PUBLISHED BY CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.

Formerly Editorial Research Reports

T

E

HQCGlobal Warming Update

Researcher

Nov. 1, 1996 • Volume 6, No. 41 • Pages 961-984

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ........................... 963

BACKGROUND ..................... 970

CHRONOLOGY ..................... 971

CURRENT SITUATION ........... 974

OUTLOOK............................. 976

AT ISSUE ................................ 977

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................... 979

THE NEXT STEP .................... 980

THIS ISSUE

CQ

Are limits on greenhouse gas emissions needed?

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the

discovery of the greenhouse effect by the

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. Thanks to

sophisticated computers and satellites,

scientists today know more about how burning fossil fuels

and other industrial activities release carbon dioxide and

other gases that trap solar heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Predictions about the increasing pace of global warming

caused by human activity have so alarmed policy-makers

that efforts are under way to draw up an international

treaty — due to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 — to

curb greenhouse gas emissions. These efforts have

sparked controversy in the United States, where some

scientists and industry representatives dispute the

accuracy of future warming predictions and oppose limits

on energy consumption.

962 CQ Researcher

CQ ResearcherT

HE

Nov. 1, 1996Volume 6, No. 41

EDITORSandra Stencel

MANAGING EDITORThomas J. Colin

ASSOCIATE EDITORSSarah M. Magner

Richard L. Worsnop

STAFF WRITERSCharles S. ClarkMary H. Cooper

Kenneth Jost

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTTonya Harris

PUBLISHED BYCongressional Quarterly Inc.

CHAIRMANAndrew Barnes

VICE CHAIRMANAndrew P. Corty

EDITOR AND PUBLISHERNeil Skene

EXECUTIVE EDITORRobert W. Merry

Copyright 1996 Congressional Quarterly Inc., AllRights Reserved. CQ does not convey any license,right, title or interest in any information — includ-ing information provided to CQ from third parties— transmitted via any CQ publication or electronictransmission unless previously specified in writing.No part of any CQ publication or transmission maybe republished, reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded or distributed by any means whether elec-tronic or mechanical without prior written permis-sion of CQ. Unauthorized reproduction or trans-mission of CQ copyrighted material is a violationof federal law carrying civil fines of up to $100,000and serious criminal sanctions or imprisonment.

Bibliographic records and abstracts included inThe Next Step section of this publication arefrom UMI's Newspaper and Periodical Abstractsdatabase, and are used with permission.

The CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036). FormerlyEditorial Research Reports. Published weekly(48 times per year, not printed March 1, May 31,Aug. 30, Nov. 29) by Congressional QuarterlyInc., 1414 22nd St., N.W., Washington, D.C.20037. Annual subscription rate for libraries,businesses and government is $319. Additionalrates furnished upon request. Periodicals post-age paid at Washington, D.C. POSTMASTER:Send address changes to The CQ Researcher,1414 22nd St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

COVER: BARBARA SASSA-DANIELS

THE ISSUES

963 • Have scientists conclu-sively proven that humanactivities cause globalwarming?• Would global warmingcause irreparable harm tothe environment orhuman health?• Can an internationaltreaty succeed in reducingglobal greenhouseemissions?

BACKGROUND

970 Proof at LastIn the late 1950s, U.S.scientists launched thefirst major effort toconfirm the theorypostulated in 1896 bySwedish chemist SvanteArrhenius.

972 Action by U.S. and U.N.With support from theUnited States, the U.N.sets up the Intergovern-mental Panel on ClimateChange in 1988.

973 Climate Treaty SignedIn 1992, the United Statesand some 130 othercountries sign the firstbinding agreement toreduce greenhouse gasemissions.

CURRENT SITUATION

974 Voluntary ProgramsUntil this year, the Clintonadministration focused onprograms encouragingU.S. industry to voluntar-ily reduce greenhouseemissions.

975 Clinton Gets TougherTo meet its emissionreduction goals by 2000,the U.S. recently aban-doned voluntary pro-grams in favor of bindingtargets and timetables.

OUTLOOK

976 Opposition to TreatyMany U.S. industriesoppose the Clintonadministration’s advocacyof binding targets andtimetables for the climatechange agreement.

SIDEBARS ANDGRAPHICS

964 How the GreenhouseEffect Warms EarthGases trapped in theatmosphere raise thetemperature.

966 The Search for Non-Polluting CarsHydrogen fuel cells offerhope.

971 ChronologyKey events since 1896.

974 How YOU Can fightGlobal WarmingTips for consumers onreducing C02 emissions.

977 At IssueAre computer modelsreliable tools for predictingfuture climate trends?

FOR FURTHERRESEARCH

979 BibliographySelected sources used.

980 The Next StepAdditional articles fromcurrent periodicals.

BY MARY H. COOPER

THE ISSUES

Global Warming Update

Nov. 1, 1996 963

S wedish chemist Svante Arrheniuswas ahead of his time. So farahead, in fact, that for almost a

century scientists couldn’t confirm hisfar-sighted theory.

Contemplating the intense industrialdevelopment swirling around him,Arrhenius theorized in 1896 that all thecoal being burned was affecting Earth’stemperature. The vast amounts of car-bon dioxide and other gases beingreleased as a result, he said, were trap-ping solar heat in the atmosphere,much as the glass roof and walls of agreenhouse trap heat. Arrhenius pre-dicted that escalating industrializationwould add still more gases to the at-mosphere, causing global tempera-tures to rise several degrees.

In recent years, modern technologyhas proved that the Earth is indeedgetting warmer, launching an intenseglobal debate. Industrialized countriesand environmentalists say it is time tolimit emissions of so-called greenhousegases; developing nations and indus-try groups want more latitude to grow.

According to widely accepted meteo-rological evidence, the average globaltemperature has risen about 1 degreeFahrenheit since the turn of the century.Scientists are now predicting an addi-tional 2-7 degree rise in the 21st centuryif current trends continue unchecked.

A temperature rise of a few degreesmay seem insignificant, considering thathumans have thrived for millennia ininhospitable locales from the Arctic tothe tropics. But even a small rise couldwreak havoc throughout the world.Some scientists predict that melting po-lar ice could cause a three-foot rise insea levels. That would inundate low-lying coastal areas, threatening entirecountries, such as the Netherlands andBangladesh. Small island nations suchas the Maldives, Guam and Sri Lanka

could be virtually wiped out.Warming also is expected to cause

the spread of malaria, dengue feverand other deadly tropical diseases. Astropical regions expand in size, dis-ease-carrying mosquitoes will be ableto extend their range. Human suffer-ing could be further compounded bystarvation. Rising temperatures areexpected to disrupt weather patternsall over the world, possibly bringingdrought to vital food-producing re-gions, especially in sub-Saharan Af-rica, South Asia and tropical LatinAmerica. Entire species of plants andanimals could become extinct.

In the 1960s and early ’70s, satellitesand powerful supercomputers beganproviding additional support forArrhenius’ theory. In 1990, concernedworld leaders called on scientists tohelp them understand the implicationsof global climate change and decidewhat to do about it. Last December,the United Nations’ IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC), aworldwide network of 2,500 scientists,announced that the evidence of globalwarming was undeniable, albeit diffi-cult to accurately quantify. ‘‘Neverthe-

less,’’ the panel declared in its report,‘‘the balance of evidence suggests thatthere is a discernible human influenceon global climate.’’ 1

As the world’s leading economyand biggest consumer of fossil fuel,the United States is also the biggestproducer of greenhouse gases, ac-counting for more than one-fifth of allthe CO

2 — some 4.9 billion metric

tons. (See graphs, p. 968.) But be-cause the U.S. economy depends soheavily on oil, coal and natural gas,political leaders have been reluctantto ask industry to curb greenhousegas emissions without definitive proofof Arrhenius’ theory.

The unequivocal IPCC declaration,however, prompted the Clinton admin-istration to toughen U.S. environmen-tal policy. In July, former Sen. TimWirth, D-Colo., now under secretaryof State for global affairs, announcedthat the United States would seek todevelop yet-to-be-determined targetsand timetables for reducing gas emis-sions. Under the sponsorship of theUnited Nations, the United States andother nations have been working on aglobal climate-change treaty and arescheduled to sign the finished docu-ment in Kyoto, Japan, in December1997 (see p. 976).

‘‘We think that there are lots ofpossible impacts from changes to theclimate system, many of which areundesirable,’’ says Eileen B. Claussen,assistant secretary of State for oceansand international environmental andscientific affairs and a lead U.S. nego-tiator at the treaty talks. ‘‘The fact thatthere is now some clear evidence ofhuman input into those changes sug-gests to us that we ought to be seriousabout how we respond.’’

Although the Clinton administra-tion refrained from stipulating eitherprecise limits on emissions or thedeadlines for achieving them, thecommitment to reach such goals hasroiled an already heated international

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

964 CQ Researcher

Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere.

Most radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and warms it.

Some solar radiation is reflected by the Earth and the atmosphere.

Some infrared radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, warming the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.

Earth’s

Atmosphere

How the Greenhouse Effect Warms Earth Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the Earth’s atmosphere trap solar heat, warming Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.

Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Earth

Sara

h M

. M

agner

debate. Environmentalists and scien-tists who support immediate curbs saythey are crucial to preventing futuredisaster. But some industry spokes-men and scientists say the evidencedoes not warrant policies that they saywill cause irreparable harm to the U.S.economy.

‘‘We oppose legally binding targetsand timetables, as well as mandatorycommand-and-control policies andmeasures,’’ says John Novak, a spokes-

man for the Edison Electric Institute(EEI), which represents electric powercompanies and electric utility holdingcompanies. Most of EEI’s membersburn coal and would come under anycaps on fossil fuel use. ‘‘We believethat those types of policies will forcepremature emissions reductions thatwill be costly and are not warranted atthis time,’’ Novak says. ‘‘All the scienceshows that this is a long-term issue andthat there is sufficient time to take ac-

tion to mitigate climatechange.’’

The Global ClimateChange Coalition, an-other industry group, isleading the chargeagainst mandatory limitson greenhouse gas emis-sions, predicting thatthey would ruin theeconomy. ‘‘We’ve got tobe cautious because thestakes are so high,’’ saysExecutive Director JohnB. Shlaes. ‘‘All the rel-evant economic analysessay that the United Statesis going to take a majorhit on the economy ifany of the [limits] thathave been on the tableare adopted.’’

A s tudy commis-sioned by the coalitionpredicts that adoption ofsome proposals wouldcause a 3 percent fall inU.S. gross domesticproduct by 2010, result-ing in a 23 percent dropin the growth rate ofAmericans’ living stan-dards. 2

Some scientists alsotake issue with the needfor immediate steps tocut greenhouse emis-sions. ‘‘There has beenan intentional confusionbetween the concept ofglobal warming and the

magnitude of global warming,’’ saysPatrick J. Michaels, a climatologist atthe University of Virginia. ‘‘A lot ofpeople can correctly state that globalwarming is real, that the planetwarmed in this century. But the argu-ment then stops without going intothe details. You have to ask the ques-tion, not whether the planet will warm,but how much, and how. How muchdo we want to spend to deal with aproblem that we’re not even so sure

Nov. 1, 1996 965

is a problem?’’Supporters of curbs dismiss such

critics. ‘‘They are only a small handfulof people,’’ says Michael Oppen-heimer, an atmospheric physicist atthe Environmental Defense Fund inNew York. ‘‘The consensus view onthe nature of the problem has beenestablished by the Intergovern-mental Panel on ClimateChange. It’s fair to questiontheir findings, but you have toask what evidence the few crit-ics are putting forward. Basi-cally what they mostly do ispick at details without offeringany new evidence. Their argu-ments have been consideredand laid aside because theydon’t deliver anything new tothe equation.’’

Even some U.S. industriesthat stand to suffer initially fromcaps on emissions view thestricter policy as both environ-mentally necessary and poten-tially beneficial economically,because it will encourage thedevelopment of new technol-ogy. ‘‘We believe that the sci-ence is compelling enough tourge action on the national andinternational level, ’ ’ saysMichael L. Marvin, executivedirector of the Business Coun-cil for Sustainable Energy,whose members include elec-tric utilities, natural gas compa-nies and appliance manufac-turers. ‘‘It’s a two-sided coin,because the costs of inactionare of consequence as well. Accord-ing to our estimate, with limited gov-ernment intervention we can increasethe number of jobs and decrease byabout 12 percent the overall amountof carbon dioxide that goes into theatmosphere.’’

As negotiations on the global cli-mate treaty proceed, the debate in theUnited States and other nations willcontinue to center on the followingquestions:

Have scientists conclusivelyproven that human activitiescause global warming?

For most of this century, scientistslacked the technology to prove ordisprove the existence of global warm-ing. It is only with the developmentof highly precise satellite measuringequipment and supercomputers able

to process vast quantities of weatherdata that scientists in recent years haveestablished firm grounds for their cli-mate assessments.

As a result, certain findings aresupported by virtually all climate sci-entists. ‘‘We know that greenhousegases warm Earth because they arethere naturally,’’ Oppenheimer says.‘‘We know that they trap heat —otherwise we wouldn’t be here be-cause the Earth would be 60 degrees

colder. Nobody argues about all that.We also know that greenhouse gasesare building up and that the buildupof gases will warm Earth further.Nobody argues with that either. Thequestion is how much, how fast.’’

The consensus view expressed bythe IPCC is that current rates of emis-sions will leave twice as much carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere inthe next several decades asthere was before the IndustrialRevolution. Such an increase,the panel predicts, would re-sult in global temperatures upto 7 degrees Fahrenheit higherthan today — and the fastestwarming trend of the past10,000 years.

But while climatologistsagree that Earth’s temperatureis rising, some dispute the levelof man’s contribution to therise. The main flaw in the sci-ence, they say, lies in the com-puter representations of globalclimate known as ‘‘general cir-culation models.’’ (See ‘‘At Is-sue,’’ p. 977.)

Sallie Baliunas, an astro-physicist at Harvard Univer-sity, said that ‘‘only a smallpart of the 0.5 degree Celsius[about 1 degree F] rise in thepast 100 years — no more thana few tenths of a degree —could have been caused byhuman-made greenhousegases.’’ That’s because most ofthe warming occurred before1940, while most of the 50

percent increase in gas emissions byindustrial development and transpor-tation came after 1940, she said. Forthis reason, Baliunas said, ‘‘the 0.5-1.5degree C warming predicted by thecomputer simulations exaggerates thegreenhouse effect produced by theequivalent 50 percent buildup of car-bon dioxide.’’ 3

As the debate intensifies over whatto do about global warming, ques-tions about the reliability of scientific

‘‘A lot of people can correctly state

that global warming is real, that

the planet warmed in this century.

But the argument then stops

without going into the details. You

have to ask the question, not

whether the planet will warm, but

how much, and how. How much

do we want to spend to deal with a

problem that we’re not even so

sure is a problem?’’

— Patrick J. Michaelsclimatologist, University of Virginia

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

966 CQ Researcher

Cars That ‘Burn’ Hydrogen . . .the only states where GM has set up service centers for thenew model.

The car offers few real improvements over earlier electricprototypes, which were plagued by sluggish performance and

the need for frequent andtime-consuming batteryrecharging. The EV1 can gojust 90 miles between re-charging its lead-acidbattery, which can takemore than two hours. In anycase, American consumersin recent years have beendrawn more to high-performance, gas-guzzlingsport utility vehicles andluxury cars than energy-efficient models. With itstechnical drawbacks and$35,000 sticker price, theEV1 is not likely to breakany sales records.

Experts say that smog inLos Angeles and other citieswould lift significantly ifelectric cars took hold. But

while they can greatly reduce ground pollution by eliminatingtailpipe emissions, electric cars are not entirely pollution-free.Many utility plants supplying the electricity they run on stillburn coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel of all. And coal-fired utilitieswould still generate particulate matter and sulfates in an electric-car era.

For the same reason, electric cars would be of limited

The United States is currently the world’s biggest emitterof carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, andgasoline-powered vehicles account for nearly a third of

the U.S. total. 1 If the United States is going to get seriousabout reducing greenhousegas emissions, clearly some-thing must be done about thekinds of cars Americans makeand use.

Automakers are workingon developing cleaner carsby searching for alternativesto the gasoline-poweredinternal-combustion engine.But their goal primarily hasbeen to reduce smog-causing pollutants, ratherthan C0

2 and other green-

house emissions.Toward that end, the

California Legislature in 1990passed a law requiring auto-makers to include a “zero-emissions” vehicle among themodels they sell in the stateby model year 1998. Early thisyear, however, the state bowed to industry pressure anddropped the 1998 deadline. But by then automakers hadalready dusted off an old idea — a battery-powered electriccar — which made its market debut this fall. 2

General Motors’ Saturn division has introduced the firstcommercially available electric passenger car — the EV1(for Electric Vehicle 1) — in Southern California and Arizona,

data have at times led to chargesimpugning the integrity of the scien-tists themselves. Each side accuses theother of bending its findings to suitpolitical and business interests.

Critics say the way the IPCC found‘‘a discernible human influence onglobal climate’’ throws the finding itselfinto doubt. After the report was sub-mitted to scientists for review and thepeer-review process was completed,wording expressing uncertaintiesabout the report’s findings reportedlywas altered. 4 The revised text wasthen published without again under-going the full peer-review process. 5

The Universi ty of Virginia ’s

Michaels concedes that panel mem-bers did nothing technically wrong inchanging the wording after the peer-review process was completed be-cause their own rules permitted thechange. ‘‘But the real question is, Wasit the right thing to do?’’ he asks. ‘‘Wasit right to insert a few sentences [aboutthe human role in climate change] thatthe authors knew were political dyna-mite and then to disingenuously turnthe other way and pretend they didn’trealize that they would be used likethis? That is hokum.’’

Supporters of the IPCC dismiss thecriticism. ‘‘It’s nonsense,’’ Oppenheimersays. Claussen suggests that the issue

has been blown out of proportion bypeople with an interest in subvertingthe treaty negotiations. ‘‘I think thereare people — some, but not all, of theindustry groups — who have tried tocreate a controversy,’’ she says. ‘‘But Idon’t actually think there is much of acontroversy.’’

Michaels himself has been chargedwith bias because the coal industryfunds some of his research. ‘‘Where inthe Constitution is it written that in-dustry cannot ask a scientific researchquestion, and that in asking the ques-tion it tarnishes the reputation of theperson they asked it of?’’ he respondsindignantly. Michaels also says that

Toyota says its new non-polluting car runs on electricitygenerated by a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen.

Reu

ters

Nov. 1, 1996 967

. . . Would Reduce Greenhouse Emissionsuse in reducing global warming unless non-fossil energysources are used to produce the electricity needed torecharge their batteries. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhousegas implicated in warming, is emitted by all fossil fuels,including the main current alternative to coal in U.S. powerplants, natural gas. According to Mark Delucchi, a researcherat the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University ofCalifornia, Davis, the reduction in greenhouse gases emittedfrom using an electric car vs. a gasoline-powered car amountsto less than 20 percent.

Other technologies may offer greater hope for reducinggreenhouse gas emissions from cars. The most frequentlycited alternative to conventional lead-acid batteries is the“hydrogen fuel cell,” which produces electricity by “burning”hydrogen. Because the process takes place on board thevehicle, the fuel cell would eliminate one of the maindrawbacks of the EV1, plugging it into a wall outlet forhours when its battery runs down. 3

Fuel cells are the main focus of research supported by theClinton administration’s Partnership for a New Generation ofVehicles, a cooperative venture with the Big Three U.S.automakers. The program’s goal is to triple fuel economy inpassenger cars without sacrificing the performance, comfortand affordability available in today’s gasoline-driven models,all by 2003.

The main drawback of fuel cells involves hydrogenstorage. “Hydrogen in its natural state is a very diffuse gas,so to get it in a compact form that you can carry aroundwith you on a vehicle requires compressing it or reactingit with something else,” Delucchi says. “Systems exist to dothis, but so far they are expensive, heavy and bulky.”

Ultimately, the electric car’s ability to reduce greenhousegas emissions, whether it is run by a conventional battery or

a fuel cell, depends on where the fuel comes from. “Even ifyou just limit the electric vehicle to California, you’ll still havea fairly large reduction in greenhouse gases,” Delucchi says,“because California’s fuel mix includes a lot of natural gas andimported hydropower, a little nuclear power and not toomuch coal.” But in places like the Midwest, where utilitiesdepend heavily on burning coal to produce electricity, switchingto battery-powered electric cars would have much less of aneffect on greenhouse gas emissions.

The same caveat holds for fuel-cell electric vehicles.“Eventually we could obtain the hydrogen from electrolysis,or water-splitting,” Delucchi explains. “But the questionremains, Where do you get the electricity to split the water?It would be a pollution-free system only if the electricitycomes from solar energy.”

Ultimately, the usefulness of the next generation of electriccars in combating global warming — whether they run onbatteries or hydrogen fuel cells — depends on the futuredevelopment of alternative energy sources.

“If you charge the electric vehicle from places that usepretty much exclusively solar power,” Delucchi says, “thenyou can pretty much eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases.The real attraction of electric vehicles is not so much whatthey can do now, but what they can do in the long run.”

1 Alliance to Save Energy, American Gas Association and Solar EnergyIndustries Association, An Alternative Energy Future (1992), p. B1.2 For background, see “Electric Cars, The CQ Researcher, July 9, 1993,pp. 577-600.3 See Daniel Sperling, “The Case for Electric Vehicles,” ScientificAmerican, November 1996, pp. 54-59.

industry accounts for only about 16percent of his research funds, with therest coming from government grants.‘‘Does this make me 16 percent biasedand 84 percent unbiased?’’ he asks.

Michaels says he received at most$210,000 from the coal industry lastyear for climate research, comparedwith the federal government’s $2.1billion budget for climate researchover the same period. ‘‘If you aretelling me that $2.1 billion is beingderailed by $210,000, I think you mighthave an inaccurate perception ofconspiracy,’’ he says. ‘‘Someday thatfunding disparity is going to get outin public, and people are going to

wonder where in the heck the $2.1billion is going and what it’s buying.’’

Would global warming causeirreparable harm to the envi-ronment or human health?

The IPCC report summarized thefindings of recent scientific studies,listing several likely negative outcomesof global warming, including:

• �Sea levels would rise on average15-90 centimeters, or 6 inches to 3 feet,by 2100, because rising temperatureswould cause some melting of glaciersand polar ice sheets, and water expandsas it gets warmer. Seas would continueto rise at the same rate thereafter.

�• The number of extremely hotdays would increase, while extremelycold days would decrease.

�• Weather patterns would change,bringing more floods or droughts tosome areas.

�• Rainfall would be more intense,though scientists could not say if tropicalcyclones and other severe storms wouldchange in location and intensity. 6

Since the report came out, othermedia and scientific reports have pre-dicted dire consequences from climatechange in the absence of measures tocurtail emissions of greenhouse gases.In January, for example, newspaperand magazine stories blamed climate

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

968 CQ Researcher

South Africa

Kazakhstan

Mexico

PolandFrance

Italy

Canada

U.K.

Ukraine

India

Germany

Japan

Russian Fed.

China

United States

The 15 Countries With the Highest CO2 Emissions Highest Total CO2 Emissions, 1992

Heavily industrialized countries, led by the U.S., are among the world’s biggest emitters of industrial carbon dioxide.* Rapidly industrializing China and India could account for more than half the developing world’s CO2 by 2010.

Note: A metric ton equals 1,000 kilograms or 2,204.6 pounds.

* Industrial carbon dioxide refers to any CO2 produced by burning fossil fuel, including automobiles.

Sources: World Resources 1996-97, The World Resources Institute, 1996; based on data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 1995; Population Action International.

Highest Per Capita CO2 Emissions, 1992

Wealthy, industrialized countries tend to release more industrial carbon dioxide per person than other countries. In largely undeveloped Kazakh-stan, however, the high per capita rate is largely due to oil production.

South Africa

Kazakhstan

Mexico

PolandFrance

Italy

Canada

U.K.

Ukraine

India

Germany

Japan

Russian Fed.

China

United States 4,881

2,668

2,103

1,093

878

769

611

566

410

408

362

342

333

298

290

19.1

2.3

14

8.8

8.4.9

9.9

9.8

14.4

7.1

6.38.9

3.8

17.7

7.5

(million metric tons of carbon dioxide) (metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita)

instability brought on by global warm-ing for the blizzard that paralyzed theEast Coast. 7

Of all the predicted results of cli-mate change, none is more certain tomany scientists than rising sea levels.‘‘I would consider it firm that the sealevel will rise by a global average ofa half-foot to three feet in the nextcentury,’’ Oppenheimer says. ‘‘Tounderstand whether that’s important

or not, over the last 100 years sea levelhas risen about five inches, and we’realready experiencing difficulties inmanaging that level of sea-level rise.’’

In the United States, he says, a three-foot rise ‘‘would extensively flood ar-eas where a lot of people live, likesouthern Louisiana and parts of SouthFlorida, and would require expensiveinfrastructure changes in places likeDallas, Texas, Charleston, S.C., and to

some extent New York City.’’While wealthy countries like the

United States or even the low-lyingNetherlands could probably managesuch a threat, the same is not true formany threatened regions, such as theMaldives, the Ganges delta inBangladesh and Egypt’s Nile delta.‘‘For many countries, managing threefeet of sea level rise is not going tobe possible,’’ Oppenheimer says.

Nov. 1, 1996 969

Even if warming does occur, criticsrespond, the sea-level predictions areexaggerated because temperatures inthe polar regions would still remainbelow freezing. They also suggest thata slight warming would likely cause anincrease in snowfall, binding up someof the projected melt in snowpack. 8

According to another report, however,a regional warming trend over the past50 years already has caused ice shelvesalong the coast of Ant-arctica to collapse. 9

Another widelycited threat to humanlife resulting from cli-mate change is thespread of mosquito-borne infectious dis-eases, such as malariaand dengue fever, asthe insects’ tropicalhabitat expands north-ward. Concernmounted in the UnitedStates last year whena dengue outbreakspread to northernMexico. 10

But skeptics say thatfaulty climate modelswere used to predict anincrease in the mosqui-toes’ habitat, and that technological ad-vances such as air-conditioning and im-proved living conditions eradicated ma-laria from the United States in the pastand can protect humans from these dis-eases in the future. 11 Similarly, a reportpredicting that algal blooms enhancedby warming waters would spread chol-era was criticized as unfounded by theevidence. 12

Other studies indicating irrevers-ible damage to the environment as aresult of climate change have emergedin recent months. One study, hailed asthe first direct observation of globalwarming’s biological impact, foundthat the range of Edith’s checkerspotbutterfly had shifted northward alongthe West Coast as the small insect diedout in Mexico and spread into south-

ern Canada at the same time thattemperatures rose throughout the re-gion. 13 Michaels refutes the finding,saying there has been no measurablewarming in the region. 14

Some critics of the global warmingtheory suggest that even if they areproved wrong over time and tempera-tures do rise, people will benefit fromchange. World Climate Report arguesthat warmer temperatures will open

Siberia and northern Canada to agri-cultural production, increase globalrainfall and reduce the hazards ofwinter driving. ‘‘If global warmingoccurs,’’ the magazine says, ‘‘the manybenefits will offset [the] drawbacks.People like warm climates. Heatingbills are lower. Clothing costs arereduced. Transportation is lesstroubled. And death rates are lower.’’ 15

Can an international treatysucceed in reducing globalgreenhouse emissions?

The major challenge to policy-makers intent on thwarting globalwarming is the pervasive nature ofgreenhouse gases. Some of the gases,such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),are man-made. They can be removed

from the equation if people agree tostop producing them.

This is already happening in thecase of CFCs, once widely used aspropellants in aerosol containers, asrefrigerants and as solvents in com-puter chip production. After it wasfound that CFCs were destroying thestratospheric ozone layer, allowingmore of the sun’s harmful ultravioletradiation to reach the Earth, the

world’s CFC produc-ers agreed, by signingthe 1987 MontrealProtocol on Sub-stances that Depletethe Ozone Layer, tophase out their pro-duction for most usesby January 1996. 16

But man-madegases contribute onlyslightly to the green-house effect, so re-moving CFCs will dolittle to mitigate glo-bal warming. By farthe biggest contribu-tor is carbon dioxide,which people theworld over release,chiefly by burningfossil fuels and cutting

down the forests that remove the gasfrom the atmosphere. That makescarbon dioxide much harder to curtailthan CFCs. ‘‘The economics underly-ing the Montreal Protocol are differentthan what underlies global warming,’’Oppen-heimer says, ‘‘just because car-bon is so pervasive.’’

Industry critics adamantly opposeany treaty with binding targets andtimetables. ‘‘All economic analysisthat’s been done so far says this willcost the United States up to 4 percentin lost gross domestic product (GDP)at the same time that lots of countriesthat will not be part of the treaty willbe able to develop their fossil fuelsources unfettered,’’ says John B.Shlaes, executive director of the Glo-bal Climate Coalition, the chief indus-

Scientists consider this iceberg, which recently broke away from Antarctica,as an important clue to the rate of global warming. Some experts predict

that increasing global warming could melt polar ice and cause athree-foot rise in seas levels, flooding low-lying areas around the world.

Age

nce

Fra

nce

Pre

sse

970 CQ Researcher

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

try group opposed to the IPCC find-ings and the treaty process. ‘‘We’veprobably never been confronted by atreaty of this scope in United Stateshistory, perhaps outside of a majortrade negotiation. There’s also neverbeen a treaty where governments arenegotiating on behalf of firms andhouseholds. We’re looking for a morerational, sensible and balanced ap-proach to this issue.’’

Despite the challenge, supportersof curbs on greenhouse gases see theMontreal Protocol — the first globaltreaty dealing with climate — as rea-son for optimism. ‘‘We learned some-thing from the Montreal Protocol pro-cess,’’ says Claussen, who helpednegotiate the treaty and directed theEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) program implementing it in theUnited States. ‘‘For one thing, the treatyis legally binding, and countries thatagreed to phase out CFCs have doneso. It also has in it a rational systemfor reconsideration of the targets,which was very helpful, both scientifi-cally and in terms of the technology.’’

Supporters also embrace theMontreal Protocol as a model for itsdifferentiation between developed anddeveloping countries. Because indus-trial countries benefited from CFCslong before the rest of the world, de-veloping countries argued that theyshould receive concessions for agree-ing to forgo the chemical. They signedon to the treaty after they were givenadditional time to live up to its provi-sions. ‘‘I’m not sure if a time lag is theperfect example in this case,’’ Claussensays. ‘‘But the developing countrieshave moved forward [in phasing outCFCs], so it’s not as if they decided notto do anything just because they aren’trequired to until later.’’

Some critics say a treaty to curbgreenhouse gases would be impos-sible to enforce. ‘‘Who’s going to verifyand monitor every power plant everyminute, or every factory everyminute?’’ Shlaes asks. ‘‘And yet that’swhat you’ve got to do to if you want Continued on p. 972

to go to that kind of process.’’But the kind of enforcement needed

to monitor, say, an arms control agree-ment may not be necessary for a cli-mate treaty. ‘‘There is no enforcementmechanism in the Montreal Protocol,’’says Claussen. ‘‘There is reporting andan implementation committee, whichhelps countries comply rather thanpunishing them for not complying.’’

Industry response to U.S. acid rainlegislation provides another modeltreaty supporters say could be includedto help countries comply with caps ongreenhouse gas emissions. 17 After TitleIV of the 1992 Clean Air Act requiredutilities and other industries to reducetheir emissions of sulfur dioxide re-leased by burning coal, many compa-nies that exceeded their clean-air quo-tas sold their excess allowances tocompanies that failed to comply. Amarket in sulfur dioxide allowancesemerged, which today is conducted onthe Chicago Board of Trade along withmarkets for pork belly futures andother agricultural commodities.

‘‘I think that, too, is a model be-cause in the end that system gave usgreater reductions in sulfur dioxideemissions than we expected, and at amuch cheaper price,’’ says Claussen,who also ran the acid rain complianceprogram at EPA. She concedes, how-ever, that setting up an internationalmarket in carbon emissions poses afar more daunting challenge. ‘‘It wasn’teasy to set up the system domesti-cally, and it will be far harder to doit internationally,’’ she says. ‘‘To makethat kind of system work, you have tohave something in place that assuresyou that the emissions that are beingtraded are real, which is much harderto do internationally.’’

Some industry representatives aremore pessimistic. ‘‘The only way some-thing like the sulfur dioxide market canwork is if you have a cap on emis-sions,’’ says Novak of the Edison Elec-tric Institute, who opposes any man-datory limits or timetables on carbonemissions. ‘‘We can provide the emis-

sions reductions to help mitigate cli-mate change on a voluntary basis. Wedon’t need mandatory targets and time-tables that will force us to reduce inways that would be more costly.’’

BACKGROUNDProof at Last

C arbon dioxide, the predominantgreenhouse gas, occurs naturally,

as do other greenhouse gases such asmethane, nitrous oxide and watervapor. Indeed, without them, Earthwould be too cold to sustain life aswe know it.

Over the millennia, greenhouse gaseshave become part of the complex ex-change of elements that allows life tothrive. In one of these vital cycles, plantstake up carbon dioxide through theirleaves, use it in photosynthesis andthen release oxygen, which animalsrequire to live. Completing the cycle,the same carbon dioxide that animalsexhale returns to the atmosphere to betaken up once again by plants, as wellas by the oceans that cover most of theEarth’s surface.

Until human populations soaredand began burning fossil fuels, green-house gases remained in relative bal-ance. The huge climate changes thatproduced periodic ice ages and heatwaves were the result of natural varia-tions caused by sudden fluctuations inthe sun’s emission of radiation, volca-nic eruptions on Earth and otherphenomena beyond man’s control.

But the Industrial Revolution, whichbegan in 19th-century Britain, ush-ered in a new age of rapid industri-alization that greatly increased man’simpact on the natural environment.By 1896, when Arrhenius postulatedwhat became known as the green-

Chronology

•

•

Nov. 1, 1996 971

•

1800s SvanteArhennius, a Swedish chemist,postulates in 1896 that in-creasing amounts of carbondioxide released into theatmosphere by coal-firedindustries will cause globaltemperatures to rise.

1950s-1960sScientists begin monitoring theatmosphere for carbondioxide and temperaturevariations.

1958Charles Keeling and other scien-tists from the Scripps Institute ofOceanography in La Jolla, Calif.,begin monitoring carbon dioxidelevels in Hawaii and other sites.Their work later shows a steadybuildup of the gas.

1970s-1980sComputer and satellite tech-nologies permit more precisedetection of greenhouse gastrends.

1974Chemists Sherwood Roland andMario Molina warn that emissionsof chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)and other man-made chemicalsare destroying the layer of strato-spheric ozone protecting Earthfrom the sun’s harmful ultravioletB radiation.

1985A large ozone hole is discoveredover Antarctica, confirming theozone hole theory. Roland andMolina later receive the NobelPrize in chemistry (1995).

1987Some 150 countries, including theUnited States, sign the MontrealProtocol on Substances thatDeplete the Ozone Layer, whichrestricts industrial use of CFCs.

June 23, 1988James E. Hansen, a climatespecialist at the Goddard Institutefor Space Studies in New YorkCity, tells a Senate committeethat global warming is occurring.The U.N. General Assembly setsup the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC), aglobal network of scientists toadvise world leaders.

1990s The climate-change debate intensifies asworld leaders narrow theirdifferences over a globaltreaty to curb greenhouse gasemissions.

1990In its first report, the IPCCannounces that greenhouse gasesare building up at an unprec-edented pace but refrains fromrecommending emission cutsunder political pressure from theUnited States and other industrialcountries dependent on fossilfuels.

May 9, 1992The United States and about 130other countries sign the U.N.Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change, the first bindingagreement dealing directly withclimate change. Signatories agreeto try to reduce their greenhousegas emissions to 1990 levels bythe year 2000.

June 1992At the Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, more countriessign the climate change conven-tion, bringing the total to 165.

April 1993President Clinton announces hisClimate Change Action Plan, a setof voluntary programs aimed atmeeting the framework target byenabling companies to join inpartnerships with federal govern-ment agencies to improve energyuse and cut greenhouse gasemissions.

March 1995Framework signatories issue theBerlin Mandate calling for con-crete plans to toughen the agree-ment by the end of 1997.

December 1995The IPCC announces for the firsttime that the scientific evidenceshows a “discernible humaninfluence on global climate.”

July 17, 1996Under Secretary of State TimWirth announces that the UnitedStates has abandoned its call forvoluntary steps to reduce green-house gas emissions and willpress instead for legally bindingtargets and timetables in treatynegotiations in Kyoto, Japan.

December 1997Negotiators from the UnitedStates and other nations arescheduled to produce a U.N.-sponsored climate-change treatyin Kyoto.

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

972 CQ Researcher

house effect, the Industrial Revolutionwas at full throttle and much of Eu-rope and the United States hadswitched from wood to coal to drivetheir economies. With the inventionand mass production of automobiles,demand for gasoline and other petro-leum derivatives to fuel an ever-grow-ing technological revolution mush-roomed, pouring more excess carbondioxide into the atmosphere.

Arrhenius predicted that a doublingof carbon dioxide in the atmospherewould cause a rise in the Earth’ssurface temperature of four to sixdegrees Celsius (7.2 to 10.8 degreesFahrenheit). But it would take almosta century to prove him right.

The first major effort to confirm thetheory came in 1958, when CharlesKeeling and other scientists at theScripps Institute of Oceanography inLa Jolla, Calif., began monitoring car-bon dioxide levels in Hawaii’s famedMauna Loa volcano.

Using actual measurements of theincrease in carbon dioxide levels todate, scientists began developing waysto predict how much greenhousewarming might occur in the future.Their efforts laid the groundwork forthe so-called general circulation mod-els in use today to predict future cli-mate conditions. The first credible pro-jections came in the mid-1960s, whenSyukuro Manabe of Princeton Univer-sity estimated that average global tem-peratures would rise by 2 degrees C inthe 21st century if carbon dioxide lev-els doubled. In the 1970s, scientistswere able to better establish the role ofother greenhouse gases, includingman-made chemicals such as CFCs.

Doubts Emerge, and Then NewEvidence

The development of advanced com-puters and satellite technology enabledscientists to take ever more detailedmeasurements of greenhouse gas emis-sions. But their work also uncoveredwhat critics said was a major discrep-

ancy in the greenhouse theory. Whilethe global temperature was found tohave risen from around 1880 and 1940,it leveled off between 1940 and 1970.Scientists discovered that particulatematter cast aloft by volcanic eruptionsand by coal burning itself could de-flect sunlight back into space, perhapscountering the greenhouse effect.Some scientists began to predict in-stead a coming ice age.

By the late 1980s, however, the warm-ing trend had reappeared, and there wasa growing consensus within the scien-tific community that Arrhenius’ predic-tion was indeed coming to pass. Newevidence brought up in ice core samplesfrom Antarctica and Greenland bolsteredthat view. By analyzing the gases trappedin ice for up to 20,000 years, scientistsfound that carbon dioxide levels hadheld relatively steady until the beginningof industrialization in about 1800, whenthey began to rise. Further evidence ofglobal warming emerged as the carbondioxide measurements from Mauna Loaand other stations confirmed a continu-ing buildup of the gas since 1958.

In 1988, concern over the threat ofglobal warming was brought to theworld’s attention. On June 23, JamesE. Hansen of the Goddard Institute forSpace Studies in New York testifiedbefore a Senate committee that theevidence was growing daily that glo-bal warming already was under way.The same month, participants at aninternational conference in Toronto,‘‘The Changing Atmosphere: Implica-tions for Global Security,’’ warned thatglobal warming posed a threat secondonly to nuclear war.

Action by U.S., U.N.

I n 1988, the same year as Hansen’scall to action to curb global warm-

ing, the U.N. General Assembly set upa special body — the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change — to

advise world leaders on the nature ofthe problem. The panel, establishedas a partnership of the World Meteo-rological Organization and the U.N.Environment Programme, eventuallywould involve more than 2,500 scien-tists from more than 100 countries.

Reflecting the unprecedented com-plexity of climate change, the IPCCcalled on three working groups toaddress major areas involved in theissue: one to assess the scientific mea-surements and predictions; another toanalyze the probable impacts of cli-mate change on the environment,human health, society and theeconomy; and a final group to recom-mend policies to address the problem.

Most government leaders were reluc-tant to act on the early warnings. Reduc-ing emissions of carbon dioxide andother greenhouse gases not only wouldmean burning less fossil fuel for industryand transportation but also curbing de-forestation, a process that adds to theexcess carbon dioxide by destroyingtrees, which absorb it. Carbon dioxidealso is released when wood is burned.But such steps threatened to undermineeconomic growth and even destroy en-tire industries if undertaken too quickly.The world’s oil, coal and natural gas in-dustries alone are worth more than atrillion dollars, while many developingcountries are undergoing rapid defores-tation as a result of population growth, atrend that may take many decades toreverse. 18

Although they were loath to takeaction, political leaders were comingunder pressure from both sides eitherto curb emissions or resist such ef-forts, even before the IPCC releasedits first reports on climate change. In1989, a Dutch government official, forexample, warned the president ofBrazil that if his government failed tocurb deforestation of the Amazonbasin, the Netherlands would cease toexist, as rising temperatures wouldmelt polar ice caps and raise sea lev-els. At the same time, industry repre-sentatives in the United States called

Continued from p. 970

Nov. 1, 1996 973

‘‘Continued use of non-binding

targets that are not met makes a

mockery of the treaty process. It

leaves the impression that rhetoric is

what counts rather than real

emission reductions — an outcome

that is both unacceptable and

counterproductive.’’

— Tim Wirth, Under Secretary of State

on the Bush administration to ‘‘hangtough on this one’’ and reject calls tocurb emissions. 19

For his part, President George Bushwas quick to acknowledge the threatof climate change. He clearly stated ata February 1990 IPCC meeting in Wash-ington that, ‘‘We all recognize that theatmosphere is changing in unexpectedand unprecedented ways,’’ and that‘‘the future of the Earth mustnot be compromised.’’ 20

But Bush was reluctant tomake policy changes withoutfurther evidence that globalwarming was occurring. Whenhe called on other industrialcountries to adopt a wait-and-see approach, he was metwith strong criticism frommany European allies whoaccused him of risking theglobal environment to protectU.S. industries — collectivelythe biggest emitters of green-house gases in the world. (Seegraphs, p. 968.)

The new U.N. panel’s sci-entific working group con-cluded in its first report in1990 that emissions of green-house gases were alreadyheating up the planet at anunprecedented pace. Theypredicted that if current trendscontinued the average globaltemperature would rise onedegree C — nearly two de-grees Fahrenheit — within thenext 30 years.

But the overall IPCC report issuedthat August containing the findings ofall three working groups struck a morecautious note, clearly reflecting thecontroversial nature of the debate be-tween scientists and industry interests.In contrast to the scientists’ warningof global warming, the report referredonly to ‘‘potential climate change’’ andrefrained from calling for cuts or evena freeze in greenhouse emissions,steps the IPCC scientists had said werenecessary to slow the warming trend. 21

Climate Treaty Signed

O n May 9, 1992, the United Statesand about 130 other countries

signed the first binding agreementsdealing directly with climate change— the United Nations Framework Con-vention on Climate Change. The pact,which was presented at the Earth

Summit held the next month in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, eventually was signedby 165 countries and the EuropeanUnion.* The pact called for ‘‘stabili-zation of greenhouse gas concentra-tions at a level that would preventdangerous anthropogenic [human] in-terference with the climate system.’’

* The 15 members of the European Union alsosigned the treaty individually.

try to reduce their greenhouse gasemissions to 1990 levels by the year2000. Developing countries were givenextra time to meet the target and wereasked to report on their energy useand emission levels and the steps theyintended to take to reduce them.Because developing countries are ex-pected to account for a growing por-tion of gas emissions as they industri-

alize, industrial countries prom-ised to provide financing andtechnology to help them meettheir targets.

As it became increasinglyclear that few countries wouldmeet their emissions targets, theframework signatories met inMarch 1995 in Berlin, Germany,to discuss ways to strengthentheir commitment. In a decisioncalled the Berlin Mandate, theparties agreed to come up withconcrete plans to toughen thetreaty by the end of 1997. De-veloping countries such asChina, India and Brazil wouldbe exempted from any newcommitments, however.

The meeting revealed signifi-cant disagreements in how tomake the treaty tougher. TheEuropean Union called for theadoption of a carbon tax, anenergy tax based on the amountof carbon dioxide released by agiven energy source. A groupof 37 countries with the most tolose from rising sea levels —the Alliance of Small Island

States (AOSIS) — urged the industrialcountries to cut their emissions 20percent below 1990 levels by 2005.The United States and other industrialcountries rejected this goal as poten-tially ruinous to their fossil-fuel-driveneconomies.

One innovative scheme thatemerged from the Berlin summit wasan agreement to start a pilot programto encourage firms in industrial coun-tries to set up renewable energy orreforestation projects in developing

Most industrial countries agreed to

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

974 CQ Researcher

How YOU Can Fight Global Warming

W hile the United States and other nations continueto negotiate a U.N. treaty to reduce emissions ofgreenhouse gases, there are many things that

consumers can do on their own:

1. Drive less. Cars account for about one-third of allU.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Take public transportation,walk or bike when possible. If you have to use your car,consolidate errands into a single trip.

2. Buy a fuel-efficient model. Geo Prizm, Acura Integra,Ford Contour 4, Chrysler Concorde and Honda Odyssey/Isuzu Oasis are among the most efficient vehicles in theirclasses, according to Consumer Reports. Popular sport-utilityvehicles and pickup trucks generally consume more fuelthan cars and minivans.

3. Buy energy-efficient appliances. Federal law requiresmanufacturers to place an Energy Guide label on mostmajor appliances. Refrigerators, the biggest electricityconsumers in most households, are now about 75 percentmore efficient than those made in the 1970s.

4. Weatherize your home. Caulking, weatherstripping,insulation and replacement windows can stop leaks of heatedor cooled air. Use heating and air-conditioning wisely toreduce fuel consumption.

5. Lighten up your roof. Air-conditioning use can becut by one-fifth in hot climates by replacing a dark roofwith a light-colored roof that reflects sunlight.

6. Plant trees. By absorbing carbon dioxide, treesreduce greenhouse gas emissions. Strategically planteddeciduous trees can be used to shade houses in thesummer while allowing sunlight to penetrate in the winter,reducing demand for both air-conditioning and heating.Evergreens also can be used as wind breaks, furtherreducing heating needs.

7. Replace conventional incandescent light bulbs.Compact fluorescents and Tungsten-halogen lamps cost moreto buy, but save money over time in reduced electricityconsumption.

8. Buy fewer things. About half the energy we consumegoes into the myriad products and services we buy.

9. Speak up. Urge your political representatives to enactlaws that save energy and combat greenhouse gas emissions.

Sources: Natural Resources Defense Council; “Turning up the Heat,”Consumer Reports, September 1996, p. 43.

countries. This ‘‘joint implementation’’plan came immediately under attackby developing countries and someindustry representatives alike. Devel-oping countries worried that indus-trial countries would try to get creditfor such projects as a way to get outof their commitments to cut carbonemissions at home. Energy industriesinsisted that they would only go alongwith a stronger treaty if they wereallowed to get credit for helping re-duce emissions abroad. 22

Meeting again in Rome last Decem-ber, signatories to the framework con-vention endorsed the IPCC’s finding ofa ‘‘discernible human influence’’ onglobal climate change. Participants atboth the Berlin and Rome conferencesfailed, however, to agree to legallybinding targets and timetables for green-house gas emissions.

CURRENTSITUATION

Voluntary Programs

President Clinton has placed envi-ronmental protection near the top

of his policy agenda from the start ofhis administration. Shortly after en-tering the White House in 1993, Clin-ton signaled his support for interna-tional environmental efforts by creat-ing the position of under secretary forglobal affairs and naming Wirth, alongtime environmental advocate, tothe post. He also named Claussen, a

longtime environmental regulator, toassume the top State Department postdealing directly with climate changenegotiations.

Unti l this year, the Cl intonadministration’s stance focused onencouraging U.S. industry to voluntar-ily reduce their emissions of green-house gases. On Earth Day 1993, thepresident introduced the ClimateChange Action Plan, a set of voluntaryprograms enabling companies to joinpartnerships with the Department ofEnergy, the Environmental ProtectionAgency and other federal agencies tohelp improve energy use and cutemissions at the same time. The plan’sgoal was to enable the United Statesto meet its commitment to reducecarbon emissions to 1990 levels by2000 through voluntary incentivesrather than mandatory regulations.

Nov. 1, 1996 975

The EPA’s Green Lights program,for example, encourages businessesto install energy-efficient lighting instores and plants, saving 800,000 tonsof greenhouse gases a year. Statedanother way, energy saved throughthe program would light 3 millionhomes for a year. The EnergyDepartment’s Climate Wise programto publicly recognize companies’ vol-untary efforts to cut emissions andMotor Challenge program to improveindustrial motors systems are expectedto reduce carbon emissions by a totalof nearly 10 million metric tons ofcarbon equivalent (MMTCE) by 2000.The EPA’s Voluntary Aluminum In-dustry Partnership is expected to re-duce emissions of purofluorocarbons,another greenhouse gas, by nearly 2MMTCE by 2000.

‘‘The beauty of the voluntary pro-grams is that there is a presumption thatthe actions they encourage will actuallybe profitable,’’ says Paul Stolpman, di-rector of the EPA’s Office of Atmo-spheric Programs, which runs theadministration’s voluntary emissionsprograms. ‘‘When people sign up forthese programs they actually makemoney because they’re saving so muchenergy. We’re hopeful that voluntaryefforts to reduce greenhouse gases inways that are economically efficient willactually improve the state of the U.S.economy and lead to increased em-ployment and output because oureconomy will be more efficient.’’

Perhaps more than any other sec-tor, the electric utility industry hastaken advantage of voluntary pro-grams to reduce greenhouse emis-sions. Utilizing a provision of the 1992Energy Policy Act, the industry hassince 1993 worked with the EnergyDepartment to cut emissions by en-couraging consumers to cut their elec-tricity use by purchasing more effi-cient lighting, appliances and buildingmaterials. Utilities have also switchedfrom coal to less-polluting natural gasand improved the efficiency of coal-fired plants.

According to EEI’s Novak, morethan 600 electric utilities, accountingfor 60 percent of the industry, areparticipating in the voluntary program,which he estimates will reduce emis-sions by 44 million metric tons ofcarbon by 2000. ‘‘We’re encouragingour members to continue their ef-forts,’’ Novak says. ‘‘And we’re work-ing with the administration to makesure that if there are targets or time-tables after 2000, we will get credit’’for the cuts already made. ‘‘If we’renot going to get allowances, we mayconsider not doing them.’’

The administration’s voluntary pro-grams have been far less successful inreducing carbon dioxide emissionsfrom cars, trucks and airplanes, theleading sources of greenhouse gasemissions in the United States. Onevoluntary program, the Partnership fora New Generation of Vehicles, isdesigned to encourage the auto indus-try to go beyond current research intoelectric battery-driven cars to developan emission-free, efficient vehicle. 23

(See story, p. 966.) But results fromthis initiative will not come soonenough to meet the 2000 target.

Last year, the administration alsocalled a meeting in Detroit — dubbedthe ‘‘Car Talks’’ — aimed at improvingfuel economy standards beyond exist-ing corporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standards mandated by Con-gress in 1975. By 1985, domesticautomakers had reached the fleetwideCAFE target of 27.5 miles per gallon,but lower gasoline prices and risingconsumer demand for more powerfulvehicles have stymied further improve-ments. After energy and auto industryrepresentatives failed to resolve theirdifferences over whether to tightenCAFE standards to raise the gasolinetax, the talks broke up without reach-ing a final agreement.

Clinton Gets Tougher

A s it became clear that the volun-tary programs would not enable

the United States to meet its emis-sions goal by 2000, the administrationtoughened its policy. At the most re-cent meeting of the parties to the U.N.

A section of Amazon forest in Brazil is cleared by slash and burn. Many developingcountries are undergoing rapid deforestation, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide

and other greenhouse gases. Trees remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis;

burning of brush and tree limbs releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Den

i M

cInty

re/A

llst

ock

/Pic

ture

Net

work

Inte

rnat

ional

976 CQ Researcher

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

Continued on p. 978

climate change agreement, Under Sec-retary of State Wirth announced thatthe United States was abandoning itsinsistence on non-binding goals foremission cuts.

‘‘Continued use of non-bind-ing targets that are not metmakes a mockery of the treatyprocess,’’ Wirth said. ‘‘It leavesthe impression that rhetoric iswhat counts rather than realemission reductions — an out-come that is both unacceptableand counterproductive.’’ 24

The administration empha-sizes that it supports making thetarget and the timetable for emis-sion reductions binding — notthe measures used to meet them.This puts the United States atodds with the European Unionand some developing countriesthat have proposed introducinga worldwide carbon tax to forcecompliance with the treaty’seventual targets.

‘‘The Europeans’ positiongoing into the Geneva meetingwas that they wanted bindingpolicies and measures, like re-frigerator efficiency standardsand uniform taxes, and a non-binding target,’’ Claussen says.‘‘That gives you the ability to sayyou’re doing great things, eventhough the target isn’t real. Weessentially reversed that by say-ing you have to achieve a cer-tain level of emissions by a certaindate.’’ This more flexible approachwould leave the matter of how toreach the goal up to the countriesthemselves.

The Clinton policy also rejects theisland nations’ timetable for a 20percent cut in greenhouse gas emis-sions by 2005. ‘‘This is too much toofast,’’ Claussen says. ‘‘In the UnitedStates, where we would have to haveany treaty we negotiate ratified by theSenate and would probably needimplementing legislation to do that,we couldn’t even get off the ground

OUTLOOKOpposition to Treaty?

M ost participants at the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change

in Geneva agreed with the Clintonadministration’s new strategy. By theend of the meeting, all but 14 coun-tries had endorsed the proposal to

adopt binding targets and timetables— chiefly the 11 members of the Or-ganization of Petroleum-ExportingCountries (OPEC) and Russia, whichsee a binding treaty as a threat to oil-

dependent economies.But opposition remains

strong in the United States,where many industries thathave supported the Clintonadministration’s voluntaryprograms to cut greenhousegas emissions oppose bind-ing targets and timetables.‘‘This is a competitiveness is-sue,’’ says Shlaes of the Glo-bal Climate Coalition. ‘‘TheUnited States is 85 percent de-pendent on fossil fuel, so it is[vital] for our manufacturing.Meanwhile China, which isgoing to equal all the world’semissions today in the next25 years, has no meaningfulobligation to cut emissions.’’

Shlaes and other criticscontinue to downplay the ur-gency of taking steps to miti-gate carbon emissions andcall for more research beforecommitting the United Statesto any binding treaty obliga-tions. ‘‘There’s time to get itright, both in terms of under-standing how the science isworking and also understand-ing what our economic op-t ions are, ’ ’ Shlaes says.

‘‘Rather than give us a balanced world-wide approach, this could end up hurt-ing the United States because wehaven’t really done our homework.’’

Aside from declared opponents toa binding treaty, such as Shlaes’ coa-lition, American businesses are by nomeans united in their views of U.S.policy on climate change. ‘‘This wholeconcept of the economy vs. the envi-ronment is a non-starter,’’ says Marvinof the Business Council for Sustain-able Energy. ‘‘We need to figure outhow we can preserve our quality of

Heavy smog virtually obscures high-rise buildings indowntown Los Angeles, Calif. Auto exhausts are a major

source of carbon dioxide, the predominant greenhouse gas.

Tom

Car

roll/P

hoto

take/

Pic

ture

Net

work

Inte

rnat

ional

for a couple of years.’’With no treaty feasible before the

December 1997 meeting in Kyoto,Claussen says, ‘‘We couldn’t possiblydo anything like that by 2005.’’

At Issue:

noyes

Nov. 1, 1996 977

Are computer models reliable tools for predicting climate trends?

MICHAEL C. MACCRACKENDirector, Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE,MARCH 6, 1996.

f or simple systems or single processes, conceptualmodels can be particularly useful. For systems ascomplex as the full Earth system, arguably the mostcomplex of all research endeavors, a systematic means

must be found for incorporating our understanding into aquantitative framework.

The approach that is used is to construct mathematicalmodels that to the greatest extent possible rely on funda-mental and immutable laws of nature. Reliance must beplaced on various approximations because understandingwill never be fully complete and computer size and re-sources are limited. Uncertainties will always exist — andthere will always be questions — for not everything can beexplained; but uncertainties are also the reason for anaggressive associated program of observations, analysis andprocess studies.

The mathematical climate models (variously called climatemodels, general circulation models or Earth system models,depending somewhat on their implementation) strive toinclude all that is understood about the climate system.Because there is no means to prove them right — only tosee where they break down — the models are constantlybeing put through an increasingly grueling series of tests tosee how well or poorly they match observations.

Models reproduce many aspects of the observed climate.That there are shortcomings, however, is to be expected —all modelers acknowledge them (just as all goodobservationalists acknowledge the shortcomings in theirobservations). The challenge is to identify why they are notprecisely reproducing nature and how to make them better.

But at any given time, models are at the cutting edge ofwhat we understand. They treat dozens of processes spreadout over the globe and up through to atmosphere and downthrough the oceans, all the time requiring that everything bedone consistently — no leaving out a process here andincluding it there, no assuming that changing one thing willnot change something else and so on. While experiencesfrom past climatic conditions can be a rich source of tests ofmodels (hence we study paleoclimates), only models canprovide quantitative projections of future conditions. . . .

While it might be tempting to wait until each process isunderstood before model calculations are attempted, makingand analyzing such calculations is as much part of theresearch and learning process as are observational andprocess studies. All of these efforts must proceed in parallel.

ROBERT E. DAVISAssociate professor, Department of Environmental Sciences,University of Virginia

FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE,MARCH 6, 1996.

m easurements of atmospheric circulation (a termthat encompasses wind flow at and above thesurface) have been taken over much of the Earth for

50 to 100 years or more. Circulation is a critical climate variablesince it is closely linked to temperature, rainfall and otherweather events. Models that generate daily weather forecasts arefounded upon principles that describe changes in the atmo-sphere’s circulation. Similarly, general circulation models(GCMs), like the ones used as the motivation for the Rio climatetreaty, are based on fundamental circulation principles. . . .

The developers of GCMs frequently state that, althoughtheir forecasts are not suitable for analysis on smaller spatialscales (regions or sub-regions), the models properly describethe large-scale features of the atmosphere accurately. Thus,the model predictions for an atmosphere with double thepreindustrial concentrations of greenhouse gases should bebasically correct over large areas.

Although individual GCMs differ substantially in theirregional forecasts, most are in agreement with respect to somelarger-scale features that should be expected in an enhancedgreenhouse atmosphere. Tropical temperatures are expected toincrease only slightly relative to polar temperatures. Further-more, this polar temperature increase is predicted to beconcentrated largely in the winter. Thus the models predict adecrease (in comparison to current values) in the equator-to-pole temperature gradient. In response, the winter atmosphericcirculation should become more summer-like, as representedby a weakening of the jet stream and a contraction of thecircumpolar vortex.

Based on observations of the upper atmosphere takensince the late 1940s, the winter circumpolar vortex hasactually exhibited a statistically significant expansion. . . .This response is the opposite of what would be expectedfrom a greenhouse warming influence. Furthermore, theseobserved, large-scale changes are not depicted by GCMs. . . .

Models can serve a very useful scientific purpose, such as theproposition and testing of hypotheses. The use of GCMs toexamine changes in greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere is an appropriate and important scientific question.However, when the results of these experiments are used toinfluence public policy (both nationally and globally), thenconcerns about the various models’ accuracy must be raised. Thesimple fact is that the current generation of GCMs are incapableof reproducing the historic climate of the Earth sufficiently atanything but the broadest time and space scales.

Notes

1 Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Climate Change 1995: The Scienceof Climate Change (1996), p. 5.2 See Peter B. Jaquette and Mary H. Novak,‘‘Review of Recent Estimates of the Eco-nomic Impacts of Proposed Carbon Abate-ment Policies,’’ WEFA Group, an economicforecasting company in Eddystone, Pa.,October 1996, p. 3.3 Testimony before the Senate Energy andNatural Resources Committee, Sept. 17, 1996.4 IPCC, op. cit., p. 439.5 For a critical view of the panel’s proce-dures, see Frederick Seitz, ‘‘A Major Decep-tion on ‘Global Warming,’ ’’ The Wall StreetJournal, June 12, 1996, p. A16.6 IPCC, op. cit., pp. 6-7.7 See, for example, ‘‘The Hot Zone,’’Newsweek, Jan. 22, 1996.8 See Global Climate Coalition, ‘‘Science andGlobal Climate Change: What Do We Know?What Are the Uncertainties?’’ Backgrounder,

life and continue our economic growthin the most sustainable way possible.It’s a simple question, and it deservesto be approached with the serious-ness of the issue and not the hyper-bolic response that we’re seeing fromall sides, frankly.’’

The tone of the debate will dependon the details that will emerge from ne-gotiations leading up to the Kyoto meet-ing next December, when a treaty isscheduled to be finalized. The Clintonadministration has carefully avoided allreference to specific targets and time-tables, except to reject the island nations’proposal of a 20 percent reduction inemissions by 2005.

Claussen suggests that a ‘‘midterm’’timetable for achieving emission tar-gets might be between 2010 and 2020.‘‘But we can’t say exactly what thedate will be and exactly what thetarget will be and how you define thattarget,’’ she says. ‘‘All those things weare still looking at, and we think oth-ers are as well.’’

For supporters of a strong treaty tocurb global warming, the main chal-lenge will be to maintain the U.S.commitment to binding targets andtimetables over the year remaining

undated.9 See D.G. Vaughan and C.S.M. Doake, ‘‘Re-cent Atmospheric Warming and Retreat ofIce Shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula,’’Nature, Jan. 25, 1996, pp. 328-330.10 For background, see ‘‘Combating Infec-tious Diseases,’’ The CQ Researcher, June 9,1995, pp. 489-512.11 See ‘‘Global Warming Pests and Pesti-lence,’’ World Climate Report, Sept. 30, 1996,p. 3, a biweekly newsletter edited by theUniversity of Virginia’s Patrick J. Michaelsand funded by the Western Fuels Associa-tion, which supplies fuel to electric utilities.12 See Jonathan A. Patz, Paul R. Epstein,Thomas A. Burke and John M. Balbus, ‘‘Glo-bal Climate Change and Emerging InfectiousDiseases,’’ Journal of the American MedicalAssociation (JAMA), Jan. 17, 1996, pp. 217-223. See also letter to the editor by John S.Gray, Michael Depledge and Anthony Knap,‘‘Global Climate Controversy,’’ JAMA, Aug.7, 1996, pp. 372-373.13 Camille Parmesan, ‘‘Climate and Species’Range,’’ Nature, Aug. 29, 1996, pp. 765-766.14 ‘‘Chasing Butterflies,’’ World Climate Re-port, Sept. 16, 1996, p. 2.15 Thomas Gale Moore, ‘‘Global Warming:Costs and Benefits,’’ World Climate Report,Aug. 19, 1996, p. 2. Moore is an editor ofthe newsletter.16 See ‘‘Ozone Depletion,’’ The CQ Re-searcher, April 3, 1992, pp. 289-312.17 For background, see ‘‘EnvironmentalMovement at 25,’’ The CQ Researcher, March31, 1995, pp. 273-296.18 See Jeremy Leggett, ed., Global Warming:The Greenpeace Report (1990), p. 4. Forbackground, see ‘‘Saving the Forests,’’ TheCQ Researcher, Sept. 20, 1991, pp. 681-704.19 Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Report to IPCC from Working Group1: Policymakers’ Summary of the ScientificAssessment of Climate Change, June 1990,p. 4.20 Ibid., pp. 4-5.21 Ibid., p. 5.22 See ‘‘The Berlin Climate Summit,’’ in WorldResources 1996-97 (1996), pp. 322-323.23 For background, see ‘‘Electric Cars,’’ TheCQ Researcher, July 9, 1993, pp. 577-600.24 Wirth spoke July 17, 1996, at the secondconference of the parties to the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, held inGeneva, Switzerland.

before the meeting in Kyoto nextDecember. ‘‘The negotiations shouldproduce something by the end of1997,’’ Oppenheimer says. ‘‘If theydon’t, I think credibility in the wholetreaty process will disintegrate.’’

Global Climate Coalition, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 1500, NorthTower, Washington, D.C. 20004; (202) 637-3158. The coalition is the mainenergy industry lobbying and public relations arm that opposes bindingrestrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

Global Greenhouse Network, 1660 L St. N.W., Suite 216, Washington,D.C. 20036; (202) 466-2823. This coalition of legislators and public interestgroups concerned with global warming promotes cuts in fossil fuel use.

Environmental Defense Fund, 257 Park Ave. South, New York, N.Y.10010; (212) 505-2100. The EDF is a citizens’ interest group that conductsresearch and provides information on global warming and other environ-mental issues.

Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Programs, 401 M St.S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460; (202) 233-9140. This office of the EPAexamines strategies to mitigate climate change.

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

978 CQ Researcher

Continued from p. 976

Selected Sources Used

Bibliography

Books

Gore, Sen. Al, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and theHuman Spirit, Houghton Mifflin, 1992.The vice president’s manifesto outlines the principles

behind much of the Clinton administration’s environmen-tal policy. Even a slight rise in global temperatures, hewarns, ‘‘would have disruptive and potentially cata-strophic effects on human civilization.’’

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ClimateChange 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cam-bridge University Press, 1996.The United Nations panel of scientists examining global

warming reports that human activities are having a ‘‘discern-ible’’ influence on global climate and recommends that policy-makers take steps to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

Singer, S. Fred, ed., Global Climate Change: Humanand Natural Influences, Paragon House, 1989.This collection of essays on the impact of industrial

development on climate includes pieces by editor Singer,who opposes policies to curb greenhouse gas emissionsbefore further scientific evidence proves that humanactivities are in fact warming the planet.

Articles

Dowie, Mark, ‘‘A Sky Full of Holes,’’ The Nation, July8, 1996, pp. 11-16.Negotiators for a climate change treaty look for guidance

to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which phased out theproduction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), man-madegases that destroy the stratospheric ozone layer. Newevidence suggests the treaty may have been less effectivein closing the ozone hole than was once believed.

Keller, Kenneth H., ‘‘Unpackaging the Environment,’’World Policy Journal, fall 1996, pp. 11-23. Global warming should be treated as an urgent problem and

economic solutions found to help slow the current rise ingreenhouse gas emissions from developing countries, writesKeller, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Linden, Eugene, ‘‘Global Fever,’’ Time, July 8, 1996,pp. 56-57.Recent scientific studies are raining concern that global

warming may spread deadly infectious diseases such ascholera, dengue fever and hantavirus by extending thetropical conditions in which they thrive.

‘‘Reading the Patterns,’’ The Economist, April 1, 1995,pp. 65-67.

While evidence is mounting that greenhouse gases areaffecting global climate, its implications are uncertain. Fossilfuel burning releases both carbon dioxide, which heats theatmosphere, and sulfates, which appear to cool it.

‘‘Turning Up the Heat,’’ Consumer Reports, Septem-ber 1996, pp. 38-44.This review of the debate over global warming takes up

the implications of climate change projected by the U.N.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and stepsthat can be taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Reports and Studies

Alliance to Save Energy, American Gas Associationand Solar Energy Industries Association, An Alterna-tive Energy Future, April 1992.By replacing mandatory regulations with incentives to

develop new technologies, the authors report, govern-ments can help industry curb carbon dioxide emissionsassociated with fossil fuel use.

George C. Marshall Institute, Are Human ActivitiesCausing Global Warming? 1996.A research group that questions the consensus view of

global warming claims that recent weather patterns showno sign of adverse effects and that policy-makers have upto 30 years to further their research before the greenhousegas buildup will have a significant influence on climate.

Macdonald, Norman J., and Joseph P. Sobel, ChangingWeather? Facts and Fallacies About Climate Changeand Weather Extremes, Accu-Weather Inc., undated.This report, compiled in the last two years, concludes

that it is still unclear whether global warming would resultin more intense or more frequent violent weather such astornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts.

Montgomery, W. David, Toward an EconomicallyRational Response to the Berlin Mandate, CharlesRiver Associates, July 1995.Prepared for the Global Climate Coalition, the main lobby

opposed to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emis-sions, this report calls on political leaders to conduct furtherresearch on the economic impacts of such measures.

World Resources Institute, United Nations Environ-ment Programme, United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and World Bank, World Resources 1996-97, Oxford University Press, 1966.This joint report on global environmental trends con-

tains a chapter that summarizes recent findings on climatechange and U.N. efforts to produce a treaty to mitigate it.

Nov. 1, 1996 979

980 CQ Researcher

Additional information from UMI's Newspaper& Periodical Abstracts database

The Next Step

Global Climate Change

Changnon, Stanley A., “State roles in the global cli-mate change issue,” Bulletin of the American Meteo-rological Society, February 1995, pp. 227-233.Events in 1988 helped focus the attention of several

states on the global climate change issue. By 1994, 22states had enacted laws or regulations and/or establishedresearch programs addressing climate change.

Cowen, Robert C., “Global warming is real many sci-entists agree,” The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 10,1995, p. 14.Scientists are increasingly convinced that global warm-

ing is a reality in late 1995. Subtle changes in weatherpatterns which conform to predictions of improved com-puter climate simulations suggest that man-made climatechanges are upon us.

Dawson, Bill, “Experts debate global warming’s effecton tropical storm climate,” Houston Chronicle, Oct.22, 1995, p. A21.The possible connection between global warming and

the formation of hurricanes is examined. As of Oct. 1995,18 tropical storms have been formed, with 10 reachinghurricane force.

Gray, Gerry, “A second look at global climate change,”American Forests, summer 1996, pp. 22-23.Findings of a recent study on the adverse effects of

global warming on the world’s ecosystems are discussed.The potential impact of climate change is being takenmore seriously by policymakers and citizens alike.

McMichael, A. J., “Global climate change and health,”Lancet, Sept. 23, 1995, p. 835.Participants at the conference on the potential health

impacts of global climate change, held in Washington,D.C., September 11-12, 1995, directed a considerableamount of their attention to the two most predictableindirect health impacts — changes in vector organismhabitat and parasite transmissibility and in regional pro-ductivity of agriculture and fisheries.

Rubin, Barry M., and Mark D. Hilton, “Identifying thelocal economic development impacts of global cli-mate change,” Economic Development Quarterly,August 1996, pp. 262-279.The need to evaluate and plan for the region-specific

economic development impacts of potential global cli-mate change is receiving increasing attention. Rubin andHilton present a method for estimating such conse-quences and the results of exploratory research that

applies this method to determining the employmentimpacts in a recreationally based region.

Sawyer, Kathy, and Gary Lee, “Global warming fore-cast is for slower rate than previously feared,’’ TheWashington Post, Oct. 25, 1995, p. A3.Sea levels will rise and average global temperature will

increase over the next century, but not as fast and not ashigh as was feared earlier, according to new estimatesfrom two scientific organizations that have led the way inwarning about the effect of future climate change.

Stevens, William K., “Blame global warming for theblizzard,” The New York Times, Jan. 14, 1996, p. 4.While it seems a paradox, some experts cite evidence

suggesting that climatic changes associated with globalwarming are actually creating more severe snowstorms.

Toner, Mike, “Butterfly exodus: Global warming maybe pushing species northward,” Atlanta Constitution,Aug. 29, 1996, p. A1.The apparent flight from global warming of the small

Edith’s checkerspot butterfly is giving West Coast scien-tists their first look at the kind of biological havoc thatclimate change may one day create in the world’s ecosys-tems.

Global Warming

Allen, Scott, “Global warming debate joined,” BostonGlobe, Nov. 17, 1995, p. 20.A handful of scientists with connections to the oil and

coal industry are giving the public the false impressionthat global warming is not a serious threat, environmen-talists asserted, as three such skeptics testified on theissue before Congress.

Anderson, John, “Why global warming matters to theTexas Gulf Coast,” Houston Chronicle, Aug. 18, 1996,p. C4.Anderson discusses the consequences for future genera-

tions and the quality of life on Earth of global warming,as well as the effects that rising sea levels will have on theGulf Coast of Texas.

Brown, Paul, “Global warming divide deepens,” Guard-ian, July 17, 1996, p. 11.A speaker at the climate convention in Geneva, Switzer-

land, urged journalists not to listen to individual scientistswhose theories had not been tested and whose motivesappeared dubious concerning global warming. Man isdangerously altering the Earth’s climate, the journalistswere warned.

Nov. 1, 1996 981

Davis, Robert E., “Don’t worry about global warming— end is not near,” Houston Chronicle, Sept. 22, 1996,p. C4.Davis asserts that because the belief in apocalyptic

greenhouse-related warming persists — despite what hecalled an almost total lack of hard evidence — somepoliticians and international policy-makers are deter-mined to legislate.

“Getting serious about global warming,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 4, 1996, p. B2.An editorial notes the Clinton administration’s announce-

ment that it will seek binding targets for curbing fossil fuelburning in an effort to retard global warming and suggeststhat targets need to be set and plans made for how thetargets are to be enforced among nations.

Goering, Laurie, “Global warming may bring moreepidemics,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 13, 1996, p. 4.Public health officials warn that subtle warming of the

Earth’s climate during the next 50 years may nearlydouble the number of malaria deaths worldwide, promptmore frequent outbreaks of cholera and put the U.S. atrisk of epidemics of encephalitis and other infectiousdiseases.

Hertsgaard, Mark, “Who’s afraid of global warming?Surprise! It’s big business that’s worried now,” TheWashington Post, Jan. 21, 1996, p. C1.Hertsgaard comments that while global warming does

not exist according to the oil and coal lobbies, the globalinsurance and banking industries are now coming tobelieve that their self-interest is incompatible with hu-manity continuing to pump 6 billion tons of heat-trappinggreenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.

Lee, Gary, “U.S. urges binding accord on global warm-ing,” The Washington Post, July 18, 1996, p. A3.The Clinton administration announced July 17, 1996,

that it is seeking the adoption of a binding agreementrequiring the world’s industrial nations to reduce thelevels of industrial emissions that are contributing toglobal warming.

Lempert, Robert, and Michael Schlesinger, “A globalwarming middle ground,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 16,1995, p. B9.Lempert and Schlesinger discuss the inability of humans

to predict how the Earth’s climate will change in thefuture. Lempert and Schlesinger advocate an adaptivestrategy in which humans carefully monitor the environ-ment for changes and develop environmentally benigntechnologies.

“More than hot air needed in resisting global warm-ing,” Los Angeles Times, July 22, 1996, p. B4.An editorial criticizes the U.S. for not naming the air

pollution targets it has committed to address in an effortto halt global warming.

“Pact on global warming a step in the right direction,”Denver Post, Aug. 10, 1996, p. B7.An editorial discusses the Clinton administration’s urg-

ing of all nations to accept a binding agreement to slowglobal warming.

Perlman, David, “New support for theory of globalwarming,” San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 12, 1996, p.A2.New evidence linking the recent warming of the Pacific

Ocean’s surface waters with records of melting glaciershigh in the Andes shows that temperatures in the tropicsare higher now than they have been for thousands ofyears. Scientists say the study adds fresh confirmation thatglobal warming is real.

Perlman, Michael, “Face up to global warmingtroubles,” Houston Chronicle, Jan. 7, 1996, p. C5.Perlman comments that the world community is in

denial about the threat of global warming, and must turnto face the problem.

Sinisi, J. Sebastian, “Global warming solutions simple,many experts say,” Denver Post, March 24, 1996, p.A31.The world doesn’t need expensive, grandiose projects to

combat global warming, but it does need simple measuresto slow the encroaching environmental problems, scien-tists agree. Some plans to combat global warming arediscussed.

Snow, Tony, “Global warming plague looming?Wrong,” USA Today, Feb. 19, 1996, p. A11.Snow takes issue with Vice President Al Gore’s warning

that global warming will set off a plague of infectiousdisease, arguing that he generated a false sense of ur-gency about a dubious public-health problem and pro-posed to solve things by increasing the government’spower to micromanage the economy.

Spotts, Peter N., “New global warming report: Don’tpanic, but let’s take action,” The Christian ScienceMonitor, Dec. 18, 1995, p. 3.Global warming is discussed, including conclusions

from a U.N.-sponsored report which will guide policymakerswho are setting targets for gas emissions in the nextcentury.

Tyson, Ann Scott, “A Kansas detective is hot on thetrail of global warming,” The Christian Science Moni-tor, Sept. 25, 1996, p. 1.The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program, aimed

at providing the missing link in scientists’ knowledge ofglobal warming, employs a wide variety of people in

982 CQ Researcher

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE

Hillsboro, Kan., to monitor conditions and launch weatherballoons.

Greenhouse Effect

“Atlanta, Georgia: Recycling reduces greenhouse ef-fect,” Biocycle: Journal of Waste Recycling, March 1996,p. 22.A study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance for the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Region IV in Atlantaindicates that recycling of construction and demolitiondebris significantly reduces the emissions of carbon diox-ide by saving energy.

Bishop, Jerry E., “Long-ignored cycle in climate sug-gests worse greenhouse effect than thought,” The WallStreet Journal, April 11, 1995, p. B5.David J. Thomson, a researcher for AT&T Bell Labs, found

that a long-ignored cycle in the Earth’s temperatures suggeststhat burning oil, natural gas and coal may be having a greatereffect on the climate than previously thought.

Gribbin, John, and Mary Gribbin, “The greenhouseeffect,” New Scientist, July 6, 1996, pp. SS1-SS4.While life on Earth depends on it, the greenhouse effect

has also boosted global temperatures alarmingly, and vastclimatic changes are predicted. The greenhouse effect isdiscussed.

Jones, Owen Bennett, “Insurance firms join alarm overglobal warming,” Guardian, July 10, 1996, p. 13.A group of 58 international insurance companies on July

9, 1996, called on governments of industrialized nations toachieve “early substantial reductions” in greenhouse gasemissions.

Miles, Henry, “Greenhouse effect,” Architectural Re-view, May 1995, pp. 50-56.An office and workshop complex in the small town of

Ettlingen, Germany, perfectly illustrates the country’s con-cern with the imaginative, beneficial use of ambient energyto improve the well-being of building inhabitants. The designof the structure is described.

Morgan, Dan, “Strengthened U.S. commitment lights afire under global warming debate,” The WashingtonPost, Sept. 13, 1996, p. A4.A U.S. pledge to seek binding limits on releases of

“greenhouse gases” after the year 2000 has produced anangry response from the domestic coal, oil and utilityindustries.

Nissani, Moti, “The greenhouse effect: An interdisci-plinary perspective,” Population & Environment, July1996, pp. 459-489.Claims that the greenhouse controversy is legitimate, that it

involves hard choices, that it is value-laden, or that it cannot be

resolved by disinterested analysis, are tragically mistaken,Nissani writes. Given the stakes of the greenhouse debate,concerned scholars and citizens ought to understand this issue.

Pittock, A. Barrie, “Climate change and world foodsupply,” Environment, November 1995, pp. 25-30.The security of the world’s food supply is one of the key

goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this isfraught with difficulties. Documents pertinent to this issueare reviewed and discussed.

Reiss, Bob, “Fran’s early warning — The curfew life:A hint of what global warming has in store,” TheWashington Post, Sept. 22, 1996, p. C2.Reiss describes life under curfew in Wrightsville Beach,

N.C., following the disaster of Hurricane Fran and com-ments on the conclusion of a panel of prominent clima-tologists that the greenhouse effect is changing howpeople live.

“Sign of global warming cited,” Boston Globe, Sept. 21,1995, p. 16.The U.S. is getting more rain in heavy downpours now

than early in the century, a possible sign of global warmingfrom greenhouse gases.

Stevens, William K., “Science Times: In rain and tem-perature data, new signs of global warming,” The NewYork Times, Sept. 26, 1995, p. C4.In a new study of weather trends in the U.S., China,

Australia and the former USSR, scientists have turned upfurther evidence that some of the predicted effects ofgreenhouse gases on the world’s climate are being felt.

Stocker, Carol, “The greenhouse effect,” Boston Globe,Dec. 7, 1995, p. A1.Stocker comments on Saugus, Mass., resident Nancy

Potter’s greenhouse, which was a sunroom in her homethat she converted and she and her husband now call theirretirement room.

Toner, Mike, “Past rapid shifts in climate cast newlight on greenhouse effect,” Atlanta Journal Constitu-tion, Feb. 18, 1995, p. A6.Dramatic swings in the world’s climate can come and go

with surprising swiftness, sometimes within the course ofa single lifetime, according to evidence from the Greenlandicecap and from the floor of the North Atlantic Oceanpresented by researchers at the American Association forthe Advancement of Science meeting in Atlanta.

Victor, David G., and Julian E. Salt, “From Rio to Ber-lin: Managing climate change,” Environment, Decem-ber 1994, pp. 6-15.On March 28, 1995, the nations that have ratified the

Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet inBerlin to resolve issues and establish procedures. The

Nov. 1, 1996 983

FCCC is focusing on the targets and timetables for control-ling emissions of greenhouse gases and technological andfinancial transfers. The preparations for the Berlin meetingare discussed.

Weiss, Rick, “The sun also braises: Renewable energyadvocates offer invention that can harness and easeglobal warming,” The Washington Post, Oct. 7, 1996,p. A3.As advocates of solar cooking know, the greenhouse

effect can be harnessed in a way that benefits the environ-ment. All it takes is some cardboard, aluminum foil and aplastic bag.

Montreal Protocol

Smith, Gar, “Blowing holes in the Montreal Protocol,”Earth Island Journal, fall 1995, p. 13.According to an Ozone Action report entitled “Deadly

Complacency,” the Montreal Protocol has been renderedineffective by waivers that extend the CFC-productionrights of DuPont, LaRoche, Allied Signal and Elf Atochem.

Solomon, Susan, and John S. Daniel, “Impact of theMontreal protocol and its amendments on the rate ofchange of global radiative forcing,’’ Climatic Change,January 1996, pp. 7-17.Increases in chlorinated and brominated halocarbons are

believed to be responsible for the depletion of strato-spheric ozone. A study found that the increasing atmo-spheric concentrations of ozone-depleting halocarbonshas led to a negative forcing of the climate system.

U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange

Abbott, Alison, “Climate change panel to remain mainsource of advice,” Nature, April 13, 1995, pp. 584-585.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to

continue as the major scientific advisory body to govern-ments that have signed the United Nations Climate ChangeConvention.

Cushman, John H. Jr., “Report Says Global WarmingPoses Threat to Public Health,” The New York Times,July 8, 1996, p. A2.As international negotiations on global warming resume

in July 1996, U.N. health and environmental agencies arewarning of serious threats to public health if actions to

reduce climate change come too slowly. In a report to beissued during the talks that resume on July 8, scientistsfrom U.N. agencies warn that warming due to air pollution“could have a wide range of impacts on human health,most of which would be adverse.”

“Heating up the climate change debate,” Environment,January 1996, pp. 22-23.The economic and social implications of climate change

that were addressed at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change’s plenary session are discussed. Del-egates’ conclusion that the costs required to fight green-house gas emissions may exceed estimates of damage dueto climate change was, in effect, canceled.

Masood, Ehsan, and Ayala Ochert, “U.N. climate changereport turns up the heat,” Nature, Nov. 9, 1995, p. 119.Unless a dispute between the authors can be settled, a

key chapter of the U.N. report on the economic dimen-sions of climate changes may be missing. The disputedchapter forms part of an overall study from the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mathews, Jessica, “Global warming: No longer indoubt,” The Washington Post, Dec. 26, 1995, p. A23.Mathews notes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change’s declaration that global warming was, indeed,underway.

“Report on global warming makes dire predictions,”The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 25, 1995, p. B4.A report issued on Oct. 24, 1995, from the Intragovernmental

Panel on Climate Change foresees global warming bringingan increase in diseases, dramatic shifts in forests and conse-quences for industries from insurance to tourism.

Santer, Benjamin D., “Global warming critics, chillout,” The Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1996, p. A23.Santer responds to the July 11, 1996, Letters to the Editor

“Coverup in the Greenhouse.” Santer defends his role aslead author of a key chapter in a recent report by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The long view on global warming,” Boston Globe, July30, 1996, p. A12.An editorial comments on the early world health warning

that scientists, environmentalists and some governmentofficials sought to convey at the U.N. IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change.

Back Issues

Back issues are available for $5.00 (sub-scribers) or $8.00 (non-subscribers).Quantity discounts apply to orders overten. To order, call CongressionalQuarterly Customer Service at(202) 887-8621.

Binders are available for $18.00. To ordercall 1-800-638-1710. Please refer to stocknumber 648.

APRIL 1995Abortion Clinic ProtestsDieting and HealthCombating AIDSRethinking Affirmative Action

MAY 1995Assisted Suicide ControversyOverhauling Social SecurityLearning to ReadMandatory Sentencing

JUNE 1995Combating Infectious DiseaseProperty RightsRepetitive Stress InjuriesRegulating the Internet

JULY 1995War CrimesHighway SafetyCombating TerrorismPreventing Teen Drug Use

AUGUST 1995Job StressOrgan TransplantsUnited Nations at 50Advances in Cancer Research

JUNE 1996Rethinking NAFTAFirst LadiesTeaching ValuesLabor Movement’s Future

JULY 1996Recovered-Memory DebateNative Americans’ FutureCrackdown on Sexual HarassmentAttack on Public Schools

AUGUST 1996Fighting Over Animal RightsPrivatizing Government ServicesChild Labor and SweatshopsCleaning Up Hazardous Wastes

SEPTEMBER 1996Gambling Under AttackThe States and FederalismCivic JournalismReassessing Foreign Aid

OCTOBER 1996Political ConsultantsInsurance FraudRethinking School IntegrationParental Rights

Future Topics

Clashing Over Copyright

Consumer Debt

Running Washington, D.C.

Great Research on Current Issues Starts Right Here...Recent topicscovered by The CQ Researcher are listed below. Before May 1991, reports

were published under the name of Editorial Research Reports.

▲

SEPTEMBER 1995Catholic Church in the U.S.Northern Ireland Cease-FireHigh School SportsTeaching History

OCTOBER 1995Quebec’s FutureRevitalizing the CitiesNetworking the ClassroomIndoor Air Pollution

NOVEMBER 1995The Working PoorThe Jury SystemSex, Violence and the MediaPolice Misconduct

DECEMBER 1995Teens and TobaccoGene Therapy’s FutureGlobal Water ShortagesThird-Party Prospects

JANUARY 1996Emergency MedicinePunishing Sex OffendersBilingual EducationHelping the Homeless

FEBRUARY 1996Reforming the CIACampaign Finance ReformAcademic PoliticsGetting Into College

MARCH 1996The British MonarchyPreventing Juvenile CrimeTax ReformPursuing the Paranormal

APRIL 1996Centennial Olympic GamesManaged CareProtecting Endangered SpeciesNew Military Culture

MAY 1996Russia’s Political FutureMarriage and DivorceYear-Round SchoolsTaiwan, China and the U.S.

▲▲