ML14304A704
| ML14304A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/2013 |
| From: | Ecology & Environment, State of NY, Dept of Public Service |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of NY, Public Service Commission |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14304A441 | List: |
| References | |
| F-2012-1028 | |
| Download: ML14304A704 (90) | |
Text
t ~t:t/76< '1 2>K 9£ /' ~ -<%ZL~ >>H 1~<!V N-(-- I 4.-it~0 nJ 74 A Lj Temperaure Chw"g (*F)-~~ m -m m =~m 4Zt -151-IJ 41.0D-05 45bOb OObAh 0~5101 IODI Abi L5 U.S. Average U Online at: nca2014.globalchange.gov This report was produced by an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, for the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and at the request of the U.S. Government.
Therefore, the report is in the public domain. Some materials used in the report are copyrighted and permission was granted to the U.S. government for their publication in this report. For subsequent uses that include such copyrighted materials, permission for reproduction must be sought from the copyright holder. In all cases, credit must be given for copyrighted materials.
First published 2014 Printed in the United States of America ISBN 9780160924026 Recommended Citation Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment.
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
Published by the U.S. Government Printing Office Internet:
bookstore.gpo.gov; Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM ii CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES May 2014 Members of Congress: On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, we are pleased to transmit the report of the Third National Climate Assessment-Climate Change Impacts in the United States. As required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, thiis report has collected, evaluated, and integrated observations and research on climate change in the United States. It focuses both on changes that are happening now and further changes that we can expect to see throughout this century.This report is the result of a three-year analytical effort by a team of over 300 experts, overseen by a broadly constituted Federal Advisory Committee of 60 members. It was developed from information and analyses gathered in over 70 workshops and listening sessions held across the country. It was subjected to extensive review by the public and by scientific experts in and out of government, including a special panel of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
This process of unprecedented rigor and transparency was undertaken so that the findings of the National Climate Assessment would rest on the firmest possible base of expert judgment.We gratefully acknowledge the authors, reviewers, and staff who have helped prepare this Third National Climate Assessment.
Their work in assessing the rapid advances in our knowledge of climate science over the past several years has been outstanding.
Their findings and key messages not only describe the current state of that science but also the current and future impacts of climate change on major U.S. regions and key sectors of the U.S. economy. This information establishes a strong base that government at all levels of U.S. society can use in responding to the twin challenges of changing our policies to mitigate further climate change and preparing for the consequences of the climate changes that can no longer be avoided. It is also an important scientific resource to empower communities, businesses, citizens, and decision makers with information they need to prepare for and build resilience to the impacts of climate change.When President Obama launched his Climate Action Plan last year, he made clear that the essential information contained in this report would be used by the Executive Branch to underpin future policies and decisions to better understand and manage the risks of climate change. We strongly and respectfully urge others to do the same.Sincerely, Dr. John P. Holdren Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy NOAA Administrator Executive Office of the President U.S. Department of Commerce.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM iii CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES The National Climate Assessment assesses the science of climate change m and its impacts across the United States, now and throughout this century.i It documents climate change related impacts and responses for various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and private decision-making at all levels.A team of more than 300 experts (see page 98), guided by a 60-member National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (listed on page vi) produced the full report -the largest and most diverse team to produce a U.S. climate assessment.
Stakeholders involved in the development of the assessment included decision-makers from the public ,n and private sectors, resource and environmental managers, researchers, representatives from businesses and non-governmental organizations, and the general public. More than 70 workshops and listening sessions were held, and thousands of public and expert comments on the draft report provided additional input to the process. Online at: The assessment draws from a large body of scientific peer-reviewed nca2014.globalchange.gov research, technical input reports, and other publicly available sources; all sources meet the standards of the Information Quality Act. The report was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, the 13 Federal agencies of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Federal Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability.
r'FA The Highlights presents the major findings and selected highlights from Climate Change Impacts in the United States, the third National Climate Assessment.
The Highlights report is organized around the National Climate Assessment's 12 Report Findings, which take an overarching view of the entire report and its 30 chapters.
All material in the Highlights report is drawn from the full report. The Key Messages from each of the 30 report chapters appear in boxes throughout this document.A 20-page Overview booklet is available online.i~R*Online at: nca20l4.globalchange.gov/highlights U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM iv CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES Federal National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC)Chair Jerry Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory Vice-Chairs Terese (T.C.) Richmond, Van Ness Feldman, LLP Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University Committee Members Daniel Abbasi, GameChange Capital, LLC E. Virginia Armbrust, University of Washington Timothy (Bull) Bennett, Kiksapa Consulting, LLC Rosina Bierbaum, University of Michigan and PCAST Maria Blair, Independent James Buizer, University of Arizona Lynne M. Carter, Louisiana State University F Stuart Chapin Ill, University of Alaska Camille Coley, Florida Atlantic University Jan Dell, ConocoPhillips Placido dos Santos, WestLand Resources, Inc.Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities Guido Franco, California Energy Commission Mary Gade, Gade Environmental Group Aris Georgakakos, Georgia Institute of Technology David Gustafson, Monsanto Company David Hales, Second Nature Sharon Hays, Computer Sciences Corporation Mark Howden, CSIRO Anthony Janetos, Boston University Peter Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy Rattan Lal, Ohio State University Arthur Lee, Chevron Corporation Jo-Ann Leong, Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology Diana Liverman, University of Arizona and Oxford University Rezaul Mahmood, Western Kentucky University Edward Maibach, George Mason University Michael McGeehin, RTI International Susanne C. Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting and Stanford University Richard Moss, University of Maryland and PNNL Philip Mote, Oregon State University Jayantha Obeysekera, South Florida Water Management District Marie O'Neill, University of Michigan Lindene Patton, Zurich Financial Services John Posey, East-West Gateway Council of Governments Sara Pryor, Indiana University Andrew Rosenberg, University of New Hampshire and Union of Concerned Scientists Richard Schmalensee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Henry Schwartz, HGS Consultants, LLC Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting Donald Wuebbles, University of Illinois Ex Officio Committee Members Ko Barrett, U.S. Department of Commerce Katharine Batten, U.S. Agency for International Development Virginia Burkett, U.S. Department of the Interior Patricia Cogswell, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Gerald Geemaert, U.S. Department of Energy John Hall, U.S. Department of Defense Leonard Hirsch, Smithsonian Institution William Hohenstein, U.S. Department of Agriculture Patricia Jacobberger-Jellison, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Thomas R. Karl, Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S.Department of Commerce George Luber, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services C. Andrew Miller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert O'Connor, National Science Foundation Susan Ruffo, White House Council on Environmental Quality Arthur Rypinski, U.S. Department of Transportation Trigg Talley, U.S. Department of State Federal Executive Team John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Katharine Jacobs, Director, National Climate Assessment, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (through December 2013)Thomas Armstrong, Director, U.S. Global Change Research Program National Coordination Office, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Thomas R. Karl, Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Department of Commerce Tamara Dickinson, Principal Assistant Director for Environment and Energy, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Fabien Laurier, Director, Third National Climate Assessment, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Glynis C. Lough, NCA Chief of Staff, U.S. Global Change Research Program David Easterling, NCA Technical Support Unit Director, NOAA NCDC U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM V CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES CL.,1M-TE ASSEF-SMENT STAFF USGCRP National Climate Assessment Coordination Office Katharine Jacobs, Director, National Climate Assessment, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (through December 2013) / University of Arizona Fabien Laurier, Director, Third National Climate Assessment, White House OSTP (previously Deputy Director, USGCRP) (from December 2013)Glynis Lough, NCA Chief of Staff, USGCRP / UCAR (from June 2012)Sheila O'Brien, NCA Chief of Staff, USGCRP / UCAR (through May 2012)Susan Aragon-Long, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, U.S.Geological Survey Ralph Cantral, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, NOAA (through November 2012)Tess Carter, Student Assistant, Brown University Emily Therese Cloyd, NCA Public Participation and Engagement Coordinator, USGCRP/ UCAR Chelsea Combest-Friedman, NCA International Coordinator, Knauss Marine Policy Fellow, NOAA (February 2011-February 2012)Alison Delgado, NCA Scientist and Sector Coordinator, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, University of Maryland (from October 2012)William Emanuel, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, University of Maryland (June 2011-September 2012)Matt Erickson, Student Assistant, Washington State University (July-October 2012)Ilya Fischhoff, NCA Program Coordinator, USGCRP / UCAR Elizabeth Fly, NCA Coastal Coordinator, Knauss Marine Policy Fellow, NOAA (February 2013-January 2014)Chelcy Ford, NCA Sector Coordinator, USFS (August-November 2011)Wyatt Freeman, Student Assistant, George Mason University/
UCAR (May-September 2012)Bryce Golden-Chen, NCA Program Coordinator, USGCRP / UCAR Nancy Grimm, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, NSF / Arizona State University (July 2011-September 2012)Tess Hart, NCA Communications Assistant, USGCRP / UCAR (June-July 2011)Melissa Kenney, NCA Indicators Coordinator, NOAA / University of Maryland Fredric Lipschultz, NCA Senior Scientist and Regional Coordinator, NASA/Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences Stuart Luther, Student Assistant, Arizona State University
/ UCAR (June-August 2011)Julie Maldonado, NCA Engagement Assistant and Tribal Coordinator, USGCRP / UCAR Krista Mantsch, Student Assistant, Indiana University
/ UCAR (May-September 2013)Rebecca Martin, Student Assistant, Washington State University (June-August 2012)Paul Schramm, NCA Sector Coordinator, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (June-November 2010)Technical Support Unit, National Climatic Data Center, NOAA/NESDIS David Easterling, NCA Technical Support Unit Director, NOAA National Climatic Data Center (from March 2013)Anne Waple, NCA Technical Support Unit Director, NOAA NCDC / UCAR (through February 2013)Susan Joy Hassol, Senior Science Writer, Climate Communication, LLC /Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, North Carolina State University (CICS-NC)Paula Ann Hennon, NCA Technical Support Unit Deputy Director, CICS-NC Kenneth Kunkel, Chief Scientist, CICS-NC Sara W. Veasey, Creative Director, NOAA NCDC Andrew Buddenberg, Software Engineer/Scientific Programmer, CICS-NC Fred Burnett, Administrative Assistant, Jamison Professional Services, Inc.Sarah Champion, Scientific Data Curator and Process Analyst, CICS-NC Doreen DiCarlo, Program Coordinator, CICS-NC (August 2011-April 2012)Daniel Glick, Editor, CICS-NC Jessicca Griffin, Lead Graphic Designer, CICS-NC John Keck, Web Consultant, LMI, Inc. (August 2010- September 2011)Angel Li, Web Developer, CICS-NC Clark Lind, Administrative Assistant, The Baldwin Group, Inc.(January-September 2012)Liz Love-Brotak, Graphic Designer, NOAA NCDC Tom Maycock, Technical Editor, CICS-NC Janice Mills, Business Manager, CICS-NC Deb Misch, Graphic Designer, Jamison Professional Services, Inc.Julie Moore, Administrative Assistant, The Baldwin Group, Inc.(June 2010-January 2012)Ana Pinheiro-Privette, Data Coordinator, CICS-NC (January 2012-July 2013)Deborah B. Riddle, Graphic Designer, NOAA NCDC April Sides, Web Developer, ERT, Inc.Laura E. Stevens, Research Scientist, CICS-NC Scott Stevens, Support Scientist, CICS-NC Brooke Stewart, Science Editor/Production Coordinator, CICS-NC Liqiang Sun, Research Scientist/Modeling Support, CICS-NC Robert Taylor, Student Assistant, UNC Asheville, CICS-NC Devin Thomas, Metadata Specialist, ERT, Inc.Teresa Young, Print Specialist, Team ERT/STG, Inc.Review Editors Joseph Arvai, University of Calgary Peter Backlund, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Lawrence Band, University of North Carolina Jill S. Baron, U.S. Geological Survey / Colorado State University Michelle L. Bell, Yale University Donald Boesch, University of Maryland Joel R. Brown, New Mexico State University Ingrid C. (Indy) Burke, University of Wyoming Gina Campoli, Vermont Agency of Transportation U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM Vi CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES Mary Anne Carroll, University of Michigan Scott L. Collins, University of New Mexico John Daigle, University of Maine Ruth DeFries, Columbia University Lisa Dilling, University of Colorado Otto C. Doering Ill, Purdue University Hadi Dowlatabadi, University of British Columbia Charles T. Driscoll, Syracuse University Hallie C. Eakin, Arizona State University John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Chris E. Forest, Pennsylvania State University Efti Foufoula-Georgiou, University of Minnesota Adam Freed, The Nature Conservancy Robert Fri, Resources for the Future Stephen T. Gray, U.S. Geological Survey Jay Gulledge, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Terrie Klinger, University of Washington Ian Kraucunas, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Larissa Larsen, University of Michigan William J. Massman, U.S. Forest Service Michael D. Mastrandrea, Stanford University Pamela Matson, Stanford University Ronald G. Prinn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology J.C. Randolph, Indiana University G. Philip Robertson, Michigan State University David Robinson, Rutgers University Dork Sahagian, Lehigh University Christopher A. Scott, University of Arizona Peter Vitousek, Stanford University Andrew C. Wood, NOAA United States Global Change Research Program Thomas Armstrong (OSTP), Executive Director, USGCRP Chris Weaver (OSTP / EPA), Deputy Executive Director, USGCRP Subcommittee on Global Change Research Chair Thomas Karl, U.S. Department of Commerce Vice Chairs Ann Bartuska, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vice Chair, Adaptation Science Gerald Geernaert, U.S. Department of Energy, Vice Chair, Integrated Modeling Mike Freilich, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Vice Chair, Integrated Observations Roger Wakimoto, National Science Foundation, Vice-Chair Principals John Balbus, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Katharine Batten, U.S. Agency for International Development Joel Clement, U.S. Department of the Interior Robert Detrick, U.S. Department of Commerce Scott L. Harper, U.S. Department of Defense Leonard Hirsch, Smithsonian Institution William Hohenstein, U.S. Department of Agriculture Jack Kaye, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Michael Kuperberg, U.S. Department of Energy C. Andrew Miller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Arthur Rypinski, U.S. Department of Transportation Joann Roskoski, National Science Foundation Trigg Talley, U.S. Department of State Interagency National Climate Assessment Working Group Chair Katharine Jacobs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (through December 2013)Fabien Laurier, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (from December 2013)Vice-Chair Virginia Burkett, U.S. Department of the Interior -U.S. Geological Survey (from March 2013)Anne Waple, NOAA NCDC I UCAR (through February 2013)National Aeronautics and Space Administration Allison Leidner, Earth Science Division / Universities Space Research Association National Science Foundation Anjuli Bamzai, Directorate for Geosciences (through May 2011)Eve Gruntfest, Directorate for Geosciences (January-November 2013)Rita Teutonico, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (through January 2011)Smithsonian Institution Leonard Hirsch, Office of the Undersecretary for Science U.S. Department of Agriculture Linda Langner, U.S. Forest Service (through January 2011)Carolyn Olson, Office of the Chief Economist Toral Patel-Weynand, U.S. Forest Service Louie Tupas, National Institute of Food and Agriculture Margaret Walsh, Office of the Chief Economist U.S. Department of Commerce Ko Barrett, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (from February 2013)David Easterling, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-National Climatic Data Center (from March 2013)Nancy McNabb, National Institute of Standards and Technology (from February 2013)Adam Parris, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Anne Waple, NOAA NCDC I UCAR (through February 2013)U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM Vii CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES U.S. Department of Defense William Goran, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John Hall, Office of the Secretary of Defense Katherine Nixon, Navy Task Force Climate Change (from May 2013)Courtney St. John, Navy Task Force Climate Change (through August 2012)U.S. Department of Energy Robert Vallario, Office of Science U.S. Department of Health and Human Services John Balbus, National Institutes of Health Paul Schramm, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (through July 2011)U.S. Department of Homeland Security Mike Kangior, Office of Policy (from November 2011)John Laws, National Protection and Programs Directorate (from May 2013)U.S. Department of the Interior Susan Aragon-Long, U.S. Geological Survey Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey Leigh Welling, National Park Service (through May 2011)U.S. Department of State David Reidmiller, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
& Scientific Affairs Kenli Kim, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
& Scientific Affairs (from February 2013)U.S. Department of Transportation Arthur Rypinski, Office of the Secretary Mike Savonis, Federal Highway Administration (through March 2011)AJ Singletary, Office of the Secretary (through August 2010)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rona Birnbaum, Office of Air and Radiation Anne Grambsch, Office of Research and Development Lesley Jantarasami, Office of Air and Radiation White House Council on Environmental Quality Jeff Peterson (through July 2013)Jamie Pool (from February 2013)White House Office of Management and Budget Stuart Levenbach (through May 2012)White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Katharine Jacobs, Environment and Energy Division (through December 2013)Fabien Lauder, Environment and Energy Division (from December 2013)With special thanks to former NOAA Administrator, Jane Lubchenco and former Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Shere Abbott U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM Viii CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES C limate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience.
So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska. This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced.
Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours.
People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.
Other changes are even more dramatic.
Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast.
Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the, summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.
Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth's climatic trends. Long-term, independent records from weather stations, satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all confirm that our nation, like the rest of the world, is warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.
Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities.
The observed warming and other climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every region of our country and throughout our economy. Some of these changes can be beneficial over the short run, such as a longer growing season in some regions and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes. But many more are detrimental, largely because our society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have had, not the rapidly changing climate we now have and can expect in the future. In addition, climate change does not occur in isolation.
Rather, it is superimposed on other stresses, which combine to create new challenges.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 1 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES C.LIMATE CHANGE AND THE AMERCIAN PEOPLE This National Climate Assessment collects, integrates, and assesses observations and research from around the country, helping us to see what is actually happening and understand what it means for our lives, our livelihoods, and our future. This report includes analyses of impacts on seven sectors -human health, water, energy, transportation, agriculture, forests, and ecosystems
-and the interactions among sectors at the national level. This report also assesses key impacts on all U.S. regions: Northeast, Southeast and Caribbean, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, Northwest, Alaska, Hawai'i and the Pacific Islands, as.well as the country's coastal areas, oceans, and marine resources.
Over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly.
Increased scrutiny has led to. increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. With each passing year, the accumulating evidence further expands our understanding and extends the record of observed trends in temperature, precipitation, sea level, ice mass, and many other variables recorded by a variety of measuring systems and analyzed by independent research groups from around the world. It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed.
The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level:rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.
What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-inducedemissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from. burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.
Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond,. but.there is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts.This report. documents the changes already ---.. .......-..........
observed and those projected for the future. It is important that these findings and response options be shared broadly to inform citizens and communities across our nation. Climate change presents a major challenge for society. This report advances our understanding of that challenge and the need for the American people to prepare for and respond to its far-reaching implications.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 2 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES This report assesses the science of climate change and its im-pacts across the United States, now and throughout this century.It integrates findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)4 with the results of research and observations from across the U.S. and around the world, including reports from the U.S. National Research Council. This report documents climate change related impacts and responses for various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and private de-cision-making at all levels.R 1 EPOR-T FZEQUýEMENTS-, PFRODUCTfQN, AND APPROVAL The Global Change Research Act 1 requires that, every four years, the USGCRP prepare and submit to the President and Congress an assessment of the effects of global change in the United States. As part of this assessment, more than 70 workshops were held involving a wide range of stakeholders who identified issues and information for inclusion (see Appendix 1: Process).
A team of more than 300 experts was involved in writing this report. Au-thors were appointed by the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC),b the federal ad-visory committee assembled for the purpose of conducting this assessment.
The report was extensively reviewed and revised based on comments from the public and experts, including a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
The report was re-viewed and approved by the USGCRP agencies and the federal Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainabili-ty (CENRS). This report meets all federal requirements associated with the Information Quality Act (see Appendix 2: IQA), including those pertaining to public comment and transparency.
REPORZT SOURCES The report draws from a large body of scientific, peer-reviewed research, as well as a number of other publicly available sources.Author teams carefully reviewed these sources to ensure a re-liable assessment of the state of scientific understanding.
Each source of information was determined to meet the four parts of the IQA Guidance .provided to authors: 1) utility, 2) transparency and traceability, 3) objectivity, and 4) integrity and security (see Appendix 2: IQA). Report authors made use of technical input re-ports produced by federal agencies and other interested parties in response to a request for information by the NCADAC;2 oth-er peer-reviewed scientific assessments (including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); the U.S. National Climate Assessment's 2009 report titled Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States; the National Academy of Science's America's Climate Choices reports;4 a variety of regional climate impact assessments, conference proceedings, and government statistics (such as population census and energy usage); and ob-servational data. Case studies were also provided as illustrations of climate impacts and adaptation programs.IThe USGCRP is made up of 13 Federal departments and agencies that carry out research and support the nation's response to global change The USGCRP is overseen by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability (CENRS), which in turn is overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The agencies within USGCRP are: the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (NOAA), the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
bThe NCADAC is a federal advisory committee sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 3 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THIS REPORT-* * ...0_55 The report has eight major sections, outlined below:.* Overview and Report Findings:
gives a high-level perspective on the full National Climate Assessment and sets out the report's 12 key findings.
The Overview synthesizes and summarizes the ideas that the authors consider to be of greatest importance to the American people.* Our Changing Climate: presents recent advances in climate change science, which includes discussions of extreme weather events, observed and projected changes in temperature and precipitation, and the uncertainties associated with these projections.
Substantial additional material related to this chapter can be found in the Appendices.
- Sectors: focuses on climate change impacts for seven societal and environmental sectors: human health, water, energy, transportation, agriculture, forests, and ecosystems and biodiversity; six additional chapters consider the interactions among sectors (such as energy, water, and land use) in the context of a changing climate.." Regions: assesses key impacts on U.S. regions -Northeast, Southeast and Caribbean, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, Northwest, Alaska, and Hawai'i and the U.S. affiliated Pacific Islands -as well as coastal areas, oceans, and marine resources.
- Responses:
assesses the current state of responses to climate change, including adaptation, mitigation, and decision support activities." Research Needs: highlights major gaps in science and research to improve future assessments.
New research is called for in climate science in support of assessments, climate impacts in regions and sectors, and adaptation, mitigation, and decision support.* Sustained Assessment Process: describes an initial vision for and components of an ongoing, long-term assessment process." Appendices:
Appendix 1 describes key aspects of the report process, with a focus on engagement; Appendix 2 describes the guidelines used in meeting the terms of the Federal Information Quality Act; Appendix 3 supplements the chapter on Our Changing Climate with an extended treatment of selected science issues;Appendix 4 provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions about climate change; Appendix 5 describes scenarios and models used in this assessment; and Appendix 6 describes possible topics.for consideration in future assessments.
0V'VER AG-R. N Four overarching perspectives, derived from decades of ob-servations, analysis, and experience, have helped to shape this report: 1) climate change is happening in the context of other ongoing changes across the U.S. and the globe; 2) cli-mate change impacts can either be amplified or reduced by societal decisions;
- 3) climate change related impacts, vulner-PERSPECTIVES abilities, and opportunities in the U.S. are linked to impacts and changes outside the United States, and vice versa; and 4)climate change can lead to dramatic tipping points in natural and social systems. These overarching perspectives are briefly discussed below.(-icbal Change Context.Climate change is one of a number of global changes affecting society, the environment, and the economy; others include population growth, land-use change, air and water pollution, and rising consumption of resources by a growing and wealthier global population.
This perspective has implications for assess-ments of climate change impacts and the design of research questions at the national, regional, and local scales. This assess-ment explores some of the consequences of interacting factors by focusing on sets of crosscutting issues in a series of six chap-ters: Energy, Water, and Land Use; Biogeochemical Cycles; In-digenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources; Urban Systems, Infra-structure, and Vulnerability; Land Use and Land Cover Change;and Rural Communities.
The assessment also includes discus-sions of how climate change impacts cascade through different sectors such as water and energy, and affect and are affected by land-use decisions.
These and other interconnections great-ly stress society's capacity to respond to climate-related crises that occur simultaneously or in rapid sequence.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THIS REPOIRT Societal Choices Because environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic systems are tightly coupled, climate change impacts can either be am-plified or reduced by cultural and socioeconomic decisions.
In many arenas, it is clear that societal decisions have substantial influence on the vulnerability of valued resources to climate change. For example, rapid population growth and develop-ment in coastal areas tends to amplify climate change related impacts. Recognition of these couplings, together with recog-nition of multiple sources of vulnerability, helps identify what information decision-makers need as they manage risks.International Context Climate change is a global phenomenon; the causes and the impacts involve energy-use, economic, and risk-management decisions across the globe. Impacts, vulnerabilities, and op-portunities in the U.S. are related in complex and interactive ways with changes outside the United States, and vice versa.In order for U.S. concerns related to climate change to be ad-dressed comprehensively, the international context must be Thresholds, Tipping While some climate changes will occur slowly and relatively gradually, others could be rapid and dramatic, leading to unex-pected breaking points in natural and social systems. Although they have potentially large impacts, these breaking points or tipping points are difficult to predict, as there are many un-certainties about future conditions.
These uncertainties and potential surprises come from a number of sources, including insufficient data associated with low probability/high conse-quence events, models that are not yet able to represent all considered.
Foreign assistance, health, environmental quality objectives, and economic interests are all affected by climate changes experienced in other parts of the world. Although there is significantly more work to be done in this area, this report identifies some initial implications of global and inter-national trends that can be more fully investigated in future assessments.
Points, and Surprises the interactions of multiple stresses, incomplete understand-ing of physical climate mechanisms related to tipping points, and a multitude of issues associated with human behavior, risk management, and decision-making.
Improving our ability to anticipate thresholds and tipping points can be helpful in developing effective climate change mitigation and adapta-tion strategies (Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate; Ch. 29: Research Needs; and Appendices 3 and 4).Mh'SK MANAGCEMENT FFRAMEh[ )RK Authors were asked to consider the science and information needs of decision-makers facing climate change risks to infra-structure, natural ecosystems, resources, communities, and other things of societal value. They were also asked to consid-er opportunities that climate change might present. For each region and sector, they were asked to assess a small number of key climate-related vulnerabilities of concern based on the risk (considering likelihood and consequence) of impacts.They were also asked to address the most important infor-mation needs of stakeholders, and to consider the decisions RESPONDINC TO While the primary focus of this report is on the impacts of cli-mate change in the United States, it also documents some of the actions society is taking or can take to respond. Responses to climate change fall into two broad categories.
The first in-volves "mitigation" measures to reduce future climate change by reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles, or increasing removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
stakeholders are facing. The criteria provided for identifying key vulnerabilities in each sector or region included magni-tude, timing, persistence/reversibility, scale, and distribution of impacts, likelihood whenever possible, importance of im-pacts (based on the perceptions of relevant parties), and the potential for adaptation.
Authors were encouraged to think about these topics from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective and to consider the influence of multiple stresses whenever possible.CUIMATE 0HAPGE-The second involves "adaptation" measures to improve soci-ety's ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts and take advantage of beneficial ones, now and in the future. At this point, both of these response activities are necessary to limit the magnitude and impacts of global climate change on the United States.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 5 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES AF3OUT -HIS REPOf-RT More effective mitigation measures can reduce the amount of climate change, and therefore reduce the need for future adaptation.
This report underscores the effects of mitigation measures by comparing impacts resulting from higher ver-sus lower emissions scenarios.
This shows that choices made about emissions in the next few decades will have far-reach-ing consequences for climate change impacts throughout this century. Lower emissions will reduce the rate and lessen the magnitude of climate change and its impacts. Higher emissions will do the opposite.While the report demonstrates the importance of mitigation as an essential part of the nation's climate change strategy, it does not evaluate mitigation technologies or policies or under-take an analysis of the effectiveness of various approaches.
The range of mitigation responses being studied includes, but is not limited to, policies and technologies that lead to more ef-ficient production and use of energy, increased use of non-car-bon-emitting energy sources such as wind and solar power, and carbon capture and storage.Adaptation actions are complementary to mitigation actions.They are focused on moderating harmful impacts of current and future climate variability and change and taking advantage of possible opportunities.
While this report assesses the cur-rent state of adaptation actions and planning across the coun-try in a general way, the implementation of adaptive actions is still nascent. A comprehensive assessment of actions taken, and of their effectiveness, is not yet possible.
This report docu-ments some of the actions currently being pursued to address impacts such as increased urban heat extremes and air pol-lution, and describes the challenges decision-makers face in planning for and implementing adaptation responses.
TR. ."6 A 03L ACCOUNTS:
PFOCESS ANDF C:O'NFIDFENCE The "traceable accounts" that accompany each chapter: 1)document the process the authors used to reach the conclu-sions in their key messages;
- 2) provide additional information to reviewers and other readers about the quality of the infor-mation used; 3) allow traceability to resources; and 4) provide the level of confidence the authors have in the main findings of the chapters.
The authors have assessed a wide range of information in the scientific literature and various technical reports. In assessing confidence, they have considered the strength and consistency of the observed evidence, the skill, range, and consistency of model projections, and insights from peer-reviewed sources.When it is considered scientifically justified to report the likelihood of particular impacts within the range of possible outcomes, this report takes a plain-language approach to ex-pressing the expert judgment of the author team based on the best available evidence.
For example, an outcome termed"likely" has at least a two-thirds chance of occurring; an out-come termed "very likely" has more than a 90% chance. Key sources of information used to develop these characterizations are referenced.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 6 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES N" Md MT410a ILA a" Nd0WA IIINLJIINUZIý Climate change is already affecting the American people in far-reaching ways. Certain types of extreme weather events with links to climate change have become more frequent and/or in-tense, including prolonged periods of heat, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts.
In addition, warm-ing is causing sea level to rise and glaciers and Arctic sea ice to melt, and oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide. These and other aspects of climate change are disrupting people's lives and damaging some sectors of our economy.Climate C ange: Pres ard Fut e Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. Scientists and engi-neers from around the world have meticulously collected this evidence, using satellites and networks of weather balloons,-
thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. Evidence of climate change is also visible in the observed and measured changes in location and behavior of species and functioning of ecosystems.
Taken together, this evidence tells an unambigu-ous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity.Coal-fired power plants emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolu-tion, and it has been known for almost two centuries that this carbon dioxide traps heat. Methane and nitrous oxide emis-sions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases. Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years. Sensors on sat-ellites have measured the sun's output with great accuracy and found no overall increase dur-ing the past half century. Large volcanic eruptions during this period, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, have exerted a short-term cooling influence.
In fact, if not for human activities, glob-al climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years. The pattern of tempera-ture change through the layers of the atmosphere, with warm-ing near the surface and cooling higher up in the stratosphere, further confirms that it is the buildup of heat-trapping gases (also known as "greenhouse gases") that has caused most of the Earth's warming over the past half century.CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN TYE UNITED STATES U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 7 N OVE -R\/ICW P\ýJE) PEP-OPT FINC)JNGý5-ý Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a background of natural variations in climate, warm-ing is not uniform over time. Short-term fluctuations in the long-term upward trend are thus natural and 20 expected.
For example, a recent slowing in the rate of surface air temperature rise appears to be related to 1.5 cyclic changes in the oceans and in the sun's energy output, as well as a series of small volcanic eruptions 1.0 and other factors. Nonetheless, global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3F to 0 1.9°F since 1895, and most of this increase has oc-curred since 1970. The most recent decade was the _U nation's and the world's hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warm-ing in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. In general, temperatures are rising more quickly in the north. Alaskans have experienced some of the largest increases in temperature between 1970 and the present. People living in the Southeast have experienced some of the smallest temperature increases over this period.Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades. The a Reductions in some short-lived human-induced emissions that cades contribute to warming, such as black carbon (soot) and meth- heat-i ane, could reduce some of the projected warming over the a rou next couple of decades, because, unlike carbon dioxide, these scena gases and particles have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes.
sions for a in em Projected Global Temperature Change a4 Different amounts of heat-trap; leased into the atmosphere by rical ties produce different projected Earth's temperature.
The lines represent a central estimate of age temperature rise (relative t 1960 average) for the two main used in this report. A2 assume increases in emissions through tury, and Bi assumes signifgcap reductions, though not due exp mate change policies.
Shading range (5 11 to 9 5 11 percentile) of a suite of climate models. In bo temperatures are expected to r.the difference between lower a 2060 2100 emissions pathways is substan source: NOAA NCDC / ClCS-0 mount of warming projected beyond the next few de-is directly linked to the cumulative global emissions of:rapping gases and particles.
By the end of this century, ghly 3=F to 5SF rise is projected under a lower emissions rio, which would require substantial reductions in emis-(referred to as the "B1 scenario"), and a S°F to 10F rise higher emissions scenario assuming continued incre*ases issions, predominantly from fossil fuel combustion (re-ferred to as the "A2 scenario").
These projections are based on results from 16 climate models that used the two)ing gases re- emissions scenarios in a formal inter-human activi- model comparison study. The range of increases in model projections for each emissions on the graph scenario is the result of the differences global aver- in the ways the models represent key o the 1901- factors such as water vapor, ice and Sscenarios snow reflectivity, and clouds, which can s continued either dampen or amplify the initial ef-out this cen- fect of human influences on tempera-nt emissions ture. The net effect of these feedbacks licitlyto cli- is expected to amplify warming. More indicates the information about the models and sce-results from narios used in this report can be found ith cases, in Appendix 5 of the full report.'ise, although nd higher tial. (Figure IC).-21 1900 1950 2000 Year U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 8 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES Prolonged periods of high temperatures and the persistence of high nighttime temperatures have increased in many loca-tions (especially in urban areas) over the past half century. High nighttime temperatures have widespread impacts because people, livestock, and wildlife get no respite from the heat. In some regions, prolonged periods of high temperatures associ-ated with droughts contribute to conditions that lead to larger wildfires and longer fire seasons. As expected in a warming climate, recent trends show that extreme heat is becoming more common, while extreme cold is becoming less common.Evidence indicates that the human influence on climate has al-ready roughly doubled the probability of extreme heat events such as the record-breaking summer heat experienced in 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma.
The incidence of record-breaking high temperatures is projected to rise.2 Human-induced climate change means much more than just hotter weather. Increases in ocean and freshwater tempera-tures, frost-free days, and heavy downpours have all been documented.
Global sea level has risen, and there have been large reductions in snow-cover extent, glaciers, and sea ice.These changes and other climatic changes have affected and will continue to affect human health, water supply, agriculture, transportation, energy, coastal areas, and many other sectors of society, with increasingly adverse impacts on the American economy and quality of life.Some of the changes discussed in this report are common to many re-gions. For example, large increases in heavy precipitation have occurred in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains, where heavy downpours have frequently led to runoff that exceeded the capacity of storm drains and le-vees, and caused flooding events and accelerated erosion. Other impacts, such as those associated with the rapid thawing of permafrost in Alaska, are unique to a particular U.S. region.Permafrost thawing is causing exten-sive damage to infrastructure in our nation's largest state.4 Some impacts that occur in one region ripple beyond that region. For exam-ple, the dramatic decline of summer sea ice in the Arctic- a loss of ice cover roughly equal to half the area of the <continental United States -exacer-bates global warming by reducing the reflectivity of Earth's surface and in-creasing the amount of heat absorbed.Similarly, smoke from wildfires in one location can contribute to poor air quality in faraway regions, and evidence suggests that particulate matter can affect at-mospheric properties and therefore weather patterns.
Major storms and the higher storm surges exacerbated by sea level rise that hit the Gulf Coast affect the entire country through their cascading effects on oil and gas production and distribu-tion.s Water expands as it warms, causing global sea levels to rise;melting of land-based ice also raises sea level by adding water to the oceans. Over the past century, global average sea level has risen by about 8 inches. Since 1992, the rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last century, providing evidence of ac-celeration.
Sea level rise, combined with coastal storms, has increased the risk of erosion, storm surge damage, and flood-ing for coastal communities, especially along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic seaboard, and in Alaska. Coastal infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, energy infrastructure, airports, port facilities, and military bases, are increasingly at risk from sea level rise and damaging storm surges. Sea level is projected to rise by another 1 to 4 feet in this century, although the rise in sea level in specific regions is expected to vary from this global average for a number of reasons. A wider range of scenarios, U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 9 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES
- 1. )VERVk\!EW PND PEPCYR7Tvri~3 from 8 inches to more than 6 feet by 2100, has been used in risk-based analyses in this report.In general, higher emissions scenarios that lead to more warming would be expected to lead to higher amounts of sea level rise. The stakes are high, as nearly five million Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars of property are located in areas that are less than four feet above the local high-tide level.6 In addition to causing changes in climate, in-creasing levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activi-ties have a direct effect on the world's oceans. *r* o Carbon dioxide interacts with ocean water to iny k il form carbonic acid, increasing the ocean's acid- in swe ity. Ocean surface waters have become 30% int more acidic over the last 250 years as they have -- ...t absorbed large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
This ocean acidification makes water more corrosive, reducing the capacity of marine organisms with shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate l- Dislei Acdfe Oc.@ea Wae V sea butterflies,'
are eaten by a variety of marine species ranging from 6on to whales, The photos show what happens to a pteropod's shell at is too acidic. On the left is a shell from a live pteropod from a region Ocean where acidity is not too high. The shell on the right is from a region where the water is more acidic. (Figure source: (left) Bednarýek ight) Nina Bednarýek).(such as corals, krill, oysters, clams, and crabs) to survive, grow, and reproduce, which in turn will affect the marine food chain.7 Widespread Impacts Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many yond. Climate changes interact with other environmental and regions and sectors and are expected to become increasingly societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify disruptive across the nation throughout this century and be- these impacts.As Oceans Absorb CO 2 They Become More Acidic 400 &40-Mum Los AbnosphtCO, (ppm)-Akoha Ocean pCOw in Au (matm)8 37- _Aloft Ocea pH (In siu)8.10 8.05 275. 0a.00 1958 1964 1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2012 Year The correlation between rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (red) with rising carbon dioxide levels (blue) and falling pH in the ocean (green). As carbon dioxide accumulates in the ocean, the water becomes more acidic (the pH declines).(Figure source: modified from Feely et al. 20091.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 10 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES
.1 -"'1RV!.EW AND P-OEP RT FINJDtfNGS Observed and projected climate change impacts vary across the regions of the United States. Selected impacts emphasized in theýegional chapters are shown below, and many more are explored in detail in this report.Communities are affectedl by heat waves, more extreme precipitation events, and t .l r :. ; .. .-: ".: -:. .I "; -' -. -. " .. .. ..... ... I. .. ::.. :. .:......" .coastalflooding due to sea level rise" and str urge.S. -._.............
.-.- .. -........- Southeast Decreased water availability, exacerbated by population growth and land-use change, and. causes increased compettion for water. There are increased risks associated with,-Caribbean exrme events'such as huriae'" '. t " * ." i" ;::: :." " .. ] .., " -" ', ." ..* "..*."..*
' .'.* .'.. ..*. ".. " , 'h" Longr grwingseasns ind nising carbon dioxide levels increase yields!fsmecos Midwest-.
afth ough these, b"'ifit hae ardy been offset in some instances by occrrence' of extreme events such as heat waves, doh and floods. .".,.A Rising temperatures lead to increased demand for water and energy and impacts on Great la~ns agricultural practices.
- ... 1.: ! ...":.;.."..::, .... ....... *_.. .",.....:.!.".L":-:..
"..". ..___.___Dloat& a aincr~asd warming foster wildfiresa and increased c6me tofrcre Nortwes resciurcesf people and ecosystems.
z" ...... .. .... = "": " : .. .". ...... ..... .... I =- .. ' .....: :- " " :' .- .....°' F' * = : .Changes in the timing of streamnfiow related to earlier snowmelt reduce the supply of orthwes water in summer, causing farieaci .e cogical and socioeconomic consequences.
J ,, .id reedng',summe sea ice,.
d thawing permafrost c~~ ~ Alaska daaet nrsrcueadmjor cange to ecosystemns.
impacts to Alaska Native N ~~~Communte nrae__-- __________ , ..7.Hawa'i Increasingly com trateshwater suppliesd oupled with inrease temperatures, and Pcific stress both. people an ebsystem and decreas~e food and water security... .. prcie. .i .. .Coasl I Ifelines, such swaetspl inf rastructure and evacuation moutes, are J>1T Coast' increasingly vulnerable to ~higiher sea: levels and storm surges, inland flooding,.and S.J otc.lirna.te.re.ated chages. " The oceans are currently absorbing about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide.,.~ -Oceans emissions to the atmosphere-and over 90% of the heat associated with global warming, leading to ocean acidification and the alterationfof marine ecosystems.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 11CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 1: OVERVIEW ,-AND REPORT F!NDINGS Some climate changes currently have beneficial effects for specific sectors or regions. For example, current benefits of warming include longer growing seasons for agriculture and longer ice-free periods for shipping on the Great Lakes. At the same time, however, longer growing seasons, along with high-er temperatures and carbon dioxide levels, can increase pollen production, intensifying and lengthening the allergy season.Longer ice-free periods on the Great Lakes can result in more lake-effect snowfalls.
Sectors affected by climate changes include agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems.
Climate change poses a major challenge to U.S. agriculture because of the critical dependence of agricultural systems on climate. Climate change has the potential to both positively and negatively affect the location, timing, and productivity of crop, livestock, and fishery systems at local, national, and global scales. The United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in agricultural commodities.
This productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing climate Climate change can exacerbate respiratory and asthma-related conditions through increases in pollen, ground-level ozone, and wildfire smoke.Water quality and quantity are being affected by climate change. Changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in consumption and withdrawal, have reduced sur-conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and pathogens.
Climate change will also alter the stabil-ity of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion.people by 2050. While the agriculture sector has proven to be adaptable to a range of stresses, as evidenced by con-tinued growth in production and effi-ciency across the United States, climate change poses a new set of challenges.'
Certain groups of people are more vulnerable to the range of climate change related health impacts, including the elderly, children, the poor, and the sick.face and groundwater supplies in many areas. These trends are expected to continue, increasing the likelihood of water shortages for many uses. Wa-ter quality is also diminishing in many areas, particularly due to sediment and contaminant concentrations af-ter heavy downpours.
Sea level rise, storms and storm surges, and changes in surface and groundwater use pat-terns are expected to compromise the sustainability of coastal freshwater aquifers and wetlands.
In most U.S. re-gions, water resources managers and planners will encounter new risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities that may not be properly managed with existing practices.'
Climate change affects human health in many ways. For ex-ample, increasingly frequent and intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and deaths and, overtime, worsen drought and wildfire risks, and intensify air pollution.
Increas-ingly frequent extreme precipitation and associated flooding can lead to injuries and increases in waterborne disease. Ris-ing sea surface temperatures have been linked with increasing levels and ranges of diseases.
Rising sea levels intensify coastal flooding and storm surge, and thus exacerbate threats to pub-lic safety during storms. Certain groups of people are more vul-nerable to the range of climate change related health impacts, including the elderly, children, the poor, and the sick. Others are vulnerable because of where they live, including those in floodplains, coastal zones, and some urban areas. Improving and properly supporting the public health infrastructure will be critical to managing the potential health impacts of climate change.'0 Increasing air and water temperatures, more intense precipitation and runoff, and intensifying droughts can decrease water quality in many ways. Here, middle school students in Colorado test water quality.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 12 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES Climate change also affects the living world, including people, through changes in ecosystems and biodiversity.
Ecosystems provide a rich array of benefits and services to humanity, in-cluding habitat for fish and wildlife, drinking water storage and filtration, fertile soils for growing crops, buffering against a range of stressors including climate change impacts, and aesthetic and cultural values. These benefits are not always easy to quan-tify, but they support jobs, economic growth, health, and human well-being.
The amount c Climate change driven disruptions to change will still ecosystems have direct and indirect mined by choic human impacts, including reduced wa- about e ter supply and quality, the loss of iconic species and landscapes, effects on food chains and the timing and success of species migrations, and the potential for extreme weather and climate events to destroy or degrade the ability of ecosystems to provide societal benefits." Human modifications of ecosystems and landscapes often increase their vulnerability to damage from extreme weather events, while simultaneously reducing their natural capacity to moderate the impacts of such events. For example, salt marsh-es, reefs, mangrove forests, and barrier islands defend coastal ecosystems and infrastructure, such as roads and buildings, against storm surges. The loss of these natural buffers due to coastal development, erosion, and sea level rise increases the risk of catastrophic damage during or after extreme weather events. Although floodplain wetlands are greatly reduced from their historical extent, those that remain still absorb floodwaters and reduce the effects of high flows on f future climate largely be deter-es society makes missions.river-margin lands. Extreme weather events that produce sudden increases in water flow, often carrying debris and pollutants, can decrease the natu-ral capacity of ecosystems to cleanse contaminants." 2 The climate change impacts being felt in the regions and sec-tors of the United States are affected ,by global trends and economic decisions.
In an increasingly interconnected world, U.S. vulnerability is linked to impacts in other nations. It is thus difficult to fully evaluate the impacts of climate change on the United States without considering consequences of climate change elsewhere.
Response Options As the impacts of climate change are becoming more preva-lent, Americans face choices. Especially because of past emis-sions of long-lived heat-trapping gases, some additional cli-mate change and related impacts are now unavoidable.
This is due to the long-lived nature of many of these gases, as well as the amount of heat absorbed and retained by the oceans and other responses within the climate system. The amount of future climate change, however, will still largely be determined by choices society makes about emissions.
Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles mean less future warming and less-severe impacts; higher emissions mean more warming and more severe impacts. Efforts to limit emissions or increase carbon uptake fall into a category of response options known as "mitigation," which refers to reducing the amount and speed of future climate change by reducing emissions of heat-trap-ping gases or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.'
3 The other major category of response options is known as "ad-aptation," and refers to actions to prepare for and adjust to new conditions, thereby reducing harm or taking advantage of new opportunities.
Mitigation and adaptation actions are linked in multiple ways, including that effective mitigation re-duces the need for adaptation in the future. Both are essential parts of a comprehensive climate change response strategy.The threat of irreversible impacts makes the timing of mitiga-tion efforts particularly critical.
This report includes chapters on Mitigation, Adaptation, and Decision Support that offer an overview of the options and activities being planned or implemented around the country as local, state, federal, and tribal governments, as well as businesses, organizations, and individuals begin to respond to climate change. These chap-ters conclude that while response actions are under develop-ment, current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences." 4 Large reductions in global emissions of heat-trapping gases, similar to the lower emissions scenario (B1) analyzed in this assessment, would reduce the risks of some of the worst im-pacts of climate change. Some targets called for in interna-tional climate negotiations to date would require even larger reductions than those outlined in the BI scenario.
Meanwhile, global emissions are still rising and are on a path to be even higher than the high emissions scenario (A2) analyzed in this report. The recent U.S. contribution to annual global emissions is about 18%, but the U.S. contribution to cumulative global emissions over the last century is much higher. Carbon dioxide lasts for a long time in the atmosphere, and it is the cumu-lative carbon emissions that determine the amount of global climate change. After decades of increases, U.S. CO 2 emissions from energy use (which account for 97% of total U.S. emissions) declined by around 9% between 2008 and 2012, largely due to a shift from coal to less C02-intensive natural gas for electricity production.
Governmental actions in city, state, regional, and federal programs to promote energy efficiency have also con-tributed to reducing U.S. carbon emissions.
Many, if not most of these programs are motivated by other policy objectives, but some are directed specifically at greenhouse gas emissions.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 13 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES These U.S. actions and others that might be undertaken in the future are described in the Mitigation chapter of this report.Over the remainder of this century, aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions by the United States and by other nations would be needed to reduce global emissions to a level consistent with the lower scenario (B1) analyzed in this assessment.'
5 With regard to adaptation, the pace and magnitude of ob-served and projected changes emphasize the need to be pre-pared for a wide variety and intensity of impacts. Because of the growing influence of human activities, the climate of the past is not a good basis for future planning.
For example, build-ing codes and landscaping ordinances could be updated to improve energy efficiency, conserve water supplies, protect against insects that spread disease (such as dengue fever), reduce susceptibility to heat stress, and improve protection against extreme events. The fact that climate change impacts are increasing points to the urgent need to develop and refine approaches that enable decision-making and increase flexibil-ity and resilience in the face of ongoing and future impacts.Reducing non-climate-related stresses that contribute to exist-ing vulnerabilities can also be an effective approach to climate change adaptation." Adaptation can involve considering local, state, regional, na-tional, and international jurisdictional objectives.
For example, in managing water supplies to adapt to a changing climate, the implications of international treaties should be considered in the context of managing the Great Lakes, the Columbia River, and the Colorado River to deal with increased drought risk. Both"bottom up" community planning and "top down" national strategies may help regions deal with impacts such as increases in electrical brownouts, heat stress, floods, and wildfires." Proactively preparing for climate change can reduce impacts while also facilitating a more rapid and efficient response to changes as they happen. Such efforts are beginning at the fed-eral, regional, state, tribal, and local levels, and in the corpo-rate and non-governmental sectors, to build adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change impacts. Using scientific infor-mation to prepare for climate changes in advance can provide economic opportunities, and proactively managing the risks can reduce impacts and costs over time.8 There are a number of areas where improved scientific infor-mation or understanding would enhance the capacity to esti-mate future climate change impacts. For example, knowledge of the mechanisms controlling the rate of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is limited, making it difficult for scientists to narrow the range of expected future sea level rise. Improved understanding of ecological and social responses to climate change is needed, as is understanding of how ecological and social responses will interact." 9 A sustained climate assessment process could more efficiently collect and synthesize the rapidly evolving science and help supply timely and relevant information to decision-makers.
Results from all of these efforts could continue to deepen our understanding of the interactions of human and natural sys-tems in the context of a changing climate, enabling society to effectively respond and prepare for our future." The cumulative weight of the scientific evidence contained in this report confirms that climate change is affecting the Ameri-can people now, and that choices we make will affect our fu-ture and that of future generations.
Cities providing transportation options including bike lanes, buildings designed with energy saving features such as green roofs, and houses elevated to allow storm surges to pass underneath are among the many response options being pursued around the country.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 14 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES I1 .OVERW\!E LA! N U R-EPO PT_ FJIND! NGE.ýReport Findings These findings distill important results that arise from this National Climate Assessment.
They do not represent a full summary of all of the chapters' findings, but rather a synthesis of particularly noteworthy conclusions.
- 1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations.
The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3 0 F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.2 1 See page 18.2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.
Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.2 2 See page 24.3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future.2 3 See page 28.4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable.
There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.2 4 See page 32.=64-44 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 15 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 1: OVERV1 EW AND REPORT F! N D IN=5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water.Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases.
Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.2 5 See page 34.6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change.Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations.
Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions.
Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.2 6 See page 38.7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.
Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge.
In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpou rs.2 7 See page 42.8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century.Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours.
From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country -a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.2 8 See page 46.9 IFýU.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 16 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 1: OVERVIEW AND REPORT FIrN,,,i'\GS
- 9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples' health, well-being, and ways of life.Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.
2 9 See page 48.10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed.
Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction.
These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems.
These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources.
3 0 See page 50.11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities.
3 1 See page 58.12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences.
Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.3 2 See page 62.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 17 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES
.OVERVOEW AND REPORT FINDnNGS R EF--RPENCES-.
Numbered references for the Overview indicate the chapters that provide supporting evidence for the reported conclusions.
- 1. Ch. 2.2. Ch. 2, 3, 6, 9, 20.3. Ch. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 25.4. Ch. 2, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.5. Ch. 2, 4, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25.6. Ch. 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25.7. Ch. 2, 12, 23, 24, 25.8. Ch. 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19.9. Ch. 2, 3,12, 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 23.10. Ch. 2, 9,11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25.11. Ch. 3, 6,8, 12, 14, 23, 24, 25.12. Ch. 3, 7, 8, 25.13. Ch. 2, 26, 27.14. Ch. 26, 27, 28.15. Ch. 2, 4, 27.16. Ch. 2, 3, 5, 9,11, 12,13, 25, 26, 27,28.17. Ch. 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28.18. Ch. 28.19. Ch. 29, Appendix 6.20. Ch. 30.21. Ch. 2, Appendices 3 and 4.22. Ch. 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, Appendices 3 and 4.23. Ch. 2, 27, Appendices 3 and 4.24. Ch. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.25. Ch. 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23.26. Ch. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25.27. Ch. 2, 3, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.28. Ch. 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19.29. Ch. 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25.30. Ch. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 25.31. Ch. 2, 12, 23, 24, 25.32. Ch. 6,7,8,9, 10, 13, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28.Letter references refer to external sources a. Kennedy, j. J., P. W. Thorne, T. C. Peterson, R. A. Reudy, P.A. Stott, D. E. Parker, S. A. Good, H. A. Titchner, and K. M.Willett, 2010: How do we know the world has warmed? State of the Climate in 2009. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91, S26-27, doi:10.1175/BA MS-91-7-StateoftheClimate.
[Available online at http://joutrals.at-etsoc.org/doi/abs/10.11175/BAMS-91-7-Stateofthclimatc]
- b. Huber, M., and R. Knutti, 2012: Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance. Nature Geoscience, 5, 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeol327.
[Available online at http:/iwww.narurc.com/ngeoi-urnal/v5/nl
,/pdf/ngcol327.pdfl]
- c. Karl, T. R., J. T. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, Eds., 2009: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 189 pp. [Available online at http://downloaids.globalchangc.
gov/usimpacts/ipdfs/climate-iinpacts-rcport.pdf]
- d. Feely, R. A., S. C. Doney, and S. R. Cooley, 2009: Ocean acidification:
Present conditions and future changes in a high-CO2 world. Oceanography, 22, 36-47, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2009.95.
[Available online at http://www.tos.org/oceanograpli/
archive/22-4_feely.pdf]
- e. Bednarqek, N., G. A. Tarling, D. C. E. Bakker, S. Fielding, E. M.Jones, H. J. Venables, P. Ward, A. Kuzirian, B. Lz6, R. A. Feely, and E. J. Murphy, 2012: Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean. Nature Geoscience, 5, 881-885, doi:10.1038/
ngeo1635 PHOTO CREDITS pg. 23-Person pumpinggas:
Charles Minshew/KOM U; People cooling off during heatwave:
©JulieJacobson/AP/Corbis; Smog over city:©iStockPhoto.com DanielStein;Childblowingnose:
©Stockbyte/
Getty Images pg. 24-Mosquito:
©James Gathany, CDC; Road washed out due to flooding:
PJohn Wark/AP/Corbis; Mountain stream: ©Dan Sherwood/Design Pics/Corbis; Farmer with corn: ©iStockPhoto.
com/ValentinRussanov pg. 25-Person building house: ©Aaron Huey/National Geographic Society/Corbis; Bear: ©Chase Swift/Corbis; Manatee: US Fish and Wildlife Service; Person with solar panels: ©Dennis Schroeder, NREL U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 18 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES Climate Change and the American People ...........................
1 About This Report .......................
3 1. OVERVIEW .............................
7 2. OUR CHANGING C L IM A T E ....................................
19 SECTO RS ......................
68 3. W ater .......................................
69 4 .E nergy ........................................
1 13 5. Transportation
.............................
130 6. A griculture
...................................
150 7 .Forests ........................................
175 8. Ecosystem s ................................
195 9. Human Health .............................
220 10. Energy, Water, and Land ..............
257 1 1. U rban .........................................
2 8 2 12. Indigenous Peoples ......................
297 13. Land Use and Land Cover Change .....................
318 14. Rural Communities
.......................
333 15. Biogeochemical Cycles .........
350 REG IO N S ...............................
369 16. N ortheast .....................................
371 17. Southeast
.....................................
396 18 .M idw est ........................................
4 18 19. G reat Plains ..................................
44 1 20. Southw est ....................................
462 2 1. N orthw est ....................................
487 22 .A laska ..........................................
5 14 23. Hawaii and Pacific Islands .............
537 24 .O ceans .........................................
557 25 .C oasts ..........................................
579 VT ., 77ý 7 RESPONSE STRATEGIES
........................
619 26. Decision Support ...........................
620 27 .M itigation
.......................................
648 28. Adaptation
.....................................
670 29. Research Needs ............................
707 30. Sustained Assessment
...................
719 APPENDICIES Appendix 1: Process ............................
727 Appendix 2: Information Quality ...........
733 Appendix 3: Climate Science ................
735 Appendix 4: FAQs ................................
790 Appendix 5: Scenarios and Models ....... 821 Appendix 6: Future Assessment Topics ..............................
826 Abbreviations and Acronyms ...............
828*401 %wi .4 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM xi CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES People make choices every day about risks and. benefits, in their lives, weighing experience, information, and judgment as they consider the impacts of their decisions on themselves and the people around them. Similarly, people make choices that alter the magnitude of impacts resulting from current and future climate change. Using science-based information to anticipate future changes can help society, make better decisions about how to reduce risks and protect people, places, and ecosystems from climate change impacts. Decisions made now and in the future will. influence society's resilience to impacts.of future climate change.In recognition of the significance of these decisions, the National Climate Assessment presents information that is useful for a wide variety of decisions across regions and sectors, at multiple scales, and over multiple time frames. For the first time, the National Climate Assessment includes chapters on Decision .Support, Mitigation, and Adaptation, in addition to identifying research needs associated with these topics.As with other sections of this report, the linkages across and among these chapters are extremely important.
There are direct connections between mitigation decisions (about whether and how to manage emissions of heat-trapping gases) and how much climate will change in the future. The amount of change that occurs will in turn dictate the amount of adaptation that will be required.In the Decision Support chapter, a variety of approaches to bridge the gap between scientific understanding and decision-making are discussed, leading to_ the conclusion that there are many opportunities to help scientists understand the needs of decision-makers, and also to help decision-makers use available.tools and information to reduce the risks of climate change. The Mitigation chapter describes, emissions trajectories and assesses the state of mitigation activities.
Policies already enacted and otherfactors lowered U.S. emissions in recent. years, but achievement:of a global emissions path consistent with the lower scenario (B11)analyzed in this assessment will require strenuous action by. all major emitters.
The Adaptation chapter assesses.
current adaptation activities across the United States in the public and private sectors, and concludes that although a lot of adaptation planning is beingdone, implementation.:lags:significantly behind, .he scale of anticipated changes.This report concludes with chapters on Research Needs to improve future climate and global change assessments and on the Sustained Assessment Process, which describes the rationale for ongoing assessment activitylto achieve greater efficiency I -and better scientific and societal outcomes.New York .Y Bus.* ..... m jr-t _Ui Ji iilmi IU U E. EýI U Climate Change Impacts in the United States CHAPTER 27 MITIGATION Convening Lead Authors..HenryD.o Jacoby, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Anthony C. Janetos, Boston University Lead Authors Richard Birdsey, U.S. Forest Service.James Buizer, University of -Arizona Katherine Calvin, Pacific Northwest National, Laboratory, University of Maryland Francisco de la Chesnaye, Electric Power Research Institute David Schimel, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory lan: Sue Wing, Boston University Contributing Authors Reid Detchon, United Nations Foundation Jae Edmonds,, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Uni..ersity of Maryland Lynn Russell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University ofCalifornia, San Diego Jason West, University of North Carolina(Recommended Citation for Chapter Jacoby, H. D., A. C: Janetos, R. Birdsey, J. Buizer, K. Calvin, F. de la Chesnaye, D. Schimel, 1. Sue Wing, R. Detchon, J.Edmonds, L. Russell, and J. West, 2014: Ch. 27: Mitigation.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 648-669. doi.1*.7930/J0C8276J.
On the Web: http://nca2 0l4.globalchange.gov/report/response-strategies/mitigation 648
[Cy, A Li] i KEY MESSAGES 1. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphereg by. natural processes at a rate that is roughly half of the current rate of emissions from human activities.
Therefore, mitigation efforts that only stabilize global emissions will not reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide,,, but will only limit. their rate of increase.
The same is true for other long-lived greenhouse.
gases.2. To meet the lower emissions scenario (BU) used, in this assessment, global. mitigation actions would .need to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to a peak of around 44 billion tons per year within the next 25 years and decline thereafter.
In 2011, global emissions were around 34 billion tons, and have been rising by about 0.9 billion tons per year for the past decade. Therefore, the.world is on a path to exceed 44 billion tons per year within a decade.3. Over recent decades, the U.S. economy has-emitted a decreasing amount of carbon dioxide per dollar. of gross domestic product. Between 2008 and 2012, there was also a decline in the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted annually from energy use in the United States as a result of a variety of factors, including changes in the economy, the development of new energy production technologies,.
and various government policies.4. Carbon storage in land ecosystems, especially forests, has. offset around 17% of annual U.S-..fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases over the past several decades, but this carbon "sink" may not be sustainable.
- 5. Both voluntary activities and a variety of policies and measures that lower emissions are currently in place at federal, state, and local levels in the United States, even though there is no comprehensive national climate legislation.
Over the remainder of this century, aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission:reductions by the United States and by other nations would be needed to reduce global emissions to a:level consistent with the lower scenario (B1)analyzed in this assessment.
Mitigation refers to actions that reduce the human contribu-tion to the planetary greenhouse effect. Mitigation actions include lowering emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon di-oxide and methane, and particles like black carbon (soot) that have a warming effect. Increasing the net uptake of carbon dioxide through land-use change and forestry can make a con-tribution as well. As a whole, human activities result in higher global concentrations of greenhouse gases and to a warming of the planet -and the effect is increased by various self-re-inforcing cycles in the Earth system (such as the way melting sea ice results in more dark ocean water, which absorbs more heat, and leads to more sea ice loss). Also, the absorption of increased carbon dioxide by the oceans is leading to increased ocean acidity with adverse effects on marine ecosystems.
Four mitigation-related topics are assessed in this chapter.First, it presents an overview of greenhouse gas emissions and their climate influence to provide a context for discussion of mitigation efforts. Second, the chapter provides a survey of activities contributing to U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Third, it provides a summary of cur-rent government and voluntary efforts to manage these emis-sions. Finally, there is an assessment of the adequacy of these efforts relative to the magnitude of the climate change threat-and a discussion of preparation for potential future action.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 649 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION While the chapter presents a brief overview of mitigation is-sues, it does not provide a comprehensive discussion of policy options, nor does it attempt to review or analyze the range of technologies available to reduce emissions.
These topics have also been the subject of other assessments, including those by the National Academy of Sciences' and the U.S. Department of Energy.2 Mitigation topics are addressed throughout this report (see Ch. 4: Energy, Key Message 5; Ch.5: Transportation, Key Message 4; Ch. 7: Forests, Key Message 4; Ch. 9: Human Health, Key Message 4; Ch. 10: Energy, Water, and Land, Key Messages 1, 2, 3; Ch. 13: Land Use & Land Cover Change, Key Messages 2, 4; Ch. 15: Biogeochemical Cycles, Key Message 3; Ch. 26: Decision Support, Key Messages 1, 2, 3; Ap-pendix 3: Climate Science Supplemental Message 5; Appendix 4: FAQs N, S, X, Y, Z).Emissions, Concentrations, and Climate Forcing Setting mitigation objectives requires knowledge of the Earth system processes that determine the relationship among emissions, atmospheric concentrations and, ultimately, cli-mate. Human-caused climate change results mainly from the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.3 These gases cause radiative "forcing" -an imbalance of heat trapped by the atmosphere compared to an equilibrium state.Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are the re-sult of the history of emissions and of processes that remove them from the atmosphere; for exam-ple, by "sinks" like growing forests.4 The fraction of emissions that remains in the atmosphere, which is different for each greenhouse gas, also varies over time as a result of Earth system processes.
40 after which it continues to circulate in the land-atmosphere-ocean system until it is finally converted into stable forms in soils, deep ocean sediments, or other geological repositories (Figure 27.1).Of the carbon dioxide emitted from human activities in a year, about half is removed from the atmosphere by natural pro-cesses within a century, but around 20% continues to circu-Human Activities and the Global Carbon, Dioxide Budiget The impact of greenhouse gases depends partly on how long each one persists in the atmosphere.'
Reactive gases like methane and nitrous oxide are destroyed chemically in the atmosphere, so the relationships between emissions and atmospheric concentrations are determined by the rate of those reactions.
The term "lifetime" is often used to de-scribe the speed with which a given gas is removed from the atmosphere.
Methane has a relatively short lifetime (largely removed within a decade or so, depending on conditions), so reductions in emis-sions can lead to a fairly rapid decrease in concen-trations as the gas is oxidized in the atmosphere.
6 Nitrous oxide has a much longer lifetime, taking more than 100 years to be substantially removed.7 Other gases in this category include industrial gases, like those used as solvents and in air conditioning, some of which persist in the atmosphere for hun-dreds or thousands of years.Carbon dioxide (C0 2) does not react chemically with other gases in the atmosphere, so it does not, strictly speaking, have a "lifetime." 8 Instead, the re-lationship between emissions and concentrations from year to year is determined by patterns of re-lease (for example, through burning of fossil fuels)and uptake (for example, by vegetation and by the ocean).' Once C0 2 is emitted from any source, a portion of it is removed from the atmosphere over time by plant growth and absorption by the oceans, U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 35 30 25 20 15 10 15 0-10-15-20 430-35'Year Figure 27.1. Figure shows human-induced changes in the global carbon dioxide budget roughly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Emissions from fossil fuel burning are the dominant cause of the steep rise shown here from 1850 to 2012. (Global Carbon Project 2010, 201210).650 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION late and to affect atmospheric concentrations for thousands of years." Stabilizing or reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, therefore, requires very deep reductions in fu-ture emissions
-ultimately approaching zero -to compensate for past emissions that are still circulating in the Earth system.Avoiding future emissions, or capturing and storing them in stable geological storage, would prevent carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, and would have very long-lasting ef-fects on atmospheric concentrations.
In addition to greenhouse gases, there can be climate effects from fine particles in the atmosphere.
An example is black car-bon (soot), which is released from coal burning, diesel engines, cooking fires, wood stoves, wildfires, and other combustion sources. These particles have a warming influence, especially when they absorb solar energy low in the atmosphere." 2 Other particles, such as those formed from sulfur dioxide released during coal burning, have a cooling effect by reflecting some of the sun's energy back to space or by increasing the bright-ness of clouds (see: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate; Appendix 3: Climate Science Supplement; and Appendix 4: FAQs).The effect of each gas is related to both how long it lasts in the atmosphere (the longer it lasts, the greater its influence) and its potency in trapping heat. The warming influence of differ-ent gases can be compared using "global warming potentials" (GWP), which combine these two effects, usually added up over a 100-year time period. Global warming potentials are referenced to carbon dioxide -which is defined as having a GWP of 1.0 -and the combined effect of multiple gases is de-noted in carbon dioxide equivalents, or C02-e.The relationship between emissions and concentrations of gases can be modeled using Earth System Models.4 Such mod-els apply our understanding of biogeochemical processes that remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere to predict their future concentrations.
These models show that stabilizing CO 2 emissions would not stabilize its atmospheric concentrations but instead result in a concentration that would increase at a relatively steady rate. Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 would require reducing emissions far below present-day levels. Concentration and emissions scenarios, such as the recently developed Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and scenarios developed earlier by the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), are used in Earth System Models to study potential future climates.
The RCPs span a range of atmospheric targets for use by climate modelers,", 4 as do the SRES cases. These global analyses form a framework within which the climate contribution of U.S. mitigation efforts can be assessed.
In this report, special attention is given to the SRES A2 scenario (similar to RCP 8.5), which assumes continued in-creases in emissions, and the SRES B1 scenario (close to RCP 4.5), which assumes a substantial reduction of emissions (Ch.2: Our Changing Climate; Appendix 5: Scenarios and Models).r'"- E ,GNERN I r Geoengineering has been proposed as a third option for addressing climate change in addition to,or alongside, mitigation and adaptation.
Geoengineering refers to intentional modifications of the Earth system as a means to ad-dress climate change. Three types of activities have been proposed:
- 1) carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which boosts C02 removal from the atmosphere by various means,. such as fertilizing ocean processes and promoting land-use practices that help take up carbon, 2) solar radiation management (SRM), which reflects a small percentage of sunlight back into space to offset warming from greenhouse gases,'5 and.3) direct capture and storage of C0 2 from the atmosphere.'16 Current research suggests that SRM or CDR could diminish the impacts of climate change. However, once under-: taken, sudden cessation of SRM would exacerbate the climate effects on. human populations and ecosystems, and some CDR might interfere with oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem processes..'
7 S.RM undertaken by itself. would not slow increases in atmospheric C02 concentrations, and would therefore also fail to address ocean acidification.
Furthermore, existing international institutions are not adequate to manage such global interventions.
The risks as-sociated with such purposeful perturbations to the Earth system are thus poorly understood, suggesting the need for caution and comprehensive research, including consideration of the implicit moral hazards.'8 I Section 1: U.S. Emissions and Land-Use Change Industrial, Commercial, and Household Emissions U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, not accounting for uptake by land use and agriculture (see Figure 27.3), rose to as high as 7,260 million tons C02-e in 2007, and then fell by about 9%between 2008 and 2012.19 Several factors contributed to the decline, including the reduction in energy use in response to the 2008-2010 recession, the displacement of coal in electric generation by lower-priced natural gas, and the effect of fed-eral and state energy and environmental policies.2 0 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 651 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION Carbon dioxide made up 84% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. Forty-one percent of these emissions were attribut-able to liquid fuels (petroleum), followed closely by solid fuels (principally coal in electric generation), and to a lesser extent by natural gas.2 0 The two dominant production sectors respon-sible for these emissions are electric power generation (coal and gas) and transportation (petroleum).
Flaring and cement manufacture together account for less than 1% of the total. If emissions from electric generation are allocated to their vari-ous end-uses, transportation is the largest CO 2 source, contrib-uting a bit over one-third of the total, followed by industry at slightly over a quarter, and residential use and the commercial sector at around one-fifth each.A useful picture of historical patterns of carbon dioxide emis-sions can be constructed by decomposing the cumulative change in emissions from a base year into the contributions of five driving forces: 1) decline in the CO 2 content of energy use, as with a shift from coal to natural gas in electric generation, 2)reduction in energy intensity
-the energy needed to produce each unit of gross domestic product (GDP) -which results from substitution responses to energy prices, changes in the com-Drivers of U.S. Fossil Emissions WOO --Co.In~onft-Per Capft Inome-Sum of Fackor position of the capital stock, and both autonomous and price-induced technological change, 3) changes in the structure of the economy, such as a decline in energy-intensive industries and an increase in services that use less energy, 4) growth in per capita GDP, and 5) rising population.
Over the period 1963-2008, annual U.S. carbon dioxide emis-sions slightly more than doubled, because growth in emissions potential attributable to increases in population and GDP per person outweighed reductions contributed by lowered energy and carbon intensity and changes in economic structure (Fig-ure 27.2). Each series in the figure illustrates the quantity of cumulative emissions since 1963 that would have been gener-ated by the effect of the associated driver. By 2008, fossil fuel burning had increased CO 2 emissions by 2.7 billion tons over 1963 levels. However, by itself the observed decline in energy would have reduced emissions by 1.8 billion tons, while the observed increase in per capita GDP would have increased emissions by more than 5 billion tons.After decades of increases, CO 2 emissions from energy use (which account for 97% of total U.S. emissions) declined by around 9% between 2008 and 2012, largely due to a shift from coal to less C02-intensive natural gas for electricity production.
1 9 Trends in driving forces shown in Figure 27.2 are expected to continue in the future, though their relative contributions are subject to significant uncer-tainty. The reference case projection by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows their net effect being a slower rate of CO 2 emissions growth than in the past, with roughly constant energy sector emissions to 2040.22 It must be recognized, however, that emissions from energy use rise and fall from year to year, as the aforementioned driving forces vary.The primary non-C02 gas emissions in 2011 were meth-ane (9% of total C02-e emissions), nitrous oxide (5%), and a set of industrial gases (2%). U.S. emissions of each of these gases have been roughly constant over the past half-dozen years.2 2 Emissions of methane and nitrous ox-ide have been roughly constant over the past couple of decades, but there has been an increase in the industrial gases as some are substituted for ozone-destroying sub-stances controlled by the Montreal Protocol.2 3 Yet another warming influence on the climate system e is black carbon (soot), which consists of fine particles e that result mainly from incomplete combustion of fossil e fuels and biomass. Long a public health concern, black lY carbon particles absorb solar radiation during their short Y'e life in the atmosphere (days to weeks). When deposited ie: on snow and ice, these particles darken the surface and e d reduce the reflection of incoming solar radiation back to a space. These particles also influence cloud formation in ways yet poorly quantified.
2 4 120001-I000~1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 198I 1993 1996 2003 2008 Year Figure 27.2. This graph depicts the changes in carbon dioxid (C0 2) emissions over time as a function of five driving forces: 1) th amount of C02 produced per unit of energy (C02 intensity);
- 2) th amount of energy used per unit of gross domestic product (enerc intensity);
- 3) structural changes in e economy 4)per capita incom4 and 5) population.
Although C02 intensity and especially ener intensity have decreased significantly and the structure of th U.S. economy has changed, total C2O emissions have continue to rise as a result of the growth in both population and per capil income. (Baldwin and Sue Wing, 20132).U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 652 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION The main stocks of carbon in its various biological forms (plants and trees, dead wood, litter, soil, and harvested products)are estimated periodically and their rate of change, or flux, is calculated as the average annual difference between two time peri-ods. Estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes for U.S. lands are based on land invento-ries augmented with data from ecosystem studies and production reports.2-'2 6 U.S. lands were estimated to be a net sink of between approximately 640 and 1,074 million tons C02-e in the late 2000s.2 6 7 Estimates vary depending on choice of datasets, models, and methodologies (see Ch. 15: Biogeochemical Cycles, "Estimat-ing the U.S. Carbon Sink," for more discus-sion). This net land sink effect is the result of sources (from crop production, livestock production, and grasslands) and sinks (in forests, urban trees, and wetlands).
Sourc-Land Use, Forestry, and Agriculture Sources and Sinks in U.S. Agriculture and Forests 400 2O0 0 S0' -200 2 400 A-800-1000 ,Lvestock Crops Grassland Forests Urban Trees Wetlands Figure 27.3 Graph shows annual average greenhouse gas emissions from land use including livestock and crop production, but doesnot include fossil fuels used in agricultural production.
Forests are a significant-%ink" that absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
All values shown are for 2008, except wetlands, which'are shown for 2003. (Pacala et al. 2007277 USDA es of carbon have been relatively stable over the last two de-cades, but sinks have been more variable.
Long-term trends suggest significant emissions from forest clearing in the early 1900s followed by a sustained period of net uptake from for-est regrowth over the last 70 years.2 8 The amount of carbon taken up by U.S. land sinks is dominated by forests, which have annually absorbed 7% to 24% (with a best estimate of about 16%) of fossil fuel C02 emissions in the U.S. over the past two decades.2 0 The persistence of the land sink depends on the relative ef-fects of several interacting factors: recovery from historical land-use change, atmospheric CO 2 and nitrogen deposition, natural disturbances, and the effects of climate variability and change -particularly drought, wildfires, and changes in the length of the growing season. Deforestation continues to cause an annual loss of 877,000 acres (137,000 square miles)of forested land, offset by a larger area gain of new forest of Section 2: Activities Early and large reductions in global emissions would be nec-essary to achieve the lower emissions scenarios (such as the lower 81 scenario; see Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate) analyzed in this assessment.
The principal types of national actions that could effect such changes include putting a price on emissions, setting regulations and standards for activities that cause emissions, changing subsidy programs, and direct federal ex-penditures.
Market-based approaches include cap and trade programs that establish markets for trading emissions permits, analogous to the Clean Air Act provisions for sulfur dioxide re-ductions.
None of these price-based measures has been imple-mented at the national level in the United States, though cap about 1.71 million acres (268,000 square miles) annually.2 9 Since most of the new forest is on relatively low-productivity lands of the Intermountain West, and much of the deforesta-tion occurs on high-productivity lands in the East, recent land-use changes have decreased the potential for future carbon storage.3 0 The positive effects of increasing carbon dioxide concentration and nitrogen deposition on carbon storage are not likely to be as large as the negative effects of land-use change and disturbances.
3 1 In some regions, longer growing seasons associated with climate change may increase annual productivity.
3 2 Droughts and other disturbances, such as fire and insect infestations, have already turned some U.S. land re-gions from carbon sinks into carbon sources (see Ch. 13: Land Use & Land Cover Change and Ch. 15: Biogeochemical Cycles).3 The current land sink may not be sustainable for more than a few more decades, 3' though there is a lack of consistency in published results about the relative effects of disturbance and other factors on net land-use emissions.34 Affecting Emissions and trade systems are in place in California and in the North-east's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Moreover, a wide range of governmental actions are underway at federal, state, regional, and city levels using other measures, and voluntary efforts, that can reduce the U.S. contribution to total global emissions.
Many, if not most of these programs are motivated by other policy objectives
-energy, transportation, and air pol-lution -but some are directed specifically at greenhouse gas emissions, including:
- reduction in CO2 emissions from energy end-use and infrastructure through the adoption of energy-efficient U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 653 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION components and systems -including buildings, vehicles, manufacturing processes, appliances, and electric grid systems;* reduction of CO 2 emissions from energy supply through the promotion of renewables (such as wind, solar, and bio-energy), nuclear energy, and coal and natural gas electric generation with carbon cap-ture and storage; and* reduction of emissions of non-C02 greenhouse gases and black carbon; for ex-ample, by lowering meth-ane emissions from energy and waste, transitioning to climate-friendly alterna-tives to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), cutting methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, and improving combustion efficiency and means of particulate capture.Programs underway that reduce carbon dioxide emissions include the promotion of solar, nuclear, and wind power and efficient vehicles Federal Actions The Federal Government has implemented a number of mea-sures.that promote energy efficiency, clean technologies, and alternative fuels.3-A sample of these actions is provided in Table 27.1 and they include greenhouse gas regulations, other rules and regulations with climate co-benefits, various stan-dards and subsidies, research and development, and federal procurement practices.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a 40-year history of regulating the concentration and deposition of criteria pollutants (six common air pollutants that affect hu-man health). A 2012 Supreme Court decision upheld the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases "endanger public health and welfare." 3 6 This ruling added the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to the Agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.Actions taken and proposed under the new authority have fo-cused on road transport and electric power generation.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides most of the funding for a broad range of programs for energy research, U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 654 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION development, and demonstration.
DOE also has the authority to regulate the efficiency of appliances and building codes for manufactured housing. In addition, most of the other federal agencies -including the Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Agriculture
-have programs related to greenhouse gas mitigation.
The Administration's Climate Action Plan 3 7 builds on these ac-tivities with a broad range of mitigation, adaptation, and pre-paredness measures.
The mitigation elements of the plan are in part a response to the commitment made during the 2010 Cancun Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate Change to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Ac-tions proposed in the Plan include: 1) limiting carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants, 2) continuing to increase the stringency of fuel economy standards for auto-mobiles and trucks, 3) continuing to improve energy efficiency in the buildings sector, 4) reducing the emissions of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases through a variety of measures, 5) increasing federal investments in cleaner, more efficient energy sources for both power and transportation, and 6) identifying new ap-proaches to protect and restore our forests and other critical landscapes, in the presence of a changing climate.City, State, and Regional Actions Jurisdiction for greenhouse gases and energy policies is shared between the federal government and the states.' For example, states regulate the distribution of electricity and natural gas to consumers, while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas and electricity.
In addition, many states have adopted climate initiatives as well as energy policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For a survey of many of these state activities, see Table 27.2. Many cities are taking similar actions.The most ambitious state activity is California's Global Warm-ing Solutions Act (AB 32), a law that sets a state goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state program caps emissions and uses a market-based system of trading in emissions credits (cap and trade), as well as a num-ber of regulatory actions. The most well-known, multi-state effort has been the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), formed by ten northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states (though New Jersey exited in 2011). RGGI is a cap and trade system applied to the power sector with revenue from allowance auctions directed to investments in efficiency and renewable energy.Voluntary Actions Corporations, individuals, and non-profit organizations have initiated a host of voluntary actions. The following examples give the flavor of the range of efforts: The Carbon Disclosure Project has the largest global col-lection of self-reported climate change and water-use information.
The system enables companies to measure, disclose, manage, and share climate change and water-use information.
Some 650 U.S. signatories include banks, pension funds, asset managers, insurance companies, and foundations.
- Many local governments are undertaking initiatives to re-duce greenhouse gas emissions within and outside of their organizational boundaries.
3 8 For example, over 1,055 mu-nicipalities from all 50 states have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, 9 and many of these com-munities are actively implementing strategies to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.
- Under the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), 679 institutions have pledged to develop plans to achieve net-neutral climate emissions through a combination of on-campus changes and purchases of emissions reductions elsewhere." Voluntary compliance with efficiency standards devel-oped by industry and professional associations, such as the building codes of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), is widespread.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 655 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION Federal voluntary programs include Energy STAR, a label-ing program that identifies energy efficient products for use in residential homes and commercial buildings and plants, and programs and partnerships devoted to reduc-ing methane emissions from fossil fuel production and landfill sources and high GWP emissions from industrial activities and agricultural conservation programs.Costs of Emissions Reductions The national cost of achieving U.S. emissions reductions over time depends on the level of reduction sought and the par-ticular measures employed.
Studies of price-based policies, such as a cap and trade system, indicate that a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050 could be achieved at a cost of a year or two of projected growth in gross domestic product over the period (for example, Paltsev et al. 2009; EIA 200940). However, because of differences in analysis method, and in assumptions about economic growth and technology change, cost projec-tions vary considerably even for a policy applying price pen-alties.4 1 Comparisons of emissions reduction by prices versus regulations show that a regulatory approach can cost substan-tially more than a price-based policy.4 2 rI-B:ENT FO AI POLTO N HMNHAT I Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can yield co-benefits for objectives apart from climate change, such as energy security, health, ecosystem services,.
and biodiversity.
4 3 ,44 The co-benefits for reductions in air pollution have received particular attention.
Because air pollutants and greenhouse
- gases share common sources, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also reduce air pollutants.
While some greenhouse gas reduction measures might increase other *emissions, broad programs to reduce greenhouse gases across an economy or a sector can reduce air pol-lutants, markedly.'4, 4 5 (Unfortunately for.climate mitigation, cutting sulfur dioxide pollution.
from.coal burning also reduces the cooling influence of reflective particles formed from these emissions in the atmosphere.
4 6) .There is. significant interest in quantifying the air pollution and human health co-benefits of green-house gas mitigation, particularly from the public.health community, 4 4 , 4 7 as the human health ben-efits can be immediate and local, in contrast to the long-term and. widespread effects of climate change.4 8 Many studies have found that monetized health. and pollution control. benefits can be of similar magnitude to. abatement costs (for exam-ple, Nemet et al'. 2010; Burtraw et al. 200348.49).
Methane reductions have also been shown to gen-erate health benefits from reduced ozone.5 0 Similarly, in developing nations, reducing black carbon from household cook stoves substantially reduces air pollution-related illness and death.5 1 Ancillary health benefits in developing countries typically exceed those in developed countries for a variety of reasons..4 8 But only in very few cases are these ancillary benefits considered in analyses of climate mitigation policies.
.I Section 3: Preparation for Potential Future Mitigation Action To meet the emissions reduction in the lower (B1) scenario of a global emissions path consistent with the B1 scenario will used in this assessment (Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate) under require strenuous action by all major emitters.reasonable assumptions about managing costs, annual global CO 2 emissions would need to peak at around 44 billion tons Policies already enacted and other factors lowered U.S. emis-within the next 25 years or so and decline steadily for the rest sions in recent years. The Annual Energy Outlook prepared by of the century. At the current rate of emissions growth, the the EIA, which previously forecasted sustained growth in emis-world is on a path to exceed the 44 billion ton level within a de- sions, projected in 2013 that energy-related U.S. CO 2 emis-cade (see "Emissions Scenarios and RCPs"). Thus achievement sions would remain roughly constant for the next 25 years.2 2 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 656 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION Moreover, through the President's Climate Action Plan, the Administration has committed to additional measures not yet reflected in the EIA's projections, with the goal of reducing emissions about 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Still, addition-al and stronger U.S. action, as well as strong action by other major emitters, will be needed to meet the long-term global emission reductions reflected in the B1 scenario.Achieving the B1 emissions path would require substantial de-carbonization of the global economy by the end of this century, implying a fundamental transformation of the global energy system. Details of the energy mix along the way differ among analyses, but the implied involvement by the U.S. can be seen in studies carried out under the U.S. Climate Change Science Program" 4 and the Energy Modeling Forum." 5 ,'6 In these stud-ies, direct burning of coal without carbon capture is essentially excluded from the power system, and the same holds for natu-ral gas toward the end of the century -to be replaced by some combination of coal or gas with carbon capture and storage, nuclear generation, and renewables.
Biofuels and electricity are projected to substitute for oil in the transport sector. A sub-stantial component of the task is accomplished with demand reduction, through efficiency improvement, conservation, and shifting to an economy less dependent on energy services.The challenge is great enough even starting today, but delay by any of the major emitters makes meeting any such target even more difficult and may rule out some of the more ambitious goals." 4'-' A study of the climate change threat and potential responses by the U.S. National Academies therefore concludes that there is "an urgent need for U.S. action to reduce green-house emissions."" 7 The National Research Council (NRC) goes on to suggest alternative national-level strategies that might be followed, including an economy-wide system of prices on greenhouse gas emissions and a portfolio of possible regula-tory measures and subsidies.
Deciding these matters will be a continuing task, and U.S. Administrations and Congress face a long series of choices about whether to take additional miti-gation actions and how best to do it. Two supporting activi-ties will help guide this process: opening future technological options and development of ever-more-useful assessments of the cost effectiveness and benefits of policy choices.Many technologies are potentially available to accomplish emissions reduction.
They include ways to increase the effi-ciency of fossil energy use and facilitate a shift to low-carbon energy sources, sources of improvement in the cost and per-formance of renewables (for example, wind, solar, and bioen-ergy) and nuclear energy, ways to reduce the cost of carbon capture and storage, means to expand terrestrial sinks through management of forests and soils and increased agricultural productivity,'
and phasing down HFCs. In addition to the re-search and development carried out by private sector firms with their own funds, the Federal Government traditionally supports major programs to advance these technologies.
This support is accomplished in part by credits and deductions in the tax code, and in part by federal expenditure.
For example, the 2012 federal budget devoted approximately
$6 billion to clean energy technologies.
5 8 Success in these ventures, lower-ing the cost of greenhouse gas reduction, can make a crucial contribution to future policy choices.'Because they are in various stages of market maturity, the costs and effectiveness of many of these technologies remain uncertain:
continuing study of their performance is important to understanding their role in future mitigation decisions.
5 9 In addition, evaluation of broad policies and particular mitigation measures requires frameworks that combine information from a range of disciplines.
Study of mitigation in the near future can be done with energy-economic models that do not as-sume large changes in the mix of technologies or changes in the structure of the economy. Analysis over the time spans rel-evant to stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations, how-ever, requires Integrated Assessment Models, which consider all emissions drivers and policy measures that affect them, and that take account of how they are related to the larger economy and features of the climate system.5 4,ss'6 0 This type of analysis is also useful for exploring the relations between mitigation and measures to adapt to a changing climate.Continued development of these analytical capabilities can help support decisions about national mitigation and the U.S.position in international negotiations.
In addition, as shown EmISSIONS SCENARIOS AND RCPs r The .Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)specify alternative limits to human influence, on the Earth's energy balance, stated in wafts per square meter (W/m 2) of the Earth's surface.13' 5 2 The A2 emissions sce-nario implies atmospheric concentrations with.radiative forcing slightly lower than the highest RCP, which is 8.5 W/m 2.The lower limits, at 6.0, 4.5 and 2.6 W/m 2 , imply ever-greater mitigation efforts. The B1 scenario (rapid emissions reduction) is close to the 4.5 W/m2 RCP 5 3 and to a similar case (Level 2) analyzed in a previous federal* study.5 4 Those assessments find that, to limit the eco-nomic costs, annual global C0 2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial sources like cement, manufacture, need to peak by 2035 to 2040 at around 44 billion* tons of C0 2 , and decline thereafter.
The scale of the task can be seen in the fact that these global emissions were already at 34 billion tons C0 2 in 2011, and.over the previous decade they. rose at around 0.92 billion tons of. C0 2 per year.'0 The lowest RCPwould require an even more rapid turnaround and negative net emis-sions- that is, removing more C0 2 from the air than is* emitted globally -in this century.5 2 I U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 657 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION above, mitigation is being undertaken by individuals and firms as well as by city, state, and regional governments.
The capac-ity for mitigation from individual and household behavioral changes, such as increasing energy end-use efficiency with available technology, is known to be large.6 3 Although there is capacity, there is not always broad acceptance of those be-havioral changes, nor is there sufficient understanding of how to design programs to encourage such changes.6 4 Behavioral and institutional research on how such choices are made and the results evaluated would be extremely beneficial.
For many of these efforts, understanding of cost and effectiveness is limited, as is understanding of aspects of public support and institutional performance; so additional support for studies of these activities is needed to ensure that resources are ef-ficiently employed.I.NTERACTIONS BETWEEN ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION II There are various ways in which mitigation efforts and adaptation .measures are interdependent (see Ch. 28: Adapta-tion). For example, the use of plant material asa substitute for petroleum-based transportation fuels or directly as a sub-stitute for burning coal or gas for electricity generation has received substantial attention.
6 1 But land used for mitigation purposes is potentially not available for food production, even as the global demand for agricultural products continues to rise..6 2 Conversely, land required for adaptation strategies, like setting aside wildlife corridors or expanding.
the extent of conservation areas, is potentially not available foe mitigation involving the use of plant material, or active manage-ment practices to enhance carbon storage in vegetation or soils. These possible interactions are poorly understood but potentially important, especially as climate change itself affects vegetation and ecosystem productivity and carbon stor-age. Increasing agricultural productivity to adapt to climate change can also serve to mitigate climate change.I Section 4: Research Needs* Engineering and scientific research is needed on the de-velopment of cost-effective energy use technologies (de-vices, systems, and control strategies) and energy supply technologies that produce little or no C0 2 or other green-house gases." Better understanding of the relationship between emis-sions and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is needed to more accurately predict how the atmosphere and climate system -will respond to mitigation measures." The processes controlling the land sink of carbon in the U.S. require additional research, including better monitor-ing and analysis of economic decision-making about the fate of land and how it is managed, as well as the inherent ecological processes and how they respond to the climate system." Uncertainties in model-based projections of greenhouse gas emissions and of the effectiveness and costs of policy measures need to be better quantified.
Exploration is needed of the effects of different model structures, as-sumptions about model parameter values, and uncertain-ties in input data.* Social and behavioral science research is needed to inform the design of mitigation measures for maximum participa-tion and to prepare a consistent framework for assessing cost effectiveness and benefits of both voluntary mitiga-tion efforts and regulatory and subsidy programs.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 658 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION Table 27.1. A number of existing federal laws and regulations target ways to reduce future climate change by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions emitted by human activities.
Saml Feea Miiato Measures Emissions Standards for Vehicles and Engines'.-- For/ight-duty vehicles, rules establishing standards .for 2012-2016 model years and 2017-2025 model years.-Fodr heavy- and medium-duty trucks, a. rule establishing standards for 2014-2018 model yearis.Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants...--A proposed rdle ,etting limitson b02!em~ipsio.ns.fr~imfutdre p6wer plants.'.-,:'
..... .. :,- --*----Stationary Source Permitting
--A rule setting greenhouse gas. emissions thresholds to define When permits under the New Source Review Prevention of" 'Significant.
Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs .are required, fornew and modified industrial facilities..
..Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program--A program requiring annual reporting of greenhouse gas data from large emission sources and suppliers of products that emit greenhouse gases when. released or com~busted.
.. ...... -----Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards A rule revising New Source Performance Standards and National Emission' Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for certain components of the oil and natural gas industry.Mobile Source 'Conirol Pro..grams
-- Particle control regulations affecting mobile sources (especially.
diesel engines) that reduce black carbon by controlling direct particle emissions.
-7Therequirement to blendincreasing:
olumes of renewable fuels.,' ' ' " -: ::~~~~~r~
e ........ -to.. b- -1... n ....... ..........: .........Nationa Forest Planning-- Identific.tion and evaluation of information relevant to a baseline assessment of carbon stocks.Reporting of net carbon-stock changes on forestland.
Applianceand Building Efficiency.
Standards
..-- Energy efficiency standards and test procedures for residential, commercial, industrial, lighting, and plumbing products.,-- Model residential.
and commercial building energy codes, and technical assistance to state and local governments, and non-governmenital 6rganizations.
Financial Incentives for Efficiency and Alternative Fuels and Technology Weatherization assistance for low-income households, tax incentives for commercial and residential buildings.
and efficient appliances, and suppoit for state and local efficiency programs.
". -.. ' .Tax credits for biodiesel and advanced.
biofuel'praduction, alternative fuel infraistructure, and purchase of electric vehicles.-- Loan guarantees for innovative energy or advanced technology vehicle production and manufacturing; investment and production tax credits for renewable energy.--.Programs' on clean fuels, energy end-use and infrastructure, C02 capture and storage, and agricultural practices.
-f.... .. ... ... ..... ....... ............ .. ........... ........, ... ... .... ...-- Executive orders and federal statutes requiring federal agencies to reduce building energy and resource consumption intensity and to procure alternative fuel vehicles.
.--Agency-initiated Programs in most departments_
orented tolowering energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 659 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION Table 27.2. Most states and Native communities haveimplemented programs to reduce greenhouse gases or adopt increased" energy efficiency goals.Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Registries http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regionslpolicy-maps/ghg-reporting 6 5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets http://Www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-map.s/femissions-tbargetS 6 6 C.02 Controls on Electric Power plants.http:/lwww.edf.org/sites/defaiultlfiles/state-ghg-standards-03132012.pdf6 7 Low-Carbon Fuel Standards htt-p:/Iwww.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/low-carbon-fuel-standard6
- Climate Action Plans.htip://www.c2es6org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/action-planc 9 Cap and Trade Programs http://arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htM7 7 0 Regional Agreements http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regionslregional-climate-initiatives#WC7.
1 Tribal Communities http:llww.wepa.gov/statelocalclimate/tribal 7 2::States have also taken a number of energy measures, motivated in part by greenhiouse gas con6erns.
For example: Renewable Portfolio Standards htto:/wwwwdsireusa.org/doduments/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf 7_Energy Efficiency Resource Standards http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/EERSrmap~pdf4 Property Tax Incentives for Renewables , httpýllwww.dsireusa.org/docU*mertsi/summarymapsi 7'U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 660 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION REFERENCES NRC, 2010: Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change.America's Climate Choices. Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change. National Research Council, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division of Earth and Life Studies. The National Academies Press, 276 pp. [Available online at htt p://wvww.nap.cdu/catalog.fphp?recordid=
12785]2. DOE, 2011: Report of the First Quadrennial Technology Review, 168 pp., U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://cncrgy.gov,/sites/prod/files/QlT-rcport.pdq
- 3. I PCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007.- The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Wlorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Pane/on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 996 pp. [Available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications and _ data/publication s-ipccfourth
__assessment_
report.-wgl
_report.-tthephysical-science basis.htm]
- 4. Plattner, G. K., R. Knutti, F. Joos, T. F. Stocker, W. von Bloh, V.Brovkin, D. Cameron, E. Driesschaert, S. Dutkiewicz, M. Eby, N.R. Edwards, T. Fichefet, J. C. Hargreaves, C. D. Jones, M. F. Loutre, H. D. Matthews, A. Mouchet, S. A. Miller, S. Nawrath, A. Price, A.Sokolov, K. M. Strassmann, and A. J. Weaver, 2008: Long-term climate commitments projected with climate-carbon cycle models. Journal of Climate, 21, 2721-2751, doi:l0.1175/2007jcli1905.1.
[Available online at http://journals.arietsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JC111905.1]
- 5. Denman, K. L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P. M. Cox, R. E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S. Ramachandran, P. L. da Silva Dias, S. C. Wofsy, and X. Zhang, 2007: Ch. 7: Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Wlbrking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L.Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 499-587. [Available online at http:/iwww.ipcc.ch/pdf/asscssmenr-report/ai4/wgl/ar4-wgl-chapter7.pdf]
- 6. Cicerone, R. J., and R. S. Oremland, 1988: Biogeochemical aspects of atmospheric methane. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2, 299-327, doi:10.1029/GB002i004p00299.
- 7. IPCC, 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summao, for Policymakers and Technical Summar. Cambridge University Press.8. Moore, B., 111, and B. H. Braswell, 1994: The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 8, 23-38, doi:10.1029/93GB03392.
- 9. Schimel, D. S., 1995: Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle.Global Change Biology, 1, 77-91, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tbO0008.x.
- 10. GCP, 2010: Ten Years of Advancing Knowledge on the Global Carbon Cycle and its Management.
L. Poruschi, S. Dhakal, and J. Canadel, Eds., Global Carbon Project, Tsukuba, Japan. [Available online at h ttp:/'/www.globalcarbonprojcct.org/global/pdf/!G CP_10yca rs_med_res.pdt]
--: Carbon Budget 2012: An Annual Update of the Global Carbon Budget and Trends. Global Carbon Project. [Available online at http://www.globalcarbonproject.-rg/carbonbudget/`]
- 11. Archer, D., 2010: The Global Carbon Cycle. Princeton University Press, 205 pp.12. Grieshop, A. P., C. C. 0. Reynolds, M. Kandlikar, and H. Dowlatabadi, 2009: A black-carbon mitigation wedge. Nature Geoscience, 2, 533-534, doi:10.1038/ngeo595.
- 13. Moss, R. H.,J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard, M. R. Manning, S. K.Rose, D. P. van Vuuren, T. R. Carter, S. Emoei, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, S.J. Smith, R.J. Stouffer, A. M. Thomson,J.
P. Weyant, and T.J. Willbanks, 2010: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment.
Nature, 463, 747-756, doi:10.1038/nature08823.
- 14. van Vuuren, D. P., J. Cofala, H. E. Eerens, R. Oostenrijk, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, M. G. J. Den Elzen, and M. Amann, 2006: Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe.Energy Polio,, 34, 444-460, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.
2004.06.012.
- 15. Shepherd, J. G., 2009: Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty.
Royal Society, 82 pp. [Available online at http://eprtins.
soton .ac.uk/t 56647/1 /Geoengineering-th c-climate.pdt]
- 16. American Physical Society, 2011: Direct Air Capture of CO 2 with Chemicals:
A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs, 100 pp., American Physical Society. [Available online at http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/asscssmncts/upload/dac20l1.
pdf]U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 661 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: M1ITIG.ATION REFERE, CE, 17. Russell, L. M., P. J. Rasch, G. M. Mace, R. B. Jackson, J. Shepherd, P. Liss, M. Leinen, D. Schimel, N. E. Vaughan, A. C. Janetos, P. W.Boyd, R. J. Norby, K. Caldeira, J. Merikanto, P. Artaxo, J. Melillo, and M. G. Morgan, 2012: Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering:
A review for developing a science plan. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 41, 350-369, doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0258-5.
[Available online at http://www.bz.dulkc.cdu/jackson/atibio2012.pd F]18. Parson, E. A., and D. W. Keith, 2013: End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research.
Science, 339, 1278-1279, doi:10.1126/
science.1232527.
- 19. EIA, 2013: June 2013 Monthly Energy Review. DOE/EIA-0035(2013/06), 201 pp., U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Available online at t ttp:/ww '/w.eCia.goV/totalcficrgy/data/iMonthly,/arcliivc/00351 306.pdf]20. EPA, 2013: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.[Available online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/
ghgemissions/US-G FHG-Invcntory-2013-Main-Text.pdf]
- 21. Baldwin, J. G., and I. Sue Wing, 2013: The spatiotemporal evolution of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions:
Stylized facts and implications for climate policy. Journal of Regional Science, in press, doi:10.1111/
jors.12028.
- 22. EIA, 2013: Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2013), 244 pp., U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.
eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pd f/0383(2013).pdf]
- 23. UNEP, 2009: The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Oz-one Layer. United Nations Environment Programme Ozone Secretariat, 572 pp. [Available online at http://ozone.inep.org/Publications/
NMll -landbook/M/i'--Handbook-2009.pdf]
- 24. EPA, 2012: Report to Congress on Black Carbon. EPA-450/R-1 2-001, 388 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.[Available online at http:i//www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/2012rcporti fullreport.pdt]
- 25. --, 2010: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008, 407 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.cpa.
gov/climatecha nge/ Down loads/ghgemissions/508 Complete GHG_1990_2008.pdf]
- 26. USDA, 2011: U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory:
1990-2008.
Technical Bulletin No. 1930., 159 pp., U.S.Department of Agriculture, Climate Change Program Office, Office of the Chief Economist, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://ww\w.usda.gov/oc-l/climate-change/AFG_((I.nvcntor/i USDA GIIG Inv..1990-2008-June2011.pdf]
- 27. Pacala, S., R. A. Birdsey, S. D. Bridgham, R. T. Conant, K. Davis, B.Hales, R. A. Houghton, J. C. Jenkins, M. Johnston, G. Marland, and K. Paustian, 2007: Ch. 3: The North American carbon budget past and present. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle, A. W. King, L. Dillling, G. P. Zimmerman, D. M. Fairman, R. A.Houghton, G. Marland, A. Z. Rose, and T. J. Wilbanks, Eds.,29-170.[Available online at http://nrs.f.f.fed.us/pubs/irnl/2007/nrs_2007_
pacala_00l.pdf]
- 28. Birdsey, R., K. Pregitzer, and A. Lucier, 2006: Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-2100.
Journal of Environmental ,Quality, 35, 1461-1469, doi:10.2134/jeq2005.01 6 2.29. Masek, J. G., W. B. Cohen, D. Leckie, M. A. Wulder, R. Vargas, B. de Jong, S. Healey, B. Law, R. Birdsey, R. A. Houghton, D. Mildrexler, S. Goward, and W. B. Smit, 2011: Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, GOOK03, doi:10.1029/2010JG001471.
[Available online at http://on linelibrary.wiley.crn/
doi/ 0.1029/201 0.C 001471/pdf]
- 30. Zheng, D., L. S. Heath, M. J. Ducey, and J. E. Smith, 2011: Carbon changes in conterminous US forests associated with growth and major disturbances:
1992-2001.
Environmental Research Letters, 6, 014012, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014012.
- 31. Zhang, F., J. M. Chen, Y. Pan, R. A. Birdsey, S. Shen, W. Ju, and L.He, 2012: Attributing carbon changes in conterminous US forests to disturbance and non-disturbance factors from 1901 to 2010.Journalof Geophysical Research, 117, doi:10.1029/2011JG001930.
- 32. Richardson, A. D., T. Andy Black, P. Ciais, N. Delbart, M. A. Friedl, N. Gobron, D. Y. Hollinger, W. L. Kutsch, B. Longdoz, S. Luyssaert, M. Migliavacca, L. Montagnani, J. William Munger, E. Moors, S.Piao, C. Rebmann, M. Reichstein, N. Saigusa, E. Tomelleri, R. Vargas, and A. Varlagin, 2010: Influence of spring and autumn phenological transitions on forest ecosystem productivity.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 3227-3246, doi:10.1098/
rstb. 2010.0102.
[Available online at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.
org/content/365/1555/3227.
fulI.pdf+html]
- 33. Pan, Y., J. M. Chen, R. Birdsey, K. McCullough, L. He, and F. Deng, 2011: Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests.Biogeosciences, 8, 715-732, doi:10.5194/bg-8-715-2011.
[Available online at htrtlp://www.Miogcoscicnces.ncti8!/715/20/11/g-8-715-2011.pd f]U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 662 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITKATIC/VrlJ Williams, C. A., G. J. Collatz, J. Masek, and S. N. Goward, 2012: Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 26, GB1 005, doi:10.1029/2010gb003947.
- 34. Caspersen, J. P., S. W. Pacala, J. C. Jenkins, G. C. Hurtt, P. R.Moorcroft, and R. A. Birdsey, 2000: Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in U.S. forests. Science, 290,1148-1151, doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1148.
Pan, Y., R. Birdsey, J. Hom, and K. McCullough, 2009: Separating effects of changes in atmospheric composition, climate and land-use on carbon sequestration of US Mid-Atlantic temperate forests. Forest Ecology andManagement, 259, 151-164, doi:10.1016/i.foreco.2009.09.049.
[Available online at htt)://treesearch.fs.fcd.us/lubs/34188]
- 35. The White House, 2010: Economic Report of the President, Council of Economic Advisors, 462 pp., The White House, Washington, D.C.[Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/economic-report-president.pd f], 2010: Federal Climate Change Expenditures:
Report to Congress.
Office of Management and Budget, 34 pp., 2012: A Secure Energy Future: Progress Report. The White House. [Available online at http://www.whitchouse.gov/sitcs/(l efault/files/email-files/t heblueprintfor-a secureenergy_
futureoneyear..progress-repott.pdf CCCSTI, 2009: Strategies of the Commercialization and Deployment of Greenhouse Gas Intensity-Reducing Technologies and Practices.
DOE/PI-000, 190 pp., The Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration
[Available online at http://wvw.
clim atetech nol(ogy.gov/Straregy-hlten sity-Reducing-Tcchnologies.
p-df]GAO, 2011: Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions.
GAO-11-317, 95 pp., U.S. Government Accountability Office. [Available online at http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.
pdf]36. Massachusetts
- v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007: 549 U.S. 497. [Available online at http://www.supremecourt.gov/
opinions/06pdf/05f-120.pdf]37. The White House, cited 2013: The President's Climate Action Plan.The White House. [Available online at Ihttp://www.whitehousc.gov/
share/clinmate-acti'n -plan]38. Krause, R. M., 2011: Symbolic or substantive policy? Measuring the extent of local commitment to climate protection.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Poliy, 29, 46-62, doi:10.1068/c09185.
Pitt, D. R., 2010: Harnessing community energy: The keys to climate mitigation policy adoption in US municipalities.
LocalEnvironment, 15, 717-729, doi:10.1080/13549839.2010.509388.
- 39. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, cited 2012: List of Participating Mayors. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Center, The U.S. Conference of Mayors. [Available online at http://www.
usmayors.org/clima teprotection/list.ast)j
- 40. Paltsev, S.,J. M. Reilly, H. D.Jacoby, and J. F. Morris, 2009: The cost of climate policy in the United States. Energy Economics, 31, S235-S243, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.
2009.06.005.
EIA, 2009: Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 82 pp., U.S.Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.cia.gov/oiafi/serNricerpt/hr2454/pdf/
sroiaf%282009%2905.pdf]
- 41. CBO, 2009: The Costs of Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions, 12 pp., Congressional Budget Office, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.cho.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/'l04xx/
doc 0458/11-23-green housega sumissions lbricf.pd f]42. Fischer, C., and R. G. Newell, 2008: Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 142-162, doi:10.1016/i.jeem.2007.11.001.
Karplus, V. J., S. Paltsev, M. Babiker, and J. M. Reilly, 2013: Should a vehicle fuel economy standard be combined with an economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions constraint?
Implications for energy and climate policy in the United States. Energy Economics, 36, 322-333, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.09.001.
- 43. Janetos, A., and A. Wagener, 2002: Understanding the Ancillary Effects of Climate Change Policies:
A Research Agenda. World Resources Institute Policy Brief, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://pdf.wri.otg/climate.janetos-..ancillary.pdf]
- 44. Haines, A., K. R. Smith, D. Anderson, P. R. Epstein, A.J. McMichael, I. Roberts, P. Wilkinson, J. Woodcock, and J. Woods, 2007: Policies for accelerating access to clean energy, improving health, advancing development, and mitigating climate change. The Lancet, 370, 1264-1281, doi:10.1016/$0140-6736(07)61257-4.
- 45. Bell, M., D. Davis, L. Cifuentes, A. Krupnick, R. Morgenstern, and G. Thurston, 2008: Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation.
Environmental Health, 7, 1-18, doi:10.1186/1476-069x-7-41.
- 46. Charlson, R.J., and T. M. L. Wigley, 1994: Sulfate aerosol and climatic change. ScientificAmerican, 270, 48-57.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 663 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: M7TIGATION
- 47. Davis, D. L., 1997: Short-term improvements in public health from global-climate policies on fossil-fuel combustion:
An interim report.The Lancet, 350, 1341-1349, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10209-4.
- 48. Nemet, G. F., T. Holloway, and P. Meier, 2010: Implications of incorporatingaic-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking.
Environmental Research Letters, 5, 014007, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007.
[Available online at http://iopscicncc.iop.orgi1748-9326/5/Il/014007!/pf/1748-9326-5 1 014007.pdf]
- 49. Burtraw, D., A. Krupnick, K. Palmer, A. Paul, M. Toman, and C.Bloyd, 2003: Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. Journal of Environmental Economics and AManagement, 45, 650-673, doi:l 0.1016/S0095-0696(02)00022-0.
- 50. West, J. J., A. M. Fiore, L. W. Horowitz, and D. L. Mauzerall, 2006: Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 3998-3993, doi:10.1073/pnas.0600201103.
[Available online at http://www.pn as.org/content/1 03/11/3988.full.pdf+htnml]
- 51. Shindell, D., J. C. I. Kuylenstierna, E. Vignati, R. van Dingenen, M. Amann, Z. Klimont, S. C. Anenberg, N. Muller, G. Janssens-Maenhout, F. Raes,J. Schwartz, G. Faluvegi, L. Pozzoli, K. Kupiainen, L. Hoglund-lsaksson, L. Emberson, D. Streets, V. Ramanathan, K.Hicks, N. T. K. Oanh, G. Milly, M. Williams, V. Demkine, and D.Fowler, 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security.
Science, 335, 183-189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026.
Wang, X., and K. R. Smith, 1999: Secondary benefits of greenhouse gas control: Health impacts in China. Environmental Science &" Technology, 33, 3056-3061, doi:10.1021/es981360d.
[Available online at http:,//pubs.acs..rg/doi/abs/ls/10.1021/es981360d]
Ramanathan, V., H. Rodhe, M. Agrawal, H. Akimoto, M. Auffhammer, U. K. Chopra, L. Emberson, S. I. Hasnain, M. lyngararasan, A.Jayaraman, M. Lawrence, T. Nakajima, M. Ruchirawat, A. K. Singh, J. R. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, 2008: Atmospheric Brown Clouds: Regional Assessment Report with Focus on Asia, 367 pp., United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.52. van Vuuren, D. P., S. Deetman, M. G. J. den Elzen, A. Hof, M. Isaac, K. Klein Goldewijk, T. Kram, A. Mendoza Beltran, E. Stehfest, and J. van Vliet, 2011: RCP2.6: Exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2' C. Cl'matic Change, 109,95-116, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3.
[Available online at http://Iink.
springcr.com/contcnt/pd f/1 0.10077%2Fs1O584-011-015 2-3.pdf]53. Thomson, A. M., K. V. Calvin, S. J. Smith, G. P. Kyle, A. Volke, P.Patel, S. Delgado-Arias, B. Bond-Lamberty, M. A. Wise, and L. E.Clarke, 2011: RCP4.5: A pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Climatic Change, 109, 77-94, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4.
- 54. Clarke, L.,J. Edmonds, H.Jacoby, H. PitcherJ.
Reilly, and R. Richels, 2007: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations-US Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1a. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1, 154 pp., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Biological
& Environmental Research, Washington, D.C.[Available online at http://downloads.globalchanige.gov/sapisap2-1a/
sap2-1a-final-all.pdl]
- 55. Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, V. Krey, R. Richels, S. Rose, and M. Tavoni, 2009: International climate policy architectures:
Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios.
Energy Economics, 31, S64-S81, doi:1 0.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.013.
- 56. Clarke, L., A. Fawcett, J. McFarland, J. Weyant, Y. Zhou, and V.Chaturvedi, 2013: Technology and US emissions reductions goals: Results of the EMF 24 modeling exercise.
The EnergyJournal, In press.Fawcett, A., L. Clarke, S. Rausch, and J. Weyant, 2013: Overview of EMF 24 policy scenarios.
The Energy Journal, In press.Fawcett, A. A., K. V. Calvin, F. C. de la Chesnaye, J. M. Reilly, and J. P. Weyant, 2009: Overview of EMF 22 U.S. transition scenarios.
Energy Economics, 31, Supplement 2, S198-S211, doi:10.1016/j.
eneco.2009.10.015.
- 57. NRC, 2010: Adapting to Impacts of Climate Change. Americas Climate Choices: Report of the Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.National Research Council. The National Academies Press, 292 pp. [Available online at http://wwwx.nap.edu/catalog.php?rccord-id= 12783]58. OMB, 2012: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government, 256 pp., Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.whitehousc.go(/oites/dcfahlt/files/omb/
budget/fy2013/assets/budgcr.pdq
- 59. Edmonds, J. A., T. Wilson, R. Rosenzweig, R. Benedick, E. L.Malone, J. F. ClarkeJ. J. Dooley, and S. H. Kim, 2000: Global Energy Technology Strategy:
Addressing Climate Change. Initial Findings from an International Public-Private Collaboration.
The Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, Washington, D.C. [Available online at littp://www.globalchangc.umd.cdu'/data/gtsp/docs/(.;TSI-indfind.pdt]
Edmonds, J. A., M. A. Wise, J. J. Dooley, S. H. Kim, S. J. Smith, P.J. Runci, L. E. Clarke, E. L. Malone, and G. M. Stokes, 2007: Global Energy Technology Strategy:
Addressing Climate Change. Phase 2 Findings from an International Public-Private Sponsored Research Program. The Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://wxvw.globalchange.
umd.cdu/cdata/gtsp/docs/gtsp_-20(17?final.pd]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 664 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION R E F r-NE -, _7 EN 60. DOE, 2009: The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009, 83 pp., Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.cia.dce.gov/oiaf/aco/ovcrview/]
Janetos, A. C., L. Clarke, B. Collins, K. Ebi, J. Edmonds, I. Foster, J.Jacoby, K. Judd, R. Leung, and R. Newell, 2009: Science Challenges and Future Directions:
Climate Change Integrated Assessment Research.
Report PNNL-18417, 80 pp., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. [Available online at http://scicnce.cnergy.gov/-/
mcdia/bcr/pdf/ia'worlkshopt.low-res...06-25-09.pdf]
Prinn, R. G., 2013: Development and application of earth system models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 3673-3680, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107470109.
[Available online at http://www.pnas.
org/content!/110/supp1.1/3673, fu 1.pd f+html]61, EIA, 2012: Annual Energy Outlook 2012 with Projections to 2035. DOE/EIA-0383(2012), 239 pp., U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.
cia.gov/forccastsiaeo/pd f/0383(2012).pdf]
- 62. DeFries, R., and C. Rosenzweig, 2010: Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 107, 19627-19632, doi:10.1073/pnas.1011163107.
[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/contcnt/107/46/19627.
full.pdf+html]Melillo, J. M., J. M. Reilly, D. W. Kicklighter, A. C. Gurgel, T. W.Cronin, S. Paltsev, B. S. Felzer, X. Wang, A. P. Sokolov, and C. A.Schlosser, 2009: Indirect emissions from biofuels:
How important?
Science, 326, 1397-1399, doi:10.1126/science.1180251.
[Available online at hrtp://globalchange.niit.edu/hold
/resrricted/M ll'] PSPG( _Reprint09-20.d P 1 n Thomson, A. M., K. V. Calvin, L. P. Chini, G. Hurtt,J. A. Edmonds, B. Bond-Lamberty, S. Frolking, M. A. Wise, and A. C. Janetos, 2010: Climate mitigation and the future of tropical landscapes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 19633-19638, doi:10.1073/
pnas.0910467107.
[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/
c()ntent/107/'46/19633.shocr]
- 63. Dietz, T., G. T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P. C. Stern, and M. P.Vandenbergh, 2009: Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 18452-18456, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908738106.
[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/44/18452.
full.pdf+htnfl]
- 64. Vandenbergh, M. P., P. C. Stern, G. T. Gardner, T. Dietz, and J. M.Gilligan, 2010: Implementing the behavioral wedge: Designing and adopting effective carbon emissions reduction programs.
Vanderbilt public law research paper no. 10-26. Environmental Law Reporter, 40, 10547.65. C2ES, cited 2013: Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Registries.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
[Available online at http://www.
c2es.org/us-states-regionis/policy-maps/ghg-reporting]
- 66. --, cited 2013: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
[Available online at http://www.c2es.
org/us-statcs-rcgions/policy-m aps/cmissions-targets]
- 67. EDF, 2012: States Have Led the Way in Curbing Carbon Pollution from New Power Plants, 1 pp., Environmental Defense Fund.[Available online at http://www.cdf.()rg/sites/default./filcs/statc-glig-standards-03132012.pdf]
- 68. C2ES, cited 2013: Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
[Available online at http://wwvw.c2cs.org/us-states-rcgionsipolicy-maps/low-carbon-fuel-standard]
- 69. --, cited 2013: Climate Action Plans. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
[Available online at http://www.c2cs.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/action-plan]
- 70. CEPA, cited 2013: Cap-and-Trade Program. California Environmental Protection Agency. [Available online at http://arh.ca.gov/cc-capandtrade/capandtradc.htm]
- 71. C2ES, cited 2013: Multi-State Climate Initiatives.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
[Available online at http:,i/www.c2es.org,/us-states-regionsiregional-cliniaae-initiatives#'XWC I ]72. EPA, cited 2013: Tribal Climate and Energy Information.
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. [Available online at http://www.
epa.gov/statelocalclimate/tribal]
- 73. DOE, 2013: Database of State Incentives for Renewables
& Efficiency.
Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies, 1 pp., U.S. Department of Energy. [Available online at http://www.dsireusa.org/docuiucnts/
summarymaps,/IlPS-.m ap.pd f]74. --, 2013: Database of State Incentives for Renewables
& Efficiency.
Energy Efficiency Resource Standards., 1 pp., U.S. Department of Energy. [Available online at http://www.dsireusa.org,/documcnts,/
sum marymaps/EERS-map.pd f]75. -, 2013: Database of State Incentives for Renewables
& Efficiency.
Property Tax Incentives for Renewables, 1 pp., U.S. Department of Energy. [Available online at http://www.dsireusa.org/docuimlnts/
summar ymaps/PropCrtyXax
_.1.map.pd f]76. NRC, 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia.
National Research Council. The National Academies Press, 298 pp. [Available online at http://wwArw.
nap.edu/catalog.phprecorcjdzid=12877]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 665 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION', REF.RENIC--S
- 77. van Vuuren, D. P., J. Edmonds, M. Kainuma, K. Riahi, A. Thomson, K. Hibbard, G. C. Hurtt, T. Kram, V. Krey, andJ. F. Lamarque, 2011: The representative concentration pathways:
An overview.
Climatic Change, 109, 5-31, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.
[Available online at hrtp://link.springcr.coin/content/pdf/10.1007%2FsI0584-011-0"148-z.pdf]
- 78. EIA, 2011: International Energy Outlook 2011. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.eia.gov/forccasts,'arcliivc/ieoll/]
- 79. Metcalf, G. E., 2008: An empirical analysis of energy intensity and its determinants at the state level. The Energy Journal, 29, 1-26, doi:10.5547/ISSNO195-6574-EJ-Vol29-No3-1.
[Available online at http://wvorks.bcpress.c()m/cgi/viewcontcnt.cgiarticlc=
1005&contex t-=gilber t-metcalfj Sue Wing, 1., 2008: Explaining the declining energy intensity of the US economy. Resource and Energy Economics, 30, 21-49, doi:10.1016/j.
reseneeco.2007.03.001.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 666 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATION Process for Developing Key Messages: Evaluation of literature by Coordinating Lead Authors KEY MESSAGE #1 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes at a rate that is roughly half of the current rate of emissions from human activi-ties. Therefore, mitigation efforts that only stabi-lize global emissions will not reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, but will only limit their rate of increase.
The same is true for other long-lived greenhouse gases.Description of evidence base The message is a restatement of conclusions derived from the peer-reviewed literature over nearly the past 20 years (see Section 1 of chapter).
Publications have documented the long lifetime of C02 in the atmosphere, resulting in long time lags between action and reduction, 9.11 7 6 and Earth System Models have shown that stabilizing emissions will not immediately stabilize atmospheric concentrations, which will continue to increase.4 New information and remaining uncertainties There are several important uncertainties in the current carbon cycle, especially the overall size, location, and dynamics of the land-use sink 9 ," and technological development and performance.
Simulating future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases requires both assumptions about economic activity, stringency of any greenhouse gas emissions control, and availability of technolo-gies, as well as a number of assumptions about how the changing climate system affects both natural and anthropogenic sources.Assessment of confidence based on evidence Very High. Observations of changes in the concentrations of green-house gases are consistent with our understanding of the broad relationships between emissions and concentrations.
Confidence Level Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, con-sistent results, well documented and accepted methods, etc.), high consensus Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documen-tation limited, etc.), medium consensus Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, models incomplete, methods emerging, etc.), competing schools of thought Inconclusive evidence (lim-ited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor docu-mentation andlor methods not tested, etc.), disagreement or lack of opinions among experts KEY MESSAGE #2 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT To meet the lower emissions scenario (B1) used in this assessment, global mitigation actions would need to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to a peak of around 44 billion tons per year within the next 25 years and decline thereafter.
In 2011, glob-al emissions were around 34 billion tons, and have been rising by about 0.9 billion tons per year for the past decade. Therefore, the world is on a path to exceed 44 billion tons per year within a decade.Description of evidence base A large number of emissions scenarios have been modeled, with a number of publications showing what would be required to limit C0 2 1 3 ,53.54,77 to any predetermined limit. At current concentrations and rate of rise, the emissions of C02 would need to peak around U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 667 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES M11 \__ 1lTh .,D kN.44 billion tons within the next 25 years in order to stabilize con-centrations as in the BE scenario.
Given the rate of increase in recent years," 0 this limit is expected to be surpassed.
7 8 New information and remaining uncertainties Uncertainties about the carbon cycle could affect these calcu-lations, but the largest uncertainties are the assumptions made about the strength and cost of greenhouse gas emissions policies.Assessment of confidence based on evidence The confidence in the conclusion is high. This is a contingent conclusion, though -we do not have high confidence that the current emission rate will be sustained.
However, we do have high confidence that if we do choose to limit concentrations as in the Bl scenario, emissions will need to peak soon and then decline.KEY MESSAGE #3 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Over recent decades, the U.S. economy has emit-ted a decreasing amount of carbon dioxide per dol-lar of gross domestic product. Between 2008 and 2012, there was also a decline in the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted annually from energy use in the United States as a result of a variety of factors, including changes in the economy, the de-velopment of new energy production technologies, and various government policies.Description of evidence base Trends in greenhouse gas emissions intensity are analyzed and published by governmental reporting agencies.2 0 , 2 3 , 2 6 Published, peer-reviewed literature cited in Section 2 of the Mitigation Chap-ter supports the conclusions about why these trends have oc-curred.7 9 New information and remaining uncertainties Economic and technological forecasts are highly uncertain.
Assessment of confidence based on evidence High. The statement is a summary restatement of published analy-ses by government agencies and interpretation from the reviewed literature.
KEY MESSAGE #4 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Carbon storage in land ecosystems, especially forests, has offset around 17% of annual U.S. fos-sil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases over the past several decades, but this carbon "sink" may not be sustainable.
Description of evidence base Underlying data come primarily from U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots, supplemented by additional ecological data collection efforts. Modeling conclusions come from peer-reviewed literature.
All references are in Section 2 of the Mitigation Chapter. Studies have shown that there is a large land-use carbon sink in the United States.2 , 2 7.2 8 Many publica-tions attribute this sink to forest re-growth, and the sink is pro-jected to decline as a result of forest aging 3 0.3 1.3 3 and factors like drought, fire, and insect infestations 3 1 reducing the carbon sink of these regions.New information and remaining uncertainties FIA plots are measured extremely carefully over long time periods, but do not cover all U.S. forested land. Other U.S. land types must have carbon content estimated from other sources. Modeling relationships between growth and carbon content, and taking C02 and climate change into account have large scientific uncertain-ties associated with them.Assessment of confidence based on evidence High. Evidence of past trends is based primarily on government data sources, but these also have to be augmented by other data and models in order to incorporate additional land-use types. Pro-jecting future carbon content is consistent with published models, but these have intrinsic uncertainties associated with them.KEY MESSAGE #5 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Both voluntary activities and a variety of policies and measures that lower emissions are currently in place at federal, state, and local levels in the Unit-ed States, even though there is no comprehensive national climate legislation.
Over the remainder of this century, aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions by the United States and by other nations would be needed to reduce global emissions to a level consistent with the lower sce-nario (B1) analyzed in this assessment.
Description of evidence base The identification of state, local, regional, federal, and voluntary programs that will have an effect of reducing greenhouse gas emis-sions is a straightforward accounting of both legislative action and announcements of the implementation of such programs.
Some of the programs include the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, 3 9 and many other local government initiatives.
3 8 Several states have also adapted climate policies including California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The assertion that they will not lead to a reduction of US C02 emissions is supported by calculations from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
New information and remaining uncertainties The major uncertainty in the calculation about future emissions levels is whether a comprehensive national policy will be imple-mented.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM.668 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 27: MITIGATiO(DNJ Assessment of confidence based on evidence Very High. There is recognition that the implementation of volun-tary programs may differ from how they are originally planned, and that institutions can always choose to leave voluntary pro-grams (as is happening with RGGI, noted in the chapter).
The statement about the future of U.S. C02 emissions cannot be taken as a prediction of what will happen -it is a conditional statement based on an assumption of no comprehensive national legislation or regulation.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 669 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES Climate Change Impacts in the United States CHAPTER 28 ADAPTATION Convening Lead Authors Rosina Bierbaum, University of Michigan Arthur Lee, Chevron Corporation Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting Lead Authors Maria Blair, Independent Lynne.,M.
Carter,; Louisiana State U niversity F.: Stuart Chapin IlIf, University of. Alaska Fairbanks Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities:
Susan Ruffo, The Nature Conservancy.
Contributing Authors Shannon McNeeley, Colorado State U n iversity Missy: Stu'lt', Uiesiyo Michigan;Laura Verduzco, Chevron Corporation Emily Seyller, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Recommended Citation for Chapter Bierbaum, R., A. Lee, J. Smith, M. Blair, L. M. Carter, F. S. Chapin, 1ll, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo, S. McNeeley, M. Stults, L.Verduzco, and E. Seyller, 2014: Ch. 28: Adaptation.
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Cli-mate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 670-706. doi:10.7930/J7H .GGT.On the Web http://nca20l4.globalchange .gov/report/response-strategies/adaptation 670
.KEY MESSAGES 1. Substantial adaptation planning is occurring in the public and private sectors and at all levels of government; however, few measures have been implemented and those that have appear to be incremental changes..2. Barriers to implementation of adaptation include limited funding,'
policy and legal impediments, and difficulty in anticipating climate-related changes at local scales.*3. There is no "one-size fits all"! adaptation., but there are similarities in approaches across regions and sectors. Sharing best practices, learning by doing, and iterative and collaborative processes-including stakeholder involvement, can help support progress..
- 4. Climate change adaptation actions often fulfill other societal goals, such as sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, or improvements in quality of life, and can therefore be incorporated into existing decision-making processes..
- 5. Vulnerability to climate change is exacerbated by other stresses such.as pollution, habitat .:fragmentation, and poverty."Adaptation to multiple stresses requires assessment of the composite threats as well as tradeoffs among costs, benefits, and risks of available options.6. The effectiveness of climate change adaptation has seldom been evaluated, because actions have only recently been initiated and comprehensive evaluation metrics do not yet exist., Over the past few years, the focus moved from the question"Is climate changing?" to the equally important question: "Can society manage unavoidable changes and avoid unmanageable changes?"" 2 Research demonstrates that both mitigation (efforts to reduce future climate changes) and adaptation (efforts to reduce the vulnerability of society to climate change impacts) are needed in order to minimize the damages from human-caused climate change and to adapt to the pace and ultimate magnitude of changes that will occur.3', 4 5 Adaptation and mitigation are closely linked; adaptation efforts will be more difficult, more costly, and less likely to succeed if significant mitigation actions are not taken .' The study and application of adaptation in the climate change realm is nascent compared to the many analyses of mitigation policies and practices to reduce emissions.
Uncertainties about future socioeconomic conditions as well as future climate changes can make it difficult to arrive at adaptation decisions now. However, the pace and magnitude of projected change emphasize the need to be prepared for a wide range and intensity of climate impacts in the future. Planning and.managing based on the climate of the last century means that tolerances of some infrastructure and species will be exceeded.5'7 For example, building codes and landscaping ordinances will likely need to be updated not only for energy efficiency but also to conserve water supplies, protect against disease vectors, reduce susceptibility to heat stress, and improve protection against extreme events."'
Although there is uncertainty about future conditions, research indicates that intelligent adaptive actions can still be taken now.""' Climate change projections have inherent uncertainties, but it is still important to develop, refine, and deploy tools and approaches that enable iterative decision-making and increase flexibility and robustness of climate change responses (Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate).1 2 Climate change affects human health, natural ecosystems, built environments, and existing social, institutional, and legal arrangements.
Adaptation considerations include local, state, regional, national, and international issues. For example, the implications of international arrangements need to be considered in the context of managing the Great Lakes, the Columbia River, and the Colorado River to deal with drought.1 3" 4 Both "bottom up" community planning and"top down" national strategies"1 may help regions deal with impacts such as increases in electrical brownouts, heat stress, floods, and wildfires.
Such a mix of approaches will require U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 671 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION cross-boundary coordination at multiple levels as operational agencies integrate adaptation planning into their programs.Adaptation actions can be implemented reactively, after changes in climate occur, or proactively, to prepare for projected changes." 1 Proactively preparing can reduce the harm from certain climate change impacts, such as increasingly intense extreme events, shifting zones for agricultural crops, and rising sea levels, while also facilitating a more rapid and efficient response to changes as they happen. This chapter highlights efforts at the federal, regional, state, tribal, and local levels, as well as initiatives in the corporate and non-governmental sectors to build adaptive capacity and resilience in response to climate change. While societal adaptation to climate variability is as old as civilization itself,15 the focus of this chapter is on preparing for unprecedented human-induced climate change through adaptation.
A map of illustrative adaptation activities and four detailed case examples that highlight ongoing adaptation activity across the U.S. are provided in Section 4 of this chapter.AAPT1 .ATiION KEY~i4 ]~ i TERM DEINhITIONS[
II r Adapt, Adaptation:
Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment that.exploits beneficial opportunities or moderates negative effects, Adaptive Capacity:
The potential of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes)to moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities, and cope with the consequences.
Mitigation:
Technological change and substitutions that reduce resource.
inputs and emissions per unit of output.Although several social, economic, and technological actions would reduce emissions, with respect to climate change, mitigation means implementing actions to reduce greenhouse gas.emissions or increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed and stored by naturaland man-made carbon sinks (see Ch. 27: Mitigation)..
Multiple Stressors:
Stress that originates from different sources that affect natural, managed, and socioeconomic systems and can cause impacts that are compounded and sometimes unexpected.
An. example would be when economic or market stress combines with drought to negatively impact farmers.: Resilience:
A capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multi-hazard threats with*minimum damage to social well-being, the economy, and the environment.
Risk:-A combination of the magnitude of the potential consequence(s) of climate change impact(s) and the likelihood that the consequence(s).will occur.Vulnerability: .The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, includingclimate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability.is a function of the character, magnitude,and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, itssensitivity, and its.adaptive capacity.16 17 11*Definitions adapted from (IPCC 2007; NRC 2007 , 2010 )I Adaptation Activities in the United States Federal Government Federal leadership, guidance, information, and support are
- the release of President Obama's Climate Action Plan in June vital to planning for and implementing adaptation actions at all 2013, which has as one of its three major pillars, preparing scales and in all affected sectors of society (Table 28.1). 1118,1920 the United States for the impacts of climate change, including Several new federal climate adaptation initiatives and building stronger and safer communities and infrastructure, strategies have been developed in recent years, including:
protecting the economy and natural resources, and using I sound science to manage climate impacts;2 2* Executive Order (EO) 13514, requiring federal agencies to develop recommendations for strengthening policies and programs to adapt to the impacts of climate change;2'the creation of an Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force (ICCATF) (now the Council on Climate Prepared-ness and Resilience, per Executive Order 13653") that led to the development of national principles for adaptation and U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 672 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION is leading to crosscutting and government-wide adaptation policies;" the development of three crosscutting national adaptation strategies focused on integrating federal, and often state, local, and tribal efforts on adaptation in key sectors: 1) the National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Re-sources in a Changing Climate;2 4 2) the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy;zs and 3) a priority objective on resilience and adaptation in the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan;26" a new decadal National Global Change Research Plan (2012-2021) that includes elements related to climate adaptation, such as improving basic science, informing decisions, improv-ing assessments, and communicating with and educating the public;2 7" the development of several interagency and agency-specific groups focused on adaptation, including a "community of practice" for federal agencies that are developing and imple-menting adaptation plans, an Adaptation Science Workgroup inside the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and several agency specific climate change and adaptation task forces; and a November 2013 Executive Order entitled "Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change" that, among other things, calls for the modernizing of federal programs to support climate resilient investments, managing lands and waters for climate preparedness and resilience, the creation of a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, and the creation of a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.
2 3 Federal agencies are all required to plan for adaptation.
Actions include coordinated efforts at the White House, regional and cross-sector efforts, agency-specific adaptation plans, as well as support for local-level adaptation planning and action. Table 28.1 lists examples, but is not intended as a comprehensive list.TableI 28..w~u :~ E ampile[suU 1 of A In iviul Fedra Agnc Acton [to-iEI~ i[IE!.IIl~
Prmoe Impeet and Suppr Adapatio at Mutil Scaes Agency Component Action Description All Federal Agencies Department of Health' and'Human Services (HHS)Department of Agriculture (USDA)Centers Control (COC)The 2012. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans for Federal agencies contain specific Drt eveloped.S
-:aan ionuPlan as sections on adaptation, Agencies are required.t ." :part tiepannUal Strategclimate risks and vulnerabilities to ta..nabit..
y Performance Plas manage. both short- and long-term effects on 7 missions and operations.
Through their first climate change cooperative for Disease Climate-Ready statesand cities
- agreements in 2010, CDC awarded. $5.25 mi1-.ad Prevention
' Initiative lion to ten state and local health departments to assess risks and develop programs to address-climate change related challenges.
J USDA is using existing networks such as the-'. Cooperative Extension Service, the Natural.Integrating climate, change obje-.. Resourc6 Coohservation Districts, and the Forest i tives into plans and networks Service's Climate Change Resource Center to' .i provide climate services to rural and agricultural stakeholders.
.: ., 'The National Roadmap was developed in 2010 Developed a National Roadmap..
to idenfy short-and long-term actions to reduce*.or Respondng o Cimate Change *:climate change risks to the nation's forests and* and a Guideboook for Developing*** , **Adaptation Options, among many grasslands.
The Guidebook builds on this previ-Arapion s aous work and provides science-based strategic resources "and tactical approaches to adaptation.
.. .. .. .... ... .. .* ...._ ... ................Through the Regional Integrated .ciences... " .*: and.Assessments (RISAs) program, develop.. S..upporngres..earchteamsand.
collaboration between researchers and manag-local communities on adaptation-
- -,related issues and develops to ers to better manage climate risks. Through and resources "0* , the Regional Climate Centers (RCCs) and the Digital Coast partnership, deliver science to support decision-making.
DoD released its initial Department-level Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap in 2012.Developed_
a"oCl e The Roadmap identifies four goals that serve Adaa DoD Climate as the foundation for guiding the Department's S-Change Adaptation RoadmaP response to climate change that include using.-a robust decision making approach based on the best available science.USDA Forest S Department of Commerce (DOC)NOAA Department of Defense (DoD)U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 673 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Po t Implement, and S t Ap a ptm ateic o n. at Mutil S.. *n*~;De' .. The USACEtivll Wfrks Programn iiiitial climate*" ...dc... * .ate chang .change adaptation plan in 2011 has a goal to U.S .Army Corps of aaptation plan;imaking progress reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience
- oD * .-, Engineers(USACE), i .Plriority areas incdg d of water resources infrastructure impacted by,.Civil Works Program vulnerbltaSseSSmentsand climaitechange.
Vulnerability assessments and deeloment..... "pil of pocy an 'iot projects are in progress.
Other guidance is*,guiance
.underway.The Navy Arctic Roadmap (November 2009)** promotes maritime security and naval readiness Developed road maps for in a.changing Arctic. The Climate Change BoD Department of the Navy adaptation in the Arctic and across.i a (Ma y The exate Chade the lobeRoadmap (May 2010) examines broader issues* *. .i ".the globe :ma' ".of climate change impactson Navy missions* ..and capabilities globally.:.Develop higherspatial and. Develops community-based, high-resolution temporal scales of climate: (temporal and.spatial) models for climate projections and, integrate.
i.. and i ,projectionSand integrated .assessment models Department of Energy (DOE)." adaptation ard climate "that Increasingly reflect multi-sectoral processes considerations into integrated and interactions, multiple stressors, coupled assessments i ."
- impacts, and adaptation potential.
-.Developed climate change* : The 2013 DOE.Report "U.S.-Energy Sector ap nl .. *Vulnerabilities to Climate' Change and Extreme S m...adaptativnplan and completed Weather" examines current and potential future DOE * ." impacts of climate trends and identifies activities vulnerabilities to the energy sector underwayand potential opportunities to Department ofomelande of climate change and extreme ..enhance energy system climate preparedness weatherare OePartme~nt of Homeland,'SecU (DHS)' ' " Department of the Interior (DO DOI ,~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ..... , :.. * .". .... ' * .an.oresi once ...., FEMA released a Climate*Change Adaptation'" Policy Statement establishing the Agency's* Federal Emergency, roach to supporting the Department n..... U{ Manageoeramergnt
- y. * .Works with communities across aproc to supring th Department in*AgManagement Age -the Nationto heeputhem prioritize esieE dasters inathe face of.... (EMA) .: their activities to redue risks- ",i.a c ga .FEMA's action areas focus* -" -. ' on developing actionable "future risk" tools,:I enabling state and local adaptation' and building-.. -resilience capabilities.
Established a framework to help ensure the Developed a FWS climate sustainability of fish, wildlife; plants, and Fish and Wildlife service change strategic plan (2010) habitats in the face of climate change. Created Fis a*S) and established a network a network of 22 LCCs to promote shared of Landscape Conservation conservation goals, approaches, and resource* " -Cooperatives (LCCs)* management planning and implementation across the United States.., 'DOI operates a National Climate Change and USv E e aWildlife Center and eight regional CSCs, which U.S. Geological Survey Estabshed a network of Climate provide scientific information and, tools that land, (USGS) .Science Centers (CSCs) , .- water, wildlife, and cultural resource managers--and other stakeholders can apply to anticlpate,.- monitor, and adapt to climate change.DOI DO[National Park Service (NPS)Bureau of Land --Management (BLM)Climate Char Strategy (201 Action plan(Parks Plan'(2 NPS actions span climate change science, nge Response .: adaptation, mitigation, and communication 10), Climate Change across nationalparks, including exhibits for park 2012), and Green .visitors, providing climate trend information for 012) " all national parks, risk screening and adaptation for coastal park units, and implementing.
.-. , -scenario planning tools.REAs synthesize information about resource conditions and trends within an ecoregion; lional Assessments C assess impacts of climate change and other stressors; map areas best-suited for F, future development; and establish baseline envitonmental conditions, against which to-: gauge management effectiveness.
Rapid Ecoreg (REAs)t.i: " .' .U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 674 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION DOT worked with five local, and state transportation authorities to develop a Federal Highway Developed Risk Assessment conceptual Risk Assessment Model to identify.Department of Transportation (DOT) which assets are: a) most exposed to climate Administration, (FHWA) Model for transportation decisions change threats and/or b) associated with the most serious potential consequences of climate change threats. Completed November 2011.P,ýhase 'I of the 2008 study assessed~'
Comprehensive studý.y fclimiate%:
tranisportationinfrastrdutue vulnerability to~risks to Gulf Coast trin'sportation
ý climate change. imp~acti across the Gulf. Phase: DOT infrast~~ructure followed by ndph12t be coped in 2013, focuses -on Mobile,-study of Mobile'-AL.
1 AL. This effort will develop transferable tools for Itransportation planners.
-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)Established the Climate Ready Estuaries program, theClimate Ready Water Utilities initiative, and a tribal climate change adaptationplanning training program ..* These selected.EPA initiatives provide resources and tools to build the capacity of coastal managers, water utilities, and tribal environmenta!
professionals to plan for and implement adaptation strategies.
Initiated NAS, 2 Adaptation Sc (CASI) Workg NASA icientis.Institutional st The CASl team builds capacity to address X"s Climate. e " climate change at NASA facilities by enc Invea tor.......
- downscaling faility-specific climate hazard clance Investigator
..*to pa rtner information-and projections; conducting roup customized climate research for each location;StS, engineersao , .-. ..*'... en.i.ds. an 1iand leading resilience and adaptation workshops that spur,community-based responses... " -.,. .- ,. ..*Material provided in table is derived directly from Agency representatives and Agency websites.
These are select examples and should not be considered all-inclusive.
Federal agencies can be particularly helpful in facilitating climate adaptation by:* fostering the stewardship of public resources and mainte-nance of federal facilities, services, and operations such as defense, emergency management, transportation, and eco-system conservation in the face of a changing climate; '1,',s9,3" providing usable information and financial support for adap-tation;1, 2 0 , 3 0* facilitating the dissemination of best practices and support-ing a clearinghouse to share data, resources, and lessons learned;1 , 2 0 , 3 1" dealing with and anticipating impacts that cross geopolitical boundaries, assisting in disaster response, and supporting flexible regulatory frameworks;?,3
- ensuring the establishment of federal policies that allow for"flexible" adaptation efforts and take steps to avoid unin-tended consequences; 3 0'3 2 and 33" building public awareness.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 675 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION States States have become important actors in national climate change related efforts. State governments can create policies and programs that encourage or discourage adaptation at other governance scales (such as counties or regions)4 through regulation and by serving as laboratories for innovation.
3 5'3 6 Although many of these actions are not specifically designed to address climate change, they often include climate adaptation components.
Many state-level climate change-specific adaptation actions focus on planning.
As of 2013, fifteen states had completed climate adaptation plans; four states were in the process of writing their plans; and seven states had made recommendations to create state-wide adaptation plans.3 7 In addition to formal adaptation plans, numerous states have created sector-specific plans that consider long-term climate change (Figure 28.1), For example, at least 16 states have biodiversity conservation plans that focus on preparing for long-term changes in climate." In addition to planning, some states have created legislation and/or programs that are either directly or indirectly targeted at reducing climate vulnerabilities (Table 28.2).U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 676 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION State Aatatidn:iAction,<tii91.:1IJ1 .LI Alaska Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program provides funds for hazard impact assessments to evaluate climate change related* .." .' " ..39 ..impacts, such as coastal erosion and thawing permafrost;...allfor!.a."Building stahdards manndatin energy and: Water effici sings, advancing both adaptation and mitigation; Stat6 Adaptatio .plan 91 40-.,calls for 2%reduction in per capita: water use..Florida Law supporting low water use landscaping techniques.," Hawaii Water code that calls f-.or integrated management, preslervation an d. enhahncement of natural. systems. 4 Kentucky Action Plan to Respond to Climate Change in Kentucky:
4 Strategy of Resilience, which identifies six goals to protect ecosystems.and" 43 species in a changing climate. -.ouislana :C .omprehensive Master Plan for a: Sustainable-Coast 2012 includes both -protection and restoration activities addressing land loss from sea. level rise, subsidence, and:other.factors over the next 50 years.: Maine The Maine Sand Dune Rules require that structures greater than 2,500 square feet be set back at a distance that is calculated based...... 45.* on the.future shoreline position and considering two feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years..Maryland...
Passed Living Shorelines harden'ed shorelines passed ' iBUIlding Resilience t* ClimateC'Change",.:
,:..,poiy Which establishespractesand procedtues related to facility.siting.and design new land investments, habitat restoration,.:. ::,:.,', .:: goernentopertmn reearh ad
> ;-,: ..i,' r.o,,,&,-,,:-.v=
Montana Maintains a statewide climate change.website to help stakeholders access relevant and timely climate information, tools, and re-sources.Mexico ' The Active Water Resource Management program allows for rights changes in.real time in case of.drought.
4 .Pennsylva-
.Enacted polices to encourage the use of green infrastructure and ecosystem-based approaches-for managing storm water and floodl nia 9' -" g a os apohsf m s w ing.Rhode Island i Requires public agencies considering larnd-use applications to accommodate a 3- to 5.foot rise in sealevel.Texas -Coordinated response to drought through National Integrated .Drought Information System (NIDIS); RISAs (Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program [SCIPP], Climate Assessment for the Southwest
[CLIMAS]);
and state and private sector partners through anticipa-48 tory planning and preparedness:(for example, implemented in2011 drought).*This list contains selected examples of state-level adaptation activities and should not be considered all-inclusive.
Tribal Governments Tribal governments have been particularly active in assessing and preparing for the impacts of climate change (see Ch. 12: Indigenous Peoples).
For example: " Adaptation planning in Point Hope, Alaska, emphasizes strat-egies for enhancing community health.4" In Newtok, Alaska, the village council is leading a land-acquisi-tion and planning effort to relocate the community, because climate change induced coastal erosion has destroyed essen-tial infrastructure, making the current village site unsafe.5 0" The Tulalip Tribes in Washington State are using traditional knowledge gleaned from elders, stories, and songs and combining this knowledge with downscaled climate data to inform decision-making.
5 1 Also in Washington State, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community integrated climate change into decision-making in major sectors of the Swinom-ish Community, such as education, fisheries, social services, and human health ." The Haudenosaunee Confederacy in the northeastern U.S. is addressing climate impacts by preserving a native food base through seed-banking (Ch. 12:. Indigenous Peoples)." U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 677 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Local and Regional Governments Most adaptation efforts to date have occurred at local and planning.59 Local adaptation planning and actions are unfolding regional levels. 5,54,55',5657 Primary mechanisms that local in municipalities of varying sizes and in diverse geographical governments are using to prepare for climate change include areas. Communities such as Keene, New Hampshire; New land-use planning; provisions to protect infrastructure and York City, New York; King County, Washington; and Chicago, ecosystems; regulations related to the design and construction Illinois are vanguards in the creation of climate adaptation of buildings, roads, and bridges; and emergency preparation, strategies." 1 1'6 0 In addition to local government action, response, and recovery (Table 28.3). 9,45,56,58 regional agencies and regional aggregations of governments are becoming significant climate change adaptation actors.8'5 7 According to a recent survey of 298 U.S. local governments, 59% indicated they are engaged in some form of adaptation Localor Regiona.l"vernment Adap:tation Action Satellite Beach, FL Collaboration with the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program .led to efforts to try to incorporate sea level rise projections and policies into. the city's comprehensive growth management plan.5 4 Portland, OR ' Updated the city. code to require on-site stormwatiar mranagement for 'new development and re-development.
Provides a downspoudtisconnection program to helppromhote orinite.Stor mwat-r rran-agement 6 Lewes, GE In partnership with Delaware Sea Grant, ICLEI-Locai Governments for Sustainability, the University of Delaware, and state and regional partners, the City of Lewes undertook a stakeholder-driven process to understand how climate adaptation could be integrated into the hazard mitigation planning process.Recommendations for integration and operational changes were adopted by the City Council and are cur-rently being implemented.
Groton,CT..'
' " rtnered i th federal, sta.te, regional, local, non-g-overnmental, and academic partners through the, EPA's Climate:Ready Estiiaries program to assess vulnerability to and devise solutions for sea level 63.-.. -* " *
- r e ...:* :.:. ' .San Diego Bay, CA .Five municipalities partnered with the port, the.airport, and more than 30 organizations with direct inter-.ests in the Bay's future to develop the San Diego Bay Sea Level Rise Adaptation-Strategy.
The strategy identified key vulnerabilities for the Bay and adaptation actions that can be taken by individual agencies, as well as through regional collaboratioh.
" Chicago, IL --.' Through 'a number of development pfoje'bSthe city has addedl55 acres of'perriieable surfaces since, S,2008 andhasmore than fou, millionsquarefeet-of green roofs planned or completed.
.King County, WA Created:King County Flood Control District in 2007 to address increased impacts from flooding through activities such as maintaining and repairin&
levees and revetments, acquiring reoetitive loss properties, and improving countywide flood warnings..
... .... .... .....New York City, NY'- Through a partnership with. the. Federal Ernergepcy MaaeetAec.-'A) h.ct sudtn e.V~ri C iy~iYManagement Agency :':(FEMA';
the ity iupdating'
..FEMA'Flood Insurance Rate. Maps based on more precise elevation data. The newma ps will help stake-holdeirsbetter understand their current flood risks and allow.thee city to more effectively plan for climate* change. *"'Southeast Florida Climate Change Compact Joint commitment among Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Monroe Counties to partner in reduc-ing heat-trapping gas emissions ahd adapting to climate impacts, including adaptation in transportation, water resources, natural resources, agriculture, and disaster risk reduction.
Notable policies emerging from the Compact include regional collaboration to revise building codes and land development regula-* tions to discourage new development or post-disaster redevelopment in vulnerable areas.Phoenix, AZ; Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA; ;,Climate change impacts are being integrated into public health planning and im-pleraentation activities and New York, NY that include creating more community cooling centers, neighborhood watch programs, and reductions in the urban heat island effect.'6'6.Boulder, CO; New York, NY; and Seattle, WA Water utilities in these communities are, using climate information to assess vulnerability and inform* 61 decision-making.
, City of Philadelphia In 2006, the Philadelphia Water Department began a program to develop a green stormwater infrastruc-
.ture, intended to convert mote than one-third of the city's impervious land cover to "Greened Acres":.green facilities, green streets, greenOpen spaces green homes, etc.; along with stream corridor restora-.tion and preseivation.
- This table includes select examples of local and regional adaptation activities and should not be considered all-inclusive.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 678 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION There is no one-size-fits-all adaptation solution to the chal-lenges of adapting to climate change impacts, as solutions will differ depending on context, local circumstance, and scale as well as on local culture and internal capacity.9'3 1 Non-governmental and Private Sector Many non-governmental entities have been significant actors in the national effort to prepare for climate change by providing assistance that includes planning guidance, implementation tools, contextualized climate information, best practice exchange, and help with bridging the science-policy divide to a wide array of stakeholders (Table 28.4)7.71"I The Nature Conservancy, for example, established the Canyonlands Research Center in Monticello, Utah, to facilitate research and develop conservation applications for resource issues under the multi-stresses of climate change 72 and land-use demands in the Colorado Plateau region.ti With regard to the private sector, evidence from r organizations such as the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)and the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Climate Change 10-K Disclosure indicate that a growing number of companies are beginning to actively address risks from climate change (Table 28.5).7' The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) have identified three types of risks driving private sector adaptation efforts, including risks to core operations, the value chain, and broader changes in the economy and infrastructure (see Figure 28.2 ).7'17,71 This analysis is supported by responses to the 2011 CDP, and suggests that companies are concerned about how changes in This one-acre stormwater wetland was constructed in Philadelphia to reat stormwater runoff in an effort to improve drinking water quality while ninimizing the impacts of storm-related flows on natural ecosystems.
the climate will impact issues such as feedstock, water supply and quality, infrastructure, core operations, supply chains, and customers' ability to use (and their need for) services.7 3 Some companies are taking action to not only avoid risk, but to explore potential opportunities that may emerge in a changing climate, such as developing new products and services, devel-oping or expanding existing consulting services, expanding into new operational territories, extending growing seasons and hours of operation, and responding to increased demand for e 7 3 , 7 5 , 7 7 ,78 existing products and services .Tal 2. .Exmpe of No-oermna Adpato Efforts a n Sevcs I , pesbf.Adaptation.Efforts andServic Adaptation.
planning assistance, including ation of guides, toolsi and templates Networking and best practice exchange Climate information providers Policy, legal, and institutional support esc cre-L"*0h"IapIeof Organii0zationsUProrid n..l VlerUcns.Center for Climate Strategies, ICLEl-Local Governments for Sustainability, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund C40 Cities Climate Leadership Groupd, AdaptationNetwork, Center for Clean Air. Policy, Clima.te Adaptation Knowledge Exchange, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, Institute for Sustain-able Communities, Urban Sustainability Directors Netw'ork, World IBusiness Coudncil for Sustainable Development Union of Concerned Scientists, Urban Climate Change Research Network, Stockholm Environment Institute-U.S.
Center Center for Climate and.:Energy Solutions (formerly Pew Center on Global Climate Change), *George town Climate Center Aggregation of adaptation-pertinent information Carbon Disclosure Project, Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange, Georgetown Climate Center*This list contains examples of non-governmental organizations providing the identified services and should not be considered all-inclusive or a validation of actions claimed by the organizations.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 679 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION C a S Tabi'.Cle mate i. 28.5. E 'iva. Seitr m Actiins to -Adapt to Cm Risks Company Sector Climate Risk. :Exampoles o Actions Undertaken Coca-Cola is working around the world to replenish'the water used in finished beverages by participating in locally relevant water projects that support com-Changes in physical climate munities and nature. Since 2005, the Coca-Cola system has engaged in more parameters; Changes in other an 320 projects in 86 countries.
The range of community projects includes Company Staples climate-related Chang ents. watershed protection; expanding community drinking water and sanitation access;developments,.
water for productive use .such as agriculturalwater efficiency; and education and awareness programs. (http:/:www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/conserva-.
tion-partnershiprhtml)
Company experienced weather-related souircing' As 'part of' ts busines.Cont nulty planning, onAgra FoodJs flg~5~~us pl itsk businsv~ c Iihupls hais analyzed its sup-evelop strategic partnersh ips Wimsunim zes sesourced ConAgra Consumer tomato harvestirng due to iingrýdients,.a'.ndidiintifyfalternateisuppliers-arnd contracttimanLifacturersto mini-Foods, Inc. Staples unseasonably'cool weather, mize production disruptions in the instaneiý of an unexpected disru'ption and difficulty sourcing other (http://compahy.conagrafoods.com/phoenix.zhtmr?c=202310&p=Polic e 'Environ.vegetables due t above ment)normal precipitation.
.. , .Constellation has already taken adaptation actions, particularly in California where Constellation Consumer Changes in, physical climate water availability is an. issue, to manage or adapt to these risks. Constellation is work-Brands Staples ' parameters;'eChanges in other ing with numerous organizations to help fund industrybased research to determine climaterelate de t .potential climate change impacts on vineyard production.
....Since 2007a Group-wideclimatb change strategy covering~a aspects of climate Changes in regulation;.., change,* for example weathet-reiated" mpats; reguIatory
'61ats itigation and i. ..-. enu Changesin p-ysicalcmate. .hea thrisks etc¢-'has supportedteiercore corp,,.rate strategy"Tlihe strategy is..nce~i~ Re in pbyicicimae eathrskb t& eg:i S ..arametersoChanges inother based onifive pillars mitiio;ni;daptation, red i.ch, e..,iuscbodioxide.
..',climate-related'd dvi ets reditin and dvocacy, (hh C PG&E's adaptation strategies for potential increased electricity demand. include expanded customer energy efficiency and demand response programs.
and" improvements to its electric grid. PG&E is proactively tracking and evaluating the potential impacts of reductions to Sierra Nevada snowpack on its hydroelectric Pacific Gas: system' and has developed adaptation strategies to minimize them. Strategies P a i f c a s :C h a n g e s in r e g u la t io n ; .... .. .Changes in .include maintaining higher winter carryover reservoir storage levels, reducing and Electric changes in physical climate .conveyance...o Company Utilities .pa conveyance flows in canals and flumes in response to anincreased portion of pre-o ia yparameters; Changes in other ... ..(PG&E):..limt e :d cipitation falling as rain, and reducing discretionary reservoir water releases during (PB& ) .. .,.' .. * .. chimate~related developments
.., ..... .. ... ....* , .... ...:,.,. * .'.. *the late spring and summer. PG&Eis also working with both the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the.California Department of Water Resources to. begin using the USGS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling.
Systemr(PRMS) watershed model, to help manage reservoirs on watersheds experiencing mountain snowpack loss.-(http://www.pge.com/about/environment/commitfrent/)
i SC Johnson is a'djusting-to the various physical risks that climate change imposes" through a diversified supiplier and global manufacturing base. In March 2009, SC Johnson announced abroad ingredient communication program. SC Johnson SC ohn....on
,, & .Household C--hanges
..n. ph l c e , assesses risks along each ingedient's supplyc chain to ensure that the company Son Inc P": roducts- pnramet" -. IS sourcing from a geographically diversesupphier base. In additionn o evaluating
.* product ingredients, SC Johnson has also diversified its operations around the-. world, allowing it to maintain business continuity in the face of a regionalclimate.
- " " * * .. .. '. .' ..... change related'disruption (http://www.scjohnson com/en/comi-ntment/overview aspx) ..' ." .Spectra Energy. uses a corporate-wide risk analysis framework to ensure the-Changes in regulation; oversight and management of its four major risk categories:
financial, strategic, op-Spectra Changes in physical climate erational, and legal risks. Physical risks posed by climate change fall within these Energy, Inc. Energy parameters; Changes in other. icategories and the company uses risk management.committees to ensure that all climate-related developments material risks'are identified, evaluated, and managed prior to financial approvals of... .,' .. .. ..... ." ....major projects. (http://www.spectraenergy.com/Sustainability/)
.This list contains examples of private sector actions to adapt to climate risks as reported to the Carbon Disclosure Project and should not be considered all-inclusive or a validation of actions claimed by the organizations.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 680 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Section 1: Adaptation Process General patterns in adaptation processes are beginning to This is not a stepwise or linear process; various stages can be emerge, with similarities discernible across sectors, systems, occurring simultaneously, in a different order, or be omitted and scales.5 3'7 8'7 9 completely.
However, as shown clockwise in Figure 28.3, the process generally involves characterizing vulnerability, Adaptation Poe developing options, implementing actions, monitoring outcomes, and reevaluating strategies.
Each of these is described in more detail below.Identifying and Understanding Risk, M Vulnerabilities, and Opportunities SMost adaptation actions are currently in the initial phase, with many actors focusing on identifying the relevant climate risks and conducting current and future risk and vulnerability assessments of their assets and resources."
8 1'8 2 In 2011, only 13% of 298 U.S. municipalities surveyed had completed vulnerability or risk assessments, but 42% expected to complete an assessment in the future.s 9 At least 21 state fish and wildlife agencies have undertaken climate vulnerability assessments or recently completed an assessment of a particular species, habitat, or both.3 Multiple qualitative and quantitative methods are used to understand climate vulnerability and risk, including case studies and analogue analyses, scenario analyses, sensitivity analyses, monitoring of key species, and peer information sharing."'""'"'" U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 681 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Planning, Assessing, and Selecting Options Once risks and vulnerabilities are understood, the next stage typically involves identifying, evaluating, and selecting options for responding to and managing existing and future changes in the climate.2 8 Decision support planning methods and associated tools help to identify flexible and context-relevant adaptation activities for implementation.11.79 Participatory approaches support the integration of stakeholder perspectives and context-specific information into decision-making.
8 5'8 6 This approach can include having community members and governing institutions work collectively to define the problem and design adaptation strategies that are robust while being sensitive to stakeholder values.8 8'8 7 Moreover, regional collaboration has emerged as an effective strategy for defining common approaches to reducing potential threats, selecting metrics for tracking purposes, and creating governance structures to help navigate political challenges.
6 7'8 8 As discussed above, a number of government and other organizations have developed plans with identified adaptation options.Common approaches to adaptation planning include"mainstreaming" or integrating climate adaptation into existing management plans (for example, hazard mitigation, ecosystem conservation, water management, public health, risk contingency, and energy) or developing stand-alone adaptation plans.6 8'8 2'8 9 ,'9 0 Many frameworks, tools, and approaches have emerged to help decision-makers make decisions in light of both uncertainty and the need to achieve multiple societal goals.7 7 9 Some of these, however, are specific to particular localities or resources, are not easy to use by the intended audiences, do not adequately evaluate tradeoffs, and require sophisticated knowledge of climate change.1 In general, these approaches promote options that allow reversibility, preserve future options, can tolerate a variety of impacts, and are flexible, such that mid-course adjustments are possible.2,92 Among these approaches are Robust Decision Making (RDM), Iterative Risk Management (IRM), Adaptive Management or Co-Management, Portfolio Management, and Scenario Planning (see Ch. 26: Decision Support for more on decision frameworks, processes, and tools). 7,21,2,54,93,94,95,96,97 Implementation There is little peer-reviewed literature on adaptation actions, forest thinning and fuel treatments that reduce fire hazards in or evaluations of their successes and failures.
"'3"8198 Many national forests or through the diversification of supply chain of the documents submitted as part of this Third National sourcing in the private sector.7 2'7 3 Additionally, an increasing Climate Assessment (NCA) process indicate that adaptation movement toward mainstreaming climate adaptation concerns actions are being implemented for a variety of reasons. Often, into existing processes means that discerning unique climate these are undertaken with an aim toward reducing current adaptation activities will be a challenge.
8 2'9 9 vulnerabilities to hazards or extreme weather events, such as Monitoring and Evaluation There is little literature evaluating the effectiveness of and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.1" 1 Part of adaptation actions. 979'86 Evaluation and monitoring efforts, monitoring should include accounting for costs of adaptation.
to date, have focused on the creation of process-based rather To be sure, this may be difficult to account for because of than outcome-based indicators.8
'go A number of efforts are challenges in attribution of climate events to climate change underway to create indicators related to climate adaptation, 2 7 versus climate variability.
A few studies summarize projected including work by the National Climate Assessment and future costs of adaptation.
1 0 2'1 0 3 Development Advisory Committee Indicators Working Group'°°Revise Strategies/Processes and Information Sharing Uncertainty about future climate as well as population growth, networks, such as regional climate initiatives, are illustrations economic development, response strategies, and other of the types of networks that have supported stakeholder social and demographic issues can stymie climate adaptation adaptation activity to-date.'7 6'7 9'8 6 activity.9'
°4' 105 Through iterative processes, however, stakeholders can regularly evaluate the appropriateness of planned and implemented activities and revise them as new information becomes available.
2'2 8'8 4 Additionally, the sharing of best practices and lessons learned can be pivotal means to advancing understanding and uptake of climate adaptation activity.8 2'8 6 The use of established information-sharing U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 682 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Section 2: Barriers to Adaptation and Examples of Overcoming Barriers Despite emerging recognition of the necessity of climate change adaptation, many barriers still impede efforts to build local, regional, and national-level resilience.
Barriers are obstacles that can delay, divert, or temporarily block the adaptation process,'°6 and include difficulties in using climate change projections for decision-making; lack of resources to begin and sustain adaptation efforts; lack of coordination and collaboration within and across political and natural system boundaries as well as within organizations; institutional constraints; lack of leadership; and divergent risk 11s. 2107 perceptions/cultures and values (Table 28.6). .Barriers are distinguished from physical or ecological limits to adaptation, such as physiological tolerance of species to changing climatic conditions that cannot be overcome (except with technology or some other physical intervention).8,54"108 Despite barriers, individuals within and across sectors and regions are organizing to collectively overcome barriers and adapt to climate change. In many cases, lessons learned from initial programs help inform future adaptation strategies.
Figure 28.4 highlights ongoing climate adaptation activities that have overcome some of these barriers in different regions led Table 28.6. Summary of Adaptation Barriers Barrier.Specific Examples Climate Change Information and Decision-Making
References:
'7,8,10,11,14,17.31, 32,42, 596,68,72.82,90,93,104,109,110,111,112
- Uncertainty about future.climate impacts and difficulty in interpreting the cause of individual.
weather events..Disconnect between information providers and information users* Fragmented,'
complex, and often confusing information
- Lack of climate education for professionals and the public* Lack of usability and accessibility of existing information" Mismatch of decision-making timescales and future climate projections" -7 d. d. t d," i- .... ..-,. .Lack.financia .resource'sl.no ded icated funding:.
.i .Lack of Riesources to'Begin and Su.staln Adaptation Efforts
- safn*Und~rinvestment in humanf dimensiohs research Fragmentation of Decision-Making Refencs 1,,4,31,32,51,68,115,216
References:
....* *' Lack of coordination within and across agencies, private companies, and non-governmental organizations
- Uncoordinated and fragmented research efforts.Disjointed climate related information
- Fragmented ecosystem and jurisdictional boundaries Lack of institutional flexibility
-.Rigid laws and regulations,, Institutional Constraints...
.8'13,42,51,54,97,113,117,118,119
References:
..Lack of Leadership
- e " 30,96,112,113,119,120,1Z1
References:
..:..Divergent Risk Percepiions, Cultures,
References:
51,71,82,116,117,120,122" No legal manidate to act ,'.I e. Useof historical data.to inform future decisions
-' .RestriCtive management procedOres
.* .*Lack of operational control or influence L Lack of political leadership
..Rigid andrentrenched political structures.." Polarization
..:*. Conflicting.values/risk perceptions and Vae .... Little integration of local knowledge, context, and needs with traditional scientific information a.Cultural taboos and conflict with cultural beliefs" .Resistance to change due to issue~s such as risk perception H PROGRAM 683 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED Si U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARC'ATES 28: ADAPTATION by state, local, and private actors in the United States. It is not a comprehensive compilation of national adaptation activity, but is intended to identify some of the variety of adaptation efforts taking place across the country.In addition, Section 4 of this chapter provides four in-depth case studies of climate adaptation strategies at different scales, with multiple stakeholders, and tackling different challenges.
Each of these case studies highlights the different ways stakeholders are approaching adaptation.
Through the creation of the National Integrated Drought In-formation System (NIDIS), the Federal Government, in part-nership with the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), states, tribes, universities, and others, has improved capacity to proactively manage and respond to drought-related risks and impacts through: 1) the provision of drought early warn-ing information systems with local/regional input on extent, onset, and severity;
- 2) a web-based drought portal featuring the U.S. Drought Monitor and other visualization tools; 3) co-ordination of research in support and use of these systems;and 4) leveraging of existing partnerships, forecasting, and assessment programs." In the Colorado River Basin, water resource managers, gov-ernment leaders, federal agencies, tribes, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector are collaborating on strategies for managing water under a changing climate through partnerships like the Western Gov-ernors' Association (WGA) and WestFAST (Western Federal Agency Support Team)." In Wisconsin, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Sci-ence and the U.S. Forest Service, working with multiple part-ners, initiated a "Climate Change Response Framework" in-tegrating climate-impacts science with forest management." In Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the U.S. Department of Trans-portation's Volpe Center worked with federal, regional, state, and local stakeholders to integrate climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation considerations into existing and future transportation, land-use, coastal, and hazard-mitigation pro-cesses.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 684 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Figure 28.4. Adaptation Activity 1... The State of Hawai'i,.Office of Planning, in cooperation with university, private, state, and federal scientists and others, has drafted a framework for climate change adaptation that identifies sectors'affected.by climate change, and outlines a process for coordinated statewide adaptation planning., 2 3 2. One of the priorities of the Hawai'i State Plan is preserving water sources through forest conservation, as indicated in their"Rain Follows The Forest"*report.
1 2' .3. New England Federal Partners is a multi-agency group formed to.support the needs of the states, tribes, and communities of the New England*Region and to facilitate and. enable informed decision-making on issues pertaining to coastal and marine spatial planning, climate mitigation, and climate adaptation throughout the region.4. Philadelphia is greening its combined sewer infrastructure to protect rivers,. reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, .and enhance adaptation to a changing climate:.1 2.5. Keene, NH, developed a Comprehensive.Master Plan that emphasizes fosteringwalkable, mixed-use neighborhoods by putting services, jobs, homes, arts and'culture
'and other community amenities within, walking distance of each other. The plan also calls for sustainable site and building designs that use resources efficiently.
These strategies were identified in the city!s 2007 Adaptation Plan as ways to build resilience While reducing greenhouse gas emissi'ons.
1.2.7 6. New York City has created a Green Infrastructure Plan and is committed to goals that include the construction of enough green infrastructure throughout the city to manage 10%. of the runoff from impervious surfaces by 20301128 7. Lewes, DE, undertook an intensive stakeholder process to integrate climate .change into the city's updated hazard mitigation plan.62 8. Local governments and tribes throughout Alaska, such-as those in Homer, are planting native vegetation and changing the coastal surface, moving inland or away from rivers,.'and building riprap walls, seawalls or groins, which are'shore-protection structures built perpendicular to the shoreline (see alsp: Ch. 22:Alaska;.
Ch. 12: Indigenous Peoples).1 2'9. Alaskan Villages are physically being relocated because of climate impacts such as sea level rise and erosion, these include : Newtok,,Shishmaref, Kivalina,.
and dozens of other villages.1'.10. Cedar Falls, Iowa, passed legislation in 2009 that includes a new.floodplain.ordinance that expands zoning restrictions from the 100-year floodplain to the 500-year floodplain, because this expanded floodplain zone better reflects the flood risks experienced.by the city during the 2008 floods..2...11. In January.2011, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) released the Michigan Climate and Health Adaptation Plan, which has a goal of "preparing the public health system in Michigan to address the public health consequences of climate change in a coordinated manner." In.September.2010, MDCH received three years' funding to implement this plan as'part of the Climate-Ready States and Cities Initiative.
of,CD.C.132.
- 12. Chicagowas one of the first cities to officially Iinte6grate climate adap'tation into a citywide climate adaptation plan .S:since i ts release, a number of strategies have been implemented to help the city manage heat, protect forests, and enhance green design, such 64 2.as their work on green roofs.. -13. Grand Rapids, MI, recently released.a sustainability plan that integrates future climate projections to ensure that the economic, environmental, and social strategies embraced are appropriate for today as well as the future.1 3 3 14. Tulsa, OK, has a three-pronged approach.
to reducing flooding and managing stormwater:
a) prevent new problems by looking ahead and avoiding future downstream problems from new development (for example, requiring on-site stormwater detention);.b) correct existing problems and learn from disasters to reduce future disasters(for example, through watershed management and the acquisition and relocation of buildings in! flood-prone areas); and c). act toenhance the safety, environment, and quality of life of the.ommunity through public awareness, an .increase in stormwater quality, and emergency management:.
4 15. Firewise Communities USA is a nationwide program of the National Fire Protection Association and is co-sponsored by USDA Forest Service, DOI, and the National Association of StateForesters.
According to the Texas Forest Service;there are more than 20 recognized Texas Firewise Communities.
The Texas Forest Service works closely with communities to help them to reach Firewise Community status and offers a variety of awareness, educational, informational, and capacity-building efforts, such as Texas Wildscapes, a program that assistsin .choosing less fire-friendly plants.1 3'Continued U..GOA*HNERSAC RGA 68.LMT CHNG I ..T INTEUITDSAE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 685 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION
- 16. After the heavy rainfall events of 2004 that.re.sulted in significant erosion.on his farms, Dan Gillespie, a farmerwith the.Natural Resources Conservation Service in Norfolk, NE, began experimenting.with adding cover crops to the no-ti-, process. It worked so well in..reducing erosion and increasing cropyields-that he is now sharing his experience with other farmers. (http://www.lenrd.
org/projects-programs/;
http;liwww.notill.orgl).
.17. Point Reyes National Seashore is preparing for climate change by removing two dams that are barriers to water flow and fish migration.
This change restores ecological continuity for anadromous fish (those that migrate from the sea to fresh water to 137 spawn), creating a more resilient ecosystem.
-.18. Western Adaptation Alliance is a group. of eleven cities in five states in the Intermountain West that share lessons learned in adaptation planning, develop.strategic thinkingthat can be applied to specific community plans, and join together to generate funds to support capacity building, adaptation.planning, and vulnerability.assessment
.-*19. Navajo Nation used information on likely changes i.n future climate to help inform their drought contingency plan. *3 *20. California Department of Health. and the Natural Resources Defense Council collaborated to create the Public Health Impacts of Climate Change'in California:
Community Vulnerabilitr Assessment and Adaptation Strategies report, which is: being used to inform public health.preparedness activities in the.,state.
- 21. State of Idaho successfully integrated climate adaptation into the state's, Wildlife Management Plan. (http://fishandgame.idaho..
gov/pdblic/wildlife/cwcs/).
- 22. The Rising Tides Competition was held in 2009 by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to elicit 141 ideas for how the Bay could.respondto sea level-rise.
- 23. Flagstaff, Arizona, created a resilience strategy and passed- a resilience policy, as opposed to a formal adaptation plan, as a* means totinstitutionalize adaptation efforts in city government operations..
- 24. The Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park were sites of case studies looking at how to adapt.management of federal lands to climate change. Sensitivity assessments, review of management activities and constraints, and adaptation workshops in the areas. of hydrology and roads, fish, vegetation, and wildlife were allcomponents of the case study process.143
- 25. King County Flood Control District was reformed to merge multipleflood management zones into a single county entity for funding refomed mulipleflod ito sngl co144* and policy oversight for projects and programs -. partly in anticipation of increased stormwater flows due to climate change.26. The Water Utilities Climate Alliance has been working with member water utilities to ensure that future weather and climate considerations are integrated into short- and long-term water management planning. (http:/lwww.wucaonline.orglhtml/)" 27. Seattle's RainWatch program uses an. early warning precipitation forecasting tool to help inform decisions about issues such as drainage operations. (http:/lwww.atmos.washingtOn.edulSPU/)", 28. City of Portland and Multnoah County created a Clima~te Action Plan that includes indicators to.elP them gaugelrogressin planning, andimplementing.
adaptationacti6ns.
1" r hgr 29. In 2010, the state of Louisiana launched a $10 million program.to assist communities that had been affected byHurricanes Gustav and Ike in becoming more resilient to future environmental problems.
Twenty.nine communities from around the state.were awarded resiliency development funds. The Coastal Sustainability Studio at Louisiana State University started workingin 2012 with all 29 funded communities, as'well as many that did not receive funds, to develop peer-learning networks, develop best practices, build capacity to implement plans; and develop planning tools and a User-inspired and useful website to increase community resiliency in the state.30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy are cooperating in a pilot adaptation project to address erosion and saltwater intrusion, among other issues, in the Alligator River Refuge. This project incorporates multiple agencies, native". * ". * .147" " * "" knowledge, community involvement, local economics, and.technical precision.
147 31. North and South Carolina are actively working to revise their state wildlife'strategies to include climate adaptation.e 8 2 32. The Southeast Florida Climate Change Compact is a collaboration of the four southernmost counties in Florida (Monroe, Broward, Palm Springs, and. Miami-Dade) focusing on enhancing regional resilience to climate change and reducing regional greenhouse
- ..67 gas emissions.
i U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 686 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Section 3: Adaptation to climate change is in a nascent stage. The Federal Government is beginning to develop institutions and practices necessary to cope with climate change, including efforts such as regional climate centers within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce), and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
While the Federal Government provides financial assistance in federally-declared disasters, it is also enabling and facilitating early adaptation within states, regions, local communities, and the public and private sectors.1 1 The approaches include working to limit current institutional constraints to effective adaptation, funding pilot projects, providing useful and usable adaptation information
-including disseminating best practices and helping develop tools and techniques to evaluate successful adaptation.
Despite emerging efforts, the pace and extent of adaptation activities are not proportional to the risks to people, property, infrastructure, and ecosystems from climate change;important opportunities available during the normal course of planning and management of resources are also being overlooked.
A number of state and local governments are engaging in adaptation planning, but most have not taken action to implement the plans.'0 7 Some companies in the private sector and numerous non-governmental organizations have also taken early action, particularly in capitalizing on the opportunities associated with facilitating adaptive actions.Actions and collaborations have occurred across all scales. At the same time, barriers to effective implementation continue to exist (see Section 2).One of the overarching key areas of focus for global change research is enabling research and development to advance adaptation across scales, sectors, and disciplines.
This includes social science research for overcoming the barriers identified in Section 2, such as strategies that foster coordination, better communication, and knowledge sharing amongst fragmented governing structures and stakeholders.
Research on the kinds of information that users desire and how to deliver that information in contextually appropriate ways and research on Next Steps decision-making in light of uncertainty about climate change and other considerations will be equally important.
In addition to these areas, emerging areas of emphasis include: " Costs and Benefits of Adaptation:
Methodologies to evaluate the relevant costs of adaptation options, as well as the costs of inaction, need to be developed.
6" 0 2" A Compendium of Adaptation Practices:
A central and streamlined database of adaptation options implemented at different scales in space and time is needed. Information on the adaptation actions, how effective they were, what they cost, and how monitoring and evaluation were conducted should be part of the aggregated information.""'"'
3"" Adaptation and Mitigation Interactions:
Research and analy-sis on the growing and competing demands for land, water, and energy and how mitigation actions could affect adapta-tion options, and vice versa.4" 2 7'"'4 6" Critical Adaptation Thresholds:
Research to identify critical thresholds beyond which social and/or ecological systems are unable to adapt to climate change. This should include analyzing historical and geological records to develop models of "breakpoints".
2'3 1", 4 9" Adaptation to Extreme Events: Research on preparedness and response to extreme events such as droughts, floods, intense storms, and heat waves in order to protect people, ecosystems, and infrastructure.
Increased attention must be paid to how extreme events and variability may change as climate change proceeds, and how that affects adaptation actions.""....
Effective adaptation will require ongoing, flexible, transpar-ent, inclusive, and iterative decision-making processes, col-laboration across scales of government and sectors, and the continual exchange of best practices and lessons learned. All stakeholders have a critical role to play in ensuring the pre-paredness of our society to extreme events and long-term changes in climate.Section 4: Case Studies Illustrative Case One: National Integrated Drought Information System NIDIS (National Integrated Drought Information System), and research organizations to advance a warning system for originally proposed by the Western Governors' Association drought-sensitive areas.(WGA) and established by Congress in 2006,"' is a federally-created entity that improves the nation's capacity to The creation of NIDIS involved many years of development and proactively manage drought-related risks across sectors, coordination among federal, state, local, regional, and tribal regions, and jurisdictions.
It was created by Congress to partners with the help of Governors' associations and Senate"enable the Nation to move from a reactive to a more and Congressional leaders. NIDIS provides:
- 1) drought early proactive approach to managing drought risks and impacts." warning information systems with regional detail concerning NIDIS has successfully brought together government partners onset and severity;
- 2) a web-based portal (www.drought.gov);
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 687 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION
- 3) coordination of federal research in support of and use of these systems; and 4) leveraging of existing partnerships and of forecasting and assessment programs.
NIDIS currently supports work on water supply and demand, wildfire risk assessment and management, and agriculture.
Regional drought early warning system pilot projects have been established to illustrate the benefits of improved knowledge management, improved use of existing and new information products, and coordination and capacity development for early warning systems. These prototype systems are in the Upper Colorado Basin, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in the Southeast, the Four Corners region in the Southwest, and California.
The NIDIS Outlook in the Upper Colorado Basin provides early warning information every week, for example, that is utilized by a variety of users from federal agencies, water resource management, and the recreation industry.The Western Governors' Association, the U.S. Congress, and others have formally acknowledged that NIDIS provides a successful example of achieving effective federal-state partnerships by engaging both leadership and the public, and establishing an authoritative basis for integrating monitoring and research to support risk management.
Some of NIDIS's keys to success include: " Usable Technology and Information for Decision Support: The production of the U.S. Drought Monitor map, which integrates multiple indica-tors and indices from many data sources, was developed before NIDIS was established and has become a useful visual decision support tool for monitoring and characterizing drought onset, severity, and persistence.
NIDIS has engaged re-gional and local experts in refining the regional details of this national product and in "ground truthing" maps via email discussions and webi-nars (Figure 28.5)." Financial Assistance:
Federal funding was allo-cated to NOAA specifically for NIDIS, but lever-aged in kind by other agencies and partners." Institutional/Partnerships:
Effective collabo-rations, partnerships, and coordination with NOAA, WGA, USDA, DOI, and USGS as well as local, regional, state, and tribal partners and with the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, have led to multi-institutional "buy-in."* Institutional/Policy:
The NIDIS Act was oriented toward the improvement of coordination across The U.federal agencies and with regional organizations, Droug universities, and states. It focused on the applica- United tion of technology, including the Internet, and on Atmos impact assessments for decision support. A key aspect of NI-DIS is the development of an ongoing regional outlook forum based on the above information to build awareness of the drought hazard and to embed information in planning and practice (in partnership with the National Drought Mitigation Center, the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA), and other research-based boundary organizations) to reduce risks and impacts associated with drought.Leadership and Champions:
NIDIS supporters worked at all levels over more than two decades (1990s and 2000s) to es-tablish the NIDIS Act, including political groups (WGA, South-ern Governors' Association, National Governors Association, and U.S. Senators and Representatives), scientific leaders, and federal agencies (NOAA, USDA, DOI).Risk Perceptions:
Whereas drought had been considered pri-marily a western issue in previous decades, drought is now regularly affecting the southern, southeastern, and north-eastern parts of the country and response strategies are needed. During the 2012 drought, more than 63% of the con-tiguous U.S. by the end of July was classified as experiencing moderate to exceptional drought, and more than 3,200 heat records were broken in June 2012 alone.1s 2 U.S. Drought Monitor August 14, 2012 intensity.
M-DO Mmmniy Dry ZI D1 NwOutAModota 10D2 0Oro*i-Severe
03 Oou~Arste M 04 N**W.Ewep~onW Drought Impet Types:$a Sofl-T"erm typlcAd 4 mo<6hs (e;g. ag~ubm. Vrass&d)L
ticiy 4 mnohs (e9. hdogy., 8o)0 SL= Short-Tenn and LO-bTeim 28.6. U.S. Drought Monitor Map accessed on August 20, 2012.S. Drought Monitor is produced in partnership between the national ht Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the States Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and pheric Administration.
Map courtesy of NDMC-UNL.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 688 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Illustrative Case Two: Adaptive Governance in the Colorado River Basin The Colorado River supplies water and valuable ecosystem services to 33 million people and is vulnerable to climate change because of decreases in mountain snowpack and water availability, increased competition among water users, fires, drought, invasive species, and extended extreme heat events, among other threats.......
The 1922 Colorado River Compact, which allocates water among seven U.S. states and Mexico, was agreed upon in a particularly wet time period;1 5 4 thus the river water is already over-allocated for current conditions.
Given the likelihood of having less water because of climate change, resource managers and government leaders are increasingly recognizing that water must be managed with flexibility to respond to the projected impacts and the range of possible future climates (see Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate;Ch. 3: Water).1 3" 5 5 Multiple actors across multiple disciplines, scales of governance (including tribal, local, state, and federal), non-governmental organizations, and the private sector are organizing and working together to address these concerns and the relationship between climate and other stresses in the basin.The Western Governors' Association (WGA) spearheaded adaptation efforts to enable federal, state, tribal, local, and private sector partners to address a range of issues, including climate change.3'3,1 5 5 ,1 For example, the Western Federal Illustrative Case Three: Climate Northern Wisconsin's climate has warmed over the past 50 years, and windstorms, wildfires, insect outbreaks, and floods are projected to become more frequent in this century.6° The resulting impacts on forests, combined with fragmented and complex forest ownership, create management challenges that extend across ownership boundaries, creating the need for a multi-stakeholder planning process.61 To address these concerns, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, the USDA's Forest Service, and many other partners initiated the Climate Change Response Framework to incorporate scientific research on climate change impacts into on-the-ground management.
Originally developed as a pilot project for all-lands conservation in northern Wisconsin, it has expanded to cover three ecological regions (Northwoods
[Figure 28.6], Central Hardwoods, and Central Appalachians)
Figure 28.6.Northwoods..Climate,:
Change Resp0nse Framework Region (Figure Source:.USDA Forest Service 2012) 19 Agency Support Team (WestFAST), which was established in 2008, created a partnership between the Western States Water Council (WSWC) and 11 federal agencies with water management responsibilities in the western United States.The agencies created a work plan in 2011 to address three key areas: 1) climate change; 2) water availability, water use, and water reuse; and 3) water quality. To date they have produced the WestFAST Water-Climate Change Program Inventory, the Federal Agency Summary, and a Water Availability Studies Inventory (http://www.westgov.org/wswc/WestFAST.htm).
The WSWC and the USACE produced the Western States Watershed Study (WSWS), which demonstrated how federal agencies could work collaboratively with western states on planning activities."" In 2009, the WGA also adopted a policy resolution titled "Supporting the Integration of Climate Change Adaptation Science in the West" that created a Climate Adaptation Work Group composed of western state experts in air quality, forest management, water resources, and wildlife management.
Other important adaptation actions were the SECURE Water Act in 2009, the Reclamation Colorado River Basin water supply and demand study, and the creation of NIDIS to support stakeholders in coping with drought.'5 1 , 5 8 Change Adaptation in Forests across eight states in the Midwest and Northeast.
The Framework uses a collaborative and iterative approach to provide information and resources to forest owners and managers across a variety of private and public organizations.
Several products were developed through the Framework in northern Wisconsin:
- 1. Vulnerability and mitigation assessments summarized the observed and projected changes in the northern Wisconsin climate, projected changes in forest composition and carbon stocks across a range of potential climates, and assessed related vulnerabilities of forest ecosystems in northern Wis-consin.1 6 0 2. Forest Adaptation Resources:
Climate Change Tools and Ap-proaches for Land Managers 62 was developed to help man-agers identify management tactics that facilitate adaptation.
A "menu" of adaptation strategies and approaches for plan-ning, implementing, and monitoring adaptation activities was synthesized into an adaptation workbook from a broad set of literature and refined based on feedback from regional 163 scientists and managers .3. A series of adaptation demonstrations was initiated to show-case ground-level implementation.
The Framework and adaptation workbook provide a common process shared by diverse landowners and a formal network that supports U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 689 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION cross-boundary discussion about different management ob-jectives, ecosystems, and associated adaptation tactics.From the beginning, the Framework has taken an adaptive management approach in its adaptation planning and projects.Lessons learned include: " Define the purpose and scope of the Framework and its com-ponents early, but allow for refinement to take advantage of new opportunities." Begin projects with a synthesis of existing information to avoid duplicating efforts." Plan for the extra time necessary to implement true collabo-ration." Carefully match the skills, commitment, and capacity of peo-ple and organizations to project tasks." Maintain an atmosphere of trust, positivity, and sense of ad-venture, rather than dwelling on failures." Acknowledge and work with uncertainty, rather than submit to "uncertainty paralysis."" Recognize the necessity of effective communication among people with different goals, disciplinary backgrounds, vo-cabulary, and perspectives on uncertainty." Integrate the ecological and socioeconomic dimensions early by emphasizing the many ways that communities value and depend on forests." Use technology to increase efficiency of internal communica-tion and collaboration, as well as outreach.The Framework brings scientists and land managers together to assess the vulnerability of ecosystems based on scientific information and experience in order to plan adaptation actions that meet management goals. On-the-ground implementation has just begun, and an increased focus on demonstrations, monitoring, and evaluation will inform future adaptation efforts.Illustrative Case Four: Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change -Integrating Climate Adaptation and Mitigation in Cape Cod, Massachusetts Cape Cod, Massachusetts, a region of scenic beauty and environmental significance, is currently affected by sea level rise, coastal erosion, and localized flooding -impacts that are 164 165 likely to be exacerbated by climate change. To address these concernsand help meet the state's greenhouse gas (GHG)reduction target (25% reduction based on 1990 levels by 2020), the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center worked with federal, regional, state, and local stakeholdersto integrate climate change into existing and future transportation, land-use, coastal zone, and hazard mitigation planning through an initiative called the Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Pilot Project.1 6'The process was initiated through an expert elicitation held in mid-2010 to identify areas on Cape Cod that are or could potentially be vulnerable to sea level rise, flooding, and erosion. The Volpe Center then used a geographic information system (GIS) software tool to develop and evaluate a series of transportation and land-use scenarios for the Cape underfuture
- .165 167 development projections." All scenarios were evaluated against a series of criteria that included:
- 1) reduction in vehicle miles traveled;
- 2) reduced heat-trapping gas emissions; 3)reduction in transportation energy use; 4) preservation of natural/existing ecosystems;
- 5) reduction in percentage of new population in areas identified as vulnerable to climate change impacts; and 6) increased regional accessibility to 164 transportation.
Once the preliminary scenarios were developed, a workshop was convened in which community and transportation planners, environmental managers, and Cape Cod National Seashore stakeholders selected areas for development and transit improvements to accommodate new growth while meeting the goals of reduced heat-trapping gas emissions, increased resilience to climate change, and the conservation of natural systems. Through interactive visualization tools, participants were able to see in real-time the impacts of their siting decisions, allowing them to evaluate synergies and potential tradeoffs of their choices and to highlight areas where conflict could or already does exist, such as increasing density of development in areas already or likely to be vulnerable to climate change."58 As a result, the stakeholders developed a refined transportation and land-use scenario that will support the region's long-range transportation planning as well as other local, regional, and state plans.This updated scenario identifies strategies that have climate adaptation and mitigation value, helping to ensure that the region simultaneously reduces its heat-trapping gas footprint while building resilience to existing and future changes in climate."""" The overall success of the pilot project stemmed from the intensive stakeholder interaction at each phase of the project (design, implementation, and evaluation).
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 690 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION REFERENCES
- 1. Bierbaum, R. M., D. G. Brown, and J. L. McAlpine, 2008: Coping with Climate Change: National Summit Proceedings.
University of Michigan Press, 256 pp.2. SEGCC, 2007: Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable.
Report Prepared for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
R.Bierbaum,J.
P. Holdren, M. MacCracken, R. H. Moss, P. H. Raven, and H. J. Schellnhuber, Eds., 144 pp., Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change, Sigma Xi and the United Nations Foundation, Research Triangle Park, NC and Washington, D.C. [Available online at hrtp://www.globalprobleims-globalsolutions-filcs.org/
un f_website/PDF/climatc%/o20_change avoid-u.unma nagablec manageunavoidablc.pd fJ 3. McMullen, C. P., and J. R. Jabbour, 2009: Climate Change Science Compendium 2009. United Nations Environment Programme.
- 4. Skaggs, R., T. C. Janetos, K. A. Hibbard, and J. S. Rice, 2012: Climate and Energy-Water-Land System Interactions Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment, 152 pp., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
[Available online at http:!/climatemodeling.sciencc.energy.gov/f/PNNI,-21185_,'I NA_,--_R ["POR'.pdf]
Wilbanks, T., D. Bilello, D. Schmalzer, and M. Scott, 2012: Climate Change and Energy Supply and Use. Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment, 79 pp., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S.Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak Ridge, TN. [Available online at lttp:i/wwv.csl.ornl.gov/ecssilEnergySupplyl.sc.pdf]
- 5. Wilbanks, T., S. Fernandez, G. Backus, P. Garcia, K. Jonietz, P. Kirshen, M. Savonis, B. Solecki, and L. Toole, 2012: Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities.
Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment, 119 pp., Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
U.S Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak Ridge, TN. [Available online at http://www.esd.onil.gov/cess/
1n ftastructure.pdt1]
- 6. Karl, T. R., J. T. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, Eds., 2009: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 189 pp. [Available online at htrp://downloads.globalchange.
gov/usimpacts/pd fs/clim ate-impacts-report.pdtf
- 7. Kareiva, P., C. Enquist, A. Johnson, S. H. Julius, J. Lawler, B.Petersen, L. Pitelka, R. Shaw, andJ. M. West, 2008: Ch. 9: Synthesis and conclusions.
Preliminary Review of-Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources.
A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, S. H.Julius, andJ. M. West Eds., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 9-1 to 9-66. [Available online at http://library.globalchange.gov/
products/sap-4-4-prcliminary-rcvicw-of-adaptatinn-options-for-climate-sensitive-ecosystems-and-resources]
- 8. Staudinger, M. D., N. B. Grimm, A. Staudt, S. L. Carter, F. S. Chapin, Ill, P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus, and B. A. Stein, 2012: Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services.
Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment 296 pp., U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. [Available online at http://downloads.u.gcrp.gov/NCA!/Activities/Biodivcrsity-1.7.cosystcms-and-l'cosy stem-Scrviccs-Technical-I nput.pd f]9. Solecki, W., and C. Rosenzweig, Eds., 2012: U.S. Cities and Climate Change: Urban, Infrastructure, and Vulnerabilio Issues, Technical Input Report Series, U.S. National Climate Assessment.
U.S. Global Change Research Program.10. Kerr, R. A., 2011: Time to adapt to a warming world, but where's the science? Science, 334, 1052-1053, doi:10.1126/science.334.6059.1052.
- 11. NRC, 2010: Adapting to Impacts of Climate Change. America's Climate Choices.:
Report of the Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.National Research Council. The National Academies Press, 292 pp. [Available online at htrp://www.nap.edu/c.atalog.lphp?rCcord_
id= 12783]12. PCAST, 2011: Report to the President:
Sustainability Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy 145 pp., President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http:/!www.whitchouse.gov/sites/dcfault/filcs/n icrosites/ostp/pcast_
sulstaining-environ mental _ capitalvrepo rt.pdcf]Wilby, R. L., and S. Dessai, 2010: Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather, 65, 180-185, doi:10.1002/wea.543.
- 13. Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, Eds., 2013: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment.
Island press, 528 pp. [Available online at http://swccar.o0g/sites/all/thcmes/filcs/
S\V-N('A-color-FINA Lwcb.pdtl U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 691 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION FREF_ýE!1 ~ S 14. Winkler, J.,J. Andresen, andJ. Hatfield, Eds., 2012:Midwest Technical Input Report: Preparedfor the US National Climate Assessment.
236 pp.15. Lamb, H. H., 1982: Climate, Histog,, and the Modern IPbrld. Methuen.16. IPCC, 2007: Appendix I: Glossary.
Climate Change 2007.: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B.Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press. [Available online at http:/iwww.ipcc.ch/pdf/asscsstncnt-report/iar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-app.pdf]
- 17. NRC, 2007: Understanding Multiple Environmental Stresses:
Report of a IWorkshop.
National Research Council. The National Academy Press, 154 pp. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?rccord_id=11748]
- 18. C2ES, 2012: Climate Change Adaptation:
What Federal Agencies are Doing, February 2012 Update 71 pp., Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arlington, VA. [Available online at http:/,/www.
c2es.( rg/docL'ploads/fedceral-agcncies-adaptation.pdt]
- 19. CEQ, 2011: Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, 32 pp., The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.whitchousc.goNr/sites/dcfault/files/micrositcs/i ceq/2011_adaptationiiprogress-repoirt.pdf]
- 20. NRC, 2010: Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change. America's Climate Choices: Panel on Informing Effective Dedsions andActions Related to Climate Change. National Research Council, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Academies Press, 348 pp. [Available online at http://www.nap.
edu/catalog.php?record_id=
12784]21. U.S. Government, 2009: Executive Order 13514. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.
Federal Register, 74, 52117-52127.
[Available online at htrp://www.
whitehouse.gov/a ssets/documents/2009fedleader-eo-.rcl.pdf]
- 22. The White House, cited 2013: The President's Climate Action Plan.The White House. [Available online ar http:///www.whitehouse.
gov/sh are/clim ate-action-plan]
- 23. --, 2013: Executive Order 13653. Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change. The White House, Washinigton, D.C. [Available online at http://wwwv.whitchouse.gov/thc-p~ress-officc/20C1 3/11/01 /cxccutive-ordcr-preparing-united-states-impacts-climatc-change]
- 24. ICATF, 2011: National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate, 76 pp., U.S.Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force,. [Available online at http://www.wliirhousc.gov/sitcs/dcfaulh/files!
microsites/ceq/201 -national-action-plan.pd f-]25. National Fish Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership, 2012: National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, 120 pp., Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.wildlifcadaptationstratcgy.
gov/pdf/N FW\PCAS-1Fi nal.pdf]26. NOC, 2013: National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, 32 pp., National Ocean Council, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.whitchousc.gov//sites/dcfault/filcs/national_ocean_
policy implemcntation-plan.pd tf 27. USGCRP, 2012: The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021:
A Strategic Plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. 132 pp., The U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://downloads.
globalchange.gov/st rategic-plan/2012/!usgcrp-strategic-plan-2012.
pdq 28. NPS, 2010: National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy, 36 pp., U.S. National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado.
[Available online at http://www.nature.nps.gov/climatechangc/docs/N ISCCRS.pdfl 29. Rosenzweig, C., R. Horton, I. S. Higuchi, and C. Hudson, 2011: NASA's CASI Building climate-resilient NASA centers. Livebetter Maga-ine, December 22, 2011. [Available online at htrp://Iiivebettcriiiagazin e.com/ar ticle/nasas-casi-buiilding-cliimate-resilient-nasa-centers/]
- 30. Smith,J. B.,J. M. Vogel,T. L. Cruce, S. Seidel, and H. A. Holsinger, 2010: Adapting to Climate Change: A Call for Federal Leadership.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. [Available online at http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/adaptation-federal-leadership.pdf]
- 31. National Climate Adaptation Summit Committee, 2010: National Climate Adaptation Summit Report, 26 pp., University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Boulder, CO. [Available online at 15cbac88-03de-4015-aa6l-d63a10050686]
- 32. OTA, 1993: Preparing for an Uncertain Climate. Volume I and II (OTA-O-567; OTA-O-568).
U. S. Congress, Ed., 365 pp., Office of Technology Assessment, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. [Available online at www.fas.org/ota/
repcprts/9338.pdf]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 692 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28:
- 33. CEQ, 2010: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 72 pp., The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.whitehlouse.gov/sites/
dcfau lt/files/microsites/ccq/Interagcn cy-Climate-Change-Adaptation -Progress -Pcport.pd f]34. Goulder, L. H., and R. N. Stavins, 2011: Challenges from state-federal interactions in US climate change policy. The American Economic Review, 101, 253-257, doi:10.1257/aer.101.3.253.
Morsch, A., and R. Bartlett, 2011: Policy Brief: State Strategies to Plan for and Adapt to Climate Change -NI PB 11-08,11 pp., Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions
-Duke University, Durham, NC. [Available online at http://nicholasinstitutc.duke.
cdlu/si tcs/dcfauhI/filecs/publ ications/stat-e-tratcgies-ru-plan-for-and-adapt-to-climate-changc-papcr.pdf]
- 35. Feldman, I. R., and J. H. Kahan, 2007: Preparing for the day after tomorrow:
Frameworks for climate change adaptation.
Sustainable Development Law & Polit, 8, 31-39, 87-89. [Available online at http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?articlc
=1162&contcxt=sdlp]
- 36. Moser, S. C., 2009: Good Morning America! The Explosive Awakening of the US to Adaptation, 39 pp., California Energy Commission, NOAA-Coastal Services Center, Sacramento, CA and Charleston, SC. [Available online at http://xvww.preventionweb.
net/fi lesi1 1374_MoserG ood Morn ingA merica Adaptation in.pd t]37. C2ES, cited 2013: State and Local Climate Adaptation.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
[Available online at http://www.
c2es.org/ius-states-reginns/policy-maps,/adaptation]
- 38. AFWA, 2011: State Climate Adaptation Summary Report, 90 pp., Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C.39. Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: Recommendations Report to the Governor's Subcabinet on Climate Change. Final Report from the Immediate Action Workgroup, April 17, 2008, 86 pp., Immediate Action Workgroup, State of Alaska Juneau, AK.[Available online at http://www.climatechangc.alaska.gov/docs/
iavzrpt_17apr08.pd t]40. EPA, cited 2012: State and Local Climate and Energy Program.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Available online at http://wwvw.epa.gov/starelocalclimate/indcx.
html]41. Salkin, P. E., 2009: Sustainability and land use planning:
Greening.State and local land use plans and regulations to address climate change challenges and preserve resources for future generations.
William and Maey Environmental Law and Polig Review, 34, 121-170. [Available online at http://scholarship.1aw.wm.cdu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?acticlc=1003&contcxt=wmclpr]
- 42. Keener, V., J. J. Marra, M. L. Finucane, D. Spooner, and M. H.Smith, Eds., 2012: Cfimate Change and Pacific Islands: Indicators and Impacts. Report for the 2012 Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment (PIRCA). Island Press, 170 pp. [Available online at http://www.
pacificrisa.org/projects/pirca/]
- 43. KDFWR, 2010: Action Plan to Respond to Climate Change in Kentucky:
A Strategy of Resilience, 37 pp., Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.
[Available online at http:'/ifw.ky.
gov/kfwvis/stwg/201OI.pdatc/ClimatcChangeCChaptcr.pd f]44. State of Louisiana, 2012: Louisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA. [Available online at http://www.coastalmastcrplan.louisiana.gov/2012-master-plan/
final-master-plan/]
- 45. Grannis, J., 2011: Adaptation Tool Kit: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Land Use. I-low Governments Can Use Land-Use Practices to Adapt to Sea-Level Rise, 100 pp., Georgetown Climate Center, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.
georgetownclirnmitc.org/sitcs/defatult/files/Adaptation To(ol Kit_SLR.pdf]46. Feifel, K., 2010: Implementation of Maryland's Climate Action Plan: Case Study on a Project of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2 pp., EcoAdapt, Island Press. [Available online at http://www.cakex.org/printpdf/case-st udies/2829]
- 47. Propst, S. C., cited 2012: Innovative Approaches for Adapting to Water Variability in the West. Georgetown Climate Center.[Available online at http://www.georgctownclimate.org/rcsources!
in novativc-approachcs-for-adapting-to-water-variabi I ity-i n-t he-West]48. SCIPP, 2012: Southern Climate Impacts and Planning Program Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program 4th Annual Report: May 1, 2011 -April 30, 2012: Norman, OK and Baton Rouge, LA, 20 pp., Southern Climate Impacts and Planning Program (SCI PP), Oklahoma Climatological Survey, University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[Available online at http://www.
southernclitate.org/publications/SCI PP .2011-2012A.nnual_
Report.pd f]49. Brubaker, M., J. Berner, J. Bell, J. Warren, and A. Rolin, 2010: Climate Change in Point Hope, Alaska: Strategies for Community Health: Anchorage, AK, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, 44 pp., Center for Climate and Health. [Available online at http://www.antihc.oi:g/chls/ces/climate/upload/Climate-(.hainge-and-I-lealth-Effccts-in-Point-I -opc-Alaska.pdtf U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 693 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 23': A DA P -ATI0N 50. Bronen, R., 2011: Climate-induced community relocations:
Creating an adaptive governance framework based in human rights doctrine.
NYU Review Law & Social Change, 35, 357-408. [Available online at http://socialchangcnyuii.files.wordprcss.coml/2012/08/
climatc-induccd-miigation-broocn-35-2.pdtf
- 51. Simmonds, J., 2011: Resource for Consideration by the NCA Teams Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Native Communities.
Native Communities and Climate Change Project of the University of Colorado Law School and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science.52. Lamb, R., and M. V. Davis, 2011: Promoting Generations of Self Reliance:
Stories and Examples of Tribal Adaptation to Change, 27 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. [Available online at http://www.cpa.gov/region l0/pd f/tribal/stories aod.c...xamnples of._tribal_adaptationjto changc.pdf]
- 53. Anguelovski, I., and J. Carmin, 2011: Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainabiligy, 3, doi:1 0.1016/J.cosust.2010.12017.
- 54. Gregg, R. M., L.J. Hansen, K. M. Feifel,J.
L. Hitt,J. M. Kershner, A. Score, and]. R. Hoffman, 2011: The State of Marine and Coastal Adaptation in North America: A Synthesis of Emerging Ideas. A report for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation:
Bainbridge Island, WA, EcoAdapt., 145 pp. [Available online at http://ecoadapt.org/docume, ts/marine-adaptation-report.pdf]
- 55. Rabe, B. G., 2009: Second-generation climate policies in the states: Proliferation, diffusion, and regionalization.
Changing Climates in North American Politics:
Institutions, Polfiymaking.
and Multilevel Governance, H. Selin, and S. D. VanDeveer, Eds., MIT Press, 67-86.Wheeler, S. M., 2008: State and municipal climate change plans: The first generation.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 481-496, doi:10.1080/01944360802377973.
- 56. Tang, Z., S. D. Brody, C. Quinn, L. Chang, and T. Wei, 2010: Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 53, 41-62, doi:1 0.1080/09640560903399772.
- 57. Colson, M., K. Heery, and A. Wallis, 2011: A Survey Of Regional Planning For Climate Adaptation, 2 0 pp., The National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, DC. [Available online at http://iarc.org/wp-contcnt/uplh:ads/NOA A _\X'hitePapcr-FJNA L2.pdtl 58. Dierwechter, Y., 2010: Metropolitan geographies of US climate action: Cities, suburbs, and the local divide in global responsibilities.
Journal of Environmental Pollg & Planning, 12, 59-82, doi:l 0.1080/152 39081003625960.
Kahn, M. E., 2009: Urban growth and climate change. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 333-350, doi:10.1146/annurev.
resource.050708.144249.
Selin, H., and S. D. VanDeveer, 2007: Political science and prediction:
What's next for U.S. climate change policy? Review of Pol47 Research, 24, 1-27, doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00265.x.
[Available online at http://pubpagcs.unh.cdu/-
sdv/US-Climatc-Policy.pdf]
- 59. Carmin,J., N. Nadkarni, and C. R hie, 2012: Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning:
Results of a Global Survey, 30 pp., Massachussetts Institute of Technology, ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability, Cambridge, MA. [Available online at http:iHweb.mit.edu/jcarmin/www/urbanadapt/Urbano20 Adaptation%20Rcport%20FI NA L.pd f]60. Binder, L. C. W., J. K. Barcelos, D. B. Booth, M. Darzen, M. M.Elsner, R. Fenske, T. F. Graham, A. F. Hamlet,J.
Hodges-Howell,J.
E. Jackson, C. Karr, P. W. Keys,J. S. Littell, N. Mantua, J. Marlow, D. McKenzie, M. Robinson-Dorn, E. A. Rosenberg, C. 0. Stockle, and J. A. Vano, 2010: Preparing for climate change in Washington State. Climatic Cbange, 102, 351-376, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9850-5.
- 61. EPA, 2010: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments:
A Review of Water Utility Practices.
EPA 800-R-10-001, 32 pp., U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http:/water.epa.gov/scitcch/climatechangciupload/
Cl imate-Changc-\Vulnerability-A sscssnicrits-Sept-2010.pdf]
- 62. City of Lewes, 2011: The City of Lewes Hazard Mitigation and Cli-mate Adaptation Action Plan, 164 pp., Delaware Sea Grant College Program, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, and Uni-versity of Delaware Sustainable Coastal Communities Program.[Available online at littp:!www.descagrant.org/sites/defauit/filcs/
attachments/lcwes%/20.Hazard%20M itigation%20and%2OCli-mate%20Adaptation%20,\Action%2OPlan.pdt]
- 63. Stults, M., and J. Pagach, 2011: Preparing for Climate Change in Groton, Connecticut:
A Model Process for Communities in the Northeast.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Ready Estuaries Program and the Long Island Sound Study, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.groton-ct.govi dcpts/plandev/docs/
Clinm atc%20C:hange%2oP,'ojcctJ P.pdf]64. City of Chicago, 2008: City of Chicago Climate Action Plan: Our City. Our Future, 57 pp. [Available online at http://www.chicagoclimatcaction.org/filebin/pdf/finalreporrt/
CCA PR EPORTFINA.Lv2.pd f]65. Wolf, K., 2009: Adapting to climate change: Strategies from King County, Washington.
PAS Memo, March/April, 11. [Available online at http://wwvw.plannting.org/pas/mcmo/preN'ious.htn]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 694 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADA(ýPTA-T iON 66. City of New York, 2012: PIaNYC Progress Report 2012. A Greener, Greater New York, 48 pp., New York. [Available online at http://ny telecom .vo.l I nwd.net/o1 5/agencies/planyc2030/pd f/planvc_progres sreport_2012.pdf]
- 67. SFRCCC, 2012: A Region Responds to a Changing Climate.Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties.Regional Climate Action Plan, 80 pp., South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties, FL. [Available online at http://south cast floridacl im a tecompact.org/pd f/Regional%20 Climate%20;\ct ion%2OPlan%20F"I N A L%20A DA%20Comnpliant.
pdf]68. Horton, R., W. Solecki, and C. Rosenzweig, 2012: Climate Change in the Northeast:
A Sourcebook.
Draft Technical Input Report prepared for the U.S. National Climate Assessment.
[Available online at http://downloads.usgcrp.gov/NCA/Activities/nca ne_full_rcportv2.pd f]69. White-Newsome, J. L., B. N. Sinchez, E. A. Parker, J. T. Dvonch, Z. Zhang, and M. S. O'Neill, 2011: Assessing heat-adaptive behaviors among older, urban-dwelling adults. Maturitas, 70, 85-91, doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.06.015.
- 70. Agrawal, A., 2008: The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change. International Forestry Research and Institutions Program (IFRI) Working Paper # W08I-3, 47 pp., Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan.[Available online at http://www.worldfishcenter.org/sites/'clefault/
filIcs!T'he%20role%2 0of%.'201ocai
%20in stitution%2/o0 in%'20 adaptation%20to%20climate%20change.pdf]
Guston, D. H., W. Clark, T. Keating, D. Cash, S. Moser, C. Miller, and C. Powers, 2000: Report of the Workshop on Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) Discussion Paper 2000-32. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at Rutgers University and UMDNJ-RWJMS, Global Environmental Assessment Project, Environment and Natural Resources Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 41 pp. [Available online at http://www.hks.
harvard.ecdu/gea/pubs/ihurul .pdf]71. Van Aalst, M. K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton, 2008: Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment.
Global Environmental Change, 18, 165-179, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.002.
- 72. Vose,J. M., D. L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand, Eds., 2012: Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems:
A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. General Technical Report PNIV-GTR-870.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 265 pp. [Available online at http://www.u sda.gov/oce/cliniate-cha nge/effects-220112/FS_
Climate ll14%20opt.pdf]
- 73. CDP, 2011: CDP S&P 500 Report: Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action, 49 pp., Carbon Disclosure Project, New York, NY and London, UK. [Available online at https://www.
c(dprojcct.net/CDPResults/CDP-201 I-SP500.pd f]74. C2ES, 2008: Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach.F. G. Sussman, and J. R. Freed, Eds., 41 pp., Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), Arlington, VA. [Available online at http://www.c2cs.org/docUploads/Business-Adaptation.pdt]
- 75. PWC, 2010: Business Leadership on Climate Change Adaptation:
Encouraging Engagement and Action, 36 pp., PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP London, UK. [Available online at http://www.ukinediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/
down loadivledia.ashx?Medial)etailsl D= 1837]76. WBCSD, 2009: Adaptation:
An Issue Brief for Business, 24 pp., World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland and Washington, D.C. [Available online at http:i!www.prev'entionweb.net/files/7781_
_Adaptation l.pdf]77. Agrawala, S., M. Carraro, N. Kingsmill, E. Lanzi, M. Mullan, and G. Prudent-Richard, 2011: Private sector engagement in adaptation to climate change: Approaches to managing climate risks. OECD Environment IVorking Papers, 39, doi:10.1787/5kg221jkflg7-en.
Oxfam America, cited 2012: The New Adaptation Marketplace:
Climate Change and Opportunities for Green Economic Growth. Oxfam America. [Available online at http://www.
iiusclim atentetwork.org/resource-database/the-n ew-adalptation
-marketpl ace. pd f 78. Dell, J., and P. Pasteris, 2010: Adaptation in the Oil and Gas Industry to Projected Impacts of Climate Change. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 16 pp.79. Means, E., III, M. Laugier, J. Daw, L. Kaatz, and M. Waage, 2010: Decision Support Planning Methods: Incorporating Climate Change Uncertainties Into Water Planning.
Water Utility Climate Alliance White Paper, 113 pp., Water Utility Alliance, San Francisco, CA. [Available online at http.://www.wucaonlinc., rg,/asscts/pdf/pubs whitepaper 012110.pd f]80. Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N. A. Edelson, 2011: Scanning the Conservation Horizon:A Guide to Climate Change Iiulnerability Assessment.
National Wildlife Federation, 176 pp.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 695 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 26: ADAPTATION R EF vE` .!'..-S Rowland, E. L., J. E. Davison, and L. J. Graumlich, 2011: Approaches to evaluating climate change impacts on species: A guide to initiating the adaptation planning process. Environmental Management, 47, 322-337, doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9608-x.
West, J. M., S. H. Julius, P. Kareiva, C. Enquist, J. J. Lawler, B.Petersen, A. E. Johnson, and M. R. Shaw, 2009: US natural resources and climate change: Concepts and approaches for management adaptation.
EnvironmentalManagement, 44, 1001-1021, doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9345-1.
- 81. Ingram, K., K. Dow, L. Carter, and J. Anderson, Eds., 2013: Climate of the Southeast United States: I/ariability, Change, Impacts, and Vulnerabiiy.
Island Press, 342 pp. [Available online at http://www.
seclimatc.org/pdfpubs/2013/SE-NCA-draft8-color.pdt]
- 82. Lackstrom, K., K. Dow, B. Haywood, A. Brennan, N. Kettle, and A. Brosius, 2012: Engaging Climate-Sensitive Sectors in the Carolinas.
Technical Report: CISA-2012-03:
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments, 180 pp., Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments (CISA), University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. [Available online at http://www.cisa.sc.edu/l'ubs_
Presentations
-losters/Rcports/2012_i,ackstrom%20et%/o20 al.. lilgaging%20Climate-Scnsitive%20Sectors'20in%20the1/420 Carolinas.pdif]
- 83. 13arrett,J.,J.
Rose, A. Deonarine, A. Clemetson,J.
Pagach, M. Parker, and M. Tedesco, 2011: Sentinel Monitoring for Climate Change in the Long Island Sound Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems of New York and Connecticut, 139 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stamford, CT.Ford, J. D., E. C. H. Keskitalo, T. Smith, T. Pearce, L. Berrang-Ford, F. Duerden, and B. Smit, 2010: Case study and analogue methodologies in climate change vulnerability research.
IPily Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 374-392, doi:10.1002/
wcc.48. [Available online at hrtp:/,/onlinelibrary.wilcy.com/
doi,/ 0.1 002/wcc.48/pdq Fissel, H. M., 2007: Vulnerability:
A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research.
Global Environmental Change, 17, 155-167, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002.
Heller, N. E., and E. S. Zavaleta, 2009: Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations.
Biological Conservation, 142, 14-32, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006.
Hulme, M., and S. Dessai, 2008: Predicting, deciding, learning: Can one evaluate the 'success' of national climate scenarios?
Environmental Research Letters, 3, 045013, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/045013.
[Available online at http://iopsciencc.iop.
org/1748-9326/3/4/045013]
Pahl-Wostl, C., P. Jeffrey, N. Isendahl, and M. Brugnach, 2011: Maturing the new water management paradigm:
Progressing from aspiration to practice.
Water Resources Management, 25, 837-856, doi:10.1007/si1269-010-9729-2.
[Available online at http://www.
evcrgladcshub.com/lit/pdfl 1 /Pahll lwatRcsMgmt25-837 WatMgmt.pd f]84. EPA, 2011: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments:
Four Case Studies of Water Utility Practices.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. [Available online at http://cfptib.cpa.
gov/ncea/global/recordisplav.cfm?dcid=233808]
- 85. Fazey, I., J. G. P. Gamarra, J. Fischer, M. S. Reed, L. C. Stringer, and M. Christie, 2010: Adaptation strategies for reducing vulnerability to future environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 414-422, doi:10.1890/080215.
Few, R., K. Brown, and E. L. Tompkins, 2007: Public participation and climate change adaptation:
Avoiding the illusion of inclusion.
Climate Policy, 7, 46-59, doi:10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability.
GlobalEnvironmentalChange, 16,282-292, doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.03.008.
- 86. Preston, B. L., R. M. Westaway, and E. J. Yuen, 2011: Climate adaptation planning in practice:
An evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16, 407-438, doi:1 0.1007/sl 1027-010-9270-x.
- 87. Brunner, R. D., T. A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. M. Cromley, C. M.Edwards, and D. W. Tucker, 2005: Adaptive Governance:
Integrating Science, Poligy, and Decision Making. Columbia University Press, 326 pP.Stern, P. C., H. V. Fineberg, and I. Ebrary, 1996: Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, 250 pp. [Available online at htrp://www.nap.edu/openbook.
phpisbn=030905396X]
The World Bank, 2008: Climate Resilient Cities: A Primer on Reducing VIulnerabities to Disaster.
The World Bank 157 pp.88. ICLEI, 2012: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for San Diego Bay. D. Hirschfeld, and B. Holland, Eds., 133 pp., ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA San Diego, CA. [Available online at http://www.icieiusa.org/static/SariDiegoBay
_SIR_AdaptationStrategy_.Ccmplete.pdf]
Moser, S. C., and J. A. Ekstrom, 2010: A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sdences, 107, 22026-22031, doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107.
[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/contcnt/107/51t/22026.
full.pdf+htmli]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 696 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 981' .(7))1', 1CJ Pyke, C., M. Bennett, M. Johnston, R. Najjar, M. Raub, K. Sellner, S. Stiles, and D. Wardrop, 2012: Adapting to Climate Change in the Chesapeake Bay: A STAC workshop to monitor progress in addressing climate change across the Chesapeake Bay. STAC Publication 12-001. Philadelphia, PA, 14 pp. [Available online at http://www.chcsapcakcbay.nctichanncl filcs/18086/(attachment_
vi.b)_adaptingoto.climatcechangein
_ the _chesapeakebay.pdF]
- 89. Sutaria, S., A. Kulungara, K. Wyss, and J. Blumenstock, 2012: 3d National Climate Assessment Feedback Report. Reference Number 2011-0059, 7 pp., Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), Arlington, VA.90. Burkett, V., and M. Davidson, 2012: Coastal Impacts, Adaptation and J'ulnerabilities:
A Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment.
Island Press, 216 pp.91. Federspiel, S., 2012: Climate Change Adaptation Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation:
Needs, Resources, and Lessons for the 2013 National Climate Assessment, 62 pp., University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI.Hammill, A., and T. Tanner, 2011: Harmonising climate risk management:
Adaptation screening and assessment tools for development co-operation.
OECD Environment WIFrking Papers, 36, 53, doi:l0.1787/5kg706918zvl-en.
- 92. Wilby, R. L., and K. Vaughan, 2011: Hallmarks of organisations that are adapting to climate change. Water and Environment Journal, 25, 271-281, doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2010.00220.x.
- 93. Groves, D. G., and R. J. Lempert, 2007: A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios.
Global Environmental Change, 17, 73-85, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.006.
- 94. Lempert, R. J., D. G. Groves, S. W. Popper, and S. C. Bankes, 2006: A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios.
Management Science, 52, 514-528, doi:10.1287/
mnsc.1050.0472.
Williams, B. K., and E. D. Brown, 2012: Adaptive Management:
The U.S. Department of the Interior Applications Guide 136 pp., U.S. Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management Working Group, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.doi.
g(vippa/utload!()-Al-Adaptivc-Nianagemcn t-Applications-(. uidc-Wcb()tptimizcd.pd f]95. Moore, S., E. Zavaleta, and R. Shaw, 2012: Decision-Making Under Uncertainty:
An Assessment of Adaptation Strategies and Scenario Development for Resource Managers.
Publication number: CEC-500-2012-027., California Energy Commission.
University of California, Santa Cruz, Sacramento, CA. [Available online at hlttip://www.encrgy.ca.gov/201 2publications/CEC-500-2012-027/
CEC-500-2012-027.pdt]
- 96. Moser, S. C., 2012: Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents:
An essay. Climatic Change, 111, 165-175, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0398-4.
[Available online at http://www.s usa n nnmoser.com/docu mcnts/Moser-essay.a ccei)tcd_clean-I 1-1-2011 _with'lablesFigures.pd f]97. NRC, 2004: Adaptive Management for WVater Resources Project Planning.National Research Council, Panel on Adaptive Management for Resource Stewardship.
The National Academies Press, 113 pp.[Available online at http://www.nat).cdu/catalog.phpirecord_
id=10972]98. Ford, J. D., L. Berrang-Ford, and J. Paterson, 2011: A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations. Climatic Change, 106, 327-336, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0045-5. [Available online at http://Iink.springcr.com/contcnt/pdf/
10.1007%2Us10584-011-0045-5]
- 99. Dovers, S. R., and A. A. Hezri, 2010: Institutions and policy processes:
The means to the ends of adaptation.
IilpyInterdiscitlinag, Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 212-231, doi:10.1002/wcc.29.
100. Janetos, A. C., R. S. Chen, D. Arndt, M. A. Kenney, D. Abbasi, T.Armstrong, A. Bartuska, M. Blair,J. Buizer, T. Dietz, D. Easterling, J. Kaye, M. Kolian, M. McGeehin, R. O'Connor, R. Pulwarty, S.Running, R. Schmalensee, R. Webb, J. Weltzin, S. Baptista, C.A. F. Enquist, J. Hatfield, M. Hayes, K. B. Jones, C. McNutt, W.Meier, M. D. Schwartz, and M. Svoboda, 2012: National Climate Assessment Indicators:
Background, Development, and Examples.A Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment Report., 59 pp. [Available online at http:!/d/wnioiads.usgcrp.
gov/NCI A/A ctivities/NC\A-I ndicators-TechnicaI-hI put-Report-IINA\ --3-1-12.pdf]
101. EPA, 2010: Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool, 2 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. [Available online at http://watcr.epa.gos/iofrastructurci wa tersecu rity/climate/uplhad/epa817f12011 .pdf]2012: National Water program 2012 Strategy:
Response to Climate Change, 132 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[Available online at http://watei.epa.gov/scitech/climatechiiangel uploadiepa_2012_cliimate_water_strategyfu.ill-report-fi ns l.pdqf 102. Parry, M., N. Arnell, P. Berry, D. Dodman, S. Fankhauser, C. I lope, S. Kovats, R. Nicholls, D. Satterthwaite, R. Tiffin, and T. Wheeler, 2009: Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates, 116 pp., International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. [Available online at http://pubs.iied.
org/pd fs/ 11501 IIF.D.pdt]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 697 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 284: ADAPTATION REF F E _E Sussman, F., N. Krishnan, K. Maher, R. Miller, C. Mack, P. Stewart, K. Shouse, and B. Perkins, 2014: Climate change adaptation cost in the US: What do we know? Climate Poliy, 14, 242-282, doi:10.1080/
14693062.2013.777604.
103. Ruth, M., D. Coelho, and D. Karetnikox, 2007: The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction.
A Review and Assessment by the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland, 52 pp., College Park, MD.[Available online at http://www.cicr.umd.edu/climateadaptation/]
104. McCollum, D. W., J. A. Tanaka, J. A. Morgan, J. E. Mitchell, K. A. Maczko, L. Hidinger, W. E. Fox, and C. S. Duke, 2011: Climate Change Effects on Rangelands:
Affirming the Need for Monitoring.
RMRS Human Dimensions Research Program: Discussion Paper, 27 pp., USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. [Available online at http://gis.
fs. fed.usir,/v.alue/drcs/climate change effects~rangelands.pdf]
105. Bjerklie, D. M., J. R. Mullaney, J. R. Stone, B. J. Skinner, and M.A. Ramlow, 2012: Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Groundwater Levels in New Haven, Connecticut.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1025, 56 pp., U.S.Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. [Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/10025/pdf/ofr2O12--1025_
report_508.pdt]
106. Ekstrom, J. A., S. C. Moser, and M. Torn, 2011: Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation:
A Diagnostic Framework.
Final Project Report. Publication Number: CEC-500-2011-004, 94 pp., California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. [Available online at h ttp://w ww.cn ergy.ca.gov/20"1 lpublications/CI.LC.-500-2011-004/C:.C-500-2011-004.pdq 107. Bierbaum, R., J. B. Smith, A. Lee, L. Carter, F. S. Chapin, Ill, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo, S. McNeeley, M. Stults, E. Wasley, and L.Verduzco, 2013 A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: More than before, but less than needed. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 361-406, doi:10.1007/
sl1027-012-9423-1.
[Available online at http:f/link.springer.coin/
article/10.1007%2Fsl11027-012-9423-1]
108. Adger, W. N., S. Agrawala, M. M. Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O'Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit, and K. Takahashi, 2007: Ch. 17: Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity.
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of lIWrking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, M. L. Parry, 0. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 717-743.Mclgorm, A., S. Hanna, G. Knapp, P. Le Floc'H, F. Millerd, and M. Pan, 2010: I-low will climate change alter fishery governance?
Insights from seven international case studies. Marine Polig, 34, 170-177, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.06.004.
109. Barsugli, J. J., J. M. Vogel, L. Kaatz, J. B. Smith, M. Waage, and C. Anderson, 2012: Two faces of uncertainty:
Climate science and water utility planning methods. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 138, 389-395, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000188.
Dilling, L., and M. C. Lemos, 2011: Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. GlobalEnvironmental Change, 21, 680-689, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006.
Fowler, H. J., and R. L. Wilby, 2007: Beyond the downscaling comparison study. International Journal of Climatology, 27, 1543-1545, doi:10.1002/joc.1616.
[Available online at http:!/onlinelibrary.
wilcy.coni/doi/'
- 0. 1002/jic.
1616/pdf]Larsen, L., A. L. Steiner, E. S. Mallen, N. Kahn, S. Kalafatis, M.Ryen, P. Sotherland, and A. B. Tawfik, 2011: Climate downscaling and urban planning implications in three Great Lakes cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, submitted.
McNie, E. C., 2007: Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature.
Environmental Science & Polity, 10, 17-38, doi:10.1016/j.
envsci.2006.10.004.
Mitchell,J.
E., Ed., 2010: Criteria andIndicators of Sustainable Rangeland Management.
University of Wyoming Extension Publication No. SM-56, 227 pp. [Available online at http:!//www.sustainablerangeland.
org/pdf/SM56.pdfJ Romsdahl, R. J., L. Atkinson, and J. Schultz, 2013: Planning for climate change across the US Great Plains: Concerns and insights from government decision-makers.
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 3, 1-14, doi:10.1007/s13412-012-0078-8.
110. Hauser, R., and J. Jadin, 2012: Rural Communities Workshop Technical Report to the 2013 National Climate Assessment, 38 pp. (Available online at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/nca/
tech nical..inputs/ru ral-comi mnun ities-workshop-tcch nical-input.
pdf]Lebow, B., T. Patel-Weynand, T. Loveland, and R. Cantral, 2012: Land Use and Land Cover National Stakeholder Workshop Technical Report. Report prepared for 2013 National Climate Assessment, 73 pp. [Available online at http://downloads.usgcrp.
gov/N('A'A/ctivities/final-nca lulcworksholpreport.pdqt 111. Needham, H. F., L. Carter, and B. D. Keim, 2012: Gulf Coast Climate Needs Assessment Interviews, 20 pp., Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program (SCIPP). [Available online at http://ww-wv.southerntcliimate.org/publicationis/GiulfCoas t_AssessmentFinal.pl I]U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 698 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION.F-K ~rErc;-S 112. Schramm, P. J., 2012: National Climate Assessment Health Sector Workshop Report: Northwest Region, 28 pp., Seattle, Washington.
[Available online at http://www.joss.ucar.edui/ohhi/nw nca health_sector_fcbl2/lIcalth andCCNW_Report.pdf]
113. Brugger, J., and M. Crimmins, 2011: Weather, Climate, and Rural Arizona: Insights and Assessment Strategies.
A Technical Input to the U.S. National Climate Assessment, 80 pp., U.S. Global Climate Research Program, Washington, D.C. [Available online at littp://www.climas.arizona.edu/files/climas/projcct-documents/
p)Liblic/
1400/nca-rcport-final.pd tf 114. GAO, 2009: Alaska Native Villages:
Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened By Flooding and Erosion.Government Accountability Office Report GAO-09-551, 53 pp., U.S. Government Accountability Office. [Available online at http://ww w.gao.gov/ncw.itcesn/d09551 .pdf]115. Levin, S. A., and W. C. Clark, 2010: Toward a Science of Sustainability:
Report from Toward a Science of Sustainability Con ference Towarda Science ofSustainability, Airlie Center, Warrenton, Virginia Center for International Development Working Papers.[Available online at http://www.nsf.gov/mnps/dms/documents/
116. NRC, 2009: A Transportation Research Program for Mitigation and Adapting to Climate Change and Conserving Energy. Special Report 299, 136 pp., National Research Council, Committee for Study on Transportation Research Programs to Address Energy and Climate Change, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/cara.Ilog.php?record-id=I12801]
117. Adger, W. N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D.R. Nelson, L. 0. Naess, J. Wolf, and A. Wreford, 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93, 335-354, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
McNeeley, S. M., 2012: Examining barriers and opportunities for sustainable adaptation to climate change in Interior Alaska. Climate Change, 111, 835-857, doi:10.1007/si0584-011-0158-x. [Available online at http://ilink.
springer.com/contcnt/
pdf/l0.1007/,21Hs 10584-011-0158-x]
118. Carpenter, S. R., and W. A. Brock, 2008: Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecology and Society, 13, 40. [Available online at http://www.
ecologyandsocicty.oirg/voll13/iss2/art4O/]
Craig, R. K., 2008: Climate change, regulatory fragmentation, and water triage. FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 288.Folke, C., 2006: Resilience:
The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
[Available online at http://xvww.scicncedircct.com/sciencc/article/pii/
S0959378006C00I-0379]
Jantarasami, L. C., J. J. Lawler, and C. W. Thomas, 2010: Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in US national parks and forests. Ecology and Society, 15, 33. [Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/volI5/iiss4/art33/]
Lee, K. N., 1993: Compass and Gyroscope:
Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.
Island Press, 255 pp.Nelson, D. R., W. N. Adger, and K. Brown, 2007: Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience framework.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 395-419, doi:1 0.1 146/an nurev.energy.32.051807.090348.
[Available online at http://cprints.icrisat.ac.ii/4245/l
/Annual RcvicwofEnvRcsrourccs 32 395-419_2007.pdf]
119. Moser, S. C., andJ. A. Ekstrom, 2012: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in San Francisco Bay: Results from Case Studies. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-034, 186 pp., California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.[Available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publicationsi CIC-500-201?2-034/CI C-500-2012-034.pdf]
120. Ding, D., E. W. Maibach, X. Zhao, C. Roser-Renouf, and A.Leiserowitz, 2011: Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement.
Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimatel295.
121. Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and N. Smith, 2012: Climate Change in the American Mind: Public Support for Climate& Energy Policies in March 2012. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication., Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT. [Available online at http://cnvironmcnr.yalc.edu/
climate/files/Policy-Suppor t-March-2012.pdf]
Smith, J. B., J. M. Vogel, and J. E. Cromwell, III, 2009: An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change.An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95, 53-61, doi:10.1007/
s10584-009-9623-1.
122. Doria, M. F., E. Boyd, E. L. Tompkins, and W. N. Adger, 2009: Using expert elicitation to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 810-819, doi:10.1016/j.
envsci.2009.04.001.
Gifford, R., 2011: The dragons of inaction:
Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation.
American Psychologist, 66, 290-302, doi:10.1037/a0023566.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 699 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION
[: Fz -r. ? Er.,.::E Kahan, D. M., H. Jenkins-Smith, and D. Braman, 2011: Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147-174, doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.
Leiserowitz, A., 2006: Climate change risk perception and policy preferences:
The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45-72, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9.
Renn, 0., 2011: The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework:
Application to climate change. Wiley lnterdisciplinagy Reviews. Climate Change, 2, 154-169, doi:10.1002/wcc.99.
[Available online at http://onlinclibrary.wilcy.com/doi/1 0.1002/!wcc.99!pd f]Renn, 0., A. Klinke, and M. van Asselt, 2011: Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance:
A synthesis.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 40, 231-246, doi:1 0.1007/si3280-010-0134-0.
Verweij, M., M. Douglas, R. Ellis, C. Engel, F. Hendriks, S. Lohmann, S. Ney, S. Rayner, and M. Thompson, 2006: Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case of climate change. Public Administration, 84, 817-843, doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.09566.x-il.
Weber, E. U., and P. C. Stern, 2011: Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, 315-328, doi:10.1037/a0023253.
Kahan, D., D. Braman, P. Slovic, J. Gastil, and G. Cohen, 2007: The Second National Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of-and Making Progress In -The American Culture War of Fact (October 3, 2007). GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 370;Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 154; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 370; Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 08-26, 23 pp. [Available online at http://papers.ssrn.coii/sol3/papers.
cfmiabstractid=1017189]
123. NOAA, 2010: Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers, 133 pp., NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Silver Spring, MD. [Available online at http://coasralmanagcmcnt'noaa'g(v/climate/docs/
adaptationguidc.pdf]
124. HDLNR, 2011: The Rain Follows The Forest: A Plan to Replenish Hawaii's Source of Water, 24 pp., Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i. [Available online at http://dlnr.hawaii.
g1ov/rain/files/2014/02/Thc-Rain -Foltlows-the-Forest.pdt-l 125. EPA, cited 2013: Adaptation Efforts: EPA New England: New England Federal Partners.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[Available online at http://www.cpa.gov/rcgionl/ceo/cnergy/
adaptaition-efforts-epanec.htinl]
126. PWD, cited 2013: Green City, Clean Waters. Philadelphia Water Department.
[Available online at http://www.phiilhwatersheds.
org/ltcpu/J 127. City of Keene, 2010: Keene Comprehensive Master Plan. City of Keene, Keene, New Hampshire.
[Available online at http://www.ci.keen e.tnh.us/sites/dc fault/files/CM Pprin t-final-1027-fullversion_2.pdf]
128. NYCDEP, cited 2013: Green Infrastructure Plan and Annual Reports. New York City Department of Environmental Protection
[Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/
stormwatcr/nyc-green
_in frastruct ur.plan. shtml]129. ICLEI, cited 2013: Homer, Alaska's Climate Adaptation Progress Despite Uncertainties.
ICLEI. [Available online at http:,'/www.
cakcx.org/'virrual-library/25551 130. State of Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs Planning and Land Management, cited 2012: Newtok Planning Group. State of Alaska. [Available online at http://www.commerce.
statc.ak.us/dca/planning/npg/NewtokPlanningG roup.htm]131. Maus, E., 2013: Case Studies in Floodplain Regulation, 14 pp. [Available online at http://www.georgetownclimate.org/
sites/default/filei/Case%20Studies%2Oin%201ýloodplain%20 Regulation%206-3-final.pdt]
132. Cameron, L., M. Stanbury, R. Wahl, and S. Manente, 2011: Michigan Climate and Health Adaptation Plan (MICHAP) 2010-2015 Strategic Plan, 14 pp., Division of Environmental Health: Michigan Department of Community Health. [Available online at http://www.rnichigani.goN'/docuiients/mdch/M DCIH _climate_change-stratcgicPlan-final_1-24-2011.
343856_7.pdf]
133. City of Grand Rapids, cited 2013: The Office of Energy and Sustainability.
City of Grand Rapids, Mi. [Available online at http://grcity'us/enterprise-services/officeofenergya ndsus tainability/
P~agesi/defauhs.aspx/]
134. City of Tulsa, cited 2013: Rooftop to River. The Tulsa Program. City of Tulsa, OK. [Available online at http://www.smartcomimunitics.
ncat.org/articles/r.oftf.p/pr-ogi-ai.sh tmi]135. TFS, cited 2013: Wildland Urban Interface:
Texas Firewise Communities.
Texas A&M Forest Sevice. [Available online at http://Itcxasforestservice.tamu.cdu/main/article.aspx?id
= 1602]136. Carter, L., 2012: personal communication.
137. Gregg, R. M., cited 2013: Estero de Limantour Coastal Watershed Restoration Project [Case Study on a Project of the Point Reyes National Seashore].
Product of EcoAdapt's State of Adaptation Program. [Available online at lttp://www.cakex.org/cssc-studies/1083]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 700 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION 138. Sustainable Communities Leadership Academy, cited 2013: Front Range, Intermountain
& Desert Southwest Region: A Regional Climate Leadership Academy For The Western Adaptation Alliance.
Sustainable Communities Leadership Academy. [Available online at http://sustainablecommunitieslcadershipacademv.org/
workshops/regional-western-ad aptation -alliancc]
139. Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, 2003: Navajo Nation Drought Contingency Plan, 163 pp., Division of Natural Resources, Department of Water Resources, Water Management Branch, Fort Defiance, AZ, Navajo Nation. [Available online at http://www.fronticrict.nct/-nndwr-wmb/PDFi/drought/
drghtcon_.plan 2003_final.pdq 140. English, P., K. Fitzsimmons, S. Hoshiko, T. Kim, H. G. Margolis, T, E. McKone, M. Rotkin-Ellman, G. Solomon, R. Trent, and Z. Ross, 2007: Public Health Impacts of Climate Change in California:
Community Vulnerability Assessments and Adaptation Strategies.
Report No. 1: Heat-Related Illness and Mortality.
California Department of Public Health and the Public Health Institute.
[Available online at http://www.ehib.org/papers/
Heat_Vulnerability_2007.pdf]
141. SFBCDC: An International Competition for Ideas Responding to Sea Level Rise in San Francisco Bay and Beyond. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
[Available online at http://www.risingtidesco npctition.com/risin gtides/Home.html]
142. City of Flagstaff, 2012: City of Flagstaff Resiliency and Preparedness Study, 57 pp., City of Flagstaff Climate and Adaptation Management.
[Available online at http://flagstaff.
a,...gv/index.asp-xnid=1732]
143. USFS, 2011: Adapting to Climate Change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, 144 pp., U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. [Available online at http://www. fs. fed. us/pnw,/lubs/pnwgt r84 4.pd F]144. Wolf, K., 2009: Adapting to Climate Change: Strategies from King County, Washington, 11 pp., American Planning Association.
[Available online at http://wwwv.nerrs.noaa.gov/doc/pd f/training/
strategies-kingcouunry.pdf]
145. City of Portland, 2009: Climate action plan 2009, 63 pp., City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and Multnomah County Sustainability Program, Portland, Oregon. [Available online at http://wwxv.portlandorcgon..gov/bps,/article/268612]
146. LRAP, cited 2013: Louisiana Resiliency Assistance Program. The Office of Community Development
-Disaster Recovery Unit and Lousiana State University Coastal Sustainability Studio. [Available online at http:/,/'csilicncv.lsu.cdu/]
147. The Nature Conservancy, 2011: Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge grows. North Carolina Afield, 12 pp., The North Carolina Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
[Available online at http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/rcgions/northamnerica/
unitcdstates/norrhcarolina/aficld-sprimg-2011.pdf]148. Bloetscher, F., B. Heimlich, and D. E. Meeroff, 2011: Development of an adaptation toolbox to protect southeast Florida water supplies from climate change. Environmental Reviews, 19, 397-417, doi:10.1139/
all-011. [Available online at http://www.nrcrcsearchpress.com/
doi/pdf/10.11 39/a 11-011]149. NAST, 2000: Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Report for the US Global Change Research Program, 163 pp., U.S. Global Climate Research Program, National Assessment Synthesis Team, Cambridge, UK. [Available online at http://library.globalchange.
gov/dowvnloads/download.php?id=
124]150. IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
A Special Report of Wlorking Groups I and I1 of the Inteqovernmental Panel on Climate Change. C. B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D.Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P. M. Midgley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 582 pp.[Available online at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SRf'.X/images/uploads/
SRF I;X-AIIFIlNAl.pdf]
Kates, R. W., W. R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient.
Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 109, 7156-7161, doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109.
[Available online at www.pnas.org/con tent t/109/19/7156.
full.pd f+html]151. McNutt, C. A., M. J. Hayes, L. S. Darby, J. P. Verdin, and R. S.Pulwarty, 2013: Ch. 10: Developing early warning and drought risk reduction strategies.
Drought, Risk Management, and Policy: Decision-Making Under Uncertainty, L. C. Botterill, and G. C. Cockfield, Eds., CRC Press, 151-170.152. NOAA, 2012: State ofthe climate: DroughtAnnual 2012, December 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[Available online at hrtp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/droughlt/I Schwalm, C. R., C. A. Williams, and K. Schaefer, 2012: Hundred-year forecast:
Drought. The New York Times, August 11, 2012.[Available online at http:/Hwww.nvtimes.com/2012/o08/12/2 opinion/sunday/exrrre-wcathcr-snd-drought-are-hcre.-
to-st 3a.htil?_r=0]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 701 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28:11 AD/'PT/AT!(7)N1 153. Cayan, D. R., T. Das, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, M. Tyree, and A. Gershunov, 2010: Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 21271-21276, doi:10.1073/
pnas.0912391107.
[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/
contelntCarly/2010/1 2/06/0912391107.
full.pd f+htmnl]Christensen, N., and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2006: A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin.Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 3, 3727-3770, doi:10.5194/
hessd-3-3727-2006.
Hidalgo, H. G., T. Das, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan, D. W.Pierce, T. P. Barnett, G. Bala, A. Mirin, A. W. Wood, C. Bonfils, B. D. Santer, and T. Nozawa, 2009: Detection and attribution of streamflow timing changes to climate change in the western United States. Journal of Climate, 22, 3838-3855, doi:10.1175/2009jcli2470.1.
[Available online at http://journals.aiiets ic.org/doii/
abs/10.1 175,/2009JCL12470.l]
Pierce, D. W., T. P. Barnett, H. G. Hidalgo, T. Das, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, G. Bala, M. D. Dettinger, D. R. Cayan, A. Mirin, A.W. Wood, and T. Nozawa, 2008: Attribution of declining western US snowpack to human effects. Journal of Climate, 21, 6425-6444, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2405.1.
[Available online at http://;ournals.
aimetsoc.org/(fIi/abs/10.1175/2008.Cl1,12405.1]
Seager, R., and G. A. Vecchi, 2010: Greenhouse warming and the 21st century hydroclimate of southwestern North America.Proceedings qf the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 21277-21282, doi:10.1073/pnas.0910856107.
[Available online at http://www.
pnas.org/contcnt/107/50/21 277.full.pdf]
154. Gray, S. T., J. J. Lukas, and C. A. Woodhouse, 2011: Millennial-length records of streamflow from three major Upper Colorado River tributaries.
JAAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47, 702-712, doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00535.x.
[Available online at http://onI.inelibrat:v.wilcy.com/doi!/10.1111/
j.1752-1688.201 1.00535.x/pdf]
Woodhouse, C. A., S. T. Gray, and D. M. Meko, 2006: Updated streamflow reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin.W.ater Resources Research, 42, doi:10.1029/2005WR004455.
155. Brown, C., 2010: The end of reliability.
Journal of 97ater Resources Planning and Management, 136, 143-145, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
WR.1943-5452.65.
156. Western Governors' Association, 2006: Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future 26 pp., Western Governors' Association, Western States Water Council, Denver, CO., 2008: Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future: Next Steps. Western Governors' Association, 37 pp., 2010: Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future: 2010 Progress Report. Western Governors' Association and Western States Water Council, Denver, CO. [Available online at hrtp://www.westgov.org/wswc/wswc_2010_complete%20-comprcsscd.pd]
157. USACE, 2009: Western States Watershed Study: Report to the Western States Water Council 42 pp., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[Available online at http://www.wcstgov.orgi/wwc/
wsws 0.o20mainfl%20rcport-jan09.pdt]
158. Reclamation, 2011: Reclamation Managing Water in the West.SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) -Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011. P. Alexander, L. Brekke, G. Davis, S.Gangopadhyay, K. Grantz, C. Hennig, C. Jerla, D. Llewellyn, P. Miller, T. Pruitt, D. Raff, T. Scott, M. Tansey, and T. Turner, Eds., 226 pp., U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. [Available online at http://www.usbr.
gov/climaet!SECiREidocs/SECUREWatcrRcport.pdft]
--, 2011: Reclamation Managing Water in the West: Interim Report No, 1, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Status Report. U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. [Available online at hrrp://www.usbr.
gov/Ic/region/prograins/crbstudy/Reportl t/SratusRpt.pd ti 159. USFS, cited 2012: Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science: Climate Change Response Framework.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. [Available online at http://irs.
fs. fed. us/n iacs/clima tc/frarnuwork
/]160. Swanston, C. W., M. Janowiak, L. R. Iverson, L. R. Parker, D.J. Mladenoff, L. Brandt, P. Butler, M. St. Pierre, A. M. Prasad, S. Matthews, M. P. Peters, and D. Higgins, 2011: Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis:
A Report From the Climate Change Response Framework Project in Northern Wisconsin.
Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-82, 142 pp., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. [Available online at http://www.fs.fecd.ui/nrs/pubs/
gtr/gtr-nrs82.pdf]
'161. Joyce, L. A., G. M. Blate, S. G. McNulty, C. I. Millar, S. Moser, R. P. Neilson, and D. L. Peterson, 2009: Managing for multiple resources under climate change: National forests. Environmental Management, 44, 1022-1032, doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9324-6.
Miles, P. D., 2010: Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application version 4.01 beta. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis, St. Paul, MN. [Available online at http:/Hfiatoos.fs.fed.us/lE',validator4/
tnattributC.jsp]
WDNR, 2009: Forest Ownership and Parceliziation.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 702 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTAT7 /N1 162. Swanston, C., and M. Janowiak, Eds., 2012: Forest Adaptation Resources:
Climate Change Tools and Approaches for Land Managers.
General Technical Report NRS-87, 121 pp., U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA.[Available online at http://wwxv.n rs.fs.fcd.us!pubs/gtr/gtr-tnrsg7.
pdf]163. Butler, P., M. Janowiak, L. Brandt, and C. Swanston, 2011: Lessons learned from the Climate Change Response Framework Project in Northern Wisconsin:
Newtown Square, PA, USDA Forest Service.24 pp. [Available online at http://www.nirs.fs.ffed.us/iiiacs/local-rcso(urcesidocs/dcl_,lSS()NSl...ýlA\RN 1D_from thc (CCRFP.pdq Janowiak, M. K., P. R. Butler, C. W. Swanston, L. R. Parker, M.J. St. Pierre, and L. A. Brandt, 2012: Adaptation workbook.
Forest Adaptation Resources:
Climate Change Tools and Approaches for Land Managers.
General Technical Report NRS-87, C. Swanston, and M.Janowiak, Eds., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 35-56. [Available online at http://www.nrs.fs.fcd.us/pubs/gtr/gtr.
nrs87.pdf]
164. DOT, 2011: Interagency Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Cape Cod Pilot Project: Cape Cod Commission Action Plan, 22 pp., U.S. Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. [Available online at http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sites/volpc.
dot.govi/fi les/docs/ccc-action plan.pdt]165. --, 2011: Interagency Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Cape Cod Pilot Project. One-Pager., 20 pp., U.S.Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.volpe.dot.
gov/sires/volpc.dot.gov/files/docs/Caicle'%20Cod%/`201Pilot%20
'rojcct%20()ne'o20?l'aigr-092811 .pdf]166. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2004: Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, 54 pp., Boston, MA.167. Esri, 2011: Climate Change Scenario Planning for Cape Cod: A Collaborative Exercise in GeoDesign.
ArcNews. [Available online at http://www.csri.com/ncws/arcnews/fallllarticles/climate-chan ge-scenario-planining-f(r.. cape-cod.html]
168. Lennertz, B., 2011: High-touch/high-tech charrettes.
Planning, American Planning Association, 26 pp. [Available online at http://www.planning.org/planning/2011//oct/]
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 703 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: ADAPTATION Process for Developing Key Messages A central component of the process were bi-weekly technical dis-cussions held from October 2011 to June 2012 via teleconference that focused on collaborative review and summary of all technical inputs relevant to adaptation (130+) as well as additional pub-lished literature, the iterative development of key messages, and the final drafting of the chapter. An in-person meeting was held in Washington, D.C., in June 2012. Meeting discussions were fol-lowed by expert deliberation of draft key messages by the authors and targeted consultation with additional experts by the lead au-thor of each key message. Consensus was reached on all key mes-sages and supporting text.KEY MESSAGE #1 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Substantial adaptation planning is occurring in the public and private sectors and at all levels of government; however, few measures have been implemented and those that have appear to be in-cremental changes.Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the peer-reviewed literature as well as the more than 130 technical inputs received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input.Numerous peer-reviewed publications indicate that a growing number of sectors, governments at all scales, and private and non-governmental actors are starting to undertake adaptation activity.9'1 3 Much of this activity is focused on planning with little literature documenting implementation of activities.
8'1 1""" Supporting this statement is also plentiful literature that profiles barriers or constraints that are impeding the advancement of adaptation activity across sectors, scales, and regions. 42.68 Additional citations are used in the text of the chapter to substantiate this key message.New information and remaining uncertainties n/a Assessment of confidence based on evidence n/a KEY MESSAGE #2 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Barriers to implementation of adaptation include limited funding, policy and legal impediments, and difficulty in anticipating climate-related changes at local scales.Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the peer reviewed literature as well as the more than 130 technical inputs received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input.A significant quantity of reviewed literature profiles barriers or constraints that are impeding the advancement of adaptation activity across sectors, scales, and regions.""'
2°'4"'Numerous peer-reviewed documents describe adaptation barriers (see Table 28.6). Moreover, additional citations are used in the text of the chapter to substantiate this key message.New information and remaining uncertainties n/a Assessment of confidence based on evidence n/a KEY MESSAGE #3 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT There is no "one-size fits all" adaptation, but there are similarities in approaches across regions and sectors. Sharing best practices, learning by doing, and iterative and collaborative processes in-cluding stakeholder involvement, can help support progress.Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the peer-reviewed literature as well as the more than 130 technical inputs received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input.U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 704 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: AiDAFTA_1lON-Literature submitted for this assessment, as well as additional literature reviewed by the author team, fully supports the concept that adaptations will ultimately need to be selected for their local applicability based on impacts, timing, political structure, finances, and other criteria." 9 0 Similarities do exist in the types of adaptation being implemented, although nuanced differences do make most adaptation uniquely appropriate for the specific implementer.
The selection of locally and context-appropriate adaptations is enhanced by iterative and collaborative processes in which stakeholders directly engage with decision-makers and information providers." While there are no "one-size fits all" adaptation strategies, evidence to date supports the message that the sharing of best practices and lessons learned are greatly aiding in adaptation progress across sectors, systems, and governance systems.8 2"" Additional citations are used in the text of the chapter to substantiate this key message.NEW INFORMATION AND REMAINING UNCERTAINTIES n/a ASSESSMENT OF CONFIDENCE BASED ON EVIDENCE n/a KEY MESSAGE #4 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Climate change adaptation actions often fulfill other societal goals, such as sustainable develop-ment, disaster risk reduction, or improvements in quality of life, and can therefore be incorporated into existing decision-making processes.
Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the peer-reviewed literature as well as the more than 130 technical inputs received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input.Literature submitted for this assessment, as well as additional literature reviewed by the author team, supports the message that a significant amount of activity that has climate adaptation value is initiated for reasons other than climate preparedness and/or has other co-benefits in addition to increasing preparedness to climate and weather impacts.'1 120,82,86,116 In recognition of this and other factors, a movement has emerged encouraging the integration of climate change considerations into existing decision-making and planning processes (i.e., mainstream ing)."'u The case studies discussed in the chapter amplify this point.Additional citations are used in the text of the chapter to substantiate this key message.New information and remaining uncertainties n/a Assessment of confidence based on evidence n/a KEY MESSAGE #5 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT Vulnerability to climate change is exacerbated by other stresses such as pollution, habitat fragmen-tation, and poverty. Adaptation to multiple stresses requires assessment of the composite threats as well as tradeoffs amongst costs, benefits, and risks of available options.Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the peer-reviewed literature as well as the more than 130 technical inputs received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input.Climate change is only one of a multitude of stresses affecting social, environmental, and economic systems. Activity to date and literature profiling those activities support the need for climate adaptation activity to integrate the concerns of multiple stresses in decision-making and planning.'
6 7 '3 2 As evidenced by activities to date, integrating multiple stresses into climate adaptation decision-making and vice versa will require the assessment of tradeoffs amongst costs, benefits, the risks of available options, and the potential value of outcomes.5'9 0 , 1 1 1 Additional citations are used in the text of the chapter to substantiate this key message.New information and remaining uncertainties n/a Assessment of confidence based on evidence n/a KEY MESSAGE #6 TRACEABLE ACCOUNT The effectiveness of climate change adaptation has seldom been evaluated, because actions have only recently been initiated and comprehensive evaluation metrics do not yet exist.Description of evidence base The key message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the peer-reviewed literature as well as the more than 130 technical inputs received and reviewed as part of the Federal Register Notice solicitation for public input.Numerous peer-reviewed publications indicate that no comprehensive adaptation evaluation metrics exist, meaning that no substantial body of literature or guidance materials U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 705 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES 28: A DAPTATIONJ IRACEAbLE AccO,_JF.:-q s exist on how to thoroughly evaluate the success of adaptation activities.
"'8 1'1 0 This is an emerging area of research.
A challenge of creating adaptation evaluation metrics is the growing interest in mainstreaming; this means that separating out adaptation activities from other activities could prove difficult.
Additional citations are used in the text of the chapter to substantiate this key message.New information and remaining uncertainties n/a Assessment of confidence based on evidence n/a U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 706 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES FACT SHEET: President Obama's Climate Action Plan I The White House Page 1 of 2 C wt i Email Update'S (tCottt Us fHome
- Briefirn Room
- Statemenrts
&-. Releases Search WhiteHouse.gov Search n The White House Office of the Press Secretary WHCTE HOUSE SNAREMELEE For Immediate Release June 25, 2013 FACT SHEET: President Obama's Climate Action Plan President Obama's Plan to Cut Carbon Pollution Taking Action for Our Kids We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that's not polluted or damaged, and by taking an all- of-the-above approach to develop homegrown energy and steady, responsible steps to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our kids' health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so we leave a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations.
Building on efforts underway in states and communities across the country, the President's plan cuts carbon pollution that causes climate change and threatens public health. Today, we have limits in place for arsenic, mercury and lead, but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want-pollution that is contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe floods and heat waves.Cutting carbon pollution will help keep our air and water clean and protect our kids. The President's plan will also spark innovation across a wide variety of energy technologies, resulting in cleaner forms of American-made energy and cutting our dependence on foreign oil. Combined with the President's other actions to increase the efficiency of our cars and household appliances, the President's plan will help American families cut energy waste, lowering their gas and utility bills. In addition, the plan steps up our global efforts to lead on climate change and invests to strengthen our roads, bridges, and shorelines so we can better protect people's homes, businesses, and way of life from severe weather.While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to act on behalf of future generations.
Climate change represents one of the major challenges of the 21st century, but as a nation of innovators, we can and will meet this challenge in a way that advances our economy, our environment, and public health all at the same time. That is why the President's comprehensive plan takes action to: Cuts Carbon Pollution in America. In 2012, U.S. carbon pollution from the energy sector fell to the lowest level in two decades even as the economy continued to grow. To build on this progress, the Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution-just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic-so we protect the health of our children and move our economy toward American-made clean energy sources that will create good jobs and lower home energy bills. For example, the plan:* Directs EPA to work closely with states, industry and other stakeholder to establish carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants;* Makes up to $8 billion in loan guarantee authority available for a wide array of advanced fossil energy and efficiency projects to support investments in innovative technologies:
- Directs DOI to permit enough renewables project-like wind and solar -on public lands by 2020 to power more than 6 million homes; designates the first-ever hydropower project for priority permitting; and sets a new goal to install 100 megawatts of renewables on federally assisted housing by 2020; while maintaining the commitment to deploy renewables on military installations;
- Expands the President's Better Building Challenge, focusing on helping commercial, industrial, and multi-family buildings cut waste and become at least 20 percent more energy efficient by 2020;* Sets a goal to reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 -more than half of the annual carbon pollution from the U.S. energy sector -through efficiency standards set over the course of the Administration for appliances and federal buildings;
- Commits to partnering with industry and stakeholders to develop fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to save families money at the pump and further reduce reliance on foreign oil and fuel consumption post-2018; and* Leverages new opportunities to reduce pollution of highly-potent greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons; directs agencies to develop a comprehensive methane strategy; and commits to protect our forests and critical landscapes.
Prepares the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change. Even as we take new steps to cut carbon pollution, we must also prepare for the impacts of a changing climate that are already being felt across the country.Building on progress over the last four years, the plan: LATEST BLOG POSTS May 20, 2014 2:22 PM EDT Watch: The Bidens Touch Down in Bucharest Watch the highlights from the Vice President and Dr. Biden's arrival in Bucharest, Romania -the first stop on their three-day trip to Romania and Cyprus.May 15, 2014 5:33 PM EDT Being Biden Vol. 15: Coffee In this edition of Being Biden, the Vice President discusses meeting with Officer Peter Laboy of the Alexandria Police Department, who was injured in the line of duty last year.May 19. 2014 11.40 AM EDT Making Full Use of Arncrica's Talent For all of the progress women have made in the 20th century -gaining the right to vote, becoming nearly half of the workforce, and increasing their education, there is still work to be done to remove barriers that limit us from making full use of our nation's talent in the future.VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS, Facebook Twitter FPickr Google-YouTube Vimeo iTunes Linkedin http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-clim...
5/20/2014 FACT SHEET: President Obama's Climate Action Plan I The White House Page 2 of 2* Directs agencies to support local climate-resilient investment by removing barriers or counterproductive policies and modernizing programs:
and establishes a short-term task force of state, local, and tribal officials to advise on key actions the Federal government can take to help strengthen communities on the ground;* Pilots innovative strategies in the Hurricane Sandy-affected region to strengthen communities against future extreme weather and other climate impacts: and building on a new, consistent flood risk reduction standard established for the Sandy-affected region, agencies will update flood-risk reduction standards for all federally funded projects;* Launches an effort to create sustainable and resilient hospitals in the face of climate change through a public-private partnership with the healthcare industry;* Maintains agricultural productivity by delivering tailored, science-based knowledge to farmers, ranchers, and landowners%
and helps communities prepare for drought and wildfire by launching a National Drought Resilience Partnership and by expanding and prioritizing forest- and rangeland-restoration efforts to make areas less vulnerable to catastrophic fire: and* Provides climate preparedness tools and information needed by state, local, and private-sector leaders through a centralized "toolkit" and a new Climate Data Initiative.
Lead International Efforts to Address Global Climate Change. Just as no country is immune from the impacts of climate change, no country can meet this challenge alone. That is why it is imperative for the United States to couple action at home with leadership internationally.
America must help forge a truly global solution to this global challenge by galvanizing international action to significantly reduce emissions, prepare for climate impacts, and drive progress through the international negotiations.
For example, the plan:* Commits to expand major new and existing international initiatives, including bilateral initiatives with China, India, and other major emitting countries:
- Leads global sector public financing towards cleaner energy by calling for the end of U.S. government support for public financing of new coal-fired powers plants overseas, except for the most efficient coal technology available in the world's poorest countries, or facilities deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies; and* Strengthens global resilience to climate change by expanding government and local community planning and response capacities.
Download the Full PDF Report View the lnrographic WWW. Wil l TEIO U- S E, G 0V En espatot JAccessibllity Copyroght Information.
Privacy Policy :Cooact UJA.gov loeveloPers
]Apply for a Job http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/20l3/06/25/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-clim...
5/20/2014