cqr climate change - edge.sagepub.com

Climate ChangeWill governments act to curb rising temperatures?

The effects of climate change are steadily becoming

more evident across the globe. Atmospheric concen-

trations of carbon dioxide — the main heat-trapping

greenhouse gas produced by human activities — are

the highest in 3 million years, and climbing. Scientists say climate

change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weath-

er events such as hurricanes, heat waves and droughts. President

Obama has called for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases from

power plants and other sources and pledged to use regulations if

Congress fails to act. Americans increasingly agree that climate

change is real and human actions are contributing to it, but many

conservative legislators oppose measures designed to address the

problem, such as taxing carbon-based fuels. Some experts want to

start researching large-scale geoengineering technologies for cool-

ing Earth’s climate, but many observers fear that these strategies

could do more harm than good.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ....................523

BACKGROUND ................529

CHRONOLOGY ................531

CURRENT SITUATION ........535

AT ISSUE........................537

OUTLOOK ......................538

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................542

THE NEXT STEP ..............543

THISREPORT

Superstorm Sandy flooded parts of Manhattan andmuch of coastal New Jersey last October, includingtaxicabs parked in Hoboken. Scientists say climatechange is magnifying the effects of storms like Sandy,

droughts in Texas and the Southwest and otherextreme weather events worldwide.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • June 14, 2013 • www.cqresearcher.comVolume 23, Number 22 • Pages 521-544

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE � AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

90thAnniversary

1923-2013

522 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

523 • Are catastrophic climatechange impacts inevitable?• Is climate engineering agood idea?• Should the United Statesadopt a carbon tax?

BACKGROUND

529 Measuring GHGsScientists began learningabout Earth’s climate fluctu-ations in the 19th century.

530 Calls for ActionBy the late 1980s, environ-mentalists were calling forreductions in fossil fuel use.

530 Climate WarsClimate policy becamesharply politicized startingin the late 1990s.

533 Obama’s RecordThe president has beencriticized for not doingenough on climate change.

CURRENT SITUATION

535 Bypassing CongressEnvironmentalists wantObama to take more ac-tion using executive orders.

538 Public ConcernAmericans are much lesspolarized than Congress onclimate change.

OUTLOOK

538 Adapting and LeadingScientists want the U.S. tolead as climate change ef-fects become clearer.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

524 Carbon Dioxide Concentra-tions on the RiseFossil fuel burning blamedfor 25 percent increase since1959.

525 Partisan Divide Is Wideon Climate ChangeFewer than half of Republicansthink the Earth is warming.

526 China, U.S. Emit the MostCarbon DioxideThe two countries emittedmore than 14 billion metrictons in 2011.

528 Electricity, Heat GenerationAre Biggest CO2 SourcesThey account for more than40 percent of global emissions.

531 ChronologyKey events since 1896.

532 Global Warming Will HitPoor the Hardest“The heat must be turneddown.”

534 Geoengineering ProposalsWould Alter Earth’s ClimateScientists say the controversialtechniques demand morestudy.

537 At Issue:Should the United States taxcarbon emissions?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

541 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

542 BibliographySelected sources used.

543 The Next StepAdditional articles.

543 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Cover: Getty Images/Michael Bocchieri

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. [email protected]

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy [email protected]

SENIOR CONTRIBUTING EDITOR:Thomas J. Colin

[email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITER: Marcia Clemmitt

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Sarah Glazer, Peter Katel, Reed Karaim, Robert Kiener,

Barbara Mantel, Tom Price, Jennifer Weeks

SENIOR PROJECT EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

FACT CHECKER: Michelle Harris

INTERN: Alisha Forbes

An Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

VICE PRESIDENT AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR,HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP:

Michele Sordi

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ONLINE LIBRARY AND REFERENCE PUBLISHING:

Todd Baldwin

Copyright © 2013 CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Pub-

lications, Inc. SAGE reserves all copyright and other

rights herein, unless pre vi ous ly spec i fied in writing.

No part of this publication may be reproduced

electronically or otherwise, without prior written

permission. Un au tho rized re pro duc tion or trans mis -

sion of SAGE copy right ed material is a violation of

federal law car ry ing civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional

Quarterly Inc.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Pub lished weekly, except: (March wk. 5)

(May wk. 4) (July wk. 1) (Aug. wks. 3, 4) (Nov. wk.

4) and (Dec. wks. 3, 4). Published by SAGE Publica-

tions, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Annual full-service subscriptions start at $1,054. For

pricing, call 1-800-818-7243. To purchase a CQ Re-

searcher report in print or electronic format (PDF),

visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single

reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and

electronic-rights licensing are also available. Periodicals

postage paid at Thousand Oaks, California, and at

additional mailing offices. POST MAS TER: Send ad dress

chang es to CQ Re search er, 2300 N St., N.W., Suite 800,

Wash ing ton, DC 20037.

June 14, 2013Volume 23, Number 22

CQRe search er

June 14, 2013 523www.cqresearcher.com

Climate Change

THE ISSUESN ews reports last month

marked a scientificmilestone: Earth’s at-

mosphere now contains morecarbon dioxide (CO2) than atany time in up to 3 millionyears. 1 And the average an-nual rate of increase for thepast decade was more thantwice as steep as during the1960s. 2

With carbon dioxide lev-els climbing at such a rapidpace, scientists said, it isclear that humans already haveset dramatic climate changein motion. “Even if we all de-cided to stop emitting CO2immediately, it would take atleast 20 years to start puttingnew [low-carbon or carbon-free] systems in place, andanother 50 years for the cli-mate to adjust,” says KevinTrenberth, a senior scientistat the National Center for At-mospheric Research in Boul-der, Colo.

Carbon dioxide is a “green-house gas” (GHG) that trapsheat in the atmosphere, warm-ing Earth’s surface. It is gen-erated by natural sources suchas wildfires and volcanic erup-tions, and by human activi-ties — primarily burning fossil fuelssuch as coal, oil and natural gas. Be-fore the Industrial Revolution, Earth’satmosphere contained about 280 partsper million of CO2. Now, numerousscientific studies warn, GHG concen-trations have reached levels that willcause drastic warming with widespreadconsequences. 3

“We cause global warming by in-creasing the greenhouse effect, andour greenhouse gas emissions just keepaccelerating,” climate scientist Dana

Nuccitelli wrote in May. In a reviewof more than 4,000 peer-reviewedstudies, Nuccitelli and others found that97.1 percent endorsed the idea thathuman activities were contributing toclimate change. 4

Other researchers say that while humanactivities may be warming the Earth, cli-mate scientists are drawing conclusionsthat go beyond the evidence. “[T]here isno prima facie reason to think that glob-al warming will make most extremeweather events more frequent or more

severe. . . . Extreme events areby definition rare, and the rarerthe event the more difficult itis to identify long-term changesfrom relatively short datarecords,” said Judith Curry, chairof the School of Earth and At-mospheric Sciences at GeorgiaTech, testifying to Congress inApril. 5

But many experts are deeplyconcerned. “The clock is tick-ing,” said Jerry Melillo, a sci-entist at the Marine BiologicalLaboratory in Woods Hole,Mass., and chairman of a com-mittee that published a na-tional assessment earlier thisyear of the science and im-pacts of climate change. 6 Ac-cording to the assessment, av-erage U.S. temperatures haverisen about 1.5º Fahrenheit since1895, most of it in the past20 years.

That change may notseem large, but small shiftscan have big impacts. Dur-ing the so-called Little IceAge (1300s-1800s), when av-erage temperatures fell by justunder 1ºC (1.8ºF), widespreadcrop failures in Europe causedmillions of deaths. 7 At theend of the last full-scale iceage about 10,000 years ago,average temperatures wereonly 5 to 9 degrees Fahren-

heit cooler than modern levels, andmuch of North America and Europewas covered by glaciers. 8

Recent warming already has causedsignificant changes. “Certain types ofweather events have become more fre-quent and/or intense, including heatwaves, heavy downpours, and, insome regions, floods and droughts,”authors of the assessment reportwrote. “Sea level is rising, oceans arebecoming more acidic and glaciersand arctic sea ice are melting.” 9

BY JENNIFER WEEKS

AFP

/Getty Imag

es/B

iju Boro

A villager rafts through flood waters in northeasternIndia on Sept. 25, 2012. Scientists say the negative effectsof climate change, including flooding caused by sea-levelrise, as well as heat waves and storms, will affect developingcountries most severely because they are less prepared for

disaster and have limited funds for disaster relief.

524 CQ Researcher

During his 2008 presidential cam-paign, President Obama called for ac-tion to slow climate change, butprospects faded in 2010 after a Demo-cratic controlled Congress failed toenact legislation and control of theHouse shifted to the GOP. Most con-gressional Republicans and some con-servative Democrats oppose legislationto limit climate change. 10

Campaigning for reelection in 2012,Obama supported developing all typesof energy sources, including fossil fuels.In his second inaugural address in Jan-uary he issued a strong call for ac-tion. Ignoring climate change, he said,“would betray our children and futuregenerations.” 11 In his State of the Unionaddress in February he asked Con-gress to pass a “bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change.” Ifnot, Obama said, he would direct fed-eral agencies to propose steps thatcould be taken through regulations. 12

But the politics of climate changeremain highly polarized. Some Repub-lican politicians question the over-whelming scientific consensus thathuman actions are altering Earth’s cli-mate. 13 “All the things they’re [the

Obama administration] saying happened,they’re all part of [former Vice Presi-dent] Al Gore’s science fiction movie,and they’ve all been discredited,” saidOklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, formerchairman of the Senate Environmentand Public Works Committee. 14

Others say the case is not proven,focusing on issues that researchers arestill analyzing. “There is a greatamount of uncertainty associated withclimate science,” wrote Rep. LamarSmith of Texas, chairman of the HouseScience Committee. 15 And many leg-islators oppose measures that wouldraise fossil fuel prices. More than adozen moderate and conservativeDemocrats joined Republicans in sym-bolic votes earlier this year against acarbon tax — which would raise theprice of fossil fuels based on their car-bon content — and for constructionof the Keystone XL pipeline. Thepipeline would facilitate developmentof Canadian “tar sand” oil and is op-posed by many environmentalists whosay it will enable greater use of fos-sil fuels. 16

At the same time, polls show agrowing share of Americans — in-

cluding Republicans — believe climatechange is occurring and support somekind of action. And some observerssay Republican legislators’ oppositionis eroding. 17 (See “Current Situation,”p. 535.)

“There is a divide within the party,”said Samuel Thernstrom, a scholar atthe conservative American EnterpriseInstitute who served on the White HouseCouncil on Environmental Quality underPresident George W. Bush and haswritten that humans are changing Earth’sclimate, with potentially severe effects.“The position that climate change is ahoax is untenable,” he says. 18

Other conservatives view climatechange as a serious problem but ques-tion whether government actions —particularly through regulation — canslow it. “The real obstacle to makingmeaningful emissions reductions isthat it’s unbelievably difficult to do,”says Jonathan Adler, a professor of lawand director of the Center for Busi-ness Law and Regulation at Case West-ern Reserve University. Adler describeshimself as a conservative who believesthat climate change is a serious prob-lem, but is skeptical that government

CLIMATE CHANGE

Carbon Dioxide Concentrations on the RiseThe amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million this spring, about a 25 percent increase since 1959. Scientists say CO2 measurements, taken at an observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, show that global carbon dioxide concentrations have climbed steadily in recent decades as a result of intensive fossil fuel combustion worldwide.

Source: “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013, www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration,1959-2013

Wiki

med

ia Co

mm

ons/N

ula6

66

CO2 in the atmosphere(parts per million)

300

350

400

2013’09’07’05’032001’99’97’95’93’91’89’87’85’83’81’79’77’75’73’71’69’67’65’63’611959


can mandate solutions. “We don’t knowhow to do it at anything remotely ap-proaching a cost that countries arewilling to bear,” he says. Instead, Adlerfavors policies that encourage energyinnovation without prescribing specifictechnical solutions.

As Congress, the Obama administra-tion and advocacy groups debate howto address climate change, here aresome issues they are considering:

Are catastrophic climate changeimpacts inevitable?

Scientists say human activities haveincreased the amount of CO2 in theatmosphere by more than 40 percentfrom pre-industrial levels. CO2 remainsin the atmosphere for years, so someclimate change has already been setin motion. However, scientists andpolicymakers are debating how muchclimate change is inevitable.

During negotiations over the pastdecade, some officials — particularlyfrom Europe — have called for limit-ing carbon emissions enough so glob-al temperatures do not rise more than2ºC (3.6ºF) above pre-industrial levels.That target recognizes that some cli-mate change is unavoidable but strivesto prevent more disastrous effects, suchas large-scale melting of polar icecaps. The goal was noted at a 2009climate conference in Copenhagen, al-though nations did not formally com-mit to reductions large enough toachieve it. 19

Limiting warming to 2ºC would re-quire capping CO2 concentrations atabout 450 parts per million, a levelthe planet could hit by mid-century ifemissions keep rising at current rates,scientists say. Warming could be lim-ited to that level if governments makepolluters pay for their carbon emis-sions, eliminate subsidies for fossil fuelsand increase investments in energy ef-ficiency and renewable energy, ac-cording to Maria van der Hoeven, ex-ecutive director of the InternationalEnergy Agency, which works to help

nations secure reliable, affordable andclean energy. “While ambitious, aclean energy transition is still possi-ble,” van der Hoeven said. “But ac-tion in all sectors is necessary to reachour climate targets.” 20

Other experts are more pessimistic.Sir Robert Watson, a British scientistand former chair of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), an international organizationestablished to advise governments on

Partisan Divide Is Wide on Climate Change

About 70 percent of Americans say there is solid evidence the Earth is warming, and about 40 percent say the planet is warming mainly because of human activity. The percentage of those with either view declined between 2006 and 2009-2010 but has risen since, includ-ing among Republicans. Nevertheless, the partisan divide over climate change remains wide: Fewer than 20 percent of Republicans believe human activity causes it. And although 42 percent of Republicans favor stricter environmental limits on power plants, significantly more Democrats and Independents want such restrictions.

Source: “Climate Change: Key Data Points From Pew Research,” Pew Research Center, April 2013, www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research

(percentage)

30

40

50

60

70

80%

201220112010200920072006

Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming?

Is the Earth warming mostly because of human activity?

Percent Who Think the Earth Is Warming, by Party, 2013

YesRepublicans..................... 44%Democrats ....................... 87%Independents................... 68%

Yes, and mostly due to human activity

Republicans..................... 19%Democrats ....................... 57%Independents................... 43%

Percent Who Think Scientists Agree Human Activity Is Causing Climate Change,

by Party, 2012Republicans..................... 30%Democrats ....................... 58%Independents................... 45%

Percent Who Favor Setting Stricter Limits on Power

Plants to Address Climate Change, by Party, 2013

Republicans..................... 42%Democrats ....................... 72%Independents................... 64%

526 CQ Researcher

climate change science and impacts,argues that nations have 50-50 oddsof limiting warming to 3ºC (5.4ºF), butshould prepare for an increase of upto 5ºC (9ºF). At that level, scientistssay the effects will be severe, espe-cially for developing countries. (Seesidebar, p. 532.)

“When I was chairing the IPCC . . .we were hopeful that emissions wouldnot go up at the tremendous rate theyare rising now,” Watson said in Feb-ruary. While cost-effective and equi-table solutions exist, he added, “polit-ical will and moral leadership is needed”to address climate change. And thesubstantial changes in policies, prac-tices and technologies are “not cur-rently under way.” 21

Climate scientist Trenberth of theNational Center for Atmospheric Re-search (NCAR) also doubts that it willbe possible to limit warming to 2ºC.“But it matters enormously how rapid-ly we get to that number,” he says.

“The rate of change matters as muchas the change itself. Getting to 2ºC in50 years is quite different than if ittakes 200 years or longer.”

Yet he believes it is still possible tolimit the rate of warming to a pace thatwill allow societies to adapt. “We canslow things down enough to make a bigdifference and push the 2ºC mark wellinto the 22nd century,” Trenberth says.

To meet that target, nations wouldhave to sharply cut fossil fuel use. “Tostay at 2°C we can’t emit more than565 gigatons of carbon dioxide intothe atmosphere by mid-century,” heexplains. “World CO2 emissions in2011 were 31.6 gigatons, which wasa 3.2 percent increase from the yearbefore. At current rates, we’ll go throughour limit in 16 years.” *

Scientists say many of the effectsof climate change will occur even if

the planet warms by 2ºC or less. “There’san impression that if we hold warm-ing below two degrees we’re safe,which is demonstrably false,” saysChristopher Field, a professor of glob-al ecology at Stanford University andlead author of IPCC climate changeassessment reports. “Climate change inthe next 20 to 40 years will be theresult of actions that are already bakedinto the system.”

In the United States average tem-peratures are rising; frost-free seasonsare lasting longer; precipitation is up inthe Midwest, southern Plains and North-east and down in parts of the South-east, Southwest and Rocky Mountainstates; and extreme weather events, suchas heat waves and flooding, are be-coming more frequent and intense. 22

Some experts, such as James Hansen,who retired early this year as directorof NASA’s Goddard Institute for SpaceStudies, calls the 2-degree target “a pre-scription for disaster.” Hansen says na-tions should cut CO2 emissions backsharply enough to reduce atmospher-ic concentrations to 350 parts per mil-lion — a level last seen in 1987 — toavoid effects such as melting most ofthe world’s glaciers and ice caps. 23

Other scientists share his perspec-tive. “Two degrees is actually too muchfor ecosystems,” Thomas E. Lovejoy, aprofessor of environmental science andpolicy at George Mason University,wrote in January. “A 2-degree worldwill be one without coral reefs (onwhich millions of human beings de-pend for their well-being).” At currentwarming levels, he noted, U.S. andAmazonian forests already have beenheavily damaged. “The current mode ofnibbling around the edges is pretty muchpointless,” he concluded. 24

Is climate engineering a goodidea?

As atmospheric concentrations ofgreenhouse gases climb and interna-tional negotiations fail to make progress,some say it is time to begin research-

CLIMATE CHANGE

China, U.S. Emit the Most Carbon Dioxide

China emitted more carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2011 than any other country. Its nearly 9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions were about 60 percent greater than the 5.5 billion metric tons emitted in the United States, which ranked second. Worldwide, CO2 emissions from energy use totaled nearly 33 billion metric tons in 2011. Most carbon dioxide, a major source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, comes from energy consumption. Emissions of other types of green-house gases — such as methane and nitrous oxide — are not included in these totals.

Top 10 Carbon Dioxide-Emitting Countries,From Energy Use,

2011

Source: “International Energy Statistics,” Energy Information Administration, 2013, www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

(millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

SaudiArabia

CanadaSouthKorea

IranGermanyJapanIndiaRussiaUnitedStates

China

8715.31

5490.63

1788.14 1725.761180.62

748.49 624.86 610.95 552.56 513.53

* A gigaton is one billion tons.


ing ways to alterEarth’s climate sys-tem on a large scaleto slow the rise ofglobal temperatures,at least until nationsmake serious com-mitments to cutemissions.

Various climateengineering schemes(also called geo-engineering) havebeen proposed, suchas injecting particlesinto the atmosphereto reflect sunlightback into space orremoving tons of car-bon from the at-mosphere and in-jec t ing i t deepunderground. (Seesidebar, p. 534.) Butthese concepts raisedifficult technical, political and ethicalquestions, and some say they are un-workable or unnecessary.

The National Research Council con-cluded in 2010 that more research wasneeded on ways to reduce carbon emis-sions, such as improving energy efficiency,capturing and storing power plant emis-sions and developing more low-carbonenergy sources. Geoengineering strate-gies “may also warrant attention, pro-vided that they do not replace other re-search efforts,” the authors wrote. 25

Similarly, the Royal Society, Britain’snational science academy, said in 2009that “properly researched geoengi-neering methods . . . could eventual-ly be useful to augment conventionalmitigation [emission-reducing] activities,even in the absence of an imminentemergency.” 26 Both academies em-phasized that little was known abouthow well various geoengineering meth-ods work or how easy they would beto deploy.

But some advocates are undeterred.Many cite the 1991 eruption of Mt.

Pinatubo in the Philippines, which in-jected millions of tons of sulfur diox-ide into the atmosphere. There the gasformed sulfate particles, which reflectedsome of the sun’s radiation back intospace, lowering average global tem-peratures the following year by justunder 1ºC.

David Keith, a professor of physicsand public policy at Harvard Univer-sity, calls strategies to reduce incom-ing sunlight an imperfect but fast andcheap way to partly offset climate risk.“You can stop the warming or evendo cooling if that’s what you wantedto do,” Keith said in January. “All thereally hard problems [with geoengi-neering] are public policy problems.” 27

For example, there are no broad in-ternational rules for governing geo-engineering research or policies forassigning liability if an experimentharms natural resources or alters weath-er patterns.

Other scientists say geoengineeringcannot be evaluated without betterunderstanding of Earth’s complex cli-

mate systems. For ex-ample, researchers at Cal-ifornia’s Scripps Institu-tion of Oceanographyhave used shipboardgenerators to producesmoke (the same typeused in skywriting) tosee how it affects cloudson a small scale. Theyfound that smoke parti-cles brightened theclouds, making themmore reflective, but thatlow clouds and multiplecloud layers made theprocess less effective. 28

Clouds are still poor-ly understood, accordingto Scripps atmosphericchemistry professorLynn Russell, lead authorof the cloud brighteningstudy. “Cloud droplets aremeasured in microme-

ters, but the heating and cooling thatmakes clouds appear occurs over areasof many kilometers. And droplets formin microseconds, but clouds form anddissipate in hours or days,” she says.Computer models have trouble com-bining such large- and small-scale mea-surements, so they usually representsome variables well and approximateothers, Russell notes.

Moreover, she says, scientists do nothave good ways to measure some con-ditions that affect cloud formation, suchas extremely high humidity or three-dimensional turbulence in the atmos-phere. Nonetheless, Russell believesmore small-scale experiments wouldbe useful. “Before you think about in-vesting money in long-term geoengi-neering studies, you need to knowwhat’s possible,” she says.

Trenberth, of the National Centerfor Atmospheric Research, worries thatadding particles to the atmospherecould harm Earth’s weather and cli-mate cycles. For example, an NCARstudy of the impacts of the Mt. Pinatubo

A coal-fired power plant spews smoke over Mehrum, Germany, onMarch 4, 2013. Burning fossil fuels — such as coal, natural gas and oil— creates carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that traps heat in theatmosphere, warming the Earth’s surface. CO2 is also generated by

natural sources, such as volcanoes and wildfires.

Getty Imag

es/Sean G

allup

528 CQ Researcher

eruption found that besides temporarilylowering global temperatures, the eventcaused large declines in rainfall overland and extensive droughts world-wide. 29 “It was an extreme event,”Trenberth says. “Geoengineering mightcool off temperatures, but if it alsoshuts down parts of the weather andhydrological cycles, the cure could beworse than the disease.”

In a recent article in the journal Sci-ence, Keith and UCLA law professorEdward Parson suggested governmentsstart organizing modest field experi-ments in geoengineering to see howvarious techniques affect the atmosphere— on a scale small enough that it won’talter the climate — and start develop-ing cooperative rules and limits.

“If research is blocked, then in somestark future situation where geoengi-neering is needed, only unrefined, untest-ed and excessively risky approacheswill be available,” they contended. 30

Should the United States adopt acarbon tax?

Although there is little prospect thatCongress will adopt broad climate change

legislation in the next several years, manyliberal and conservative experts advo-cate taxing carbon — more specifical-ly, the carbon content of fossil fuels.That would promote low-carbon andcarbon-free fuels and technologies with-out having government agencies pickspecific solutions, they argue.

“A carbon tax would encourage pro-ducers and consumers to shift towardenergy sources that emit less carbon— such as toward gas-fired power plantsand away from coal-fired plants — andgenerate greater demand for electricand flex-fuel cars and lesser demandfor conventional gasoline-powered cars,”wrote George P. Shultz, a former bud-get director, Treasury secretary and sec-retary of State during Republican pres-idential administrations, and Gary S.Becker, a Nobel laureate in econom-ics and professor at the University ofChicago. 31

Nearly a dozen nations or regionshave adopted some version of carbontaxes, including the Canadian provinceof British Columbia, Australia, Japan,South Africa, Switzerland, Norway,Sweden, Finland and Denmark. 32 In

2009-2010 Congress debated anotherway of pricing carbon: emissions trad-ing through a so-called cap-and-tradesystem, which also has been adoptedor is being considered by countriesand regions in Europe, North America,Latin America and Asia. 33 The Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House,would have created a U.S. emissionstrading system, but it was never broughtup in the Senate.*

Waxman-Markey illustrated the com-plexities of cap-and-trade systems, inwhich government agencies set a ceil-ing, or a cap, on total emissions of apollutant, then issue emissions al-lowances to businesses that generatethat pollutant. Companies must obtainallowances to cover all of their emis-sions or pay fines. Sources that reducetheir emissions can sell their extra al-lowances, so they have a financial in-centive to clean up their operations.

Conservatives lobbied hard againstWaxman-Markey, which they labeled“cap-and-tax” because governmentwould keep the revenues from sellingallowances. But many liberal activistsalso disliked the bill. They said it gavebusinesses permission to pollute. Andmost Americans had trouble under-standing how the complex programwould work or how it would benefitthem. 34 Many observers say carbontaxes can be simpler and more under-standable.

In addition, a carbon tax can berevenue-neutral, many supporters argue.Government could collect taxes onhigh-carbon fuels, either by taxing fuelproducers (the simplest approach) orenergy purchasers, then rebate themoney to consumers when they filetheir annual income tax returns.

This approach “would make ener-gy more expensive, but would great-ly offset the regressive impact of in-creasing the cost of energy,” says Adler

CLIMATE CHANGE

Electricity, Heat Generation Biggest CO2 Sources

More than 40 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 came from electricity and heat generation. The transportation and industrial sectors each accounted for about one-fifth of CO2 emissions, the main component of human-generated greenhouse gases.

Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector, 2010

Residential

* Includes commercial and public services, agriculture and forestry, fishing and energy industries other than electricity and heat generation

** Figures do not total 100 because of rounding.

Source: “CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion,” International Energy Agency, 2012, p. 9, www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf

10%Other*41%

Electricity and heat

22%Transport

20%Industry

6%

* The measure was named after its sponsors,Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman of Cali-fornia and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts.


of Case Western Reserve University. “It’salso transparent. The more clearly wetax one thing and then send moneydirectly back to people, the less omi-nous a carbon tax appears to be. Wax-man-Markey was littered with special-interest giveaways, which magnifiedthe suspicions that people have aboutthis kind of legislation.”

But many business interests strong-ly oppose a carbon tax, which theysay would increaseproduction costs,making their com-panies less compet-itive, especially ifthey compete withmanufacturers inother countries wherecarbon isn’t taxed. Astudy released earli-er this year by theNational Associationof Manufacturers(NAM) contendedthat a carbon taxwould reduce totalU.S. manufacturingoutput by up to 15percent in energy-intensive sectors.Higher productioncosts would putmillions of jobs atrisk and impel com-panies to reduce wages, which in turnwould reduce workers’ income. Even-tually, workers would reduce theirspending, which would dampen eco-nomic growth, the study said. 35

“Manufacturers use one-third of allenergy consumed in the U.S. and de-pend on reliable, low-cost energysources to compete in a global mar-ketplace,” a coalition of manufactur-ing trade associations wrote to mem-bers of Congress in May, citing theNAM study. 36

Industry representatives also say acarbon tax would hurt their ability tocompete against fast-growing devel-oping countries like China, which

overtook the United States in 2006 asthe world’s largest GHG emitter. Ear-lier this year, however, China pledgedto adopt its own carbon tax, althoughit has not yet offered details. 37

Carbon tax advocates respond thatemitting greenhouse gases imposescosts on society, in the form of cli-mate change and all of its negativeenvironmental effects. In their view,taxing carbon corrects an unfair ad-

vantage that fossil fuel producers reapwhen they are not required to pay thecosts of carbon pollution.

“Oil and coal companies havebeen sending carbon pollution intothe atmosphere since the IndustrialRevolution. When these industries start-ed, the risks were poorly understood.Today they know better,” argued Sen.Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who hascosponsored legislation to impose acarbon tax. “On average, [economists’]estimates of the social cost of carbonare about $48 per ton of carbondioxide — $48 per ton that thesebig businesses dodge and that we allpay for.”

BACKGROUNDMeasuring GHGs

A nthropogenic (human-driven) cli-mate change is a relatively new

scientific field, but it has deep roots.Scientists have understood for well over

a century that Earth’s cli-mate has fluctuated be-tween warm and coldphases throughout his-tory, and have studiedfactors that contribute tosuch changes.

For example, in 1864Scottish physicist JamesCroll theorized that reg-ular variations in Earth’sorbit could trigger iceages by changing howand where the sun’s en-ergy fell on the planet.Eighty years later Mi-lutin Milankovic, a Ser-bian geophysicist, cal-culated these shifts moreprecisely and developeda theory of glacial pe-riods, now known asMilankovic cycles.

Swedish chemistSvante Arrhenius was the first scien-tist to suggest that human activitiescould affect planetary climate cycles.In 1896 Arrhenius published the firstexplanation of how two greenhousegases — CO2 and water vapor —trapped heat in the atmosphere. Healso recognized that humans were in-creasing CO2 concentrations by burn-ing fossil fuels, but assumed that itwould take thousands of years for thoseactivities to have a measurable impact.

In 1938 Guy Callendar, an Englishinventor, estimated that humans hadadded about 150 billion tons of CO2to the atmosphere since the 1880s. Hecollected temperature records from

A snorkeler views a coral reef near Mansuar Island, in easternIndonesia’s Papua region. The surrounding Raja Ampat archipelago,considered one of the most important biodiversity environments in the

world, was nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. A 2ºCtemperature rise would kill the world’s remaining coral reefs,

according to scientist Thomas Lovejoy of George Mason University.

AFP

/Getty Imag

es/Romeo

Gacad

530 CQ Researcher

CLIMATE CHANGE

around the world and concluded thatrising GHG concentrations wereraising the planet’s temperature. LikeArrhenius, he thought warming wouldbenefit humans by extending growingseasons. “In any case, the return ofthe deadly glaciers should be delayedindefinitely,” he wrote. 38

But after further study, scientistsbegan to worry about where all of theexcess CO2 wouldgo. In 1957 RogerRevelle and HansSuess of California’sScripps Institutionof Oceanographypublished a studyshowing that mosthuman-generatedCO2 emissions up tothat time had beenabsorbed by theworld’s oceans. Butthe oceans werenearing their capac-ity for absorbingCO2, so the gas wasaccumulating in theatmosphere, theycontended, withunknown results.

“[H]uman beingsare now carrying outa large-scale geo-physical experiment,” Revelle and Suesswarned. “Within a few centuries weare returning to the atmosphere andoceans the concentrated organic car-bon [that was] stored in sedimentaryrocks over hundreds of millions ofyears.” 39

Climate science expanded rapidlyin the 1950s and 1960s. Internationalresearch groups in the United States,England, Mexico and elsewhere begandesigning general models to simulatethe many complex processes that cre-ated Earth’s climate, such as ocean cur-rents and wind patterns. Scientistsused these models to test theories abouthow the system might change in re-sponse to natural or manmade events.

French, Danish, Swiss, Russian andU.S. scientists drilled into ice sheets inGreenland and Antarctica and analyzedair bubbles from thousands of yearsearlier to determine how the atmos-phere’s composition had changed overtime. A growing body of researchshowed that many processes shapedglobal climate patterns, and that humanactions could disrupt the system.

Calls for Action

I n the late 1960s public concerns aboutpollution and over-development in

industrialized countries triggered a glob-al environmental movement. Govern-ments began setting standards for airand water quality, waste managementand land conservation.

Congress established the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970and a wave of major environmentallaws followed, including the Clean Airand Clean Water acts, the EndangeredSpecies Act and the National Environ-mental Policy Act, which required fed-eral agencies to consider the environ-

mental impacts of major governmentprojects. A 1972 international confer-ence on the environment in Stockholmset lofty goals for international cooper-ation and led to creation of the Unit-ed Nations Environment Programme.

Global climate change had not yetbecome a policy issue, but scientists weredrawing more connections between at-mospheric GHG concentrations, rising

temperatures and alarm-ing potential conse-quences, such as a melt-ing and breaking apart ofAntarctic ice sheets. Bythe early 1980s, manyprominent scientists werewarning that heavy fossilfuel use was warmingthe planet, with possiblewidespread effects. 40

By the late 1980s, en-vironmental groups werecalling for reductions infossil fuel use. But criticsargued that scientific ev-idence for climate changewas uncertain and thatreducing emissions wouldseriously harm econom-ic growth by forcing busi-nesses and households touse more expensive low-carbon energy sources.

Western Europe, with its strong Greenparties, pressed for an international agree-ment to limit GHGs. In 1992 nationssigned the Framework Convention onClimate Change (FCCC) at the EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Thetreaty called for voluntarily reducingGHGs to 1990 levels, but did not setbinding national limits or timetables.

Climate Wars

A s it became clear that nonbindingpledges would not slow rising

GHG concentrations, the focus shiftedto numerical limits. In 1997 nations

Continued on p. 533

The Amazon rain forest — already being devastated by global warming— faces further damage from climate change. Scientists say a 2ºC

temperature rise would decrease water flow in the Amazon basin by 20-40 percent, causing widespread drought and other

environmental problems.

AFP

/Getty Imag

es/Yasuyo

shi Chiba


Chronology1890s-1950sScientists study weather and therole of heat-trapping greenhousegases (GHGs).

1896Swedish chemist Svante Arrheniusdevelops first theory of human-caused climate change.

1945U.S. military agencies start fundingbasic weather and climate research.

1950The World Meteorological Organi-zation is founded; it becomes aU.N. agency the next year.

1957American geochemist CharlesDavid Keeling begins measuringatmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)levels at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

•

1980s Environmental-ists push for pollution limitsin developed countries. Scien-tists warn that human activi-ties are warming the planet.

1988Testifying before Congress, NASAscientist James Hansen warns thatEarth’s climate is warming withpotentially disastrous impacts.

1987Nations adopt the Montreal Proto-col, setting international limits ongases that destroy Earth’s ozonelayer.

1988U.N. creates IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC)to provide governments with expertviews on climate change science.

1990s Governmentspledge to tackle climate change,but worry about costs.

1990First IPCC assessment report saysglobal temperatures have risen andare likely to continue warming.

1992At the Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro, the United States andmore than 150 other nations signthe Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change (FCCC), pledging tocut all GHG emissions to 1990levels by 2000.

1995Second IPCC report finds scientificevidence of human-driven warming.

1997FCCC member nations adopt theKyoto Protocol, which requires devel-oped countries to cut GHG emissions5.2 percent, on average, by 2012. TheSenate votes 95-0 not to adopt bind-ing U.S. targets until developing na-tions also have to make cuts.

•

2000s-PresentEvidence mounts that humanactivities are warming theplanet. Scientists find increas-ing evidence that climatechange is altering weather pat-terns, ocean chemistry andother Earth systems.

2001Third IPCC report says major globalwarming is “very likely.”

2005The Kyoto Protocol enters intoforce after Russia ratifies it, leavingthe United States and Australia as

the only nonparticipating industrial-ized nations.

2006Dutch Nobel laureate Paul Crutzencalls for active research into geo-engineering.

2007Fourth IPCC assessment finds withmore than 90 percent certaintythat human activities are warmingthe climate. . . . Australia ratifiesKyoto Protocol. . . . U.S. SupremeCourt rules that the EnvironmentalProtection Agency can regulateCO2 as a pollutant.

2008Newly elected President BarackObama pledges quick action onclimate change

2009-2010Legislation creating a system ofmarketable permits to emit GHGsnarrowly passes House (2009),fails to reach Senate floor. . . . Re-publicans win control of House inmidterm elections.

2011A conservative government an-nounces that Canada will withdrawfrom the Kyoto Protocol becauseCanadian companies would have tobuy too many carbon emission cred-its in order to meet the country’semission-control target.

2012Kyoto Protocol member countriesextend the agreement at the lastminute and commit to developinga follow-on treaty requiring cutsfrom more countries by 2015.

2013President Obama calls for action toslow climate change, pledging touse regulations if Congress will notpass legislation.

532 CQ Researcher

CLIMATE CHANGE

Will the planet warm by 2ºC in coming decades, or4 degrees — or even more? The question may seemtrivial, but the difference could mean life or death

for millions of people worldwide, especially in poor nations.A 2012 report commissioned by the World Bank warned

that while all countries will be affected by climate change, “thepoor will suffer most, and the global community could becomemore fractured and unequal than today.” That scenario is es-pecially likely if the world warms by 4ºC (7.2º F) above pre-industrial levels — the likely outcome if nations don’t start cut-ting emissions sharply. 1

“The projected 4ºC warming simply must not be allowed tooccur — the heat must be turned down,” the report asserted. 2

Scientists are still quantifying all of the potential impactsfrom a 4ºC jump in temperature, but the report warns that risksfrom heat waves, altered rainfall patterns and drought will in-crease — even with a 2ºC (3.6ºF) temperature rise — and willbe much more severe with 4ºC of warming. For example:

• With a 2-degree rise in temperature, the average amountof water flowing yearly through the Danube, Mississippi andAmazon river basins would fall 20 to 40 percent, while flowin the Nile and Ganges river basins would rise by about20 percent. With 4ºC of warming, those changes would rough-ly double, increasing the likelihood and severity of droughtsand flooding.

• If temperatures rise 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, thenumber of forest fires in the Amazon rain forest could double. With4ºC of warming, the number of fires would increase even more. 3

Geophysical factors are part of why climate change will af-fect poor countries more than rich countries. Sea-level rise islikely to be 15 to 20 percent higher in the tropics than the av-erage increase around the globe because of warming-relatedchanges in ocean circulation patterns. And warming is expect-ed to make tropical cyclones (hurricanes) more intense, whiledry areas in many tropical and subtropical regions are likelyto become drier as the climate warms. 4

In addition, developing countries typically are less preparedfor disasters and may not be able to provide adequate disasterrelief to those whose lives will be uprooted by storms, floods orheat waves. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), a scientific organization that advises national gov-ernments, more than 95 percent of deaths from natural disastersbetween 1970 and 2008 occurred in developing countries. How-ever, economic losses were higher in wealthy countries, wheremore buildings and infrastructure were at risk. 5

The IPCC’s definition of disaster risk is based on three factors:• Weather and climate events, such as hurricanes or heat

waves;

• Exposure — people living in areas where those eventsoccur; and

• Vulnerability — whether victims have well-built homes orshelters, access to medical care, insurance and other resourcesto help them through the disasters.

“For the poor and vulnerable, a non-huge disaster can havehuge consequences,” says Christopher Field, a professor of glob-al ecology at Stanford University and co-chair of the IPCC’s work-ing group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. For example,during urban heat waves the poor, elderly and infirm are muchmore likely to die than their more affluent neighbors. 6

“Societies can moderate impacts of high heat by setting upcooling centers and increasing access to electricity for air con-ditioning, but if they’re unprepared there can be very heavyloss of life,” says Field.

Climate change threatens basic needs for the poor, such asaccess to clean drinking water and adequate food supplies. Ac-cording to the World Bank report, 2ºC to 2.5ºC of warmingwould increase the rate of childhood stunting (failure to growat normal rates because of undernourishment), especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, a problem likely to be more se-vere as warming increases. Higher temperatures also will ex-pand the geographic ranges of many infectious diseases suchas malaria, with higher risks for those without access to vacci-nations and medical care. 7

Climate change is a “clear and present danger . . . to our de-velopment plans and objectives and the health of economieslarge and small in all regions,” United Nations Secretary-GeneralBan Ki-moon said in April. “The poor and vulnerable are theones most hit and targeted, but no nation will be immune.” 8

— Jennifer Weeks

1 “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4ºC Warmer World Must Be Avoided,” PotsdamInstitute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, (prepared forthe World Bank), November 2012, p. xviii, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf.2 Ibid.3 Ibid., p. xvi.4 Ibid., p. xiii.5 “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance ClimateChange Adaptation,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012, p. 7,http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf.6 For example, see Micah Maidenburg, “The 1995 Heat Wave Reflected Chica-go’s ‘Geography of Vulnerabilty,’ ” ChicagoNow.com, July 20, 2011, www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2011/07/the-1995-heat-wave-reflected-chicagos-geography-of-vulnerability/.7 “Turn Down the Heat,” op. cit., p. xvii.8 “Climate change is a ‘clear and present danger,’ says UN Chief,” UnitedNations, April 19, 2013, www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/2013/04/climate-change-is-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-humankind-says-un-chief/.

Global Warming Will Hit Poor the Hardest“The heat must be turned down.”


adopted the KyotoProtocol, which re-quired developedcountries to reducetheir GHG emis-sions, on average, by5.2 percent below1990 levels by 2012.It also created pro-grams to slow emis-sion growth in de-veloping countries,including internation-al trading of emis-sion allowances andcredits for wealthycountries that paid foremission reductionprojects in develop-ing countries. 41

The frameworkrecognized that de-veloped countrieswere responsible forvirtually all warmingabove pre-industrial levels that had al-ready occurred, but fast-growing de-veloping nations such as China, Indiaand Brazil also were becoming majoremitters. But the U.S. Senate made clearthat it would not ratify the pact unlessdeveloping countries also were requiredto make binding reduction pledges. Ac-cordingly, President Bill Clinton, whohad signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997,never submitted it to the Senate for rat-ification, although both he and VicePresident Al Gore supported action toaddress climate change.

The prospect of national legislationto cut GHG emissions energized fos-sil-fuel interests, which were fundingwork by some conservative thinktanks and media outlets to discreditscientific evidence of a human role inclimate change. As long as the scien-tific evidence was uncertain, these ad-vocates argued, it did not make senseto limit GHG emissions. Over time,the Republican Party came to strong-ly oppose government efforts to ad-

dress climate change. 42

Shortly after he was sworn into of-fice, Republican President George W.Bush (2001-2009) renounced Clinton’sdecision to sign the Kyoto agreementand said cutting GHG emissions wouldharm the U.S. economy. Bush’s presi-dency was also marked by what manyobservers came to refer to as “climatewars” — harsh debates over the accu-racy of climate science. “There is still awindow of opportunity to challenge thescience,” Republican political consultantFrank Luntz wrote in a 2002 strategymemo. To prevent voters from sup-porting action to slow climate change,he argued, politicians should “continueto make the lack of certainty a prima-ry issue in the debate.” 43

Despite these arguments, some na-tional leaders — including Republicans— pressed for the United States to takeaction. In 2003, 2005 and 2007, Sens.John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieber-man, D-Conn., introduced bills to cre-ate a cap-and-trade system for reducing

U.S. carbon emissions.And some major corpo-rations began endorsingcarbon controls. “Weknow enough to act onclimate change,” the U.S.Climate Action Partner-ship (an alliance of majorcorporations includingAlcoa, DuPont and Gen-eral Electric) said in Jan-uary 2007. 44

Also in 2007 the IPCCand former Vice Presi-dent Gore — who hadargued strongly for ac-tion on climate changein the Academy Award-winning documentaryAn Inconvenient Truth— were awarded theNobel Peace Prize, asign of strong interna-tional concern about cli-mate change. 45

Obama’s Record

M any observers expected progresson climate change after Obama

was elected in 2008. As a candidate,he had pledged to support clean-energyoptions and work for passage of a na-tional cap-and-trade system to limitGHG emissions.

Initially, however, Obama’s atten-tion was consumed by the worldwiderecession that had begun in 2007.Obama’s major legislative successesin 2009 were economic rescue mea-sures, including a $787 billion eco-nomic stimulus package and a bailoutplan for U.S. automakers. In sucheconomic circumstances, proposingpolicies that would raise the price offossil fuels was much more challengingthan it would have been in a strongeconomy.

In June 2009 the House passed theWaxman-Markey cap-and-trade billby a narrow 219-212 margin. 46 Many

Continued from p. 530

President Obama has called for cutting emissions of heat-trapping gasesfrom power plants and other sources and pledged to use regulations ifCongress fails to act. Environmental advocates say the president couldtake other steps as well, including rejecting the proposed Keystone XL

crude oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada, and tightening restrictions on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

AFP

/Getty Imag

es/N

icholas Kam

m

534 CQ Researcher

environmental advocates hailed it asa first step, but others complained itset what they saw as weak emissionslimits and allowed polluters to “offset”some of their emissions by paying forcleanup projects elsewhere. 47

Without strong support from the pub-lic or liberal environmentalists, and withconservatives labeling it an “energy tax,”Senate Democratic leaders opted not tobring the bill up for consideration. 48

Then in the 2010 midterm elections Re-publicans won control of the House,making it effectively impossible to enactclimate change legislation. Conservativelegislators, particularly those affiliated

with or seeking support from the con-servative anti-tax Tea Party movement,challenged numerous laws and regula-tions as government intrusions into pri-vate decisions — including previouslyuncontroversial policies such as effi-ciency standards for light bulbs. 49

Obama’s main climate-related suc-cess was negotiating tighter fuel effi-ciency and greenhouse gas pollutionstandards for new cars and trucks.These changes, announced in 2011, wereprojected to cut U.S. oil use by 12 bil-lion barrels and avoid 6 billion metrictons of CO2 emissions — equivalent toall of U.S. emissions in 2010. 50

During the 2012 presidential race,Obama and his GOP opponent, for-mer Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney,largely avoided the topic of climatechange. (Romney had supported stateGHG limits as governor, then reversedhis position shortly before leaving of-fice.) Instead, they both emphasizedproducing energy from as many sourcesas possible, including coal, oil and nat-ural gas. Obama also advocated moregovernment support for solar, windand other renewable energy sources,while Romney called for leaving en-ergy choices up to the market. 51

Just before the election, New York

CLIMATE CHANGE

Shooting small particles into Earth’s upper atmosphere toreflect incoming sunlight back into space. Dumping largequantities of iron into the oceans to stimulate the growth

of pollution-eating plankton. Those are just two of the futuris-tic methods engineers have considered as ways to keep theplanet from overheating.

So-called geoengineering techniques involve large-scale ef-forts to alter Earth’s climate system in order to reduce the im-pact of climate change. They fall into two broad categories:Managing the amount of energy from the sun that falls onEarth’s surface, and scrubbing millions of tons of heat-trappingcarbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.

Strategies designed to control the amount of heat from thesun striking the Earth include:

• Injecting small reflective particles, such as sulfates, intothe upper atmosphere to reflect some sunlight back to space.

• Spraying salt water into the lower atmosphere, whichmakes clouds brighter and more reflective (water vapor in theatmosphere condenses around salt particles, increasing the num-ber of droplets in clouds).

• Installing reflective objects in space between the Earthand sun; and

• Increasing the percentage of Earth’s surface covered withlight-colored, reflective surfaces, through such techniques aspainting millions of roofs white.

Engineers believe shooting reflective particles into the atmos-phere would be the most cost-effective and feasible approach, butsome scientists worry that it could change rain and snowfall pat-terns, damage the Earth’s ozone layer or increase air pollution. 1

Strategies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphereinclude planting more forests, which consume and store car-bon as trees grow; “fertilizing” the oceans by dumping large

quantities of iron to stimulate the growth of plankton, whichabsorbs CO2 as it multiplies; and capturing CO2 by passing airthrough “scrubbers” that remove carbon dioxide. The CO2 wouldthen be injected into deep underground reservoirs.

No international treaty or agency governs geoengineering, andmany critics say efforts to manipulate weather and climate on suchmassive scales could threaten human health, forests or fisheries.

One widely publicized geoengineering experiment was con-ducted by Russ George, an American businessman who has triedseveral ocean-fertilization experiments, seeking to demonstratethat by locking CO2 up in the deep ocean a company can gen-erate marketable “carbon credits.” But studies have not yet shownthat ocean fertilization actually removes significant amounts ofcarbon from the atmosphere, so he doesn’t have any buyers yet.

Spain and Ecuador barred George from their ports after hesought to carry out ocean fertilization experiments near the Galá-pagos and Canary islands, which officials contended would pol-lute the seas and threaten biodiversity. 2 Controversy over his pro-posals spurred the United Nations to adopt a moratorium onocean fertilization experiments. Nonetheless, George dumped 100metric tons of iron sulphate off Canada’s west coast last fall, gen-erating a large plankton bloom. He said international treaties bar-ring ocean dumping and actions that might threaten biodiversitywere “mythology” and did not apply to his activities. 3

The Canadian government belatedly launched an investiga-tion into George’s experiment, which was partly funded by a na-tive Haida community on the coast in hopes that a planktonbloom would help restore traditional salmon runs. 4 But the pres-ident of the Haida Nation, Guujaw, denounced the village’s ac-tion. “Our people, along with the rest of humanity, depend onthe oceans and cannot leave the fate of the oceans to the whimof the few,” he said. 5

Geoengineering Proposals Would Alter Earth’s ClimateScientists say the controversial techniques demand more study.


City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an in-dependent who had been courted byboth campaigns, endorsed Obama, part-ly because he believed Obama wasmore likely to act to slow climatechange. Bloomberg made his an-nouncement just after SuperstormSandy, an immense hurricane, flood-ed parts of Manhattan and devastatedcoastal New Jersey.

“Our climate is changing. And whilethe increase in extreme weather we haveexperienced in New York City and aroundthe world may or may not be the re-sult of it, the risk that it might be —given this week’s devastation — should

compel all elected leaders to take im-mediate action,” Bloomberg said. 52

CURRENTSITUATION

Bypassing Congress

With Congress sharply dividedalong party lines, observers see

little prospect for legislation to address

climate change during Obama’s secondterm. But environmental advocates sayhe can make significant progress throughexecutive actions and regulations.

“By far the most important step thepresident can take is using his authorityunder the Clean Air Act to finalize car-bon pollution limits for new powerplants [i.e., plants not yet constructed]and develop limits for existing powerplants,” says David Goldston, govern-ment affairs director for the Natural Re-sources Defense Council (NRDC), a na-tional environmental advocacy group.“That could reduce CO2 output frompower plants by 25 percent.”

In its last major climatechange assessment report,the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC)called geoengineering tech-niques such as ocean fer-tilization “speculative” andnoted that many of the po-tential environmental sideeffects had yet to be stud-ied, no detailed cost esti-mates existed and there wasno legal or political frame-work for implementingsuch projects. 6 The IPCCheld an expert workshopon geoengineering in 2011,and its next assessment,scheduled to be publishedin late 2014, will considerthe science, potential impacts and uncertainties of geoengi-neering in more detail.

Meanwhile, many nations are concerned about how geoengi-neering strategies could affect climate cycles and natural resources.A 2012 report for the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (aninternational treaty signed by 193 countries that aims to protectEarth’s natural resources) concluded that few proposed geoengi-neering strategies had been well researched and no good sys-tems had been designed for regulating them. In short, the reportconcluded, much more study was needed. 7

Large-scale application of geoengineering techniques “is near-certain to involve unintended side effects and increase sociopolitical

tensions,” the report observed.“While technological innovationhas helped to transform soci-eties and improve the qualityof life in many ways, it has notalways done so in a sustain-able manner.” 8

— Jennifer Weeks

1 “IPCC Expert Meeting on Geo-engineering,” Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, June 20-22,2011, pp. 19-20, www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf.2 Kalee Thompson, “Carbon Discredit,”Popular Science, July 1, 2008, www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-07/carbon-discredit?single-page-view=true.3 Martin Lukacs, “World’s Biggest Geo-engineering Experiment ‘Violates’ UN

Rules,” The Guardian, Oct. 15, 2012, www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering.4 “B.C. Village’s Ocean Fertilization Experiment Probed,” CBC News, March 28,2013, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/03/27/bc-iron-restoration-fifth-estate.html.5 “West Coast Ocean Fertilization Project Defended,” CBC News, Oct. 22,2012, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/19/bc-ocean-fertilization-haida.html.6 “Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change,” IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, section 11.2.2, 2007, www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html.7 “Impacts of Climate-Related Geoengineering on Biological Diversity,” Con-vention on Biodiversity, April 5, 2013, pp. 3, 9, www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-28-en.pdf.8 Ibid., p. 8.

The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines causedglobal temperatures to drop temporarily by nearly 1ºC by

sending millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into theatmosphere. The gas formed sulfate particles, whichreflected some of the sun’s radiation back into space.

AFP

/Getty imag

es/A

rlan

Naeg

536 CQ Researcher

CLIMATE CHANGE

The EPA proposed a carbon pollu-tion standard for new power plants in2012 after the Supreme Court ruled in2007 that the agency had authority toregulate carbon dioxide as a pollutantunder the Clean Air Act. 53 The pro-posed standard would limit carbon emis-sions from fossil-fuel-burning power plantsto 1,000 pounds of CO2per megawatt-hour ofelectricity generated. 54

According to theagency, new natural gasplants should be ableto meet the standardwithout additional con-trols. But coal-firedplants emit carbondioxide at about twicethat rate, so new coalplants would need extrapollution controls. Be-cause the price of nat-ural gas has droppedsharply in recent years,the EPA and Depart-ment of Energy (DOE)expect that new powerplants likely will burngas, so they don’t ex-pect the coal plant ruleto affect energy pricesor reliability. 55

But in April the EPAput the new rule onhold indefinitely afterenergy companies saidit would effectively killany new coal-firedpower plants. Agency officials said therule would be rewritten to providemore flexibility. 56 And during her con-firmation hearings this spring to be ad-ministrator of EPA, Gina McCarthy saidthe agency was not developing GHGregulations for existing power plants. 57

Environmentalists also suggestother steps Obama could take to limitGHG emissions, including:

• Rejecting the proposed Keystone XLpipeline, which would carry crude oil

from tar sand deposits in Alberta, Cana-da, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.“Tar sand oil is far more polluting thantraditional fossil fuels,” says Goldston.

• Further tightening energy effi-ciency standards for appliances, elec-tronics and other equipment.

• Maintaining robust funding forrenewable energy research and de-velopment; and

• Regulating the environmental im-pacts of hydraulic fracturing, or “frack-ing,” for natural gas, including limitson methane emissions. 58 Methane, themain component of natural gas, is agreenhouse gas, and critics contendthat methane leaks from fracking op-erations contribute significantly to cli-mate change, although energy com-

panies say the problem can be man-aged. 59

Any new regulations could facelegal challenges, especially if industrysays they would cost too much to im-plement. But Goldston believes courtswill uphold reasonable climate protec-

tion rules. “Everyone knowsthere will be challenges, butthere’s no reason that well-written standards shouldn’tsurvive in court,” he says.

Republican oppositionto greenhouse gas regula-tions figured prominentlyin debate over Obama’schoice of McCarthy as EPAadministrator. McCarthycurrently heads the agency’sAir and Radiation program(a position for which theSenate confirmed her byvoice vote in 2009) andhas also worked for Re-publican governors in Mass-achusetts and Connecticut.Her nomina t ion waspraised by business lead-ers: Gloria Bergquist, vicepresident of the Alliance ofAutomobile Manufacturers,called her a “pragmatic pol-icymaker” who “acceptsreal-world economics.” 60

But Republicans on theSenate Environment andPublic Works Committeeasked McCarthy more than1,100 questions for therecord during her confir-

mation process — seven times asmany as McCarthy’s predecessor, LisaJackson, faced. The Republican PolicyCommittee contended that McCarthyhad “played a central role in author-ing environmental regulations that couldeffectively ban the use of coal as anenergy source,” alluding to the carbonstandards for new power plants. Thecommittee also charged that EPA wasworking to undercut approval of the

Continued on p. 538

The glaciers at Glacier National Park in Montana (above) aremelting, along with many of the world’s other glaciers and Arcticice. Some officials have called for limiting temperature increases

to 2ºC, but some climate experts say even that could cause most of the world’s glaciers and ice caps to melt.

USG

S Climate Chan

ge in M

ountain Eco

sytems Program

no


At Issue:Should the United States adopt a carbon tax?yes

yesWILLIAM G. GALECO-DIRECTOR, URBAN-BROOKINGS TAXPOLICY CENTER

FROM “THE TAX FAVORED BY MOST ECONOMISTS,”BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, MARCH 12, 2013,WWW.BROOKINGS.EDU/RESEARCH/OPINIONS/2013/03/12-TAXING-CARBON-GALE

l ooking for a public policy that would improve the . . .economy, lower our dependence on foreign oil, reducepollution, slow global warming, allow cuts in government

spending and decrease the long-term deficit? Then a carbon taxis what you want. . . .

Energy consumption [involves] substantial societal costs —including air and water pollution, road congestion and climatechange. Since many of these costs are not directly borne bythose who use fossil fuels, they are ignored when energy pro-duction and consumption choices are made, resulting in toomuch consumption and production of fossil fuels. Economistshave long recommended a tax on fossil-fuel energy sources asan efficient way to address this problem. . . .

Most analyses find that a carbon tax could significantly reduceemissions. Tufts University economist Gilbert Metcalf estimatedthat a $15 per ton tax on CO2 emissions that rises over timewould reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent. . . .

A carbon tax . . . has been implemented in several othercountries, including the Scandinavian nations, the Netherlands,Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia. . . . Estimatessuggest that a well-designed tax in the United States couldraise . . . up to 1 percent of GDP, [which] could . . . addressthe country’s . . . medium- and long-term budget deficits.

A carbon tax could [also reduce U.S.] dependence on for-eign sources of energy and [create] better market incentivesfor energy conservation, the use of renewable energy sourcesand the production of energy-efficient goods. . . .

Two problems are sometimes raised in response to a feder-al carbon tax proposal. The first is its impact on low-incomehouseholds, who use most of their income for consumption.However, this . . . could be offset [through] refundable incometax credits or payroll tax credits.

The second concern is whether the U.S. should act unilater-ally. Without cooperation from the rest of the world, criticsfear that a U.S. carbon tax would reduce economic activityhere and make little difference to overall carbon emissions orlevels. This view . . . discounts the experience of other coun-tries that unilaterally created carbon taxes; there is no evidencethat they paid a significant price, or any price at all, in termsof economic activity levels.

No one is claiming the carbon tax is a perfect outcome. Butrelative to the alternatives, it has an enormous amount to offer.no

KENNETH P. GREENSENIOR DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND NATURALRESOURCES STUDIES, FRASER INSTITUTE,CALGARY, CANADA

FROM “WHY A CARBON TAX IS STILL A BAD IDEA,”AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AUG. 28, 2012

t axes on carbon are not simply taxes on consumption,they’re a tax on production as well, since energy is a pri-mary input to production. Taxing both production and

consumption seems like a poor way to stimulate your economy,reduce your costs of production or make your exports morecompetitive.

Carbon taxes are regressive. Poorer people spend a higherportion of their household budget on energy than do the bet-ter off. [Unless] you were to posit redistributing the tax to thepoor, higher energy costs [will] slap the lower-end of the in-come spectrum hard.

Taxing carbon gets you virtually no climate or health benefitunless it exists within some binding, international carbon con-trol regime, which is unlikely. China and India will dominateglobal carbon emissions for the next century, while emissionsin the developed world are already level or in decline. And,global negotiations over carbon controls have become a farcein which developing countries fish for wealth and intellectualproperty transfers, while developed countries make promisesthey have little intention of keeping.

Carbon taxes would put a share (potentially a large share) ofthe U.S. tax system under the influence of bureaucrat-scientistsat the U.N. You can guarantee that there would be steadypressure to tax carbon at ever-higher rates (and transfer someof that booty to developing countries!). Do we really want“the science” of climate change as developed by the U.N.setting our tax rates?

We already have a vast array of regulations aimed at re-ducing carbon emissions, [so] new carbon taxes would repre-sent double-taxation. You’re already paying carbon taxes inthe additional costs of new vehicles with higher fuel emissionstandards, more expensive appliances that aim to conserveenergy, renewable energy standards that raise your cost ofelectricity, etc.

For the record, I’m a “lukewarmer” [on global warming] andI’ve written (since 1998) that some resilience-building actionswould be wise in the face of climate risk, but a carbon tax?In the real world, like other eco-taxes, carbon taxes wouldquickly morph into just another form of taxation that feedsthe ever-hungry maw of big government.

* Green was a policy analyst at the American EnterpriseInstitute when he wrote this commentary.

538 CQ Researcher

Keystone XL pipeline by criticizing theState Department’s environmental re-view of the project. 61

All eight committee Republicans votedagainst McCarthy’s nomination, whichwas supported by all 10 Democrats. Thenomination could face a Republican fil-ibuster on the Senate floor. A BostonGlobe editorial said the GOP was try-ing to “bully the EPA into lowering pol-lution standards.” If McCarthy is even-tually confirmed, The Globe observed,she will face looming challenges — inparticular, rising GHG emissions. 62

Public Concern

R ecent polls show that while cli-mate change remains a divisive

issue, the public is much less polar-ized than Congress, with a majority ofrespondents believing global warmingis occurring. (See box, p. 525.) Andwhile Democrats are more likely thanRepublicans to believe in global warm-ing, some polls show that Republicansincreasingly agree. For instance:

• A March Gallup poll found that66 percent of Americans believe glob-al warming has already begun or willbegin soon or within their lifetimes.And the share of those who believehuman activity causes climate changehas jumped from 50 percent in 2010to 57 percent today. 63

• An April Pew Research Centerpoll found that 69 percent of Ameri-cans believe there is solid evidenceEarth is warming (including 44 per-cent of Republicans), and 42 percentbelieve it is caused mostly by humanactivity. Both beliefs have been in-creasing since about 2010. 64

• A University of Michigan studyconducted last fall found that the per-centage of Republicans who believein global warming rose from 33 per-cent in 2010 to 51 percent in 2012. 65

• Similarly, a George Mason Univer-sity survey in January found that 52 per-

cent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe climatechange is occurring. 66

However, Stephen Ansolabehere, aprofessor of government at Harvard Uni-versity who has conducted numeroussurveys of public views about energyand climate change, says “the public isof two minds about climate change. Peo-ple generally accept that it’s happening,but they don’t see it as an urgent issue.”The Gallup survey, for instance, foundthat 64 percent of respondents did notsee climate change as a threat to themor their lifestyles, while the Pew pollfound that only 33 percent of respon-dents called global warming a “very se-rious” problem.

Since climate change is not consid-ered an impending crisis, surveys indi-cate Americans are only willing to makeminor sacrifices to deal with it. An-solabehere has found that respondents,on average, would spend only $10 permonth to shift to low-carbon energysources. “That’s an important first step,but it’s only a modest one,” he says.

Polls also suggest that many Amer-icans do not support broad national,taxpayer-supported solutions. In aMarch survey commissioned by Stan-ford University, respondents were askedwho should pay for projects to pro-tect coastal communities from flood-ing, such as building sea walls andmanmade dunes. More than 80 per-cent said such projects should befunded by raising local property taxesfor those who live near shorelines. 67

More extreme weather events couldconvince Americans that climate changeis an imminent threat. “Big galvanizingexamples can change public opinionacross generations in a lasting way,”says Ansolabehere. “The cleanest ex-amples are the accident at Three MileIsland, which completely reset the nu-clear power industry in the United States,and Chernobyl, which did the same inEurope. But Hurricane Sandy plusdroughts in Texas and the Midwest arestarting to make people realize they

need to be concerned about weather.”Indeed, wrote Trenberth, at the Na-

tional Center for Atmospheric Research,and Princeton’s Michael Oppenheimer,“There is conclusive evidence that cli-mate change worsened the damagecaused by Superstorm Sandy. Sea lev-els in New York City harbors have risenby more than a foot since the begin-ning of the 20th century. Had the stormsurge not been riding on higher seas,there would have been less floodingand less damage. Warmer air also al-lows storms such as Sandy to holdmore moisture and dump more rain-fall, exacerbating flooding.” 68

OUTLOOKAdapting and Leading

A s the impacts of climate changebecome increasingly clear, scien-

tists say the United States must spendmore money and resources to helpthe nation adapt to extreme weatherand other climate-related events.

“Water will be one of the biggestpressure points on society,” says NCAR’sTrenberth. “The intensity and frequencyof rain and storms will increase, withlonger dry spells. Even if we get thesame average amount of precipitationyearly, the way it’s distributed overtime will become harder to manage,and shortages will be more likely.” 69

Rising sea levels are also highly like-ly. “Storm surges, high tides and floodevents all are amplified by rising seas.A few inches of sea level rise can makea big difference in the amount of dam-age,” says Stanford’s Field.

Other effects could be devastatingfor many regions. “Droughts are be-coming longer or more severe in someparts of world, but shortening in oth-ers,” says Field. Hurricane frequency“probably won’t change, but more

CLIMATE CHANGE

Continued from p. 536


storms will grow to the most damag-ing levels. Tornadoes are a very ac-tive area of research, and we may seesome new results over the next decade.”

As the science of climate change im-proves, prospects for leadership from theUnited States or other major greenhousegas emitters remain murky. Environmentaladvocates hope for strong action fromthe Obama administration, especially onpower plant emissions. “President Obamatook very important actions in his firstterm, especially raising mileage standardsfor passenger cars,” says the NRDC’sGoldston. “That policy will save money,reduce fuel consumption, and cut a largechunk of carbon pollution. Power plantstandards are the next logical step.”

Others see promoting innovative low-carbon energy sources and technolo-gies as a better long-term strategy. “Weneed ways to drive down the cost ofdecarbonization, and regulatory man-dates aren’t likely to do that,” says Adlerof Case Western Reserve University.“Encouraging more innovation is theway to get large developing countriesonto a low-carbon development path.Going after energy subsidies, especial-ly for high-carbon fuels, would alsohelp. So would reducing regulatorybarriers that impede nontraditional en-ergy sources like offshore wind ener-gy, tidal power, solar generation onfederal lands and next-generation nu-clear reactors.”

Meanwhile, environmentalists andpolicymakers are closely watching China,the world’s largest GHG source. “If Chinaputs a price on carbon, that could re-ally change the international dynamic,”says Arvind Subramanian, a senior fel-low at the Center for Global Develop-ment, a research center in Washington,D.C. “And if China becomes a leaderin green technologies, that would havean even bigger impact. It could makedeveloped countries fear that they werelosing leadership and rouse the UnitedStates into stronger action.”

Field would like to see more em-phasis on potential profits from build-

ing low-carbon economies. “There arerich and exciting prospects for devel-oping new technologies that will helpus solve the climate problem,” Fieldsays. “I’d like to shift away from view-ing climate policies as scary econom-ic choices and frame them as excitingbusiness opportunities. One person’srisk is another person’s opportunity tocapture markets.”

Notes

1 Justin Gillis, “Carbon Dioxide Level PassesLong-Feared Milestone,” The New York Times,May 10, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?hp.2 John Vidal, “Large Rise in CO2 EmissionsSounds Climate Change Alarm,” The Guardian,March 8, 2013, www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/08/hawaii-climate-change-second-greatest-annual-rise-emissions.3 For recent overviews see “Climate ChangeScience Overview,” U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, April 22, 2013, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html; and “Cli-mate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choic-es,” National Research Council, 2012, http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf.4 John Cook, et al., “Quantifying the Consen-sus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in theScientific Literature,” Environmental ResearchLetters, vol. 8, 2013, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024.5 Testimony before the Subcommittee on En-vironment, House Committee on Science, Spaceand Technology, April 25, 2013, p. 8, http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-JCurry-20130425.pdf.6 Melillo’s comments are from the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Scienceannual conference, Feb. 18, 2013. The draftreport is online at “Draft Climate AssessmentReport,” National Climate Assessment and De-velopment Advisory Committee, January 2013,http://ncadac.globalchange.gov, and is sched-uled to be finalized later in 2013.7 “Research Highlight: The Little Ice Age WasGlobal, Scripps Researchers Say,” ExplorationsNow, June 7, 2012, http://explorations.ucsd.edu/research-highlights/2012/research-highlight-

the-little-ice-age-was-global-scripps-researchers-say/; Edna Sun, “Little Ice Age,” Scientific Amer-ican Frontiers, Feb. 15, 2005, www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm.8 “The Current and Future Consequences ofGlobal Change,” National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, http://climate.nasa.gov/effects.9 “Draft Climate Change Assessment Report,”op. cit., p. 3, http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap1-execsum.pdf.10 For background see Marcia Clemmitt, “En-ergy and Climate,” CQ Researcher, July 24, 2009,pp. 621-644.11 “Inaugural Address by President BarackObama,” Jan. 21, 2013, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama.12 “Remarks by the President in the State ofthe Union Address,” Feb. 12, 2013, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address.13 John Cook, et al., op. cit. See also “Consen-sus: 97% of Climate Scientists Agree,” NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.14 Roger Aronoff, “The Greatest Hoax? Glob-al Warming, Says Sen. James Inhofe,” AIM Re-port, May 30, 2012, www.aim.org/aim-report/the-greatest-hoax-global-warming-says-sen-james-inhofe/.15 Lamar Smith, “Overheated Rhetoric on Cli-mate Change Doesn’t Make for Good Policies,”The Washington Post, May 19, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-19/opinions/39376700_1_emissions-carbon-dioxide-climate-change.16 Andrew Restuccia and Darren Goode,“Obama’s Achilles’ Heel on Climate: SenateDemocrats,” Politico, March 25, 2013, www.politico.com/story/2013/03/obamas-achilles-heel-on-climate-senate-democrats-89295.html.17 See “Continuing Partisan Divide in Views ofGlobal Warming,” Pew Research Center, April 2,2013, p. 4, www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/4-2-13%20Keystone%20Pipeline%20and%20Global%20Warming%20Release.pdf; andLydia Saad, “Americans’ Concerns About GlobalWarming on the Rise,” Gallup Politics, April 8,2013, www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx. For details,see “Gallup Poll Social Series: Environment,”March 7-10, 2013, question 25, www.usclimatenetwork.org/resource-database/poll-global-warming-fears-rising.18 Coral Davenport, “The Coming GOP CivilWar Over Climate Change,” National Journal,

540 CQ Researcher

May 9, 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-coming-gop-civil-war-over-climate-change-20130509. For a sample of Thernstrom’sposition see “Resetting Earth’s Thermostat,”American Enterprise Institute, June 2008, www.aei.org/files/2008/06/27/20080627_OTIThernstrom.pdf, p. 2.19 William R. Moomaw, “Can the InternationalTreaty System Address Climate Change?” Fletch-er Forum of World Affairs, vol. 37, no. 1,winter 2013, p. 109, www.fletcherforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Moomaw_37-1.pdf. For more background on limiting warm-ing to 2ºC see Samuel Randalls, “History of the2ºC Climate Target,” WIREs Climate Change,vol. 1, July/August 2010, http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC62.html.20 “Limiting the Long-Term Increase of Glob-al Temperature to 2º Celsius is Still Possible,”International Energy Agency, Aug. 17, 2012,www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/august/name,30638,en.html.21 Alex Kirby, “Ex-IPCC Head: Prepare for5°C Warmer World,” Climate Central, Feb. 17,2013, www.climatecentral.org/news/ex-ipcc-head-prepare-for-5c-warmer-world-15610.22 “Draft Climate Assessment Report,” op. cit.,pp. 25-26.23 Mark Fischetti, “2-Degree Global WarmingLimit is Called a ‘Prescription for Disaster,’”ScientificAmerican.com, Dec. 6, 2011, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/06/two-degree-global-warming-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaster/. For more on the350 target, see http://350.org/en.24 Thomas E. Lovejoy, “The Climate ChangeEndgame,” The New York Times, Jan. 21, 2013,www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/glob-al/the-climate-change-endgame.html.25 “Advancing the Science of Climate Change,”National Research Council, 2010, p. 174,www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782.

26 Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Gov-ernance and Uncertainty (2009), p. 56, http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf.27 “David Keith on Climate Change and Geo-Engineering as a Solution,” Harvard Policy-Cast, Jan. 23, 2013, https://soundcloud.com/harvard/david-keith-on-climate-change.28 Lynn M. Russell, “Offsetting Climate Changeby Engineering Air Pollution to BrightenClouds,” The Bridge, Winter 2012, www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=67680.29 Kevin E. Trenberth and Aiguo Dai, “Effectsof Mount Pinatubo Volcanic Eruption on theHydrological Cycle as an Analog of Geo-engineering,” Geophysical Research Letters,vol. 34, Aug. 1, 2007, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/TrenberthDai_GRL07.pdf.30 Edward A. Parson and David W. Keith, “Endthe Deadlock on Governance of Geoengi-neering Research,” Science, vol. 339, March 15,2013, www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/preprints/163.Parson.Keith.DeadlockOnGonvernance.p.pdf.31 George P. Shultz and Gary S. Becker, “WhyWe Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax,”The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578396401965799658.html.32 “Mapping Carbon Pricing Initiatives: De-velopment and Prospects,” The World Bank,May 2013, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/23/000350881_20130523172114/Rendered/PDF/779550WP0Mappi0til050290130morning0.pdf, pp. 57-58.33 Ibid., p. 43.34 Theda Skocpol, “Naming the Problem: WhatIt Will Take to Counter Extremism and EngageAmericans in the Fight Against Global Warm-ing,” Harvard University, January 2013, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/23/00035

0881_20130523172114/Rendered/PDF/779550WP0Mappi0til050290130morning0.pdf, pp. 45-55.35 “Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax:Executive Summary,” National Association ofManufacturers, March 2013, www.nam.org/~/media/ECF11DF347094E0DA8AF7BD9A696ABDB.ashx, p. 1.36 National Association of Manufacturers, www.nam.org/~/media/9C72C0E7823B4E558DF3D49B65114615.ashx.37 “China to Introduce Carbon Tax: Official,”Xinhua, Feb. 19, 2013, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm; Adele C. Morris, et al., “China’s Car-bon Tax Highlights the Need for a New Trackof Carbon Talks,” East Asia Forum, March 19,2013, www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/19/chinas-carbon-tax-highlights-the-need-for-a-new-track-of-climate-talks/.38 G. S. Callendar, “The Artificial Productionof Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Tem-perature,” in Bill McKibben, ed., The GlobalWarming Reader (2011), p. 37.39 Roger Revells and Hans E. Suess, “CarbonDioxide Exchange between Atmosphere andOcean and the Question of an Increase ofAtmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades,”in McKibben, ibid., pp. 41-42.40 For a chronology of climate change re-search see “The Discovery of Global Warm-ing: Timeline,” American Institute of Physics,www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm.41 For background, see Jennifer Weeks, “CarbonTrading,” CQ Global Researcher, Nov. 1, 2008,pp. 295-320.42 Carolyn Lochhead, “How GOP BecameParty of Denial on Global Warming,” The SanFrancisco Chronicle, April 28, 2013, www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/How-GOP-became-party-of-denial-on-warming-4469641.php;and Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McRight,“Organized Climate Change Denial,” The OxfordHandbook of Climate Change and Society (2011).43 Oliver Burkeman, “Memo Exposes Bush’sNew Green Strategy,” The Guardian, March 3,2003, www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange.44 “A Call for Action,” U.S. Climate ActionPartnership, Jan. 22, 2007, p. 2, www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf.45 “Nobel Peace Prize Citation,” The Guardian,Oct. 12, 2007, www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/gorecitation.46 A cap-and-trade system sets a ceiling on emis-sions and requires large GHG sources to buymarketable allowances to cover their emissions.47 For a survey of views see “The Waxman-

CLIMATE CHANGE

About the AuthorJennifer Weeks is a Massachusetts freelance writer whospecializes in energy, the environment and science. Shehas written for The Washington Post, Audubon, PopularMechanics and other magazines and previously was a pol-icy analyst, congressional staffer and lobbyist. She has anA.B. degree from Williams College and master’s degreesfrom the University of North Carolina and Harvard. Herrecent CQ Researcher reports include “Coastal Develop-ment” and “Managing Wildfires.”

Markey Bill: A Good Start or a Non-Starter?”Yale Environment 360, June 18, 2009, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_waxman-markey_bill_a_good_start_or_a_non-starter/2163/.48 Bryan Walsh, “Why the Climate Bill Died,”Time, July 26, 2010, http://science.time.com/2010/07/26/why-the-climate-bill-died/.49 Mark Clayton, “House Republicans fail tosave 30-cent light bulbs from extinction,” TheChristian Science Monitor, July 12, 2011, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0712/House-Republicans-fail-to-save-30-cent-light-bulbs-from-extinction. For background, see Peter Katel,“Tea Party Movement,” CQ Researcher, March19, 2010, pp. 241-264, updated May 23, 2011.50 The White House, July 29, 2011, www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/29/president-obama-announces-new-fuel-economy-standards.51 John M. Broder, “Both Romney and ObamaAvoid Talk of Climate Change,” The New YorkTimes, Oct. 25, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/us/politics/climate-change-nearly-absent-in-the-campaign.html?pagewanted=all.52 Michael R. Bloomberg, “A Vote for a Presidentto Lead on Climate Change,” Bloomberg News,Nov. 1, 2012, www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html.53 Massachusetts v. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 549 U.S. 497, 2007, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf. In 2009EPA issued a formal determination that car-bon pollution threatened American’s healthand welfare by contributing to climate change,laying the ground for issuing regulations tolimit carbon emissions.54 “Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards forNew Power Plants,” U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, March 27, 2012, http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/pdfs/20120327factsheet.pdf, p. 2.55 Ibid., p. 3.56 John M. Broder, “E.P.A. Will Delay Rule Lim-iting Carbon Emissions at New Power Plants,”The New York Times, April 12, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/science/earth/epa-to-delay-emissions-rule-at-new-power-plants.html.57 Erica Martinson and Jennifer Epstein, “Where’sPresident Obama’s Climate Agenda?” Politico,May 25, 2013, www.politico.com/story/2013/05/obama-climate-change-agenda-91877.html.58 For background see Daniel McGlynn, “Frack-ing Controversy,” CQ Researcher, Dec. 16, 2011,pp. 1049-1072.59 Kevin Begos, “EPA Methane Report CouldReshape Fracking Debate,” The Boston Globe,April 29, 2013, www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/28/epa-methane-report-further-divides-

fracking-camps/Ft7DVUvAHE6zctsgbcGuZN/story.html.60 Daniel J. Weiss, et al., “EPA Nominee GinaMcCarthy Has Strong History of Bipartisanleadership,” Climate Progress, April 10, 2013,http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/10/1846181/epa-nominee-gina-mccarthy-has-strong-history-of-bipartisan-leadership/.61 “Questions for EPA Nominee Gina McCarthy,”Republican Policy Committee, April 11, 2013,www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/questions-for-epa-nominee-gina-mccarthy.62 “Under Fire, EPA Nominee Can’t GiveGround on Climate Change,” The Boston Globe,May 17, 2013, www.bostonglobe.com/editorials/2013/05/16/epa-nominee-can-give-ground-climate-change/4fTQci7wlXK1mJw0qYH6kO/story.html.63 See Lydia Saad, “Americans’ Concerns AboutGlobal Warming on the Rise,” Gallup Poli-tics, April 8, 2013, www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx. For details, see “Gallup Poll SocialSeries: Environment,” March 7-10, 2013, ques-tion 25, www.usclimatenetwork.org/resource-database/poll-global-warming-fears-rising.64 See “Continuing Partisan Divide in Viewsof Global Warming,” Pew Research Center,April 2, 2013, p. 4, www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/4-2-13%20Keystone%20Pipeline%20and%20Global%20Warming%20Release.pdf.

65 Christopher Borick and Barry G. Rabe,“The Fall 2012 National Surveys on Energyand the Environment: Findings Report for Be-lief-Related Questions,” The Center for Local,State, and Urban Policy, Gerald R. FordSchool of Public Policy, University of Michi-gan, March 2013, http://closup.umich.edu/files/nsee-climate-belief-fall-2012.pdf.66 “A National Survey of Republicans andRepublican-leaning Independents on Energyand Climate Change,” George Mason UniversityCenter for Climate Change Communication, April2, 2013, http://climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Republicans%27_Views_on_Climate_Change_2013.pdf.67 “2013 Stanford Poll on Climate Adaptation,”Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment,March 2013, pp. 10-12, http://woods.stanford.edu/research/public-opinion-research/2013-Stanford-Poll-Climate-Adaptation.68 Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth,“Will we hear Earth’s alarm bells?” The Wash-ington Post, June 9, 2013, p. A19. Oppenheimeris a professor of geosciences and internation-al affairs at Princeton University. Trenberth isa distinguished senior scientist at the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research.69 For background, see Peter Katel, “Water Cri-sis in the West,” CQ Researcher, Dec. 9, 2011,pp. 1025-1048.


FOR MORE INFORMATIONCenter for Global Development, 1800 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., 3rd floor,Washington, DC 20036; 202-416-4000; www.cgdev.org. An independent think tankthat works to reduce global poverty and inequality through research and outreachto policymakers.

National Association of Manufacturers, 733 10th St., N.W., Suite 700, Washing-ton, DC 20001; 800-814-8468; www.nam.org. An industrial trade association repre-senting small and large American manufacturers.

National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307;303-497-1000; www.ncar.ucar.edu. A federally funded research and developmentcenter devoted to service, research and education in the atmospheric sciences,including weather, climate and atmospheric pollution.

Natural Resources Defense Council, 40 West 20th St., New York, NY 10011;212-727-2700; www.nrdc.org. A national environmental advocacy group that lobbiesand conducts public education on issues including ways to combat global climatechange.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego,9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92023; 858-534-3624; www.sio.ucsd.edu. Center forocean and Earth science research, including atmosphere and climate.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 250,Washington, DC 20006; 202-223-6262; www.globalchange.gov. A congressionallymandated program that coordinates and integrates climate change research across13 government agencies and publishes scientific assessments of potential impactsin the United States from global warming.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

542 CQ Researcher

Selected Sources

BibliographyBooks

Guzman, Andrew T., Overheated: The Human Cost ofClimate Change, Oxford University Press, 2013.A University of California, Berkeley, law professor explores

the consequences of climate change, including deaths fromflooding, water shortages, strains on global food suppliesand growing competition for resources.

Hamilton, Clive, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age ofClimate Engineering, Yale University Press, 2013.An ethics professor at Australia’s Charles Sturt University

describes geoengineering proposals and considers how theseconcepts could alter humans’ relationship with Earth.

Mann, Michael E., The Hockey Stick and the ClimateWars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, Columbia Uni-versity Press, 2012.A prominent climate scientist at Penn State University de-

scribes well-funded efforts to discredit climate science.

Mattoo, Aaditya, and Arvind Subramanian, Greenprint:A New Approach to Cooperation on Climate Change,Center for Global Development, 2013.A World Bank research manager (Mattoo) and a global de-

velopment scholar propose new strategies for achieving glob-al cooperation on climate change.

McKibben, Bill, ed., The Global Warming Reader, Pen-guin, 2011.A prominent journalist and climate activist provides a col-

lection of articles and documents about climate change, fromits 19th-century discovery to the present day.

Articles

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and David M. Konisky, “TheAmerican Public’s Energy Choice,” Daedalus, vol. 141,no. 2, Spring 2012.Political scientists at Harvard and Georgetown universities,

respectively, contend that American attitudes about energyare largely unrelated to views about climate change, so themost politically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions may be to regulate the burning of fossil fuels.

Drajem, Mark, “Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to FightClimate Change,” Bloomberg News, March 15, 2013,www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/obama-will-use-nixon-era-law-to-fight-climate-change.html.The Obama administration is reportedly preparing to di-

rect federal agencies to consider global warming impactswhen they review major projects under the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act, which industry leaders say could delayinfrastructure projects.

Gillis, Justin, “Carbon Dioxide Level Passes Long-FearedMilestone,” The New York Times, May 10, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?hp.In the spring of 2013 atmospheric concentrations of car-

bon dioxide reached 400 parts per million, the highest levelin perhaps 3 million years.

Moomaw, William R., “Can the International Treaty Sys-tem Address Climate Change?” Fletcher Forum of WorldAffairs, vol. 37, no. 1, Winter 2013, www.fletcherforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Moomaw_37-1.pdf.A professor of international environmental policy and con-

tributor to past global climate assessments argues that a newapproach is needed for international progress, led by theUnited States and China.

Parson, Edward A., and David W. Keith, “End the Dead-lock on Governance of Geoengineering Research,” Science,vol. 339, March 15, 2013, pp. 1278-1279, www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6125/1278.A professor of law at UCLA (Parson) and a professor of

applied physics at Harvard (Keith) call for creating rules andprocedures to allow geoengineering research to proceed.

Reports and Studies

“Draft Climate Assessment Report,” National Climate As-sessment and Development Advisory Committee, Janu-ary 2013, http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/.A draft of a report mandated under the Global Change Re-

search Act of 1990, finds that climate change already affectsthe United States in several ways, causing — among otherthings — more frequent extreme weather events and dam-age to ocean life.

“The Global Climate Change Regime,” Council on ForeignRelations, updated March 22, 2013, www.cfr.org/climate-change/global-climate-change-regime/p21831.A broad overview of the international framework for ad-

dressing climate change finds that the system is underde-veloped and offers options to strengthen it, according to aprominent think tank.

Hansen, J., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, “Global TemperatureUpdate Through 2012,” NASA Goddard Institute forSpace Studies, Jan. 15, 2013, www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf.NASA scientists report that global surface temperature in

2012 was 1º Fahrenheit warmer than the 1951-1980 average,continuing a long-term warming trend since the mid-1970s.


Aiding Poor Countries

Broder, John M., “At Climate Talks, a Struggle Over Aidfor Poorer Nations,” The New York Times, Dec. 6, 2012,p. A12, www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/science/earth/money-issues-thwart-united-nations-climate-talks.html.Efforts to address climate change have been stymied by

disagreements between wealthy and poor countries.

Eilperin, Juliet, “Aid Reaches Far, Wide to Buck GlobalWarming,” The Washington Post, Dec. 3, 2012, p. A6,articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-02/national/35584932_1_climate-aid-climate-change-rich-countries.The U.S. has contributed $7.5 billion over the past three

years to help developing countries cope with climate change.

Koch, Wendy, “World Bank Warns Global Temps to Rise,”USA Today, Nov. 20, 2012, p. A4, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/19/world-bank-warns-climate-change/1715165/.Global temperatures are likely to rise by 7.2º Fahrenheit

by 2100, hurting developing countries the most.

Geoengineering

Basken, Paul, “As Temperatures Keep Rising, GeoengineeringGets a Closer Look,” The Chronicle of Higher Education,Jan. 28, 2013, chronicle.com/article/As-Temperatures-Keep-Rising/136861/.Scientists say there hasn’t been enough discussion about

the pros and cons of climate engineering.

Carroll, James, “The Earth Experiment,”The Boston Globe,Nov. 26, 2012, p. A11, www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/11/26/hands-off-mother-earth/iZQKJkGcDg8CY3x3wVBfHN/story.html.Advocates of geoengineering say manipulating atmospheric

systems must be done responsibly.

Klein, Naomi, “Geoengineering: Testing the Waters,” TheNew York Times, Oct. 28, 2012, p. SR4, www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/geoengineering-testing-the-waters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.Geoengineering would negatively alter the chemistry be-

tween the atmosphere and oceans, says a columnist.

Politics

Blumner, Robyn, “On Climate, We’re All in This Together,”Tampa Bay (Fla.) Times, Jan. 20, 2013, p. P5, www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/on-climate-were-all-in-this-together/1271163.Most lawmakers who opposed the Superstorm Sandy relief

bill deny that climate change is cause by humans.

Lochhead, Carolyn, “How GOP Took Road to Denial onGlobal Warming,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 28,2013, p. A1, www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/How-GOP-became-party-of-denial-on-warming-4469641.php.The author traces the Republican Party’s transformation

from acceptance to denial on the climate change issue.

Reynolds, Mark, “GOP Can Be Part of Climate ChangeSolution,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 27, 2013, p. A15,www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/gop-can-be-part-of-climate-change-solution/article_405028ad-0355-5c07-bd27-6bf733a1de66.html.The Climate Protection Act, which would reduce carbon emis-

sions and boost investments in clean energy, has little chanceof passing without Republican support, a columnist says.

Treaty

Chipman, Kim, “Obama Laying Groundwork for Climate-Change Treaty,” Detroit Free Press, Dec. 3, 2012, www.freep.com/article/20121203/NEWS07/312030143/Obama%20laying%20groundwork%20for%20climate-change%20treaty.President Obama is devising policies that may lead to a treaty

requiring the United States and China to reduce emissions.

Rosenthal, Elisabeth, and Andrew W. Lehren, “Relief inEvery Window, But Global Worry Too,”The New York Times,June 21, 2012, p. A1, www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/asia/global-demand-for-air-conditioning-forces-tough-environmental-choices.html?pagewanted=all.The growing middle classes in tropical countries are buy-

ing millions of window air conditioners, which scientists sayemit huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

The Next Step:Additional Articles from Current Periodicals

CITING CQ RESEARCHER

Sample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography

include the ones listed below. Preferred styles and formats

vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Remembering 9/11.” CQ Researcher 2 Sept.

2011: 701-732.

APA STYLEJost, K. (2011, September 2). Remembering 9/11. CQ Re-

searcher, 9, 701-732.

CHICAGO STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Remembering 9/11.” CQ Researcher, September

2, 2011, 701-732.

ACCESSCQ Researcher is available in print and online. For access, visit yourlibrary or www.cqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENTFor notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports or to learn more aboutCQ Researcher products, subscribe to the free e-mail newsletters, CQ Re-searcher Alert! and CQ Researcher News: http://cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASETo purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronic format(PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports startat $15. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-rights licensing arealso available.

SUBSCRIBEAnnual full-service CQ Researcher subscriptions—including 44 reportsa year, monthly index updates, and a bound volume—start at $1,054.Add $25 for domestic postage.

CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 and a number oftools to simplify research. For pricing information, call 800-818-7243 or805-499-9774 or e-mail [email protected].

Upcoming Reports

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

?Are you writing a paper?

Need backup for a debate?

Want to become an expert on an issue?

For more than 80 years, students have turned to CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting onissues in the news. Reports on a full range of political and social issues are now available.Following is a selection of recent reports:

Israel’s Future, 6/21/13 Internet Shopping, 6/28/13 Government Spending, 7/12/13

Civil LibertiesSolitary Confinement, 9/12Re-examining the Constitution, 9/12Voter Rights, 5/12Remembering 9/11, 9/11Government Secrecy, 2/11

Crime/LawGun Control, 3/13Improving Cybersecurity, 2/13Supreme Court Controversies, 9/12Debt Collectors, 7/12Criminal Records, 4/12

EducationLaw Schools, 4/13Homeless Students, 4/13Future of Public Universities, 1/13Plagiarism and Cheating, 1/13

Environment/SocietyFuture of the Catholic Church, 6/13Media Bias, 4/13Combat Journalism, 4/13Social Media Explosion, 1/13Future of Homeownership, 12/12Indecency on Television, 11/12

Health/SafetyAssisted Suicide, 5/13Mental Health Policy, 5/13Preventing Hazing, 2/13Sugar Controversies, 11/12New Health Care Law, 9/12Treating ADHD, 8/12

Politics/EconomyUnrest in the Arab World, 2/133D Printing, 12/12Social Media and Politics, 10/12Euro Crisis, 10/12

cqr climate change - edge.sagepub.com

Documents