World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Climate change policy of the United States

Article Id: WHEBN0025447994
Reproduction Date:

Title: Climate change policy of the United States  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Merchants of Doubt, Climate Capitalism, Politics of the United States, Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Early life and career of Barack Obama
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Climate change policy of the United States

The politics of global warming is played out at a state and federal level in the United States.

Federal policy

International law

The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. In 1997, the US Senate voted unanimously under the Byrd–Hagel Resolution that it was not the sense of the Senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. In 2001, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, stated that the Protocol "is not acceptable to the Administration or Congress".[1]

The United States, along with Barack Obama did not submit the treaty for ratification.

In October 2003, the Pentagon published a report titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. The authors conclude by stating, "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."[2]


In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate.[3] In the 2005 vote, Republicans opposed the Bill 49-6, while Democrats supported it 37–10.[4]

In January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming.[5] The US government announced that it was withdrawing funding from the lobby groups it had been supporting that aimed to discount the evidence for global warming. Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus."[6]

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 was introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on January 15, 2007. The measure would provide funding for R&D on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2), set emissions standards for new vehicles and a renewable fuels requirement for gasoline beginning in 2016, establish energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards beginning in 2008 and low-carbon electric generation standards beginning in 2016 for electric utilities, and require periodic evaluations by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether emissions targets are adequate.[7] However, the bill died in committee.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212, but died in the Senate.[8][9]

In March 2011, the Republicans submitted a bill to the U.S. congress that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gasses as pollutants.[10] As of July 2012, the EPA continues to oversee regulation under the Clean Air Act.[11][12]

Bush administration

In March 2001, the Bush Administration announced that it would not implement the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan that would require nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that ratifying the treaty would create economic setbacks in the U.S. and does not put enough pressure to limit emissions from developing nations.[13] In February 2002, Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.[14]

The Bush administration has been accused of implementing an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters", according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine that reviews hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.[15] The book Hell and High Water asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research. The book claims that, to delay action, industry and government spokesmen suggest falsely that "technology breakthroughs" will eventually save us with hydrogen cars and other fixes. It calls on voters to demand immediate government action to curb emissions.[16] Papers presented at an International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, held in 2009 under the sponsorship of the University of Copenhagen in cooperation with nine other universities in the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), maintained that the climate change skepticism that is so prevalent in the USA[17] "was largely generated and kept alive by a small number of conservative think tanks, often with direct funding from industries having special interests in delaying or avoiding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions".[18]

According to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming[19][20] "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out", as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change", produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law,[21] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[19] and removed key portions of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report given to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers to human health of global warming.[22]

The Bush Administration worked to undermine state efforts to mitigate global warming. Mary Peters, the Transportation Secretary at that time, personally directed US efforts to urge governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California's first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.[23]

Obama administration

New Energy for America is a plan to invest in renewable energy, reduce reliance on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and make coal a less competitive energy source. It was announced during Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

On November 17, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama clarified, in a talk recorded for YouTube, that the US will enter a cap and trade system to limit global warming.[24]

The president has established a new office in the White House, the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, and selected Carol Browner as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Browner is a former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is currently a principal of The Albright Group LLC, a firm that provides strategic advice to companies .[25]

American Clean Energy and Security Act, a cap and trade bill was passed on June 26, 2009 in the House of Representatives, but was not passed by the Senate.

On January 27, 2009, Secretary of State Clinton appointed Todd Stern as the department's Special Envoy for Climate Change.[26] Clinton said, "With the appointment today of a special envoy we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy."[27] Stern, who had coordinated global warming policy in the late 1990s under the Bill Clinton administration, said that "The time for denial, delay and dispute is over.... We can only meet the climate challenge with a response that is genuinely global. We will need to engage in vigorous, dramatic diplomacy."[27]

In February 2009, Stern said that the U.S. would take a lead role in the formulation of a new climate change treaty in [30]

President Barack Obama said in September 2009 that if the international community would not act swiftly to deal with climate change that "we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe...The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, and our safety—are in jeopardy, and the time we have to reverse this tide is running out." [31]

President Obama said in 2010 that it was time for the United States "to aggressively accelerate" its transition from oil to alternative sources of energy and vowed to push for quick action on climate change legislation, seeking to harness the deepening anger over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[32]

The 2010 United States federal budget proposed to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in FY 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by FY 2019.[33]

New rules for power plants were proposed March 2012.[34][35]

State and local policy

States that have declared GHG mitigation strategies or hold action plans

Across the country, regional organizations, states, and cities are achieving real emissions reductions and gaining valuable policy experience as they take action on climate change. These actions include increasing renewable energy generation, selling agricultural carbon sequestration credits, and encouraging efficient energy use.[19] The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a joint program of over twenty U.S. cabinet departments and federal agencies, all working together to investigate climate change. In June 2008, a report issued by the program stated that weather would become more extreme, due to climate change.[36][37]

States and municipalities often function as "policy laboratories", developing initiatives that serve as models for federal action. This has been especially true with environmental regulation—most federal environmental laws have been based on state models. In addition, state actions can have a significant impact on emissions, because many individual states emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Texas, for example, emits more than France, while California's emissions exceed those of Brazil.[38] State actions are also important because states have primary jurisdiction over many areas—such as electric generation, agriculture, and land use--that are critical to addressing climate change.

It is important to understand that states have limited resources to devote to the climate issue, and their strict budget requirements can put long-term climate policies in jeopardy. States also lack certain powers that would be crucial to a comprehensive climate change policy, such as the authority to enter into international agreements. Finally, when states take individual approaches on the issue, a "patchwork quilt" of policies can result across the nation. This patchwork of policies may be inefficient for complying business and may result in some states duplicating the work done in other states. While some states are delivering real reductions of GHG emissions only in a few cases do the reduction targets commensurate with what will be needed on a global scale.

Comprehensive climate plans combined with enforecable GHG emissions targets provide the highest certainty of significant emission reductions. Twenty-eight states have climate action plans and nine have state-wide emission targets. The states of California and New Mexico have committed most recently to emission reductions targets, joining New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Washington and Oregon.

Regional initiatives can be more efficient than programs at the state level, as they encompass a broader geographical area, eliminate duplication of work, and create more uniform regulatory environments. Over the past few years, a number of regional initiatives have begun developing systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increase renewable energy generation, track renewable energy credits, and research and establish baselines for carbon sequestration.


On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.[39]


California (the world's sixth largest economy) has long been seen as the state-level pioneer in environmental issues related to global warming and has shown some leadership in the last four years. On July 22, 2002, Governor Gray Davis approved AB 1493, a bill directing the California Air Resources Board to develop standards to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. Now the California Vehicle Global Warming law, it requires automakers to reduce emissions by 30% by 2016. Although it has been challenged in the courts by the automakers, support for the law is growing as other states have adopted similar legislation. On September 7, 2002 Governor Davis approved a bill requiring the California Climate Action Registry to adopt procedures and protocols for project reporting and carbon sequestration in forests. (SB 812. Approved by Governor Davis on September 7, 2002) California has convened an interagency task force, housed at the California Energy Commission, to develop these procedures and protocols. Staff are currently seeking input on a host of technical questions.

On June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order[40] calling for the following reductions in state greenhouse gas emissions: 11 percent by 2010, 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production. The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California's automotive standards were implemented nationally.[41]

On August 30, 2006, Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature reached an agreement on AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over." The Act caps California's greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020, and institutes a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. This agreement represents the first enforceable state-wide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. This requires the State Air Resources Board to establish a program for statewide greenhouse gas emissions reporting and to monitor and enforce compliance with this program. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities,[42] and authorizes the state board to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms including cap-and-trade, and allows a one-year extension of the targets under extraordinary circumstances.[43] Thus far, flexible mechanisms in the form of project based offsets have been suggested for five main project types. A carbon project would create offsets by showing that it has reduced carbon dioxide and equivalent gases. The project types include: manure management, forestry, building energy, SF6, and landfill gas capture.

Additionally, on September 26 Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 107, which requires California's three major biggest utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric – to produce at least 20% of their electricity using renewable sources by 2010. This shortens the time span originally enacted by Gov. Davis in September 2002 to increase utility renewable energy sales 1% annually to 20% by 2017.

Gov. Schwarzenegger also announced he would seek to work with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and various other international efforts to address global warming, independently of the federal government.[44]


The state of Connecticut passed a number of bills on global warming in the early to mid 1990s, including—in 1990—the first state global warming law to require specific actions for reducing CO2. Connecticut is one of the states that agreed, under the auspices of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP), to a voluntary short-term goal of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The NEG/ECP long-term goal is to reduce emissions to a level that eliminates any dangerous threats to the climate—a goal scientists suggest will require reductions 75 to 85 percent below current levels.[45] These goals were announced in August 2001. The state has also acted to require incremental additions in renewable electric generation by 2009.[46]

Regional initiatives

In 2003, New York State proposed and attained commitments from nine Northeast states to form a cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions program for power generators, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This program launched on January 1, 2009 with the aim to reduce the carbon "budget" of each state's electricity generation sector to 10 percent below their 2009 allowances by 2018.[47] Ten Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,[48] It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions from power plants in the member states. Emission permit auctioning began in September 2008, and the first three-year compliance period began on January 1, 2009.[49] Proceeds will be used to promote energy conservation and renewable energy.[50] The system affects fossil fuel power plants with 25 MW or greater generating capacity ("compliance entities").[49]

Since February 2007, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined together to create the Western Climate Initiative, a regional greenhouse gas emissions trading system.[52]

195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans – have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels.

Litigation by states

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. In 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency the Clean Air Act gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, such as tailpipe emissions. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.[53]

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court overturned 8-0 a U.S. appeals court ruling against five big power utility companies, brought by U.S. states, New York City, and Land trusts, attempting to force cuts in United States greenhouse gas emissions regarding global warming. The decision gives deference to reasonable interpretations of the United States Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency. [54][55] [56][57][58][59]

Position of political parties and other political organizations

In the 2012 Presidential campaigns the two major Parties made little to no reference to climate change mitigation or global warming.[60]

Republican Party

19 of the 20 Republican Senate candidates in the 2010 midterm elections according to a survey by National Journal have taken positions opposed to legislation that would mitigate global warming. The exception is Mark Steven Kirk, the Senate candidate in Illinois, who as a member of the House was one of the few representatives who supported "Cap and Trade". One of the other Republican House members who voted for Cap and Trade, Michael N. Castle of Delaware, was defeated in the Senate primary by a Tea Party candidate.[61] According to the Miami Herald coverage of these elections, "some Republican candidates also are denying that man-made climate change is real".[62] A New York Times analysis of the election results found that "Voters ousted a wide swath of cap-and-trade supporters from Virginia to New Mexico, leaving behind a House highly polarized on energy." However, the candidates' position on cap-and-trade alone was not found to be a determining factor for these results.[63]

Tea Party movement

The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and even the reality of global warming. A New York Times/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. Opposition is particularly strong to Cap and Trade with Tea Party supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change by emissions trading, which would encourage use of fuels emitting less carbon dioxide.[61]

Petroleum industry

From 1989 to 2005, oil and gas industries gave $179.5 million to U.S. federal candidates and parties.

The corporations producing fossil fuels have for years engaged in public relations work promoting their products and attempting to raise doubts about the need or sensibility of alternatives. They have funded institutions and websites producing reports supporting their viewpoint. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund since 2009 they have spent $500 million lobbying against climate change legislation and opposing or supporting candidates with respect to their interests. They are supported in their effort by talk show hosts and opinion leaders.[61]

Other viewpoints

According to FreedomWorks, any effort to make electricity and fuel more expensive or to cap or regulate CO
will only exacerbate an already critical situation and cause tremendous economic damage.[61]

See also


  1. ^ Kluger, Jeffrey (April 1, 2001). "A Climate of Despair".  
  2. ^ Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall (October 2003). "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-09-08. 
  3. ^ , National Wildlife Federation
  4. ^
  5. ^ Pelosi creates global warming committee, Associated Press, 1/18/07.
  6. ^ "Senators sound alarm on climate", The Washington Times, January 31, 2007
  7. ^ "Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress".  
  8. ^ Broder, John (June 26, 2009). "House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change".  
  9. ^ Greg G. Hitt; Stephan Power, "House Passes Climate Bill", June 27, 2009; The Wall Street Journal
  10. ^ Timothy Gardner, "Republicans launch bill to axe EPA carbon rules", Reuters March 3, 2011
  11. ^ Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26, 2012
  12. ^ “This is how science works” on global warming, court rules June 26, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine)
  13. ^ Alex Kirby, US blow to Kyoto hopes, 2001-03-28, BBC News.
  14. ^ Bush unveils voluntary plan to reduce global warming,, 2002-02-14.
  15. ^  
  16. ^ Hamilton, Tyler (January 1, 2007). "Fresh alarm over global warming". The  
  17. ^ Riley Dunlap, "Why climate-change skepticism is so prevalent in the USA: the success of conservative think tanks in promoting skepticism via the media", Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions, Institute of Physics (IOP) Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 532010 [1] doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/3/532010
  18. ^ William Freudenburg, "The effects of journalistic imbalance on scientific imbalance: special interests, scientific consensus and global climate disruption", Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 532011 [2] doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/3/532011
  19. ^ a b c ^ Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at
  20. ^ written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at last visited Jan 30, 07
  21. ^ Associated Press, Oct 24, 2007, also archived at
  22. ^ "How the White House Worked to Scuttle California's Climate Law", San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007
  23. ^ 17 novembre 2008. "YouTube – A New Chapter on Climate Change". Retrieved 2009-04-03. 
  24. ^
  25. ^ Secretary Clinton Announces Appointment of Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern
  26. ^ a b Whitesides, John (January 26, 2009). "'"Clinton climate change envoy vows 'dramatic diplomacy. Reuters. Retrieved 2009-01-28. 
  27. ^ Rosenthal, Elisabeth (February 28, 2009). "Obama's Backing Raises Hopes for Climate Pact". The New York Times. 
  28. ^ Carrington, Damian (December 3, 2010). "WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord".  
  29. ^ "Who's on Board with the Copenhagen Accord". Retrieved December 21, 2010. 
  30. ^ Phelps, Jordyn. "President Obama Says Global Warming is Putting Our Safety in Jeopardy".  
  31. ^ Cooper, Helene (June 2, 2010). "Obama Says He'll Push for Clean Energy Bill". The New York Times. 
  32. ^ "President's Budget Draws Clean Energy Funds from Climate Measure".  
  33. ^ Barringer, Felicity; Gillis, Justin (March 27, 2012). "New Limit Pending on Greenhouse Gas Emissions". The New York Times. 
  34. ^ "New Rules for New Power Plants". The New York Times. March 28, 2012. 
  35. ^ Schmid, Randolph E. (June 19, 2008). "Extreme weather to increase with climate change".  
  36. ^ "U.S. experts: Forecast is more extreme weather".  
  37. ^ Pew Center Climate change reports.
  38. ^ Reuters
  39. ^
  40. ^
  41. ^ "Global Warming Bill Clears California Assembly" (Press release).  
  42. ^
  43. ^ "Blair, Schwarzenegger announce global warming research pact". Associated Press. July 31, 2006. 
  44. ^
  45. ^
  46. ^ Memorandum of Understanding – Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
  47. ^ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
  48. ^ a b Budget Trading Program"2"Overview of RGGI CO. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. 2007-10. Retrieved 2010-01-24. 
  49. ^ "RGGI States Announce Preliminary Release of Auction Application Materials". Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. July 11, 2008. Retrieved 2010-01-24. 
  50. ^ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – Participating States, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc.
  51. ^ WCI Design Documents
  52. ^ Pidot, Justin R. (2006). "Global Warming in the Courts – An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues" (PDF).  
  53. ^
  54. ^ "Supreme Court backs EPA over state govts on climate change".  
  55. ^  
  56. ^ "Supreme court rejects global warming lawsuit". Reuters. June 20, 2011. 
  57. ^
  58. ^
  59. ^ Both Romney and Obama Avoid Talk of Climate Change October 25, 2012 The New York Times
  60. ^ a b c d "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith" article by John M. Broder in The New York Times October 20, 2010, access October 21, 2010
  61. ^
  62. ^ "House Goes Republican; Enviros Brace for Climate Changes". The New York Times. November 3, 2010. 

Further reading

  • The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth (2010) by Eric Pooley deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek ISBN 978-1-4013-2326-4
  • What Ever Happened to Global Warming? As a political issue in the U.S., climate change seems to have all but evaporated April 2, 2012 issue of The New York Times Upfront
  • The Climate Threat We Can Beat, in May/June 2012 Foreign Affairs with David G. Victor, Charles F. Kennel, Veerabhadran Ramanathan (website is paid while article is current)
  • needs to reach the local level, according to a new Foreign Affairs essay2UCSD Researchers: Where International Climate Policy Has Failed, Grassroots Efforts Can Succeed; Control of greenhouse agents other than CO April 26, 2012 University of California, San Diego

External links

  • U.S. Pushes to Cut Emissions of Some Pollutants That Hasten Climate Change February 15, 2012 The New York Times
  • Small efforts to reduce methane, soot could have big effect; Simple measures could slow global warming, reduce premature deaths, February 11, 2012; Vol.181 No. 3 (p. 12) Science News
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.