to exploit some of the inefficiencies in the

manufacturing sector. The development of new, climate-friendly technologies

is a rapidly growing industry, with significant long-term potential for

domestic and international emission reductions.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Inventorying the national emissions of greenhouse gases is a task

shared by several departments within the executive branch of the federal

government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department

of Energy and the Department of Agriculture. The Greenhouse Gas Inventory

chapter summarizes the most current information on U.S. greenhouse gas

emission trends--and represents the 1997 submission from the United States

in fulfillment of its annual inventory reporting obligation. The estimates

presented in this chapter were compiled using methods consistent with those

recommended by the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories;

therefore, the U.S. emissions inventory should be comparable to those

submitted by others under the FCCC.

Table 1-1 summarizes the recent trends in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

from 1990 to 1995. The three most important anthropogenic greenhouse gases

are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are also inventoried. Consistent with the

requirements in the Climate Convention only to address emissions of gases

not controlled by the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the

Ozone Layer, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions are not inventoried, nor

are mitigation measures for these compounds described.

|Table 1-1 | | | | | | | |

|Recent Trends in U.S.| | | | | | | |

|Greenhouse Gas | | | | | | | |

|Emissions: 1990-1995 | | | | | | | |

|(MMTs of Carbon | | | | | | | |

|Equivalent) | | | | | | | |

|Gases and Sources |Emiss| | | | | | |

| |ions-| | | | | | |

| |-Dire| | | | | | |

| |ct | | | | | | |

| |and | | | | | | |

| |Indir| | | | | | |

| |ect | | | | | | |

| |Effec| | | | | | |

| |ts | | | | | | |

| |1990 |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 | |

|Carbon Dioxide (CO2) |1,228|1,213|1,235|1,268|1,291|1,305 | |

|Fossil Fuel |1,336|1,320|1,340|1,370|1,391|1,403 | |

|Combustion | | | | | | | |

|Industrial Processes |17 |16 |17 |18 |19 |19 | |

|and Other | | | | | | | |

|Total |1,353|1,336|1,357|1,388|1,410|1,422 | |

|Forests (sink)* |(125)|(123)|(122)|(120)|(119)|(117) | |

|Methane (CH4) |170 |172 |173 |171 |176 |177 | |

|Landfills |56 |58 |58 |60 |62 |64 | |

|Agriculture |50 |51 |52 |52 |54 |55 | |

|Coal Mining |24 |23 |22 |20 |21 |20 | |

|Oil and Natural Gas |33 |33 |34 |33 |33 |33 | |

|Systems | | | | | | | |

|Other |6 |7 |7 |6 |6 |6 | |

|Nitrous Oxide (N2O) |36 |37 |37 |38 |39 |40 | |

|Agriculture |17 |17 |17 |18 |18 |18 | |

|Fossil Fuel |11 |11 |12 |12 |12 |12 | |

|Consumption | | | | | | | |

|Industrial Processes |8 |8 |8 |8 |9 |9 | |

|HFCs |12 |12 |13 |14 |17 |21 | |

|PFCs |5 |5 |5 |5 |7 |8 | |

|SF6 |7 |7 |8 |8 |8 |8 | |

|U.S. Emissions |1,583|1,570|1,592|1,624|1,657|1,676 | |

|Net U.S. Emissions |1,458|1,447|1,470|1,504|1,538|1,559 | |

|Note: The totals | | | | | | | |

|presented in the | | | | | | | |

|summary tables in | | | | | | | |

|this chapter may not | | | | | | | |

|equal the sum of the | | | | | | | |

|individual source | | | | | | | |

|categories due to | | | | | | | |

|rounding. | | | | | | | |

|* These estimates for| | | | | | | |

|the conterminous | | | | | | | |

|United States for | | | | | | | |

|1990-91 and 1993-95 | | | | | | | |

|are interpolated from| | | | | | | |

|forest inventories in| | | | | | | |

|1987 and 1992 and | | | | | | | |

|from projections | | | | | | | |

|through 2040. The | | | | | | | |

|calculation method | | | | | | | |

|reflects long-term | | | | | | | |

|averages, rather than| | | | | | | |

|specific events in | | | | | | | |

|any given year. | | | | | | | |

Overall, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased annually by just

over one percent. The trend of U.S. emissions--which decreased from 1990 to

1991, and then increased again in 1992--is a consequence of changes in

total energy consumption resulting from the U.S. economic slowdown in the

beginning of this decade and its subsequent recovery.

Carbon dioxide accounts for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gases--

approximately 85 percent--although the carbon sinks in forested lands

offset CO2 emissions by about 8 percent. During 1990-95, greenhouse gas

emissions continued to rise in the United States, with CO2 increasing

approximately 6 percent, methane approximately 4 percent, N2O nearly 10

percent, and HFCs approximately 7 percent. Fossil fuel combustion accounts

for 99 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions. (Chapter 3 of this report

explains the use of MMTCE in converting emissions of greenhouse gases to

carbon equivalents.)

Although methane emissions are lower than CO2 emissions, methane's

footprint is large: in a 100-year time span it is considered to be twenty-

one times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere and is

responsible for about 10 percent of the warming caused by U.S. emissions.

In addition, in the last two centuries alone, methane concentrations in the

atmosphere have more than doubled. Emissions of methane are largely

generated by landfills, agriculture, oil and natural gas systems, and coal

mining, with landfills comprising the single largest source of the gas. In

1995, methane emissions from U.S. landfills were 63.5 MMTCE, equaling

approximately 36 percent of total U.S. methane emissions. Agriculture

supplied about 30 percent of U.S. methane emissions in that same year.

Nitrous oxide is also emitted in much smaller amounts than carbon

dioxide in the United States and is responsible for approximately 2.4

percent of the U.S. share of the greenhouse effect. However, like methane,

it is a more powerful heat trap--310 times more powerful than carbon

dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period. The main

anthropogenic activities producing nitrous oxide are agriculture, fossil

fuel combustion, and the production of adipic and nitric acids. Figures

from 1995 show the agricultural sector emitting 46 percent of the total

(18.4 MMTCE), with fossil fuel combustion generating 31 percent.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are among the compounds introduced to replace

ozone-depleting substances, which are being phased out as a result of the

Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the

Ozone Layer, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Because HFCs have

significant potential to alter the Earth's radiative balance, they are

included in this inventory. Many of the compounds of this nature are

extremely stable and remain in the atmosphere for extended periods of time,

which results in a significant atmospheric accumulation over time. U.S.

emissions of these gases have risen nearly 60 percent as they are phased in

as substitutes for gases that are no longer allowed under the Montreal

Protocol--a rate of growth that is not anticipated to continue. Currently,

HFCs account for less than 2 percent of U.S. radiative forcing.

Mitigating Climate Change

In October 1993, in response to the threat of global climate change,

President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Climate Change

Action Plan (CCAP). The Plan was designed to reduce U.S. emissions of

greenhouse gases, while guiding the U.S. economy toward environmentally

sound economic growth into the next century. This report updates the

programs in the CCAP (including an appendix providing one-page descriptions

of each program), describes several additional initiatives developed to

further reduce emission growth rates, and estimates future emissions based

on the current set of practices and programs.

CCAP programs represent an effort to stimulate actions that are both

profitable for individual private-sector participants as well as beneficial

to the environment. Currently, more than forty programs are in effect,

combining efforts of the government at the federal, state, and local levels

with those of the private sector. The CCAP has five goals: preserving the

environment, enhancing sustainable growth environmentally and economically,

building partnerships, involving the public, and encouraging international

emission reductions.

Carbon dioxide emissions constitute the bulk of U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions. CCAP recognizes that investing in energy efficiency is the most

cost-effective way to reduce these emissions. The largest proportion of

CCAP programs contains measures that reduce carbon dioxide emissions while

simultaneously enhancing domestic productivity and competitiveness. Other

programs seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by investing in renewable-

energy and other low-carbon, energy-supply technologies, which will also

provide longer-term benefits, such as increased efficiency and related cost-

savings and pollution prevention. A smaller number of programs are targeted

at methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases (Table 1-2).

A review and update of the CCAP was initiated in 1995, involving a

federal government interagency review process and a public hearing and

comment period. Revisions to the CCAP (and to the calculation of the

effects of its measures) were initiated in light of comments received

during this process and are reflected in this document. In addition, as

called for under FCCC reporting guidelines, the projections of the effects

of measures taken are extended to the year 2020, with the understanding

that uncertainties become greater in more distant years.

One of the principal products of the review was an assessment of the

effectiveness of the CCAP programs, which were rated to be successful at

reducing emissions. Currently, more than 5,000 organizations are

participating in programs around the United States. The pollution-

prevention benefits of these innovative programs are beginning to multiply

rapidly in response to the groundwork laid and the partnerships made. In

all, the programs are expected to achieve a large portion of the reductions

projected in the CCAP. In fact, it is estimated that these programs will

result in energy cost savings of $10 billion annually in 2000.

However, the review has also made clear the significantly reduced

impact to be expected from the programs as a result of the nearly 40

percent reduction of CCAP funding by Congress from the amount requested by

the President, higher-than-expected electricity demand, and lower-than-

expected energy prices. In addition, before the programs' implementation,

CCAP program managers could not always anticipate the impacts of projected

climate change emission reductions. Information available from the first

tranche of activity was considered in developing the current projections.

A second product of the review was the identification of several

measures that have since been added to the CCAP portfolio. The most

significant of these is the Environmental Stewardship Initiative, which

greatly expands activities already included in the CCAP, and focuses on

reducing the emissions of extremely potent greenhouse gases from three

industrial applications--semiconductor production, electrical transmission

and distribution systems, and magnesium casting. The expanded initiative is

anticipated to reduce emissions by an additional 6.5 MMTCE by 2000, and

10.0 MMTCE by 2010. Other programs include improving energy efficiency in

the construction of and supply of energy to commercial and industrial

buildings, expanding residential markets for energy-efficient lighting

products, and providing information on renewable energy to reduce barriers

to the adoption of clean technologies.

The analysis of individual actions is integrated with revised forecasts

of economic growth, energy prices, program funding, and regulatory

developments to provide an updated comprehensive perspective on current and

projected greenhouse gas emission levels. This analysis involved an

updating of the baseline calculation in light of new economic assumptions

regarding energy prices, economic growth, and technology improvements,

among other factors. In 1993, the first U.S. submission projected year 2000

baseline emissions to be 106 MMTCE above their 1990 levels; with current

program funding, emissions are now projected to exceed 1990 levels by 188

MMTCE. Two principal factors are responsible:

The analysis used to develop CCAP significantly underestimated the

reductions that would be needed by programs to return emissions to 1990

levels by the year 2000. This was due to several factors, including lower-

than-expected fuel prices, strong economic growth, regulatory limitations

within and outside of CCAP, and improved information on emissions of some

potent greenhouse gases.

In addition, diminished levels of funding by Congress have affected both

CCAP programs and other federal programs that reduce emissions, limiting

their effectiveness.

While neither the measures initiated in 1993 nor the additional actions

developed since then and included in this report will be adequate to meet

the emissions goal enunciated by the President, they have significantly

reduced emissions below growth rates that otherwise would have occurred.

Based on current funding levels, the revised action plan is expected to

reduce emissions by 76 MMTCE in the year 2000--or 70 percent of the

reductions projected in the CCAP. Annual energy cost savings to businesses

and consumers from CCAP actions are anticipated to be $10 billion (1995

dollars) by the year 2000. Even greater reductions are estimated from these

measures in the post-2000 period: reductions of 169 MMTCE are projected for

2010, and 230 MMTCE for 2020. Annual energy savings are projected to grow

to $50 billion (1995 dollars) in the year 2010.

A separate component of this chapter addresses the U.S. Initiative on

Joint Implementation. Projects undertaken through this initiative allow

private-sector partners to offset emissions from domestic activities

through reductions achieved in other countries. The Climate Convention

established a pilot program for joint implementation at the first meeting

of the Conference of the Parties. Guidelines for reporting under the pilot

program were established by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and

Technological Advice at its fifth session in February 1997. This report

uses those guidelines to report on project activity.

|Tabl| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|e | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|1-2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Summ| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|ary | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|of | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Acti| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|ons | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|to | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Redu| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|ce | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Gree| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|nhou| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|se | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Gas | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Emis| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|sion| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|s | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|(Mil| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|lion| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Metr| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|ic | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Tons| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|of | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Carb| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|on | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Equi| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|vale| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|nt) | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Acti| |Act| | |1993 Action|Revise| | | | | | |

|on | |ion| | | |d | | | | | | |

|Numb| |Tit| | |Plan |Estima| | | | | | |

|er | |le | | |Estimate |te* | | | | | | |

| | | | | |2000 |2000 |2005 |2| | |2020| |

| | | | | | | | |0| | | | |

| | | | | | | | |1| | | | |

| | | | | | | | |0| | | | |

| |Reside| |26|10.3 | | | | |29.4|5| |78.4|

| |ntial | |.9| | | | | | |3| | |

| |& | | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Commer| | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |cial | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Sector| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

|1 |Rebuil| |2.|1.6 | | | | |3.0 |6| |7.1 |

| |d | |0 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Americ| | | | | | | | |3| | |

| |a | | | | | | | | | | | |

|1 & |Expand| |3.|3.4 | | | | |8.5 |1| |30.2|

|2 |ed | |6 | | | | | | |6| | |

| |Green | | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Lights| | | | | | | | |3| | |

| |and | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Energy| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Star | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Buildi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ngs | | | | | | | | | | | |

|3 |State | |1.| | | | | | |T| | |

| |Revolv| |1 | | | | | | |e| | |

| |ing | | | | | | | | |r| | |

| |Fund | | | | | | | | |m| | |

| |for | | | | | | | | |i| | |

| |Public| | | | | | | | |n| | |

| |Buildi| | | | | | | | |a| | |

| |ngs | | | | | | | | |t| | |

| | | | | | | | | | |e| | |

| | | | | | | | | | |d| | |

|4 |Cost-S| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |hared | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Demons| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |tratio| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ns of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Emergi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Techno| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |logies| | | | | | | | | | | |

|5 |Operat| |3.|0.0 | | | | |0.5 |1| |1.0 |

| |ion | |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |and | | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |Mainte| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |nance | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Traini| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng for| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Commer| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |cial | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Buildi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Facili| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ty | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Manage| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |rs and| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Operat| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ors | | | | | | | | | | | |

|6 |Energy| |5.|4.3 | | | | |12.9|1| |24.9|

| |Star® | |0 | | | | | | |9| | |

| |Produc| | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |ts | | | | | | | | |4| | |

|7 |Reside| |6.|0.2 | | | | |1.8 |3| |3.8 |

| |ntial | |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Applia| | | | | | | | |7| | |

| |nce | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Standa| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |rds | | | | | | | | | | | |

|8 |Energy| | | | | | | | | | | |

|and |Partne| | | | | | | | | | | |

|11 |rships| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |for | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Afford| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |able | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Housin| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |g | | | | | | | | | | | |

|9 |Cool | |4.|0.6 | | | | |1.9 |4| |7.7 |

| |Commun| |4 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |ities | | | | | | | | |3| | |

|10 |Update| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |State | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Buildi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Codes | | | | | | | | | | | |

|New |Constr| |No|0.1 | | | | |0.4 |1| |2.6 |

| |uction| |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| |of | |in| | | | | | |1| | |

| |Energy| |cl| | | | | | | | | |

| |­Effic| |ud| | | | | | | | | |

| |ient | |ed| | | | | | | | | |

| |Commer| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |cial | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |and | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Indust| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |rial | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Buildi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ngs | | | | | | | | | | | |

|New |Superw| |No|0.0 | | | | |0.1 |0| |1.3 |

| |indow | |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Collab| |in| | | | | | |4| | |

| |orativ| |cl| | | | | | | | | |

| |e | |ud| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |ed| | | | | | | | | |

|New |Expand| |No|0.2 | | | | |0.4 |0| |0.9 |

| |Market| |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| |s for | |in| | | | | | |7| | |

| |Next­G| |cl| | | | | | | | | |

| |enerat| |ud| | | | | | | | | |

| |ion | |ed| | | | | | | | | |

| |Lighti| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Produc| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ts | | | | | | | | | | | |

|New |Fuel | |No|0.0 | | | | |0.0 |0| |0.4 |

| |Cells | |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Initia| |in| | | | | | |1| | |

| |tive | |cl| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |ud| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |ed| | | | | | | | | |

| |Indust| |19|4.8 | | | | |8.2 |1| |16.7|

| |rial | |.0| | | | | | |1| | |

| |Sector| | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | |5| | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

|12 |Motor | |8.|1.8 | | | | |3.9 |5| |7.5 |

| |Challe| |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |nge | | | | | | | | |8| | |

|13 |Indust| |2.|Merged | | | | |into|M| |Chal|

| |rial | |9 | | | | | | |o| |leng|

| |Golden| | | | | | | | |t| |e |

| |Carrot| | | | | | | | |o| |(#12|

| |Progra| | | | | | | | |r| |) |

| |ms | | | | | | | | | | | |

|14 |Accele| | |Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |rate | | |d | | | | | | | | |

| |the | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Adopti| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |on of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Energy| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |­Effic| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ient | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Proces| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Techno| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |logies| | | | | | | | | | | |

|15 |Indust| |0.|CCAP | | | | |Comp|T| | |

| |rial | |5 | | | | | |onen|e| | |

| |Assess| | | | | | | |t |r| | |

| |ment | | | | | | | | |m| | |

| |Center| | | | | | | | |i| | |

| |s | | | | | | | | |n| | |

| | | | | | | | | | |a| | |

| | | | | | | | | | |t| | |

| | | | | | | | | | |e| | |

| | | | | | | | | | |d| | |

|16 |Waste | |4.|2.1 | | | | |3.6 |5| |8.4 |

| |Minimi| |2 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |zation| | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |** | | | | | | | | | | | |

|17 |Improv| |2.|0.8 | | | | |0.8 |0| |1.1 |

| |e | |7 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Effici| | | | | | | | |9| | |

| |ency | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Fertil| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |izer | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Nitrog| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |en | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Use***| | | | | | | | | | | |

|18 |Reduce| | |Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |the | | |d | | | | | | | | |

| |Use of| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Pestic| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ides | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Transp| |8.|5.3 | | | | |11.5|1| |22.1|

| |ortati| |1 | | | | | | |5| | |

| |on | | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Sector| | | | | | | | |5| | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

|19 |Cash | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Value | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Parkin| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |g | | | | | | | | | | | |

|20 |Innova| |6.|4.6 | | | | |8.4 |1| |17.0|

| |tive | |6 | | | | | | |0| | |

| |Transp| | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |ortati| | | | | | | | |9| | |

| |on | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Strate| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |gies | | | | | | | | | | | |

|21 |Teleco| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |mmutin| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |g | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Progra| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |m | | | | | | | | | | | |

|22 |Fuel | |1.|0.7 | | | | |3.2 |4| |5.3 |

| |Econom| |5 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |y | | | | | | | | |8| | |

| |Labels| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |for | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Tires | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Energy| |10|1.3 | | | | |3.7 |7| |18.9|

| |Supply| |.8| | | | | | |.| | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

|23 |Increa| |2.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |se | |2 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |Natura| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |l Gas | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Share | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Energy| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Use | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Throug| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |h | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Federa| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |l | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Regula| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |tory | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Reform| | | | | | | | | | | |

|24 |Promot| |2.|0.5 | | | | |0.0 |0| |0.0 |

| |e | |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Season| | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |al Gas| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Use | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |for | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Contro| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |l of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Nitrog| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |en | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Oxides| | | | | | | | | | | |

|25 |High­E| |0.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |fficie| |6 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |ncy | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Gas | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Techno| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |logies| | | | | | | | | | | |

|26 |Renewa| |0.|0.3 | | | | |2.9 |5| |16.4|

| |ble­En| |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |ergy | | | | | | | | |6| | |

| |Commer| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |cializ| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ation | | | | | | | | | | | |

|27 |Expand| |1.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |Utilit| |4 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |y | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Integr| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ated | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Resour| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ce | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Planni| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng | | | | | | | | | | | |

|28 |Profit| |2.|0.0 | | | | |0.0 |0| |0.0 |

| |able | |0 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Hydroe| | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |lectri| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |c | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Effici| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ency | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Upgrad| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |es | | | | | | | | | | | |

|29 |Energy| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |­Effic| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ient | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Distri| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |bution| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Transf| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ormer | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Standa| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |rds | | | | | | | | | | | |

|30 |Energy| |0.|0.5 | | | | |0.8 |1| |2.8 |

| |Star | |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Distri| | | | | | | | |4| | |

| |bution| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Transf| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ormers| | | | | | | | | | | |

|31 |Transm| |0.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |ission| |8 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |Pricin| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |g | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Reform| | | | | | | | | | | |

|New |Green | |No|0.0 | | | | |Not | | | |

| |Power | |t | | | | | |quan| | | |

| |Networ| |In| | | | | |tifi| | | |

| |k | |cl| | | | | |ed | | | |

| | | |ud| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |ed| | | | | | | | | |

| |Land-U| |10|2.4 | | | | |3.3 |4| |5.1 |

| |se | |.0| | | | | | |.| | |

| |Change| | | | | | | | |2| | |

| |& | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Forest| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ry | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |s+ | | | | | | | | | | | |

|43 |Reduce| |4.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |Deplet| |0 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |ion of| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Nonind| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ustria| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |l | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Privat| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |e | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Forest| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

|44 |Accele| |0.|0.4 | | | | |1.3 |2| |3.1 |

| |rate | |5 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Tree | | | | | | | | |2| | |

| |Planti| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ng in | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Nonind| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ustria| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |l | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Privat| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |e | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Forest| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |s | | | | | | | | | | | |

|16 |Waste | |4.|2.0 | | | | |2.0 |2| |2.0 |

| |Minimi| |2 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |zation| | | | | | | | |0| | |

| |** | | | | | | | | | | | |

|9 |Expand| |0.|Not | | | | | | | | |

| |Cool | |5 |quantifie| | | | | | | | |

| |Commun| | |d | | | | | | | | |

| |ities | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Methan| |16|15.5 | | | | |19.0|2| |24.2|

| |e | |.3| | | | | | |3| | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |s | | | | | | | | |4| | |

|32 |Expand| |3.|3.4 | | | | |3.8 |4| |4.3 |

| |Natura| |0 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |l Gas | | | | | | | | |2| | |

| |STAR | | | | | | | | | | | |

|33 |Increa| |4.|6.3 | | | | |7.7 |9| |5.9 |

| |se | |2 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |String| | | | | | | | |1| | |

| |ency | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Landfi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ll | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Rule | | | | | | | | | | | |

|34 |Landfi| |1.|1.9 | | | | |2.2 |2| |4.3 |

| |ll | |1 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Methan| | | | | | | | |9| | |

| |e | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Outrea| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ch | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Progra| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |m | | | | | | | | | | | |

|35 |Coalbe| |2.|2.6 | | | | |2.9 |3| |4.0 |

| |d | |2 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Methan| | | | | | | | |2| | |

| |e | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Outrea| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ch | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Progra| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |m | | | | | | | | | | | |

|36 |RD&D | |1.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |for | |5 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |Coal | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Mine | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Methan| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |e | | | | | | | | | | | |

|37 |RD&D | |1.|Terminate| | | | | | | | |

| |for | |0 |d | | | | | | | | |

| |Landfi| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ll | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Methan| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |e | | | | | | | | | | | |

|38 |AgSTAR| |1.|0.3 | | | | |0.8 |1| |3.2 |

| |Progra| |5 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |m | | | | | | | | |8| | |

|39 |Rumina| |1.|1.0 | | | | |1.6 |2| |2.5 |

| |nt | |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Livest| | | | | | | | |2| | |

| |ock | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Effici| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ency | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Progra| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |m | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Action| |16|25.4 | | | | |40.4|4| |54.5|

| |s to | |.3| | | | | | |5| | |

| |Addres| | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |s | | | | | | | | |8| | |

| |Other | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Greenh| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |ouse | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Gases | | | | | | | | | | | |

|17 |Improv| |4.|5.3 | | | | |5.3 |5| |5.3 |

| |e | |5 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Effici| | | | | | | | |3| | |

| |ency | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |of | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Fertil| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |izer | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Nitrog| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |en | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Use***| | | | | | | | | | | |

|40 |Signif| |5.|6.4 | | | | |19.6|2| |29.8|

| |icant | |0 | | | | | | |3| | |

| |New | | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Altern| | | | | | | | |1| | |

| |atives| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Progra| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |m | | | | | | | | | | | |

|41 |HFC­23| |5.|5.0 | | | | |5.0 |5| |5.0 |

| |Partne| |0 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |rships| | | | | | | | |0| | |

|42 |Volunt| |1.|2.2 | | | | |2.4 |2| |2.4 |

| |ary | |8 | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Alumin| | | | | | | | |4| | |

| |um | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Indust| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |rial | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Partne| | | | | | | | | | | |

| |rship | | | | | | | | | | | |

|New |Enviro| |No|6.5 | | | | |8.1 |1| |12.0|

| |nmenta| |t | | | | | | |0| | |

| |l | |in| | | | | | |.| | |

| |Stewar| |cl| | | | | | |0| | |

| |dship | |ud| | | | | | | | | |

| |Initia| |ed| | | | | | | | | |

| |tive | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Founda| | |11.3 | | | | |10.7|9| |12.3|

| |tion | | | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Action| | | | | | | | |5| | |

| |s++ | | | | | | | | | | | |

| |Climat| |No|1.8 | | | | |2.7 |3| |4.5 |

| |e Wise| |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| | | |es| | | | | | |7| | |

| | | |ti| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |ma| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |te| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |d | | | | | | | | | |

| |Climat| |No|7.6 | | | | |5.0 |1| |1.5 |

| |e | |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Challe| |es| | | | | | |6| | |

| |nge+++| |ti| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |ma| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |te| | | | | | | | | |

| | | |d | | | | | | | | | |

| |State | |No|1.9 | | | | |3.0 |4| |6.3 |

| |and | |t | | | | | | |.| | |

| |Local | |es| | | | | | |2| | |

| |Outrea| |ti| | | | | | | | | |

| |ch | |ma| | | | | | | | | |

| |Progra| |te| | | | | | | | | |

| |ms | |d | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Total GHG Emission Reductions |108.6 |76.0 |128.3 |169.3 |22| | | | |

| | | | | |9.| | | | |

| | | | | |5 | | | | |

|From CCAP Programs | | | | | | | | | |

|Notes: Several of the Climate | | | | | | | | | |

|Change Action Plan (CCAP) programs | | | | | | | | | |

|are part of larger federal efforts.| | | | | | | | | |

|These programs include Actions 2, | | | | | | | | | |

|4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 27, 32, and 33. | | | | | | | | | |

|Only the CCAP portions of these | | | | | | | | | |

|programs are included in this | | | | | | | | | |

|table. Also, numbers may not add | | | | | | | | | |

|precisely due to interactive | | | | | | | | | |

|effects and rounding. | | | | | | | | | |

|* There is uncertainty in any | | | | | | | | | |

|attempt to project future emission | | | | | | | | | |

|levels and program impacts, and | | | | | | | | | |

|this uncertainty becomes greater | | | | | | | | | |

|with longer forecast periods. The | | | | | | | | | |

|results of this evaluation of CCAP | | | | | | | | | |

|represent a best estimate. They are| | | | | | | | | |

|also based on the assumption that | | | | | | | | | |

|programs will continue to be funded| | | | | | | | | |

|at current funding levels. | | | | | | | | | |

|** Includes Waste Wise, NICE3, and | | | | | | | | | |

|USDA's Expansion of Recycling | | | | | | | | | |

|Technology. Energy savings and | | | | | | | | | |

|sequestration are scored | | | | | | | | | |

|separately. | | | | | | | | | |

|*** Energy savings and N2O savings | | | | | | | | | |

|are scored separately. | | | | | | | | | |

|+ Additional forestry initiatives | | | | | | | | | |

|by electric utilities are included | | | | | | | | | |

|in Climate Challenge, a Foundation | | | | | | | | | |

|Program. | | | | | | | | | |

|++ Foundation action partners | | | | | | | | | |

|provide additional reductions in | | | | | | | | | |

|almost all sectors and gases. These| | | | | | | | | |

|values only represent incremental | | | | | | | | | |

|savings not accounted for in other | | | | | | | | | |

|actions or baseline activities. | | | | | | | | | |

|+++ For the Climate Challenge | | | | | | | | | |

|program, there is considerable | | | | | | | | | |

|uncertainty at this time in | | | | | | | | | |

|quantifying impacts beyond the year| | | | | | | | | |

|2000, largely because partners' | | | | | | | | | |

|Climate Challenge plans do not | | | | | | | | | |

|currently extend beyond 2000.Given | | | | | | | | | |

|that participation levels are | | | | | | | | | |

|growing and that most utilities | | | | | | | | | |

|appear to be meeting or expanding | | | | | | | | | |

|upon their commitments to reducing | | | | | | | | | |

|greenhouse gas emissions, it is | | | | | | | | | |

|reasonable to expect that the | | | | | | | | | |

|Climate Challenge program will | | | | | | | | | |

|deliver more significant | | | | | | | | | |

|reductions. | | | | | | | | | |

Research and Systematic Observation

The U.S. government has dedicated significant resources to research on

global climate change. U.S. research efforts (some of which include the

private sector) are divided into several general categories, including

prediction of climate change, impacts and adaptation, mitigation and new

technologies, and socioeconomic analysis and assessment. In addition, U.S.

scientists actively coordinate with research and capacity-building efforts

in other countries.

The principal vehicle for undertaking climate change research at the

federal level is the United States Global Change Research Program. The

multiagency program was funded in fiscal year 1997 at approximately $1.8

billion. A significant portion of the Research Program's activities is

targeted at improving capabilities to predict climate change, including the

human-induced contribution to climate change, and its implications for

society and the environment. The United States also is committed to

continuing programs in research and observation, with the aim of developing

the information base required to improve predictions of climate change and

its repercussions, as well as the ability to reduce emissions while

sustaining food production, ecosystems, and economic development.

Extensive efforts also are being made to understand the consequences of

climate change, regional impacts, and the potential for adaptation. Another

area being explored by researchers is the development of technologies that

would enable the United States to supply energy, food, water, ecosystem

services, and a healthy environment to U.S. citizens, while simultaneously

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These efforts have been divided into

short- and longer-term projects involving the private sector, as well as

government-sponsored research.

Perhaps most notable in the international component of the research

effort is U.S. participation in IPCC work. U.S. scientists participated in

the preparation and review of nearly all of the more than 100 chapters of

the over 2,000-page report. Researchers also participated in the collection

and analysis of the underlying data through programs as varied as the World

Climate Research Program, the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental

Change Program, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and an

impressive array of bilateral scientific and technical work.

The Future

Overall, the conclusions to be drawn from this report can be summarized

in three parts:

Climate change is a clearly defined problem and is well recognized at the

highest levels in the U.S. government. Senior officials (from the President

to heads of cabinet agencies and departments) have taken a strong stand in

favor of seeking to reduce emissions.

The combined effort to address climate change (described in this report,

and including the Research Program, the total costs of U.S. mitigation

actions, and the international effort) are in excess of $2 billion--a

significant step by any standard.

Notwithstanding this effort, emissions continue to grow. More aggressive

actions must be taken to combat the threat of climate change.

The United States is developing a long-term, post-2000 strategy to

address the climate change problem. This effort, which has both a

multilateral, international focus and a domestic focus, is expected to be

made public in the next few months. It will be based on an extensive

analytic effort to assess the effects of an array of additional policy

choices, including setting legally binding, internationally agreed caps on

emissions. It will consider the advantages of market-based instruments for

both domestic and international emissions trading, as well as joint

implementation for credit with developing countries. It will consider

approaches to be taken for gases for which monitoring and measurement are

relatively simple (e.g., for carbon dioxide emissions from stationary

energy sources), as well as those gases for which emissions are more

difficult to measure (such as nitrous oxides from agriculture).

Currently underway, the effort is intensive and time-consuming. It

involves more than twenty agencies within the federal government, as well

as several offices in the Executive Office of the President. Congress will

be consulted in the development of policies and will most likely need to

enact legislation to implement any agreed program. A significant

stakeholder outreach program will be undertaken over the next several

months to engage the best thinking on alternative approaches, and following

adoption of a program to ensure maximum compliance with the course of

action chosen.

( www.state.gov

( http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html

( Global Warming International Center