U.S. States & Regions
States and regions across the country are adopting climate policies, including the development of regional greenhouse gas reduction markets, the creation of state and local climate action and adaptation plans, and increasing renewable energy generation. Read More
February 7th and 8th, 2005
St. Regis Hotel
923 16th and K Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Steve Owens, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
William Ross Jr., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gina McCarthy, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Panel #2. Regional initiatives
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Nancy Seidman, Director, Bureau of Waste Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (pdf)
West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative: David Van’t Hof, Governor’s Sustainability Advisor, Oregon Governor’s Office (pdf)
Powering the Plains: The Honorable Jon Nelson, North Dakota State Representative
Western Governors’ Association’s Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative:
Craig O’Hare, Special Assistant for Renewable Energy, New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (pdf)
Kevin Moran, Washington DC Office Director, Western Governors’ Association (pdf)
Lunch keynote speaker
Daniel Richard, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs, PG&E Corporation
Panel #3. Electric Utility Solutions Part A
Paul Hudson, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission of Texas (pdf)
Paul Kjellander, Chairman, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jay Braitsch, Director of Strategic Planning, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy and Jackie Bird, Director, Ohio Coal Development Office (pdf)
Panel #4. Transportation
Eileen Tutt, Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for External Affairs, California Environmental Protection Agency (pdf)
Tyler Duvall, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
Marlin Gottschalk, Senior Policy Advisor, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (pdf)
Keynote dinner speaker
The Honorable Jim Cooper, United States House of Representatives
Panel #5. Electric Utility Solutions Part B
Lola Spradley, former Speaker of the House, Colorado General Assembly
David Stewart-Smith, Assistant Director for Energy Resources, Oregon Department of Energy (pdf)
Robert Scott, Director, Air Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (pdf)
Edward Garvey, Deputy Commissioner, Energy and Telecommunications, Minnesota Department of Commerce (pdf)
Panel #6. Solutions in agriculture and forestry
Alec Giffen, Director, Maine Forest Service (pdf)
Dan Desmond, Deputy Secretary for Energy and Technology Development, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (pdf)
Cydney Janssen, former Assistant Director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture (pdf)
Lunch Keynote Speaker:
David Miller, Director of Research and Commodity Services, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (pdf)
Panel #7. Cross cutting themes and lessons learned: Congressional staff perspectives
Energy: Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director, Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee (pdf)
Environment: Tim Profeta, Legislative Assistant and Counsel, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
Agriculture: Aaron Whitesel, Legislative Assistant, Sen. Richard Lugar
Barry Rabe, Professor, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan
On February 2, 2005, Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona signed an executive order creating a Climate Change Advisory Group for the state. The governor charged the group with developing recommendations to reduce Arizona’s greenhouse gas emissions, culminating in the submission of a Climate Change Action Plan by June 2006. The advisory group will also produce an inventory of Arizona’s greenhouse gas emissions. The governor will appoint representatives to the advisory group from state government, industry, tourism, and non-governmental organizations. Governor Napolitano released a second executive order on February 11, requiring new state-funded buildings to derive at least 10% of their energy from renewable sources, either directly or through the purchase of renewable energy credits. This executive order also requires new state buildings to meet the “silver” level of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.
On December 16, 2004, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a requirement that a “carbon adder” be included in resource plans for three of California’s utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company. The carbon adder explicitly takes into account the social cost of carbon emissions from electricity generation facilities when comparing prices of fossil fuel and renewable generation, as well as demand-side management investments. The carbon adder will be used for utility planning purposes only, and will not be assessed to consumers. Taking the cost of carbon into account will mean that a power source is considered more cost effective if it avoids a ton of CO2 emissions for $8 to $25. The CPUC based this range of costs on a number of studies, including the Idaho Power Company’s 2004 resource planning process, which assessed a carbon adder of $12.30 per ton of CO2.
On December 16, 2004, Governor Edward Rendell signed into law Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard. The standard requires that qualified power sources provide 18% of Pennsylvania’s electricity by 2020. There are two tiers of qualified sources that electric generation and distribution companies may use to meet the standard. Each tier has its own percentage requirement. Tier 1 sources, which must make up 8% of the portfolio, include wind, solar, coalmine methane, small hydropower, geothermal, and biomass. The Tier 1 standard also specifies that solar sources provide 0.5% of generation by 2020, the most solar power mandated by any state. Tier 2 sources make up the remaining 10% of the portfolio, and include waste coal, demand side management, large hydropower, municipal solid waste, and coal integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission is charged with developing a system of tradeable clean energy credits to facilitate utility compliance with the standard. Pennsylvania is the 18th U.S. state with a mandate to produce some portion of its electricity from renewable sources.
On December 1, 2004, Maine released its Climate Action Plan to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The plan, developed by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, is a set of 54 actions that may enable Maine to achieve its emissions targets. These targets follow the New England Governors’ and Eastern Canadian Premiers’ climate agreement, and will reduce Maine’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and to 10% below those levels in 2020. Both the targets and the development of the plan are a result of a law enacted by Maine last year. Maine’s plan proposes increasing sequestration of carbon through new forestry practices, creating incentives for more efficient vehicles, and trading emission reduction credits. In assessing the costs of the plan, the Department of Environmental Protection predicted that almost half of the actions would reduce emissions at little or no cost.
On November 18, 2004, the governors of the three Pacific states that comprise the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative approved staff recommendations on climate change. These recommendations included setting emissions targets for state vehicle fleets, creating targets and incentives for renewable energy, and developing efficiency standards for appliances not regulated by the federal government. The staff recommendations also included numerous other actions addressing transportation, renewables, efficiency, alternative fuels, and greenhouse gas emissions inventories. The governors directed their staffs to continue working on opportunities for regional collaboration. The West Coast Governors will hold a conference in 2005 detailing the results of climate change research applicable to the West Coast states. The West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative was launched in September 2003, with a commitment from Governors Kulongoski, Locke, and Schwarzenegger to act collaboratively and individually to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the Report
California Press Release
Oregon Press Release
Washington Press Release
November 9, 2004
Contact: Katie Mandes
OBSERVED IMPACTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
New Report Shows Disturbing Ecological Changes in the U.S.
Washington, DC — Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 1oF. There is now strong evidence that this global warming is largely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases from a growing fossil fuel economy. Unless these emissions are checked, additional warming of 2-10 degrees is projected by the end of the 21st century. There are abundant signs, however, that the warming has already been sufficient to induce significant changes in the ecosystems and wildlife of the United States.
A new report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S., by Camille Parmesan of The University of Texas at Austin and Hector Galbraith of Galbraith Environmental Sciences and the University of Colorado-Boulder, reviews the broad range of ecological changes that have occurred in response to human induced changes in the global and U.S. climate.
“U.S. ecosystems and wildlife are already responding to the warming climate,” said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “And this is only the beginning. With warming for the next century projected to be two to ten times greater than the last, we’re heading toward a fundamental and potentially irreversible disruption of the U.S. landscape and wildlife.”
Numerous changes have already been observed and these changes have a range of implications for the United States, its ecosystems, and biodiversity. The responses of plants and animals to a changing climate are indicative of their natural ability to adapt, yet future global warming is likely to exceed the ability of many species to migrate or adjust. Furthermore, one species’ success in coping with climate change may be another species’ failure. The red fox, for example, is expanding into the range of the arctic fox, forcing the arctic fox into an ever-contracting area.
Other observed changes include a long-term trend toward an earlier spring, with earlier flowering and reproduction of plant and bird species. Butterflies on the U.S. west coast are moving north and to higher altitudes in search of tolerable climate conditions, with some populations disappearing altogether from the southern end of their ranges. And perhaps most alarming -- the frozen Arctic tundra is thawing, releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in a feedback loop that could ultimately accelerate global warming.
In addition, wildlife attempting to cope with current global warming must also contend with myriad other challenges such as habitat fragmentation, invasive species, water diversion, environmental contamination, and over-exploitation, all of which collectively undermine their ability to adapt.
“What’s happening to our environment is not natural – it’s a problem of our own making. The longer we delay in reducing greenhouse gas emissions the greater the problem will become,” said the Pew Center’s Claussen.
The report also highlights actions that can be taken to better manage U.S. natural resources to minimize the effects of climate change.
The full text of these and other Pew Center reports is available at http://www.c2es.org.
The Pew Center was established in May 1998 by The Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the United States’ largest philanthropies and an influential voice in efforts to improve the quality of the environment. The Pew Center is an independent, nonprofit, and non-partisan organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions in the effort to address global climate change. The Pew Center is led by Eileen Claussen, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
POLICY FORUM: CLIMATE POLICY
An Effective Approach to Climate Change
By Eileen Claussen
Enhanced online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5697/816
Originally published October 29, 2004: VOL 306 SCIENCE
The Bush Administration’s “business as usual” climate change policy (1), with limited R&D investments, no mandates for action, and no plan for adapting to climate change, is inadequate. We must start now to reduce emissions and to spur the investments necessary to reduce future emissions. We also need a proactive approach to adaptation to limit the severity and costs of climate change impacts.
Science and Economics
Those who are opposed to national climate change policies make much of the uncertainties in climate models, specifically the rate and magnitude of global warming. The Climate Change Science Program’s plan, points out Secretary Abraham, would address these uncertainties, although he offers no assurances that the program will be adequately funded. However, the scientific community already agrees on three key points: global warming is occurring; the primary cause is fossil fuel consumption; and if we don’t act now to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it will get worse.
Yes, there are uncertainties in future trends of GHG emissions. However, even if we were able to stop emitting GHGs today, warming will continue due to the GHGs already in the atmosphere (2).
National climate change policy has not changed significantly for several years. The first President Bush pursued a strategy of scientific research and voluntary GHG emissions reductions. The new Climate Change Science Program has a budget comparable, in inflation-adjusted dollars, to its predecessor, the Global Climate Research Program, during the mid-1990s. The Administration’s current GHG intensity target will increase absolute emissions roughly 14% above 2000 levels and 30% above 1990 levels by 2010 (3). These increases will make future mitigation efforts much more difficult and costly.
While reducing uncertainty is important, we must also focus on achieving substantial emissions reductions and adapting to climate change.
Low-Carbon Technology Development
The Administration’s more substantive R&D initiatives, such as Hydrogen Fuels and FutureGen (clean coal) are relatively modest investments in technologies that are decades away from deployment. We need a far more vigorous effort to promote energy efficient technologies; to prepare for the hydrogen economy; to develop affordable carbon capture and sequestration technologies; and to spur the growth of renewable energy, biofuels, and coal-bed methane capture.
Equally important, we need to encourage public and private investment in a wide-ranging portfolio of low-carbon technologies. Despite the availability of such technologies for energy, transportation, and manufacturing, there is little motivation for industry to use them. Widespread use of new technology is most likely when there are clear and consistent policy signals from the government (4).
One-fifth of U.S. emissions comes from cars and trucks (5). The Administration’s targets to improve fuel economy for light trucks and “sports utility” vehicles (SUVs) by 1.5 miles per gallon over the next three model years fall far short of what is already possible. California is setting much more ambitious emission standards for cars and light trucks. Current efficiency standards can be improved by 12% for subcompacts to 27% for larger cars without compromising performance (5).Hybrid vehicles can already achieve twice the fuel efficiency of the average car.
About one-third of U.S. emissions results from generating energy for buildings (6). Policies that increase energy efficiency using building codes, appliance efficiency standards, tax incentives, product efficiency labeling, and Energy Star programs, can significantly reduce emissions and operating costs. Policies that promote renewable energy can reduce emissions and spur innovation.Sixteen states have renewable energy mandates (7).
The Power of the Marketplace
Policies that are market driven can help achieve environmental targets cost-effectively. A sustained price signal, through a cap-and-trade program, was identified as the most effective policy driver by a group of leaders from state and local governments, industry, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (8).
Senators Lieberman (D–CT) and McCain’s (R–AZ) 2003 Climate Stewardship Act proposes a market-based approach to cap GHG emissions at 2000 levels by 2010. The bill, opposed by the Administration, garnered the support of 44 Senators. Nine Northeastern states are developing a regional “cap-and-trade” initiative to reduce power plant emissions. An important first step would be mandatory GHG emissions reporting.
Adapting to Climate Change
An important issue that Secretary Abraham failed to address is the need for anticipating and adapting to the climate change we are already facing. Economic sectors with long-lived investments, such as water resources, coastal resources, and energy may have difficulty adapting (9). A proactive approach to adaptation could limit the severity and costs of the impacts of climate change.
By limiting emissions and promoting technological change, the United States could put itself on a path to a low-carbon future by 2050, cost-effectively. Achieving this will require a much more explicit and comprehensive national commitment than we have seen to date. The rest of the developed world, including Japan and the European Union, is already setting emission-reduction targets and enacting carbon-trading schemes. Far from “leading the way” on climate change at home and around the world, as Secretary Abraham suggested, the United States has fallen behind.
References and Notes
1. S. Abraham, Science 305, 616 (2004). |
2. R. T. Wetherald, R. J. Stouffer, K. W. Dixon, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1535 (2001).
3. “Analysis of President Bush’s climate change plan” (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,Arlington,VA, February 2002); available at www.c2es.org.
4. J. Alic, D. Mowery, E. Rubin, “U.S. technology and innovation policies: Lessons for climate change” (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,Arlington,VA, 2003).
5. National Research Council, “The effectiveness and impact of corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards” (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2002).
6. “U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2002”(EPA/430-R-04-003, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2002), Table 3–6.2002.
7. Workshop proceedings, “The 10-50 solution: Technologies and policies for a low-carbon future,”Washington, DC, 25 and 26 March 2004 (The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the National Commission on Energy Policy, Arlington,VA, in press).
8. J. Smith, “A synthesis of potential climate change impacts on the United States” (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington,VA, 2004). Published by AAAS
On September 24, 2004, the California Air Resources Board voted to issue regulations implementing legislation passed in 2002. The legislation directs the ARB to adopt regulations that would achieve the "maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles." The standard will require that tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles be reduced by 22 percent by the 2012 model year and 30 percent by the 2016 model year. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont currently follow California’s vehicle emission standards, and may opt to either adopt the new regulations, or fall back to federal standards. New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have already indicated that they will follow California’s standard. The cost-effective reduction measures identified by the staff include discrete variable valve lift, dual cam phasing, turbocharging with engine downsizing, automated manual transmissions, and camless valve actuation. The ARB expects that the regulations will add around $1000 to the cost of a new car in 2014 but that the increased up-front cost will be more than offset by decreased operating costs over the life of the vehicle. The regulation will apply only to model years 2009 and later. The Board considered the final staff proposal at a public hearing in September 2004, and the ARB is required by law to adopt standards by January 1, 2005. The standards will not enter into effect until January 1, 2006, to give the legislature time to review the regulations and modify them, if necessary.
September 15, 2004
Contact: Katie Mandes
IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSING THE HURRICANES?
Straight answers from a reliable source—The Pew Center on Global Climate Change
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Is there a connection between the recent severe weather events and global warming? Some are suggesting the 2004 hurricane season is unprecedented; but is it really?
Scientists know that higher ocean temperatures are more suitable for hurricane formation (especially major hurricanes), while lower temperatures are associated with less active hurricane seasons, so the speculation is that hurricanes will increase in frequency or intensity in a warmer world.
“While there is much we can say about global warming with a high degree of confidence, the incidence of severe weather and its link to global warming is an area that requires further research,” says Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, “The ability of scientists to predict the potential response of hurricanes to global warming is very limited at the moment, so there is little that can be said with confidence.”
Claussen, who is widely regarded as one of the most credible resources on the topic of climate change, is a former Secretary of State for the Oceans and Environment and currently works with business leaders, policy-makers, scientists, and other experts to bring a new approach to a complex and often controversial issue. Her approach is based on sound science, straight talk, and a belief that we can work together to protect the climate while sustaining strong economic growth.
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has compiled a list of the frequently asked questions concerning a possible link between global warming and hurricanes.
- Is this year’s hurricane season unusually active?
- Will global warming create more hurricanes in the future?
- Will global warming create other types of severe weather?
- Will damage from severe weather become worse in the future?
- What can we do to reduce the consequences of severe weather?
The Pew Center has become a catalyst for collaboration in the business community, a key advisor to Congressional and international policymakers, and most importantly, an honest broker on the issue of climate change.