United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
: Affairs
"/April 199C
20K-9002
EPA JOURNAL
The Greenhouse Effect:
What Can We Do About It?
-------
The Greenhouse Effect: What
Can We Do About It?
What can we do about the
Greenhouse Effect?
What should we do about it?
This issue of EPA Journal
explores these questions and
in doing so covers major
aspects of the subject and
touches on a diversity of
viewpoints.
After an introductory
piece, an article explains the
science of the Greenhouse
Effect and discusses what we
know and what we don't yet
understand about it. Then a
piece explains the
Greenhouse gases—what they
are, where they come from,
trends in their output, and
their impact.
The next section focuses
on ways in which the United
States might try to curb its
output of the Greenhouse
gases and thus limit climate
warming. Included are pieces
on energy conservation,
reforestation, renewable
energy, methane reduction,
and increased efficiency in
transportation. Another
policy option—nuclear
power—is presented in a
forum that airs differing
opinions.
Next is an article on
another possible approach:
adapting our economies and
living styles to global
warming as it may occur.
Then William K. Reilly.
EPA's Administrator,
presents what he believes
would be a constructive
course of action regarding the
climate-warming issue.
An international forurn
follows, with commentaries
by representatives of six
nations on how they feel
about the Greenhouse issue
and what should be done
about it. The countries
represented are Poland,
Brazil, West Germany, the
Netherlands, Japan, and
India.
Then a feature explores the
lessons the world community
has learned in dealing with
its problems with
stratospheric ozone—"the
ozone hole"—that could
apply as nations address the
issue of climate warming.
Another article discusses the
concern about global
warming from a
cost-and-benefit point of
view, weighing the potential
gain to society from certain
levels of effort to control
Greenhouse gases.
The skeptical
viewpoint—doubting the
likelihood of climate
warming—is presented by a
scientist from the
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. And two
industry viewpoints are
included, one by a large oil
firm expressing its concerns
about the potential costs and
unresolved scientific
questions involved in the
climate-warming issue and
one by a multinational
electronics company which is
drastically cutting its use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a
Greenhouse gas and a major
factor in the depletion of
upper-level ozone.
Two complementary
articles discuss the particular
problems and needs of the
developing world in regard to
the Greenhouse Effect. The
first addresses the realities of
developing countries'
economies and the nature of
these nations' environmental
problems. The second
explains how Western
know-how can help these
countries achieve their
aspirations for a good living
standard while minimizing
environmental impacts.
This portion of the issue
concludes with excerpts from
a speech by British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher
to the U.N. General Assembly
on the challenge to humanity
of the Greenhouse Effect and
other environmental
problems.
The magazine concludes
with a regular feature,
Appointments, and a recent
letter to the editor. Q
Hewember
love fa
we
-------
.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Communications and
Public Affairs
Volume 16, Number 2
March/April 1990
20K-9002
S-EPA JOURNAL
1
/
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the nation's land, air, and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and
implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
EPA Journal is published by the
U.S. Environmental Protection
I Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the
publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of the
public business required by law of
this agency. Use of funds for
printing this periodical has been
approved by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy. No
permission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
Contributions and inquiries
should be addressed to the Editor,
EPA Journal (A-107), Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
William K. Reilly, Administrator
Lew Crampton, Associate Administrator
Communications and Public Affairs
Leighton Price, Editorial Director
John Heritage, Editor
Karen Flagstad, Associate Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Ruth Barker, Assistant Editor
Marilyn Rogers, Circulation Manager
US EPA
for
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bidg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
An Introduction
by Terry Da vies 2
What We Know; What We
Don't Know
by Daniel L. Albritton
The Greenhouse Gases
by Richard D. Morgenstern
and Dennis Tirpak H
Policy Options:
—Energy Conservation
by Claudine Schneider n
—Reforestation
by Robert J. Moulton
and Kenneth Andrasko 14
—Nuclear Power:
A Forum 17
—Renewable Energy
by Michael Brower 20
—Methane
by Michael ]. Gibbs and
Kathleen Hogan z:i
—Transportation:
The Auto
by Deborah Bleviss 2l>
—Transportation:
Mass Transit
by David B. Goldstein and
John W. Holtzclaw 2H
Adaptation: Another
Approach
by Joel B. Smith
What We Can Do
by William K. Reilly
Views from Other Nations:
—Poland
by Andrzej Kassenberg and
Stanislaw Sitnicki ;
—West Germany
by Dietrich Kupfer 37
—The Netherlands
by Bert Metz and
Pier Vellinga ;tH
—Japan
by Keiichi Yokobori ,ici
—India
by Dilip R. Ahuja
Lessons from "the Ozone
Hole"
by Richard Elliot
Benedick . |
A Perspective on Costs and
Benefits
by William D. Nordhaus 44
A Skeptic Speaks Out
by Richard S. Lindzen 46
Industry's Position: One
View
by Michael Redemer 48
Industry's Position: Another
View
by Margaret G. Kerr 50
The Challenge Facing the
Developing World
by Mohan Munasinghe 52
Western Know-How Can
Help
by Jack Vanderryn 54
The Task Ahead
by Margaret Thatcher r>7
Appointments til)
Letter to the Editor an
Front cover. A renewable.
non-polluting source of energy,
(hese wind turbines in California's
Allamont Puss generate power for
the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company. See article on page 20.
Photo by U.S. Wind Power, Inc.
Design Credits:
Ron Farrah
James R. Ingram
Robert Flanagan
EPA Journal Subscriptions
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. for EPA Journal is SB. The
charge to subscribers in foreign
countries is $10 a year. The price
of a single copy of EPA Journal is
$2.25 in this country and $2.81 if
sent to a foreign county. Prices
include mail costs. Subscriptions
to EPA Journal as well as to other
federal government magazines are
handled only by the U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Anyone wishing to subscribe to
EPA Journal should fill in the form
at right and enclose a check or
money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The
requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents,
GPO, Washington, DC 20402.
Na
ne
Firs
t, L<
ist
PL
EAE
E P
=W
1
Co
•npa
ny r\
arm
j or
Add
lion
3\ AC
Jdre
5S L
ne
Str
CK
eet
/
\tid
ess
,
Sta
te
Zip
Co(
e
I I Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
I I Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
An Introduction
by Terry Davies
Since the beginning of the industrial
revolution some 200 years ago,
machinery and fossil fuels have saved
inestimable amounts of time and labor
while substantially raising the standard
of living around the world. It is perhaps
ironic that the same technology that has
raised our standard of living could
change the planet's climate and threaten
its future.
Global warming must be
considered on an entirely
different scale from that of
most other environmental
issues.
The threat of global warming now
forces us to evaluate carefully how
important our environment is to us. It
forces us to consider what sacrifices we
are willing to make to ensure an
acceptable quality of environment for
the future.
As an environmental problem, global
warming must be considered on an
entirely different scale from that of most
other environmental issues: The effects
of climate change are long-term, global
in magnitude, and largely irreversible.
Because of the enormity of the problem
and the uncertainties involved—it may
take decades to determine with absolute
certainty that global warming is under
way—we face difficult questions today
about how and when we should react.
Before the turn of the century,
scientists began worrying that fossil-fuel
emissions were changing the
composition of the atmosphere. In 1896,
the Swedish chemist Svante
Arrhennius, using a simple model,
estimated that if the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide (C02)
doubled, the Earth's surface would
warm by approximately 5 "Celsius.
Today, we realize that his estimate and
concern for the environment may not
have been very far off the mark.
A consensus has emerged in the
scientific community that a global
warming will occur. Scientists are
certain that the concentrations of C02
and other Greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are increasing, and they
generally agree that these gases will
warm the Earth. Two questions remain
to be answered: how much the
temperature will rise, and when.
Recent estimates indicate that if the
concentrations of these gases in the
atmosphere continue to increase (see
article on p. 8), the Earth's average
temperature could rise by as much as
1.5 to 4.5 "C in the next century. While
this may not sound like a tremendous
increase, keep in mind that during the
last ice age 18,000 years ago, when
glaciers covered much of North
America, the Earth's average
temperature was only 5 "C cooler than
today.
Fossil-fuel burning and forestry and
agricultural practices are responsible for
most of the man-made contributions to
the gases in the atmosphere that act like
a greenhouse to raise the Earth's
temperature: hence the term
Greenhouse Effect. Most of the
processes that produce Greenhouse
gases are common everyday activities
such as driving cars, generating
electricity from fossil fuels, using
fertilizers, and using wood-burning
Mtke Bftsson pholo
(Dnvies is EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation.)
stoves. Because so many of these
activities are so ingrained in our society,
reducing emissions could be a difficult
task.
Environmentally, the potential effects
of climate change are extensive. The
Earth's ecosystems, water resources, and
air quality could all experience
profound impacts; agriculture and
forestry could be seriously affected.
Politically, global climate change has
the potential to become a very sensitive
issue among countries if nations cannot
agree on a comprehensive solution—and
if climate change shifts the relative
advantages among them.
And now that the search for solutions
has begun, there is a growing concern
that the costs of reducing emissions may
be too high. But to put cost concerns in
proper perspective, we must ask
ourselves what kind of future we want
on this planet and how much we value
our environment and cultural heritage.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The climate and the human race: A relationship of growing concern.
In light of the prospect of global
warming, we must begin considering
how important certain parts of the
environment are: How important are
wetlands? forest lands? an endangered
species of fish? Global warming is not
an issue of human survival; people will
likely be able to survive and adapt to
any near-term climate change. Rather, it
is an issue that raises basic: questions
concerning the environment of the
future: What steps are we willing to take
to protect environmental quality, and at
what price? No generation before us has
been required to anticipate and react to
a problem that reaches so far into the
future. The questions we face are
difficult, but we must find ways to
respond to them.
Research is an important component
of our response. The U.S. government
has allocated $500 million in this fiscal
year for scientific research into climate
change, and more than $1 billion is
proposed in next year's budget. This
research will help us better understand
the scientific underpinnings of climate
change (see article on p. 4), especially
some of the major uncertainties such as
the roles of clouds and oceans in
relation to the Greenhouse Effect.
In the international arena, the United
States is an active participant on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The IPCC was first
convened in 1988 by the United Nations
Environment Programme and the World
Meteorological Organization to foster
international cooperation, improve the
science on climate change, assess the
potential effects of global climate
change, and explore options for
responding to it.
Certainly global cooperation is an
important consideration when
addressing global warming issues. No
single country contributes more than a
fraction of Greenhouse gases, and only a
concerted effort can reduce emissions.
In the future, as developing nations
grow and consume more energy, their
share of Greenhouse-gas emissions will
steadily increase. It is important for
other nations to offer technological
assistance so that these nations can
grow in an energy-efficient manner.
This issue of EPA JournaJ attempts to
grapple with many of tin: national and
international policy questions
surrounding global warming—a tall
order. The potential effects of global
warming on society are immense, but
with sound policy decisions and global
cooperation, I believe we can ensure
economic growth and at the same time
protect the quality of our
environment. Q
Editor's note: 1 "Celsius is equivalent to
1.8 "Fahrenheit.
MARCH/APRIL 1990
-------
What We Know;
What We Don't Know
by Daniel L. Albritton
What will the Earth's climate system
do in the 21st century? The answer
is, It will vary.
This answer is perfectly correct but
deceptively glib in that it glosses over
the full import of the point. The Earth is
fundamentally a planet of change: That
fact lies at the heart of the emerging
dialogue between science and public
policy regarding environmental issues
related to global change.
Given the fact of variation in the
Earth's climate system, however, it is
important to draw a distinction between
natural variation and human-induced
climate change. Based on this
distinction, it makes sense, in terms of
both science and public policy, to break
our initial question down into two
questions: First, can we predict the
naturally varying climate of the next
century (particularly the extreme
swings)? And second, can we predict
how human activities could alter the
average climate?
Although these questions are seldom
posed as two distinct issues, it is clear
that decision-makers need scientific
answers to both questions for the
following reasons:
• Natural Variation. Record-breaking
heat waves or unusually frigid winters
of recent memory demonstrate that
climate variability occurs even on
human time scales. Historical and
geological records amply document
longer-term variations of substantial
magnitude: the Little Ice Age of the 15th
and 16th centuries; the onset of the
current aridity in the southwestern
United States somewhat earlier than
that; and the great ice sheets of
more distant times.
No human causes have been
implicated with these changes; they
(Dr. Albritfon is Director of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Aeronomy Laboratory
in BouJder, Colorado.]
reflect the fluctuations of an inherently
variable global system. Yet these natural
changes have had great impacts on our
species: extensive migrations, economic
losses, and personal hardships. The
human misery recently wrought by the
Sahelian drought in Africa is beyond
quantification. The hot, dry summer of
1989 in the midwestern United States
shows the vulnerability of even a
modern industrial society.
Clearly, to be able to predict such
natural variations—and hence to be
better able to prepare for them—would
be a boon to life on this planet. This is
particularly true as population growth
increasingly stresses our institutions
and societies.
• Human-induced Change. Recently, an
additional factor has entered the global
climate scene. Over the past 100 years,
humans have demonstrated the dubious
achievement of being able to alter the
atmosphere on a global scale. The
atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide (C02) has increased
substantially since pre-industrial times.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), once
nonexistent, are now present throughout
the atmosphere. Indeed, CFCs are a
semi-permanent feature of our
atmosphere because of their
century-long "residence" times.
The consequences of these
perturbations are very clear in some
cases, but not fully clear in others.
While the CFCs have valuable industrial
uses, they have also given us a new
long-term, continental-sized global
feature: the Antarctic ozone "hole."
Increasing CO2 concentrations have
raised the prospect of an enhanced
Greenhouse Effect (see EPA Journal,
Vol. 15 (Jan/Feb 1989), pp. 4-7). In
short, C02 absorbs—and reflects back
toward the surface—part of the outgoing
thermal radiation of the planet, thereby
potentially warming the lower
atmosphere and the Earth's surface.
Just as decision-makers previously
asked science what are the
consequences of increasing CFCs on the
ozone layer, they are now rightly asking
the same bottom-line question regarding
increasing CO2 and climate change.
The Challenge to Science
Science knows the scope of the problem
that it faces. As sketched in the drawing
on p. 7, a variety of natural and
human-induced "forcings" nudges the
global system into responding with
physical changes. In turn, these changes
affect the planet's biological systems,
including humans. The challenge to
science is to understand the processes
that link the so-called forcings,
responses, and impacts. That
understanding comes from long-term
observations, field experiments,
laboratory studies, and theory.
• "ModeJsmithing." As a tool for
understanding the dynamics of the
Earth's climate system, scientists use
computer "models" of the global system.
These models, in which mathematical
expressions describe the linkages among
climate factors, are used to explore
"what-if" scenarios—for example, what
if C02 were to double? The ideal model
would be a representative replica of the
planet, with adequate formulations of
all major pertinent processes. Thus it
could identify natural climate changes
before they actually occur. In addition,
it could identify changes that we
ourselves are about to cause.
There are obvious public-policy
implications here—first in terms of
learning how better to live with what
we cannot avoid, and second in terms of
making appropriate changes in the way
we live. But how good are we at
model-building?
• Feedbacks. The global system is not
as "linear" as our illustration might
suggest. In many ways, system
components are remarkably intertwined.
Certain "feedbacks" can either amplify
or counteract the effect of a forcing,
such as CO2 increases. In computer
modeling, these positive and negative
feedbacks must be represented
adequately if the simulated response to
a forcing is to be useful.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Some things are known with
high certainty; others remain
very poorly understood.
Within the physical system, for
example, clouds can introduce both
types of feedback. On the one hand, an
increasingly cloud-shrouded planet
would reflect more of the incoming
solar energy back to space, which tends
to produce a cooler planet. On the other
hand, a cloudier planet also traps more
outgoing surface radiation, and this
tends to produce a warmer planet. In
this particular example, the net effect is
a near-cancellation of two effects that
are difficult to characterize, posing quite
a challenge in modeling.
Another feedback pattern involves
emissions of methane, which, like CO2,
is a Greenhouse gas. Changing surface
temperatures may alter the amount of
methane emitted from high-latitude
tundra, for example. These emissions, in
turn, can affect the forcing that
originally caused the temperature
change.
• Time Lag. In addition to feedback
mechanisms, the simple sketch cannot
show the time dimension of
Greenhouse-forced climate change.
While reflected radiation will increase
in step with the increase of trace gases.
the response of the planet will not. One
key factor is the time lag due to the
huge thermal inertia of the world's
oceans. Such a large volume of water
takes decades to warm, given the slow
overturning of the warm surface waters
with the colder deep-ocean water.
Predicting the response of the planet
to increasing Greenhouse gases
necessarily includes predicting the
arrival time of the response. This adds a
challenging dimension. A key
implication of the time lag and the long
atmospheric lifetimes of the Greenhouse
gases is that it is hard to "quit the
game." In other words, we are
committed to whatever future planetary
responses may be in store due to the
long-lived Greenhouse gases that we
have placed—and continue to place—in
the atmosphere.
• Impacts: Good and Bad News. As the
sketch indicates, physical changes can
cause biological responses that may be
either beneficial or detrimental to
Ever-increasing human activity could contribute to a warmer planet. This steel mill in
the Ohio River valley symbolizes the growing impact of mankind since the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution.
mankind. Increased CO2 does stimulate
plant growth. Furthermore, a warming
of marginally productive high-latitude
regions could enhance their habitation
and other use.
However, the impacts of past natural
variations of rainfall and temperature
have demonstrated what the human
costs of a Greenhouse-enhanced
warming could be. Therefore, with both
gains and losses potentially in store,
policy decisions become more acutely
sensitive to details of the predictions.
Current science is hard-pressed to
provide accurate details.
How Much Do We Know?
Despite the scope and complexity noted,
research to date has provided an
understanding of several, but not all,
aspects of the Greenhouse Effect. Some
things are known with high certainty;
others remain very poorly understood.
The following status report proceeds
through the spectrum from "knovvns" to
"unknowns."
• A Greenhouse Effect is essential to
life. If the three major radiation-trapping
trace gases—water vapor, COz, and
ozone—were not present in the
atmosphere, our solar-powered planet
would be ice-covered. Thus, a
Greenhouse Effect is a major feature of
the atmosphere, and its general
properties are understood: Computer
models yield very reasonable
simulations of the average temperature
of the Earth, the pattern of the seasons,
the latitudinal changes in temperatures,
and the vertical temperature structure of
the atmosphere.
Why, then, is the Greenhouse Effect
labeled as an environmental problem?
The answer is simple: We have begun to
enhance it.
• In the next century, a doubling of
CO2 over pre-industrial levels is
virtually certain. Atmospheric C02 is
increasing, due largely to the
combustion of fossil fuels by humans.
All scientists are convinced of this.
However, the rate of increase in the
concentration of this Greenhouse gas
Ken Garreti photo Woodfm Camp
MARCH/APRIL 1990
-------
Scientists disagree whether a
Greenhouse "signal" has
already been seen.
will depend on technical developments,
economic factors, and policy decisions
which cannot be predicted entirely in
advance; it will also depend on the net
uptake of C02 by vegetation and the
oceans, which is rather uncertain.
• Not only C02, but methane, CFCs,
ozone in the lower atmosphere, and
nitrous oxide act as Greenhouse gases.
The concentrations of gases other than
CO2 are also increasing in the
atmosphere. The reasons for the
increases are not fully understood.
The CFCs, of course, are industrially
produced. However, the sources of the
other gases are not as clear, since the
biological mechanisms for their
emissions are still ill-defined. Hence,
the future atmospheric abundances of
all the Greenhouse gases cannot yet be
predicted reliably.
All of the Greenhouse gases just
mentioned act to reduce the loss of
outgoing thermal radiation to space. The
basic radiation physics of these trace
gases is well understood. The relative
"efficiency," molecule by molecule, of
each chemical species as a Greenhouse
gas can be calculated with a fair amount
of certainty; however, the residence
time of each in the atmosphere is less
well known.
• The eventual response of the cJimate
system to increased Greenhouse
"forcing" is likely to be, on the average,
a global warming. Most (but not all)
climate scientists now believe this.
Current science can accurately calculate
the thermal forcing of the atmosphere
due to increases in the Greenhouse
gases. However, predicting the
subsequent response of the climate
system to that forcing is a much more
difficult task.
Based on current model simulations,
many scientists believe that an eventual
global average warming in the range of 1
to 5 degrees Celsius is likely. However,
some scientists have cautioned that we
may not have identified and
characterized all the key atmospheric,
terrestrial, and oceanic processes that
determine climate responses. If a
warming in the range of 0.5 to 1 °C does
occur, this would be comparable to or
larger than known temperature changes
that have happened naturally in the
past.
• Scientists disagree whether a
Greenhouse "signal" has already been
seen. Current models indicate that, due
to the Greenhouse gases already in the
atmosphere, the global average surface
warming should be in the range of 0.5 to
1 °C. Has that warming been seen in the
temperature record? The answer is not
clear, but most scientists currently think
not.
While the average surface temperature
record shows an increase of that
magnitude over the past several
decades, the pattern has been one of
relatively rapid increase in the 1920s
and another in the 1980s. This does not
match the pattern predicted for the
Greenhouse Effect, namely, a gradual
increase in temperature. It follows that
there must be other, presumably natural,
processes at work that can influence
temperature changes of a fraction of a
degree Celsius. Therefore, scientists are
searching for a "signal" whose
magnitude is likely to be comparable to
the natural variations of the climate
system—a challenging task indeed! As
an added complication, the reliability of
some of the temperature record has been
questioned recently.
• Current models cannot predict with
confidence the climate of a particular
region or the cJimate of a given year.
People who construct climate models
point out that today's models of the
global system cannot yield reliable
predictions of climate features on
regional scales. Nor can they predict the
climate of a particular year.
This means that scientists do not
know for sure whether the U.S.
midwestern drought of 1988 was due to
the Greenhouse Effect, nor can they
foretell year by year the climate features
of the near future. However, many
scientists agree that, using models, it is
possible to predict that episodes like the
1988 drought will become more
common in coming decades, due to an
enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Toward Better Answers
The above summary is my own
interpretation concerning the state of
the science on the Greenhouse Effect.
What are the prospects for improved
answers?
A worldwide statement of the
knowns, unknowns, and implications of
an enhanced Greenhouse Effect is due
out soon. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and
the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) are jointly
sponsoring an international
state-of-knowledge review of climate
change. Their report will cover three
areas: science, socio-economic impacts,
and policy options. The science review
will be a peer-reviewed scientific
assessment of the whole climate-change
phenomenon done by the best scientists
available worldwide. It will be
accompanied by a summary directed to
government officials, the private sector,
and the public. The timetable is brisk:
the review began in early 1989 and is
scheduled to be completed in the
summer of 1990.
Of what value will this assessment be
to decision-makers? The answer is
"considerable," for several reasons. It
will provide a single consensus
statement in which the international
scientific community will speak with
one voice regarding the knowns and
unknowns of global warming. The
scientific scope will be comprehensive,
so that decision-makers will have a
single homogeneous summary of the
current scientific understanding of the
whole climate-change phenomenon.
This can serve as a common reference
point for decision-makers—clearly an
advantage over sporadic and separate
statements reflecting the opinions of
individuals and separate nations.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Climate System and Homo Sapiens
Climate Change
Forcings
Physical Response
-^v^*
Ocean
• Combustion
• Solar Variation
• Land Use
Warmer:
More Clouds,
More Reflectance:
Cooling (-)
Temperature
Rainfall
Sea Level
More Reflectance:
Warming ( + )
Biological Piocesses
• Crops
• Habitation
• Energy
More C02:
Stimulated Plant Growth
(Beneficial)
Less Soil Moisture:
Retarded Plant Growth
(Detrimental)
Both natural and human-induced
climate change will be considered in the
forthcoming report. This means that
predicted human-induced climate
change will be placed in the context of
observed and predicted changes that are
a natural part of the climate system. The
comparison of the two will afford
insight into the significance of the
predicted human impacts on the planet.
At the same time, it is clear that key
problems related to global warming
need further elucidation. Some of the
gaps in our understanding have been
identified, pointing to research
priorities:
• Building a better observational system
that could not only provide additional
input to computer models, but also
signal the real-world arrival of a
Greenhouse warming.
• Improving our knowledge of cloud
feedback mechanisms.
• Developing the capability to predict
increases in the biologically related
Greenhouse gases, such as methane. At
present, we can make only rough
extrapolations concerning increasing
concentrations of these gases in the
atmosphere.
• Characterizing the processes that
determine the thermal inertia of the
oceans, such as large-scale vertical
motions.
• Improving the quality of our weather
records and learning to better interpret
the long-term record of past climate
change. These are important for further
development and testing of our
century-scale models, since we clearly
cannot wait for future centuries of data
to accomplish this.
In the United States, these questions
are being addressed by the Global
Change Research Program, which is
being administered by the Committee on
Earth Sciences, a consortium of federal
science agencies. Research efforts in
these areas have also been mounted by
other countries, such as the United
Kingdom and Australia.
Improved answers require a better
understanding of the basic workings of
the ocean/atmosphere climate system,
which is a formidable task. Such
answers do not come cheap, nor do they
all come fast. Nevertheless, the
fundamental understanding of natural
processes that relate to the well-being of
mankind are almost always
cost-effective. Consider, for example, the
cost of a Salk/Sabin vaccine for polio in
comparison to the economic and human
costs of a life in an iron lung. Regarding
our health and the environment, it is
the price of ignorance that we cannot
afford, n
MARCH/APRIL 1990
-------
The Greenhouse Gases
by Richard D. Morgenstern
and Dennis Tirpak
Since human activities first began
significantly influencing the
atmosphere during the industrial
revolution 200 years ago, sources and
emissions of Greenhouse gases have
steadily increased. Today, scientists are
especially concerned that recent
increases in the amount of Greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere may cause
global warming in the future, altering
the Earth's climate.
Some gases remain in the
atmosphere for short periods
of time, but other gases, such
as CFCs, may remain there for
several hundred years.
These sources of Greenhouse gases are
so numerous and diverse that no single
source contributes more than a tiny
fraction of total emissions. Similarly, no
single country contributes more than a
fraction of emissions.
Unlike other environmental problems
that EPA could address with the stroke
of a regulation, potential climate change
is a problem that needs innovative
global solutions. Future trends of
emissions will depend on a wide range
of factors, from population and
economic growth to technological
development and policies to reduce
emissions. Past trends and projected
future trends show that all countries
have been producing Greenhouse gases
at a growing rate, and many countries
will continue to do so for years to come.
Based on careful study of the sources
and trends of Greenhouse emissions
around the globe, countries can begin
implementing prudent measures for
slowing down emissions while
increasing economic development.
Sources
Recent increases in these Greenhouse
gases result mainly from expanded
energy use, agricultural practices, and
population growth. The most important
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4),
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and nitrous
oxide (N2O). In assessing the importance
of these gases, scientists look at three
characteristics: the concentration of the
gas in the atmosphere, the ability of the
gas to block infra-red radiation and thus
trap heat in the manner of a greenhouse,
and the lifetime of the gas in the
atmosphere.
Some gases remain in the atmosphere
for short periods of time, but other
gases, such as CFCs, may remain there
for several hundred years. Some gases
are much better at blocking radiation
than others. For example, molecule by
molecule, CFCs are 10,000 times better
at blocking radiation than CO2, but there
are 35,000 times more CO2 than CFCs in
the atmosphere. By weighing these
factors, scientists can determine how
much each of these gases contributes to
the Greenhouse Effect.
CO2, the most abundant Greenhouse
gas, is responsible for approximately
half of man-made contributions to the
Greenhouse Effect. Since the industrial
revolution, the concentration of C02 in
the atmosphere has increased 25 percent
and continues to increase at a rate of 0.4
percent per year. Fossil-fuel combustion
and deforestation are the primary
sources of this increase in atmospheric
CO2.
Methane in the atmosphere has more
than doubled in the past 300 years and
is currently responsible for about 18
percent of man-made contributions to
the Greenhouse Effect. Agricultural
sources, particularly rice cultivation and
animal husbandry, have probably been
the most significant contributors to
recent increases in methane
concentrations. Methane emissions from
landfills, coal seams, melting
permafrost, natural gas exploration and
pipeline leakage, and biomass burning
associated with deforestation are also
'
(Morgenstern is Director of the Office of
Poiicy Analysis in EPA's Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
(OPPE). Tirpak is Director of the
Climate Change Division in the Office
of Policy Analysis.)
' <
Thomas Se/ineff photo. World Bank.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
important sources. Total methane
emissions are increasing at a rate of 1
percent per year.
CFCs contribute about 14 percent of
man-made contributions to the
Greenhouse Effect. Unlike other
Greenhouse gases that have always been
in the atmosphere, CFCs only recently
appeared in the Earth's atmosphere
when scientists began manufacturing
these compounds in the 1930s. They are
used for a variety of industrial
purposes—as propellants in aerosol
cans, refrigerants in air conditioners and
refrigerators, and cleaning solvents, for
example. CFCs are not nearly as
abundant as CO2, but these compounds
are much more powerful as a
Greenhouse gas, molecule by molecule,
than CO2, and their concentrations are
increasing rapidly: more than 4 percent
since 1978.
N2O has increased in concentration by
5 to 10 percent in the past 200 years
and is currently increasing at a rate of
0.25 percent per year. The cause of this
increase is uncertain, but nitrogen-based
fertilizers, land clearing, biomass
burning, and fossil-fuel combustion
have all contributed. N2O is over 200
times more powerful than CO2 as a
Greenhouse gas and contributes about 6
percent of man-made contributions to
the Greenhouse Effect.
Future Trends
The United States is responsible for the
largest portion of man-made
contributions to the Greenhouse Effect
(21 percent), followed by the USSR (14
percent), European countries (14
percent), China (7 percent), Brazil (4
percent), India (4 percent), and the rest
of the world (36 percent). The rate of
Greenhouse-gas buildup during the next
century will depend heavily on future
patterns of population and economic
growth and technological development;
these, in turn, are influenced by the
policies of local, state, national, and
Historical Concentrations of
Greenhouse Gases:
How Scientists Know
During the yearly thawing and
refreezing in Greenland and the
Antarctic, small pockets of air are
trapped in the ice. Scientists drill
into the Antarctic ice cap and
extract air that was trapped in
these pockets. Back in the
laboratory, they analyze this air
and determine what portions of
the air are carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, etc.
To determine the age of an air
sample, scientists count the
number of layers of ice to the
depth they took the sample. Like
tree rings, these yearly layers from
the thawing and refreezing provide
a good estimate of age. Scientists
have drilled as deep as 2,000
meters and extracted air that was
trapped as long as 163,000 years
ago. With this information,
scientists can compare
pre-industrial concentrations of
Greenhouse gases with today's
concentrations.
international private and public
institutions.
To assemble a better picture of how
emissions may change in the future,
EPA, in conjunction with other
countries and the International Panel on
Climate Change, is assessing future
Projected Global CO2 Emissions
Developed
North America
Western Europe
Japan & Australia
Eastern Europe
Billion Tons
1985
3.95
1,46
0.77
0.34
1.38
Carbon
2025
6.71
2.37
1.11
0.63
2.60
percentage
Annual
Growth
1.31
1.23
0.91
1.53
1.60
energy plans of different countries and
their implications for emissions of
Greenhouse gases. The approach relies
on information from individual
countries evaluated in comparison to
results obtained from large global
economic models such as used in
preparing EPA's recent draft report to
Congress titled Policy Options for
Stabilizing Global Climate. (See table
for emissions projections for the year
2025.)
As with all attempts to forecast into
the future, the results become less
reliable the further they extend into the
future; however, from the projections
summarized in the table, a certain
picture of the future emerges. The
analysis suggests that global CO2
emissions will more than double by the
year 2025 (5.24 to 12.18 billion tons per
year) in the absence of specific
government policies to reduce
emissions. This estimate is higher than
indicated in EPA's draft report to
Congress; most individual countries
tend to be optimistic about their future
use of energy and do not consider global
constraints.
The developed countries, currently
the largest CO2 emitters, will grow in
Per-Capita
Percentage C02 Emissions *
(metric tons/year)
2025
4.24
6,50
2.63
2.65
5.02
Developing 1.29 5.47 3.91 0.80
Centrally Planned Asia 0.55 1.80 3.00 0.98
South & East Asia 0.28 1.55 4.41 0.50
Latin America 0.21 0.65 2.91 1.68
Africa 0.14 0.80 4.53 0.48
Middle East 0.11 0.67 4.72 1.91
The cultivation of rice, one of
the world's most popular staple
foods, produces methane, a
potent Greenhouse gas. These
Bangladesh farmers are
transplanting rice shoots.
Global
5.24
12.18
2.61
1.41
*Per-capita C02 emissions are calculated for each region based on
projected C02 emissions and population.
Note: these projections assume no specific international agreements to
reduce emissions.
MARCH/APRIL 1990
-------
Automobiles are a major source
of CO}, a Greenhouse gas.
population at approximately 1.0 to 1.5
percent per year and are projected to
emit 6.7 billion tons of carbon by the
year 2025. Developed countries are
likely to continue to emit more CO2 per
person than developing countries. For
example, the average citizen living in
the United States produces six times
more CO2 each year than the average
citizen in a developing country. In
developing countries, population and
economic growth will lead to a
substantial increase in CO2 emissions to
over 5 billion tons per year, despite
anticipated improvements in efficiency
of energy use.
Developing countries now contribute
only a small fraction of Greenhouse
gases, but their share of emissions is
expected to increase significantly in the
next 35 years. The table shows the share
of COZ emissions from Asia (including
China), Africa, Latin America, and the
Middle East increasing from slightly
over one-fourth of the global total in
Greenhouse Gas Contributions to Global
Warming (1980s]
Nitrous Oxide
(6%T
Source: J. Hanser et al.
Regional Contributions to Global
Warming
Source: EPA
1985 to nearly one-half the total by
2025. Technologies developed in more
industrialized nations to use energy
efficiently could help developing
nations reduce emissions as they
continue to develop, but channels to
transfer this technology must be
developed.
On a regional basis, energy use in
Western European countries is projected
to grow at a relatively slow rate because
of low population growth and
anticipated policies to be implemented
over the next decade. Several countries,
such as Norway, Sweden, and The
Netherlands, have already adopted
policies specifically to slow the growth
rate of Greenhouse-gas emissions. These
measures include special taxes,
energy-efficiency programs, and
promotion of nuclear energy, natural
gas, and renewable energy sources.
The case in Eastern Europe is quite
different, largely because many of these
countries are among the most energy
intensive and most energy inefficient in
the world. In Eastern Europe and the
USSR, energy use and CO2 emissions
are projected to grow considerably over
the next 35 years, but policies of
perestroika aimed at restructuring the
economy and improving energy
efficiency in the USSR could have a
significant impact. If the economies of
the USSR and Eastern Europe become
more energy-efficient and move from
heavy industrial production to
production of less energy-intensive
consumer goods, they may be able to
increase economic growth and enjoy the
added benefit of reduced
Greenhouse-gas emissions.
In response to these projected
increases in emissions, many countries
are seeking ways to limit the buildup of
Greenhouse gases in a manner
consistent with economic development
10
California DOT photo.
and other environmental and social
goals. The most common options for
reducing Greenhouse-gas emissions
involve reducing fossil-fuel
consumption, researching alternative
energy sources, switching to fuels that
release less CO^, improving energy
efficiency, and starting programs for
reforestation. Countries are also looking
at a broad range of possible policies
including energy taxes, fuel-switching,
information programs, economic
incentives, and energy-efficiency
standards and regulations that could
result in low or declining emissions in
the next 20 years.
Many available technologies could
substantially improve the energy
efficiency of automobiles, buildings, and
homes, but often require innovative
programs to encourage their adoption,
Renewable energy sources are also being
researched, improved, and demonstrated
as viable alternatives to fossil fuels.
These include solar energy, wind
power, hydroelectric energy, wave
energy, and biomass energy. Other
important options include reducing
methane emissions from landfills, coal
mines, and gas and oil facilities. The
costs and benefits of implementing such
programs are now the subject of
extensive analysis by many
governments.
In the coming years, we must
re-evaluate how emissions are likely to
change. But given this preliminary
picture of the future, it is important to
take the next step of assessing the
specific technologies and policy
measures that can reduce emissions
now at low costs. Each country will
have to examine its unique situation
and determine appropriate responses.
However, only by acting together will
the global community slow the trend
toward high emissions in the next
century, n
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Policy Options
Energy Conservation
by Claudine Schneider
II II ow many light bulbs does it take
flto change the weather?" The
question sounds like a joke in search of
a punchline. However, lighting has
become a lively topic of discussion at
the many conferences discussing the
looming threat of global climate change.
In fact, highly efficient lighting devices
present a premier opportunity to cut
energy costs and environmental
pollutants simultaneously.
Lighting, considered together with the
associated air conditioning required to
offset the heat generated from inefficient
lights, consumes one-fourth of U.S.
electricity. This is equivalent to nearly
half of all coal burned by the nation's
electric utilities.
The market now offers several dozen
highly efficient lighting products which
can provide similar quantity and quality
of lighting while consuming just 25
percent of the electricity. These
products include compact fluorescent
lamps, solid-state electronic ballasts that
also eliminate hum and flicker from
fluorescent lamps, sensors that turn off
lights in unoccupied rooms,
photosensors that dim lights whenever
sunlight is available, mirror-like
reflectors that provide the same quality
of light with half as many fluorescent
lamps as would otherwise be required,
polarizing lenses that reduce glare from
fluorescent fixtures, and others. When
fully used, these products will save
consumers over $25 billion per year and
prevent the annual generation of
hundreds of millions of tons of carbon
dioxide (CO-,) in addition to substantial
reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
(Claudine Schneider (R-RIj is the
co-chair of the Congressional
Competitiveness Caucus and ranking
minority member of the J-fouse
Subcommittee on Natural Resources,
Agriculture Research, and
Environment.)
MARCH/APRIL 1990
The market now offers several
dozen highly efficient lighting
products ....
nitrous oxide (N2O) pollutants.
Take the compact fluorescent lamp,
made with solid-state electronic chips
and space-age materials. A "compact"
delivers the same light as an
incandescent bulb consuming four or
more times as much electricity. The
compact also lasts 10 times as long and
over its lifetime will net a consumer
more than $30 in savings. An 18-watt
compact, replacing a 75-watt bulb, will
also prevent the generation of one ton of
CO2 and 25 pounds of SO2.
This is not only a bright idea; it's a
win-win opportunity. Every major
lighting company in the world is now
marketing compacts, locked in a
competitive drive to capture as many as
Energy-saving light
bulbs are now
available for home,
industrial, and
commercial use. For
example, tho
industrial-type
compact metal
halide bulb (left)
uses 31 percent less
power and produces
192 percent more
light than the
commonly used
incandescent type
(right). The halide
light also lasts much
longer—about 7,000
hours.
possible of the 3 billion light sockets in
U.S. buildings. A factory producing
compacts is even more impressive. A
mid-sized facility producing 2 million
compacts per year costs $7 million to
set up and over its lifetime will displace
the need for a 350-megawatt coal plant
with a capital cost in excess of $300
million.
Windows offer another premier
opportunity to cut costs and pollutants.
Windows in U.S. buildings leak roughly
the equivalent of an Alaskan pipeline
(1.8 million barrels of oil per day).
However, as a result of a highly
successful research and development
(R&D) effort begun in the 1970s by
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
working jointly with private industry,
the market now offers highly efficient
windows that approach the
heat-retaining ability of well-insulated
walls.
These low-emissive windows are
constructed with materials that let the
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory photo
11
-------
The low-emissive windows are
expected to penetrate half the
new window market within
the next several years ....
light shine through, but block some of
the infrared heat. The low-emissive
windows are expected to penetrate half
the new window market within the next
several years, and full use of the current
generation would save the equivalent of
half an Alaskan pipeline.
The next generation of more
sophisticated windows now emerging
from ongoing R&D at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory is projected to save,
eventually, the output of an entire
Alaskan pipeline. Again, the factory
level offers impressive capital savings.
A facility that manufactures
low-emissive windows requires a
capitalization cost of $7 million; this
investment enables window production
that results in the equivalent of 10,000
barrels of oil per day in energy savings.
In sharp contrast, an offshore oil
platform requires a $300-million
capitalization to deliver 10,000 barrels
per day.
Not only windows, but virtually every
energy-consuming device used in
buildings offers similarly attractive
potential economic savings—and the
means for achieving cost-free and
tax-free reductions in a range of
environmental pollutants. Energy
services can be obtained with half or
less energy inputs (and waste outputs)
by investing in the most efficient
furnaces, boilers, pumps, fans,
refrigerators, air conditioners and
natural cooling designs, motors and
drive equipment, computers and
peripherals, building design and
materials, etc. Testimony presented at
Congressional hearings estimates a
current, cost-effective potential for
saving more than half of the $170
billion per year expended for gas and
electricity in U.S. buildings.
Equally large savings are available in
the industrial and transportation sectors
(e.g., see articles on pp. 26 and 28).
Steady advances in microprocessing
circuitry, power electronics, and
advanced materials are revolutionizing
manufacturing processes. A recent
state-of-the-art review, conducted by the
Rocky Mountain Institute, of efficiency
opportunities in electric motors and
industrial drivepower devices that run
pumps, compressors, fans, etc., found
available electricity savings ranging
between $30 billion and $60 billion per
year. The improvements would result
from the widespread use of permanent
magnet motors, power-factor controllers,
variable frequency drives, fast-speed
controllers for turbomachinery, and
proper sizing and design of equipment.
This would not only reduce the cost of
producing goods and services, but
eliminate the need for between 90 and
180 large-sized powerplants.
Clearly these changes are not going to
occur overnight. Rather, the efficiency
gains can be achieved at a relatively
modest pace by simply installing the
best available devices wherever
cost-effective or when worn-out devices
need replacement.
The United States accrued substantial
savings between the mid-1970s and the
mid-1980s with just this approach.
Energy-conservation investments in
buildings, appliances, factories, and the
transportation sector during that time
increased the economy's energy
efficiency by 2.5 percent per year. These
gains in efficiency have achieved energy
savings of more than $150 billion per
year, displaced the need for 14 million
barrels of oil equivalent per day, and
reduced CO2, SO2, and N2O emissions
40 percent below what they otherwise
would have been. These savings were
spurred by a combination of high oil
prices, federal vehicle fuel-economy
standards, and various state building
and appliance efficiency standards.
The stream of scientific advances and
technological innovations shows no
signs of abating. Additional domestic
savings of $200 billion per year remain
to be tapped, and energy savings several
times that sum loom on the global
horizon. Unfortunately, the success of
energy efficiency in lowering energy
prices has also undermined the
incentive to pursue these additional
savings.
Moreover, energy-efficiency
investments are seriously inhibited by a
formidable number of institutional
barriers and market imperfections.
Markets are distorted by subsidies to
both energy producers and consumers.
For example, U.S. federal energy
subsidies amounted to $45 billion per
year in the mid-1980s, with over 90
percent going to promote expensive
fossil and nuclear resources. Less than
$1 billion went to encourage greater
reliance on low-cost conservation
options. In many developing countries,
the government subsidizes 50 percent or
more of the price of electricity,
dramatically reducing the incentive to
use energy more efficiently.
In addition, developers routinely
construct inefficient buildings and stock
them with inefficient appliances to keep
first-purchase costs down. Perversely
enough, this can result in utilities'
investing as much as half the original
cost of the home to install additional
capacity to accommodate such
fuel-guzzling appliances. Likewise,
owners who pass on utility costs to
renters have no incentive to improve
their buildings, and renters are reluctant
to make major capital investments to
upgrade their landlords' rental units.
Even in the absence of such a chain of
"split incentives," both an "efficiency
gap" and a "payback gap" limit energy
conservation. The efficiency gap is due
to a lack of information: Inadequate
information about the availability and
reliability of cost-effective efficiency
measures keeps consumers and energy
producers from investing in these
options.
Even where information is available,
however, the payback gap short-circuits
sound investments. Consumers tend to
ignore any efficiency investment which
fails to pay for itself within six months
to two years. In sharp contrast, utilities
routinely build power plants based on
15- to 30-year paybacks. As a result of
this enormous payback gap, society is
losing investment opportunities that
could accrue tens of billions of dollars
per year in energy savings and avoid the
unnecessary generation of millions of
tons of environmental pollutants.
The respected American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy has
identified several dozen policy changes
that could overcome these barriers and
help spur a 3-percent per year rate of
efficiency improvement in the U.S.
economy. The recommendations range
from restoring this past decade's
70-percent reduction in conservation
R&D funding to implementing an
energy-efficiency protocol for
climate-change control. Pioneering
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
states like California have implemented
building and appliance efficiency
standards that are spurring significant
energy and financial savings while
overcoming many of the divided
incentives noted above. Other states
could implement similar standards.
Moreover, a decade of vigorous efforts
and collaborative brainstorming among
state public utility regulatory
commissioners, environmental and
consumer advocates, research scientists,
and utility executives has resulted in an
array of innovative policies and
regulatory incentives designed to
overcome barriers in the utility sector.
One highly successful practice is
"least-cost utility planning," pioneered
With its skylit solar court, this airport in
Albany County, New York, is a good
example of energy-saving design. A
microcomputer assists in selecting the most
energy-efficient position for the louvers. In
daylight, photoelectric controls dim the
artificial lights.
in the Pacific Northwest over the past
decade.
Least-cost planning involves ranking
all supply- and demand-side options in
order of their cost-effectiveness. When
Congress mandated least-cost planning
in the Northwest region in 1980, 16 coal
and nuclear plants were proposed.
Instead, the new planning process
identified an abundance of available
efficiency investments at far below the
cost of the power plants. As a result, the
16 plants have been indefinitely
deferred.
The least-cost planning process is
now being used or examined by 35 state
regulatory commissions. A
technology-transfer initiative which I
succeeded in getting Congress to fund
beginning in 1986 is also helping other
states carry out this cost- and
risk-minimizing process. Identifying the
lowest cost options is a key first step.
The second crucial step is to get the
right incentives in place so that these
options are used.
Traditionally, utilities make money by
building power plants and selling more
kilowatt-hours. Under the current
regulatory regime, they suffer serious
erosion of cash earnings when they help
customers reduce their energy
consumption through conservation
investments.
The "New England Collaborative"
recently initiated by the Conservation
Law Foundation appears to lead the
nation in correcting this problem. A
new regulatory incentive has been
structured that rewards utilities for
saving electricity whenever this is
cheaper than building new powerplants.
The utilities provide surveys to
customers detailing energy-saving
options, then finance part or all of the
investment. The innovation looks
extremely promising, with potential
application in utilities across the nation
and around the world. Other
refinements are sure to follow, but it is
clear that energy efficiency is fast
becoming the nation's most abundant
low-cost, low-risk energy option, o
MARCH/APRIL 1990
13
-------
Policy Options
Reforestation
by Robert J. Mouiton and
Kenneth Andrasko
In his State of the Union address to
Congress last January, President Bush
proposed a new executive initiative to
plant a billion trees a year for several
years "to help keep this country clean,
from our forestland to the inner cities."
Significantly, in this age of budget
deficits and intense competition for
federal dollars, the President went on to
announce an unusual item in his
proposed federal budget: "the money to
plant a billion trees per year."
The new money—$175 million
proposed for Fiscal Year 1991—is
intended to support a new national tree
planting and forestland improvement
program to be administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service. The program, which
remains to be formally approved by
Congress, is part of the President's
"America the Beautiful" conservation
initiative: a three-pronged effort
designed to repair and upgrade facilities
on our public lands, to purchase critical
additions to wildlife refuges and parks,
and to plant a billion trees per year.
The goal of the proposed tree-planting
program—cooperatively developed in
concept by the Forest Service and
EPA—is to plant and maintain one
billion trees each year on rural lands
(970 million trees) and in communities
(30 million trees) across the nation. The
U.S. Forest Service administers our
national forests, conducts forest
research, and works in cooperation with
state foresters and others to provide
private landowner forestry assistance in
rural areas and urban communities. EPA
is the lead federal agency charged with
developing domestic policies and
programs to respond to scientific:
predictions of climate change.
(MouJfon is a Fores! Economist with the
Forest Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture. Andrusko is Senior Forestry
Analyst in the Climate Change Division
of EPA's Office of Policy Analysis.)
Why spend federal funds on the
planting of trees? After all, as the
President mentioned during a visit to
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, last
September, trees are "the oldest,
cheapest, and most efficient air purifier
on Earth." In fact, trees provide a wide
range of environmental benefits and
resources: They shade and cool houses,
provide timber for construction, offer
habitat for wildlife, and slow
nonpoint-source pollution from erosion
and agricultural-chemical run-off into
our lakes and streams.
Trees also have a tremendous
capability to assimilate carbon dioxide
(CO2) by converting it to stable carbon
"sinks" in the form of woody biomass
stored in trunks, branches, roots, and
organic matter in forest soils: This is
particularly important given the current
trend of increasing CO2 in the
atmosphere from fossil-fuel use and
tropical deforestation ("sources" of
carbon in the global cycle). Forest
ecosystems—the trees, soil, surface
litter, and understory plants—have no
equal in this respect. Forest ecosystems
store about two to seven more tons of
carbon per acre per year than if the
same land were in corn production, for
example.
Trees take in CO2, separate and return
the oxygen to the air, and keep the
carbon, which is stored as wood, in the
growth process. They eventually reach a
steady state, well into maturity, in
which annual growth roughly equals
loss and decay of branches and leaves:
Thus, fully mature trees neither store
nor emit carbon.
Harvesting forests to produce wood
products for construction and other
purposes affects the carbon cycle not
only by removing CO2-assimilating
trees, but also releases carbon as a result
of soil disturbance and increased
sunlight—slowly releasing CO2 over
many years. If harvested tracts are
rapidly replanted, however, healthy
regrowth provides a new, expanding
biomass sink to store much of the
carbon released by harvest. U.S. forests
as a whole are almost in net balance in
terms of the carbon cycle, thanks to
current replanting and forest
management practices. The President's
proposed tree-planting initiative is
expected to shift the balance so that
U.S. forests would become a true sink
for CO2, helping to reduce carbon levels
in the atmosphere.
For the urban land component of the
President's plan, the goal is to plant 30
million new trees annually. Funding of
$65 million is proposed for the first
year; $35 million of this would be
one-time, start-up funding to create a
private, nonprofit foundation to help
coordinate a massive volunteer effort in
virtually every community in America.
A community tree program of this scale
would reverse the current trend of
declining urban forests, in which
roughly four trees are removed for every
new tree planted in metropolitan areas.
Tree per tree, urban trees are
considerably more effective in
countervailing CO2 emissions than are
rural trees. Moreover, well-placed yard
trees—which shade buildings and
reduce their indoor and surface
temperatures—help save energy by
reducing residential heating and cooling
needs. Urban yard trees can be 15 times
more effective th;>n rural trees in
reducing emissions and capturing
carbon. Trees along city streets and in
urban parks typically have large, full
crowns which shade pavement and park
grounds and thus help temper the urban
"heat-island" effect by lessening heat
storage during the day and slowing the
release of stored heat at night.
Rural lands offer the biggest planting
opportunity, however. Planting 970
million trees yearly in rural areas would
involve about 1.5 million acres each
year. A program on this scale would, in
a few short years, become the largest
EPA JOURNAL
-------
These children were among 70 students at
La Plata Montessori School in Durango,
Colorado, who planted honey locust seeds
in a "Trees for Life" project in January 1990.
tree-planting program in U.S. history. It
would exceed the combined planting
accomplishments of the Civilian
Conservation Corps in the 1930s and
1940s, the Soil Bank from 1956 to 1962,
and the current Conservation Reserve
Program, which has planted 2.2 million
acres since it began in 1986. As
proposed by the President, the rural
program would be on a 50/50
cost-sharing basis: The federal
government would pay for one-half of
tree-planting costs, and individual
landowners would pay the other half.
Recent statistics on tree-planting in
the United States provide another
measure of the President's tree-planting
proposal. In 1988—the most recent year
for which data are available—some 2.3
billion seedlings were planted on 3.4
million acres. Ninety percent of these
acres were in private ownership, with
the balance in the national forests and
on other public lands. Forest-products
companies have been the leading tree
planters since the mid-1960s, except in
1987 and 1988, when tree planting by
private owners not part of the forest
industry was boosted by the incentive of
the Conservation Reserve.
Since the President's tree-planting
program is slated to involve only
private, non-industry lands, successful
implementation of the program would
require private landowners to increase
their annual rate of tree planting by
about two and one-half times. Is this
feasible? What lands would be
involved?
A large portion of the program,
perhaps as many as two-thirds of the
acres, would likely involve planting
trees on existing forestlands. USDA field
surveys indicate that up to 80 million
acres of private non-industrial
woodlands are in poor condition due to
unsustainable management
practices—overharvesting and
grazing—and natural events such as
severe storms, fires, and outbreaks of
insects and diseases. Tree planting and
silvicultural practices that promote the
natural regeneration of forests can bring
such nonstocked and understocked
stands back into healthy condition: This
is why an emphasis on existing
forestlands makes sense and should
help encourage voluntary participation
in the proposed tree-planting program.
In addition to forestlands, the second
major category of land targeted for tree
planting is environmentally sensitive
and economically marginal croplands
and pasturelands. Farming and grazing
livestock on these suboptimal lands
promote soil erosion and pose a serious
threat of nonpoint pollution to ground
and surface waters. Large-scale tree
planting on these lands would
complement the major
resource-conservation programs created
in the 1985 Farm Bill, including not
only the Conservation Reserve, but also
the Swampbuster and Sodbuster
provisions, intended to discourage such
lands from being converted to crop
production in the first place.
In concept, the President's Tree
initiative is similar to the Conservation
Reserve, which encouraged farmers to
retire highly erodible and other
sensitive lands from annual crop
production and establish permanent
covers [grasses, trees, legumes,
windbreaks, or wildlife plantings). And
like the Conservation Reserve, the new
program could be administered so as to
Durango Herald. Colorado
help farmers implement
soil-conservation practices.
Landowner objectives would be the
key factor in how trees planted under
the President's initiative are used. The
program is expected to stress flexibility,
providing expanded opportunities for
planting hardwood species and stands
grown for purposes not limited to
timber production. In general, it will
encourage tree planting in places where
maximum environmental benefits can
be attained at relatively minimal costs.
But what about the big picture—the
prospect of global climate change? Is it
really possible to plant and manage
trees in the United States on a scale
sufficient to store enough excess CO2 to
help slow climate change? How much
can the presently proposed program—or
any tree-planting program—accomplish?
Federal analysts recently estimated
that an all-out tree program—planting
roughly 20 billion trees per year—could
capture up to 67 percent of the nation's
annual emissions of CO2, assuming .such
a program were targeted to
environmentally sensitive and
economically marginal croplands and
pasturelands and existing, privately
owned woodlands. Obviously, this
would be the upper-limit scenario for
using trees as a means to mitigate
climate change. Among other things,
this scenario would entail major
MARCH/APRIL 1990
15
-------
One of the U.S. Forest Service's
current projects is to regenerate
existing forestland. At right, a
contract hand-planting crew at
DeSoto National Forest in
Southeastern Mississippi is at
work. About 1.4 million slash,
loblolly, and long-leaf pines will
be planted yearly on 3,000 acres
of this national forest. Forest
Service efforts will get a boost
from the President's proposed
tree-planting program.
tradeoffs among competing land uses
and would affect food and timber
prices.
The direct cost to society for such an
all-out program has been estimated at
about $19 billion dollars per year
(discounted rate), or $24 per ton of
carbon per year—a cost considered very
competitive with other, non-forestry
options to curb CO2 buildup. This
cost estimate includes the full cost of
establishing trees, regardless of whether
the cost is borne by the public or private
owners, plus the annual rental rate of
the land involved, a measure of land
value in a market economy.
The cheapest, currently
least-productive land generally would
be tapped first in such a mammoth
carbon-capturing program. In general,
tree-planting program costs vary greatly
depending on the type of land involved,
the species of trees planted, and the
geographical region. For instance,
although it seems counterintuitive,
planting trees on agricultural land is
usually less expensive than replanting
forestland, due to an absence of stumps
and logging debris. Even the most
severe agricultural sites are less likely to
be as rocky and steep as many forest
sites. Hardwood trees are generally more
expensive to plant than conifers because
they require relatively intensive site
preparation prior to planting and
intensive care following planting.
Hardwood tree seedlings typically cost
three to five times as much to establish
as do conifer seedlings. The species of
tree selected depends, of course, on the
site and region to be planted.
Admittedly, a tree-planting program
to achieve a 67-percent offset of total
U.S. emissions of C02 is an ambitious
scenario. Alternatively, a 10-percent
offset program appears to be both
eminently feasible and cost-effective.
Food or timber prices would be affected
only slightly under such a program,
according to USDA analyses of land
availability, for such a major
contribution to storing atmospheric
Estimated Costs for U.S.
Forestation/Carbon Storage
Scenarios
Percent Offset
of U.S. C02
Emissions
Total Annual
Cost of
Program*
Annual Cost
Per Ton
of Carbon
Removed
10
20
40
67
(maximum)
$ 545 million
$ 1.4 billion
$ 3.7 billion
9.7 billion
$19.5 billion
$9.11
S11.39
314.94
$18.42
S24.23
forest Service photo
carbon. Planting a billion trees per year,
as proposed in the President's program,
would achieve roughly a five-percent
offset of CO2 emissions.
Of course, the President's
tree-planting program cannot in itself
solve the problem of CO2 buildup in the
atmosphere. The same holds true for
even the most ambitious tree-planting
scenario it is possible to envision. There
are no silver bullets waiting to be
loaded into some cosmic policy gun to
be fired at global change as a quick fix.
But the proposed tree-planting
program does offer a low-cost approach
for achieving a five-percent offset of
U.S. CO2 emissions over the next 20
years. Combining this program with
emissions-reduction initiatives under
consideration for other sectors like
transportation and energy could achieve
the major reductions necessary to slow
the U.S. contribution to Greenhouse-gas
buildup. And besides, planting a billion
trees per year will definitely make
America a more beautiful—and
cooler—place to live. D
'Based on amortized costs over 40 years (discounted 10
percent).
Source: Moulton and Richards, "Costs of Sequestering
Carbon Through Tree Planting and Forest Management
in the U.S.," O.S. Forest Service (in preparation^
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Policy Options
Nuclear Power:
A Forum
One much-discussed option
to help curb global warming
is the use of nuclear power to
produce electricity because
Greenhouse gases are not
emitted in the process. There
are strongly differing
viewpoints, however, about
nuclear power's viability and
safety and about the wisdom
of relying on it to help limit
planet warming. To gain
perspective on the points at
issue, EPA Journal asked five
experienced observers of this
energy source the question, Is
nuclear power a viable
option to help control
Greenhouse warming? Their
opinions follow:
D. L. Peoples
Nuclear power is already
helping to reduce man's
contribution of Greenhouse
gases to the atmosphere.
However, it is only one of a
diverse set of technologies
required to address global
warming.
Providing adequate,
economical, reliable, secure,
and environmentally
acceptable electric energy
will require both demand-
and supply-side management.
Conservation and load
management will continue to
help reduce the demand for
electricity. Nevertheless, to
supply the electrical energy
required to meet the needs of
growing populations and to
improve the standard of
living in countries
throughout the world,
electricity-producing
technologies that do not emit
Greenhouse gases, such as
renewables and nuclear
power, must be considered.
The limited capability of
renewable power supplies
suggests the need for a new
evaluation of nuclear power
options.
In 1989, 112 commercial
nuclear power plants
provided 18 percent of U.S.
electricity. To produce this
amount of electricity by other
means would have required
burning approximately 250
million short tons of coal, or
790 million barrels of oil, or
4.5 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas; all of these
alternatives would have
contributed significant
amounts of carbon dioxide
(CO2) to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power has
minimal environmental
impact. Nuclear power
production emits no
Greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, relatively small
amounts of waste are
produced. For example, the
low-level radioactive waste
generated in one year by a
one-million kilowatt nuclear
power plant would fit in a
volume of space smaller than
a three-car garage. The
high-level nuclear waste
generated in one year by the
same one-million kilowatt
nuclear reactor would fit in a
volume smaller than that of a
typical half-bathroom. Over
4,400 reactor years'
commercial experience
operating facilities in
non-Communist countries
[1,300 reactor years in the
United States) has
demonstrated the minimal
environmental impact and
public safety of commercial
nuclear power,
Future nuclear power
plants will be constructed
economically by utilizing
precertified standard designs
incorporating advanced
technology for simpler,
passively safe, light-water
reactors. These units will be
easier and cheaper to build
and operate.
Nuclear power will be
needed in the next decade
and beyond. Other nations of
the world (Japan, France,
Canada, Taiwan, South
Korea, etc.) continue to
recognize the economic and
environmental value of
nuclear-generated energy.
These countries plan to
construct more plants in the
1990s. The United States
should also take advantage of
our "home grown" nuclear
technology. Nuclear power is
one of the technology arrows
in our quiver of viable
options to help control
Greenhouse warming, and we
should use it in an effective
manner.
(Peoples is Vice President of
Bechtel Power Corporation.)
Ken Bossong
The nuclear industry's
history of cost overruns,
accidents, and continued
accumulation of radioactive
waste discredits its argument
that a "new generation" of
nuclear reactors is a viable
option for solving global
warming.
The economic cost to
design, build, and operate
new "advanced" reactors
would be at least as high as
that for present-day reactors.
Serious safety shortcomings
characterize each of the "new
generation" reactor
concepts—even the so-called
"passively safe" designs. In
addition, new plants would
continue to produce
long-lived, highly radioactive
waste for which there is still
no proven method or sites for
its long-term, safe storage.
Most advanced reactor
concepts exist only on paper.
Constructing demonstration
models and building a
significant number of
commercial units could take
20 years or more—a time
frame that is unrealistic if
nuclear power is to make a
significant contribution to
solving the global warming
problem.
Further, even if nuclear
reactors could displace every
fossil-fuel plant, they would
address only about 17
percent of the U.S.
Greenhouse emissions.
Unlike improved efficiency
or renewable-energy
technologies, nuclear power
is not well suited to reduce
the emissions from fossil
fuels used in transportation,
industrial processes, and
space heating.
Moreover, the construction,
maintenance, and fueling of
nuclear reactors are
energy-intensive tasks that
rely heavily on fossil fuels
that add to the Greenhouse
Effect. For example, a recent
study by the U.S. Department
of Energy reveals that when
the total fuel cycle is
included, nuclear power
plants produce more carbon
dioxide than do most energy
conservation and renewable
energy options.
More than half the nation's
electricity now provided by
fossil-fuel plants could be
economically displaced
through improved energy
efficiency. For example, such
improvements during the
past decade have already
reduced U.S. energy
consumption by 37
quadrillion Btu's from
projected 1989 levels—an
amount seven times greater
than nuclear-power output
during the past year. These
improvements have cost one
to four cents per
kilowatt-hour; by
comparison, new nuclear
plants cost approximately 12
to 14 cents per kilowatt-hour
to build and operate.
In addition, many
renewable energy
technologies—including
MARCH/APRIL 1990
17
-------
wind, hydroelectric,
geothermal, biomass, and
direct solar—can provide
electricity at a lower cost
than new nuclear facilities.
These technologies, which
have experienced rapid price
drops during the past decade,
already account for almost
nine percent of the nation's
domestic energy supply
compared to eight percent
from nuclear power.
Aside from their lower
economic costs, renewable
energy and energy-efficiency
options are safer.
environmentally cleaner, and
more socially acceptable.
And they can he
implemented much faster
than nuclear plants can be
built.
Given the limited funds
available to pursue any
energy strategy, investing in
nuclear power could actually
make a solution to global
warming Jess likely by
diverting funds from more
promising options.
(Bossong is the Director of
Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy Project.]
Chauncey Starr
At present, 75 percent of
the world's annual energy
production is used by
industrially developed
nations. The United States
consumes roughly one-third
of that, or about 25 percent of
the world's energy. A
conservative projection
suggests that by the middle
of the next century,
developing countries will be
using about 50 percent of the
world's energy, while the
U.S. proportion of world
energy use would fall to
about 18 percent.
Although U.S. energy use
may have a relatively small
influence on global warming,
U.S. policy will nevertheless
be an important guide for
these developing nations.
The future role of U.S. energy
options—and of nuclear
power in particular—must be
viewed in the context of the
future global energy mix.
Nuclear facilities are producing electricity in many parts of the United
six nuclear plants producing 82 percent of the electricity for northern
Nuclear power, as well as remaining two-thirds—from
fossil-fuel and hydroelectric
solar and biomass energy and
conservation practices, must
inevitably be included in
strategies for reducing carbon
emissions. The role each of
these options plays will
depend on future global
electricity demand and the
various electricity supply
alternatives available over the
next half century. The
options will be sorted out in
terms of their comparative
emissions and feasibility
considerations.
Global demand will be
driven by both population
growth and the economic
growth sought by people
everywhere, particularly in
underdeveloped countries.
Using modest population and
economic growth projections,
a recent study projected that
annual global electricity
demand for the year 2060
could be seven times the
present demand, if current
trends continue. If full use is
made of the most efficient
technologies and
conservation possibilities,
2060 demand might be held
to 4.7 times present demand
without seriously impairing
economic growth.
Of this lesser estimate,
energy derived from solar
and biomass sources might
hypothetically provide about
one-third if their use,
globally, were pushed to
practical limits. The
sources and nuclear
plants—represent about three
times the world's present
electricity production. Even
if fossil-fuel and
hydroelectric sources were to
double present production
levels by 2060, global
nuclear-power production
would still need to increase
by 1,000 percent to supply
tbe world's needs.
A comparable study
focusing just on mainland
China projects a 1,600
percent increase in electricity
demand there by the year
2050. This amounts to
roughly 80 percent of the
world's present-day output.
Indeed, developing countries
will dominate the future
levels of global carbon
emissions.
To date, viability of
nuclear power has varied
considerably from nation to
nation. In many industrial
countries, nuclear power has
demonstrated its
technological capability to
compete economically with
coal. For example, the cost of
a nuclear-kilowatt hour is 60
percent the cost of a
coal-kilowatt hour in France,
where nuclear power plants
supply 70 percent of the
electricity. Ontario Hydro of
Canada, after a lengthy study
of alternatives, has recently
proposed adding 10 nuclear
States. Zion, above, is one of
Illinois.
plants to the province.
Improved, second-generation
plant designs now available
will further stimulate nuclear
growth.
In the United States, costs
required to meet
U.S.-mandated regulations
and procedures have
seriously impaired nuclear
competitiveness. Eventually
this will be remedied, but the
present prospects for nuclear
expansion in the United
States are very dim.
However, global growth of
nuclear power is inevitable
because it will be an
essential component of the
future mix of non-carbon
sources for electricity
production.
(Starr is President Emeritus
of the EJectric Power
Research Institute.)
Robert H. Williams
If nuclear power were to
play a major role in coping
with Greenhouse warming,
thousands of nuclear power
plants would be needed
worldwide. With so many
plants, the nuclear
power/nuclear weapons link
would be a major concern.
Inherent in nuclear
technology is the fact that the
chain-reacting materials that
produce energy inside a
reactor can also be used for
making nuclear explosives.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Plutonium, a by-product of
energy production in nuclear
reactors, is especially
troublesome. Less than 10
kilograms are required to
make a nuclear explosive.
One of today's large nuclear
plants discharges about 200
kilograms of plutonium per
year in its spent fuel.
With large-scale nuclear
power, concerns about
uranium scarcity would
impel a shift to
uranium-conserving
plutonium breeder reactors.
A large breeder reactor would
discharge in spent fuel each
year about 1,600 kilograms of
plutonium, which would
subsequently be separated
from the spent fuel and
recycled in fresh fuel. With
thousands of nuclear power
plants worldwide, millions of
kilograms of separated
plutonium would be
circulating in nuclear
commerce each year,
transported in trucks, trains,
ships, and planes—often
across national boundaries.
The current system of
international safeguards is
unlikely to be effective
enough to prevent some of
this plutonium from being
diverted to nuclear weapons
purposes—either by nations
or by terrorist or criminal
groups intent on acquiring
nuclear weaponry. Would
occasional diversions be a
necessary consequence of a
large-scale commitment to
nuclear power? While there
is no way to sever the
nuclear-weapons
connection to nuclear power,
the system could be more
diversion-resistant.
To improve
diversion-resistance, new
nuclear power-plant designs
would be needed. In such
designs, there should be no
weapons-usable materials
outside of spent fuel, and the
reactor inventories should
contain such small quantities
of weapons-usable materials
that it would not be
worthwhile to "mine" the
inventories to recover these
materials. While there are
various possibilities for
meeting these criteria, the
MARCH/APRIL 1990
designs being considered for
a "born-again" nuclear
industry are generally
inadequate in this regard.
The major unanswered
technological question is
whether designs can be
identified that are
simultaneously
diversion-resistant and safe,
and also sufficiently low in
cost that nuclear power could
compete over the long term
with alternative
low-C02-emitting energy
technologies.
What would be required
institutionally would be to
bring under secure
international control
especially sensitive nuclear
system components,
including spent-fuel storage
centers and isotopic
enrichment facilities. This
would not be easy. For
example, creating
international spent-fuel
storage centers would require
persuading the local citizenry
to accept foreign-produced as
well as domestically
produced spent fuel. More
generally, nations wishing to
pursue the nuclear option
would have to relinquish
some sovereignty.
Making nuclear power
acceptably diversion-resistant
would be a daunting
challenge, especially
politically. Yet unless this is
accomplished, nuclear power
is doomed as a major
long-term energy option.
While nuclear power might
get a second chance, in light
of Greenhouse warming
concerns, it would not likely
get a third chance if there
were a major diversion
incident somewhere in the
world that could be plausibly
linked to nuclear power. The
nuclear industry must come
to recognize that its
long-term viability depends
on being able to convince the
public that it can offer a
peaceful atom that is
unambiguously distinct from
the military
atom.
(Williams is a Senior Research
Scientist at Princeton
University's Center for Energy
and Environmental Studies.)
John C. Sawhill
Given the limits of other
options for addressing
Greenhouse warming, it is
essential that nuclear power
play an important role.
However, the nuclear
industry will have to make
significant changes.
Use of alternative energy
options to reduce Greenhouse
warming are not likely to be
enough. Renewable
technologies are attractive
from an environmental
standpoint but have not
successfully penetrated the
market due to comparatively
higher costs. Reductions in
projected energy demand are
essential but also likely to be
insufficient. Worldwide
energy use is growing about
3.5 percent annually.
Nationally, even sound
policies—such as increases in
the U.S. gasoline tax—will
not result in anything
approaching the decreases
required to reverse the
buildup in carbon dioxide.
The most rapid growth in
energy use is in developing
countries, where economic
activity is not likely to be
significantly scaled back for
environmental reasons. And
no reputable forecast projects
a drop in energy use.
It is unlikely that nuclear
power can close the gap
between what is necessary to
prevent Greenhouse warming
and what can be achieved
through other measures.
However, given the
seriousness of the problem
and limited understanding of
the thresholds at which
dangerous changes in the
global climate begin, new
nuclear powerplants must be
built to meet electricity
demand without increasing
Greenhouse warming. At a
minimum, existing plants
should continue operating.
The burden of
reestablishing nuclear power
as a viable option falls
primarily on industry. The
halt in new orders in the
United States was primarily
driven by an increase in
capital and operating costs
and evidence of lax safety
standards in some utilities.
Capital costs were often
multiples of original
estimates, which contributed
to regulatory disallowances
(refusals to allow utilities to
charge rates that will enable
them to recoup their full'
investment). These
disallowances have averaged
almost 20 percent of original
construction costs for utilities
completing plants in the
1980s. And operating costs,
once a real selling point for
nuclear plants, are now
higher than those for coal
plants.
Economic and safe nuclear
plants are not impossible to
imagine. Reactors built in
Japan have had less than half
the construction time of
those built in the United
States. Utilization rates of
plants in many European
countries are 20 to 25 percent
higher than the U.S. average
(although the best U.S. plants
have operating costs and
utilization rates competitive
with European plants). The
safety record of some U.S.
operators is flawless.
Certainly, some changes in
the regulatory environment
may be appropriate.
Government officials must
have the political courage to
reconsider nuclear power if
the industry strengthens its
commitment and comes up
with sound new plant
designs. But if nuclear power
is to make the contribution
needed to reduce Greenhouse
warming, the industry must
generate a more consistent
record of performance, a
(SawhilJ, formerly the
Director of McKinsey and
Company's Worldwide
Energy Practice, is now
President of The Nature
Conservancy.)
19
-------
Policy Options
Renewable Energy
by Michael Brower
'/ /*"\ur civilization," wrote George
VxOrwell in his 1937 essay The
Road to Wigan Pier, "is founded on
coal," Updated to reflect the advent of
petroleum and natural gas, Orwell's
observation still applies. Fossil fuels
heat our homes, generate our electricity,
run our cars, and power our industries.
Without them, it is safe to say, the
United States would not have achieved
the great prosperity and power it now
enjoys—and to which less-developed
countries aspire.
But the world cannot continue to rely
^o heavily on fossil fuels without
placing the global environment at risk.
Power plants have been built
in Southern California which
run on 75 percent solar energy
and 25 percent natural
gas
Acid rain and air pollution are two
familiar consequences of fossil-fuel use.
Even more serious is the threat of global
warming. Whether or not one believes
the most dire predictions by scientists
of the magnitude and effects of global
warming, the risks cannot be reduced
without the development of substitutes
for fossil fuels.
So far, most public and government
attention has been focused on nuclear
power as an alternative energy choice.
But I believe the more likely long-term
replacement for fossil fuels is renewable
energy, drawn from vast and
inexhaustible resources of sunlight,
wind, rivers, oceans, and plants.
Once considered exotic and
impractical, the technologies for
exploiting renewable resources are
becoming increasingly reliable and
cost-effective in comparison to
conventional energy technologies. Some
(Brower is a physicist and energy
analyst for the Union of Concerned
Scientists, based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. This article is adapted
from his recent study, Cool Energy: The
Renewable Solution to Global Warming
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Union of
Concerned Scientists, 1989).)
are already successful enough to supply
7.6 percent of current U.S. energy
demand. Others—particularly wind and
solar technologies, and processes that
convert biomass (plant matter) to liquid
and gaseous fuels—are now or soon
could be competitive with fossil fuels in
a broad range of applications. Although
some technical issues remain to be
solved, there appear to be no
insurmountable barriers to prevent
renewable energy sources from
eventually meeting most, if not all, of
U.S. and world energy needs.
But the promise of renewable energy
sources will not be realized without
strong government leadership. Amidst
the oil "crises" of the 1970s,
considerable effort was devoted to
developing renewable energy sources as
a way to reduce oil imports. However,
interest has waned since then as oil
prices have fallen and supplies have
become more plentiful.
The Reagan Administration and the
Congress shortsightedly cut funding for
renewable energy research and
development by almost 90 percent, in
real terms, from 1980 to 1989, and
eliminated tax credits for most
renewable energy investments. As a
result, industry growth has slowed and
in many cases reversed, and U.S.
manufacturers have been losing ground
to foreign competitors—many of whom
enjoy better support from their
governments—in a pattern reminiscent
of the decline of the domestic
consumer-electronics industry in the
1970s.
The trend of declining federal funding
for renewable energy research and
development was finally halted last
year, and the proposed 1991 budget
released last January contains a
20-percent increase. But it will take
much more than a modest funding
increase to make a dent in the United
States' contribution to global warming
and other environmental problems.
Advantages of Renewable Energy
Despite the lack of attention paid to
renewable energy sources in recent
years, their advantages over fossil fuels
and nuclear power are more compelling
than ever before. The technologies that
have been developed, ranging from
wind turbines and solar cells to liquid
and gaseous fuels derived from biomass,
are of startling versatility. Most of these
energy technologies result in little or no
pollution or hazardous waste. Drawing
entirely on domestic resources, they are
immune to foreign disruptions like the
1973 Arab oil embargo, and they
provide a hedge against inflation caused
by the depletion of fossil-fuel reserves.
Their development would almost
certainly result in a net increase in
employment, as renewable energy
industries typically require more labor,
per unit of energy produced, than coal,
oil, and natural-gas industries.
Most important, resources of
renewable energy are enormous,
Sunlight falling on the U.S. landmass
carries about 500 times as much energy
as the United States consumes in a year.
Wind and biomass resources, though
more modest, are also substantial. In
practice, only a small fraction of these
resources could be exploited because of
constraints on available land, the
efficiencies of energy conversion, and
other factors. Nevertheless, estimates
indicate that more than enough
renewable energy could be collected to
meet current and foreseeable energy
demand.
Solar energy has the greatest
potential: Solar collectors covering less
than 1 percent of U.S.
territory—one-tenth the area devoted to
agriculture-—could make more energy
available than the United States
consumes in a year. Hydroelectric
power has the least room for expansion,
since about half of the river resources in
the United States have already been
developed, with much of the rest barred
from development by federal
environmental legislation. (See table.)
Is Renewable Energy Practical?
Despite the impressive potential of
renewable energy sources, they have
been virtually ignored by most
mainstream energy analysts, many of
whom regard them as expensive and
impractical. But if this opinion was
valid in the 1970s, it has become less so
with each passing year.
The costs of renewable energy
technologies have declined dramatically
in the 1980s, and their reliability has
been proven in government/industry
demonstration projects and actual
commercial operation. For some
emerging technologies, all that is
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Reflector assemblies for the LUZ solar
electric generating system are shaped like
parabolas. This section of the system is in
Kramer Junction in the Mojave Desert.
Electricity from LUZ solar plants is sold to
Southern California Edison.
needed to become fully competitive is a
market demand large enough to justify
economies of scale. For others, further
research and development are required,
but their long-term prospects are bright.
Wind turbines are a good example of
the growing competitiveness of
renewable energy technologies. The cost
of electricity produced by modern wind
turbines has declined from over 25
cents per kilowatt hour in 1981 to 7 to 9
cents per kilowatt hour today, and
industry estimates suggest it could fall
as low as 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour
in 5 years. At the current price, wind
power is competitive, or nearly so, with
electricity generated by new fossil-fired
power plants, and in the 1990s it should
be one of the least expensive sources of
electricity, fossil or renewable.
Reliability problems affecting early
wind-turbine designs have been largely
resolved, and mature and
well-maintained systems are available
95 to 98 percent of the time. Other
renewable sources of electricity, such as
solar-thermal electric-power plants and
photovoltaic cells, also promise to
become competitive within a decade,
particularly if market demand grows to
allow greater production of systems (see
graph on p. 22).
For applications requiring direct
heat—over half of the end-use energy
consumed in the United
States—solar-thermal systems are
becoming more attractive. Systems^now
on the market designed for commercial
and industrial use generate hot water or
steam in sunny climates at about 1.5 to
3 times the current cost of production
with natural gas. If the market for
solar-thermal systems were larger, the
cost of energy would fall sharply.
Passive solar-building designs, which
use a building's structure to capture and
store solar energy, can reduce energy
use for space heating by 40 percent or
more at little extra cost when
incorporated in new construction.
Developing renewable substitutes for
gasoline and other transportation fuels
is perhaps the most difficult challenge,
but even here there is promise of a
near-term solution. Ethanol can now be
produced from wood and other plants at
about twice the pre-distribution and
pre-tax cost of conventional gasoline.
With continued improvements in
conversion processes and the cultivation
^
,
'
MARCH/APRIL 1990
21
-------
of biomass feedstocks, the fuels could
become competitive around the turn of
the century. According to various
estimates, biomass fuels, including
ethanol, methanol, and plant oils (a
substitute for diesel fuel), could power
at least 30 percent of cars and trucks in
the United States. Forestry and
agricultural wastes, as well as plants
and trees grown specifically for energy,
would supply the raw materials. Further
in the future, cars powered by hydrogen
or electricity (provided by low-cost
renewable sources, perhaps solar cells)
are a realistic possibility.
What happens when the sun goes
down or the wind stops? Conventional
wisdom holds that energy storage will
be needed to keep power flowing
reliably, substantially raising the costs
of solar and wind power. But although
the variability of solar and wind power
is an important issue, it should not
greatly hinder the use of these
technologies in the near term. In some
important applications, considerable
storage or back-up capacity already
exists. For example, electric utilities
have a reserve capacity (typically 20
percent of peak demand) in case of
unexpected plant breakdowns. This
reserve should suffice to maintain
reliability until solar and wind energy
constitute at least a few percent, and
possibly more than 20 percent, of the
total electricity supply—a level of
market penetration that will not be
achieved for at least a decade.
Furthermore, hybrid energy systems
drawing on both renewable and fossil
sources could provide reliable power in
the interim while cost-effective storage
systems are developed. Power plants
have been built in Southern California
which run on 75 percent solar energy
and 25 percent natural gas and supply
reliable peak power year-round. Natural
gas could also supplement solar energy
in residential, commercial, and
industrial heating applications for little
extra cost.
The Path to a Renewable Future
Although wind, solar, and biomass
technologies have made striking
technical progress in the past decade,
they are having more difficulty
penetrating commercial markets than at
any time since the 1970s. The market
picture is likely to improve toward the
end of the 1990s as fossil-fuel prices
rise. Nevertheless, a Department of
Energy forecast suggests that renewable
energy sources will account for no more
than 12 percent of projected U.S. energy
supply in 2010, compared to 7.6 percent
today. That is hardly an impressive
leap, and not enough to affect fossil-fuel
use and global warming in a significant
way.
Understanding the barriers to
renewable energy use is crucial to
developing policies that will encourage
its growth. One of the main barriers is
the fact that current energy markets
ignore, for the most part, the social and
environmental costs and risks associated
with fossil-fuel use. In effect, relatively
harmful energy sources, like coal, are
given an unfair market advantage over
relatively benign sources, like wind
power.
Some conventional energy sources are
also heavily subsidized, directly or
indirectly, by the government. (One
example of an indirect subsidy is the
maintenance of large naval fleets and
rapid-deployment forces to protect
Persian Gulf oil supplies.) If these
external, or hidden, costs were reflected
in the price of energy, renewable energy
technologies would be in a far better
position to compete with fossil fuels.
Trends in the Cost of Electricity From
Renewable Sources
30
1989Cents/kWh
Photovoltaic
1980 1990
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
2000
According to a recent West German
study, the hidden costs (not including
global warming) of electricity from
fossil-fueled plants are in the range of
2.4 to 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
If the current market gives insufficient
weight to the environmental and social
costs of energy technologies, then
federal, state, and local governments
must step in. Governments can have a
decisive influence on energy choices,
and the budget burden need not be very
great. For renewable energy
technologies, many of which are on the
edge of commercialization, government
actions can be especially cost-effective.
The key is to find the policy levers
which have the greatest influence on the
development of renewable energy
sources, and pull them.
As an initial step, the federal
government should adopt the following
five policies: Reinstitute renewable
energy tax credits; increase funding for
renewable energy research and
development; modify electric-utility
regulations to give greater preference to
environmentally benign technologies;
buy renewable energy technologies for
government facilities; and increase
support for renewable energy exports.
These steps, described more fully in a
recent study published by the Union of
Concerned Scientists (Cool Energy: The
Renewable Solution to Global
Warming), would cost the government
less than $10 billion a year by 2000. The
cost would mainly take the form of
reduced tax revenues and could be paid
for by a modest increase in taxes on
fossil fuels. (A 10-cents-per-gallon
gasoline tax would suffice.)
I estimate that by the year 2000, these
steps could result in a near doubling of
the amount of energy derived from
renewable sources: from 7.6 percent to
15 percent of U.S. energy supply. This
would also mean a corresponding 5- to
10-percent decrease in fossil-fuel use
and carbon-dioxide emissions. (These
estimates assume that overall energy
demand will be constrained to current
levels through energy conservation.)
With further technical progress and
policy changes in decades to follow, the
renewable fraction could rise as high as
50 percent by 2020, putting the United
States—and the world—well on the path
to a renewable future, a
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Policy Options:
Methane
by Michael J. Gibbs and
Kathleen Hogan
(Gibbs is Vice President of ICF
Incorporated and directs ICF's methane
research. Hogan directs the Methane
Evaluation Program for EPA's Global
Change Division in the O//ice of
Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs.]
What do cows, coal mines, and
landfills have in common? They
are all major sources of methane, a
Greenhouse gas. That's the bad news.
The good news is that they also
represent prime opportunities to reduce
methane emissions into the atmosphere.
Recent work has identified some
promising approaches for reducing
methane emissions, and one of the
interesting aspects of some of these
emissions-reduction techniques is that
they are profitable in their own right.
Although much remains to be done,
studies indicate that halting the increase
in methane concentrations by the end of
the century is a realistic: goal.
Much work has focused on methane
because this gas is second only to
carbon dioxide (C02) in its expected
contribution to the Greenhouse Effect.
And like CO2, methane's concentration
is increasing rapidly in the Earth's
atmosphere. Having more than doubled
since the mid-1800s, it is currently
increasing at a rate of nearly one
percent per year.
Methane is very effective in absorbing
thermal radiation that radiates away
from the Earth's surface. One gram of
methane in the atmosphere absorbs
infrared radiation about 70 times more
effectively than one gram of CO2.
However, unlike CO2, methane has a
relatively short-lived impact because its
atmospheric lifetime is only about 10
years. Other Greenhouse gases have
atmospheric lifetimes of 100 years or
more.
This relatively short atmospheric
lifetime makes methane an excellent
candidate for control for two reasons.
First, to halt the yearly increase in
methane concentrations, total global
emissions must be reduced by only
about 10 percent. In contrast, emissions
reductions of 50 to 100 percent would
be required to stop the increasing
concentrations of the other major
Greenhouse gases.
Second, reducing methane emissions
provides more "bang-for-the-buck" than
is the case with other Greenhouse gases.
That is, the full value of reducing
methane's contribution to the
Greenhouse Effect will be experienced
in the near term, whereas it will take
centuries for the value of emissions
reductions of the other Greenhouse
gases to be felt.
For example, about 85 percent of the
value of preventing a gram of methane
emissions is experienced over a 50-year
period while only about 15 percent of
the value of preventing a gram of CO2
emissions is felt during the same
50-year period. In fact, it would take on
the order of 1,000 years or longer to
experience about 85 percent of the value
of preventing CO2 emissions. This
implies that over the next 50 years, a
10-percent reduction in methane
emissions is equivalent to a 10-percent
reduction in CO2 emissions, even
though CO2 vastly exceeds methane in
the atmosphere.
Livestock emit about 70
million metric tons of methane
annually as "methane burps"
as they process food.
The increase in atmospheric
concentrations of methane has many
origins. These include animal
husbandry, coal mining, waste
management, rice cultivation, and oil
and gas recovery and use. And since no
single source dominates global methane
emissions, it is important to pursue all
possible avenues for reducing methane
emissions.
A recent EPA report, Reducing
Methane Emissions from Livestock:
Opportunities and Issues (August 1989),
provides new perspective on methane
emissions from livestock. According to
the report, more than 3 billion
animals—cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo,
and camels—currently account for 15 to
MARCH/APRIL 1990
23
-------
.s - v- ~ ' .
. r**,» V > --
. <*. •
.-^•"
3
20 percent of annual methane emissions
worldwide. And the numbers of
livestock continue to increase.
Livestock emit about 7(J million
metric tons of methane annually as
"methane burps" as they process food.
Most of these emissions are associated
with the world's 1.3 billion cattle (about
55 million metric tons). In addition,
animal wastes that are managed in
lagoons and in other ways produce
another 15 million metric tons or so of
methane per year.
Scientists have identified several
techniques for reducing methane
emissions from cattle. Significantly, these
same techniques will also increase
animal productivity—resulting, for
example, in more milk from dairy cattle
and more meat from beef cattle. Specific
measures include improving their diets
(both feed and grazing) and managing
their waste.
Anywhere from one-third to
two-thirds of the cattle in the world,
including most of the cattle in Asia and
Africa, subsist on poor-quality forages
and agricultural by-products during
some portion of the year. Poor-quality
diets lead to inefficient digestion by the
cattle. Inefficient digestion leads to
increased methane production and
lowered animal productivity.
In India, for example, as part of a
development project, the poor-quality
diets of cattle were supplemented with
locally produced nutrients. Digestion
improved, and so did animal
productivity. Significant reductions in
methane emissions—from 25 to 75
percent—are expected. The cost of the
program is being justified chiefly by the
increase in animal productivity.
Implementing this kind of program in
other parts of the world is currently
being considered.
In the United States, cattle are much
more intensively cared for than in many
poorer countries. Most eat prepared
feed, and this calls for a different
approach to reducing methane
emissions than that used in India or
other developing countries. Specific
kinds of feed (e.g., whole cotton seeds)
appear to reduce methane emissions
levels. Studies are ongoing to identify
the populations of animals that would
be candidates for diet modifications; to
estimate the costs and benefits of these
modifications (including boosted animal
productivity); and to estimate emissions
reductions that can be achieved.
Other ways to increase cattle's yield
while reducing or maintaining methane
emissions levels are also being studied.
These include feed additives, hormone
implants, and a syntbosi/ed growth
regulator called bovine
somatotropin, which can increase milk
production.
USDA photo
Better management of animal waste is
expected to result in substantial
reductions of methane gas emissions.
Methane emissions from animal manure
create problems wherever large
concentrations of animals are kept. In
addition to controlling odor or run-off,
better practices will help reduce
methane emissions significantly.
Furthermore, under certain conditions,
the methane can be recovered profitably
for resale by using devices called biogas
digesters, for example. (A biogas
digester converts the manure to
methane, which can he contained and
used as fuel.) Techniques for capturing
methane profitably from waste
lagoons—areas in which manure is
collected—are also under development.
Coal mining is another promising area
for methane-emissions control.
Currently, an estimated 45 million
metric tons of methane are released
annually during global coal mining
operations.
Traditionally, mine-ventilation
systems have been used to dilute the
methane that is released during mining
operations and remove it from the mine
workings, resulting in methane releases
into the atmosphere. Now, however, it
is technically feasible to recover more
than 50 percent of the methane released
during underground mining, to be used
as an energy source. Furthermore, it has
been estimated that at current U.S.
natural gas prices, recovery of this
methane would be a profitable
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Beef cattle and other livestock are
important sources of methane emissions.
Because the atmospheric lifetime of this
Greenhouse gas is only about 10 years, it is
an excellent candidate for emissions
control. Improving animal feed is one
strategy being tested.
enterprise. In fact, methane recovery is
already underway at a number of
mining locations in Alabama.
In the United States, however, certain
obstacles remain to be overcome before
methane recovery from coal mines can
proceed on a broad scale. These are
primarily institutional issues associated
v;ith who legally owns the methane. In
many cases, the coal-mining companies
own the coal, but not the gas. Once
these issues are resolved, several
million metric tons of methane could be
recovered profitably from coal mines.
Reduced methane releases to the
atmosphere would be a significant side
benefit.
Other major coal-producing nations,
in addition to the United States, could
benefit from methane recovery from
their coal-mining operations. One
example is China, the world's largest
coal producer, which takes nearly all of
its coal from underground formations
that release methane. An estimated 16
million metric tons of methane are
released annually from China's coal
mines. With technical and financial
assistance, China might be able to
recover a large portion of these
emissions. From the standpoint of
global warming, the benefits of this
achievement would be twofold: First,
China could achieve a significant
reduction in its methane emissions.
Second, the Chinese could use
recovered methane to meet a portion of
their future energy needs; methane,
when burned, produces much less CO?
than does coal.
Methane can also be profitably
recovered from landfills and used as an
energy source. In the United States and
other countries, methane recovery from
landfills is already being performed.
These activities may be expanded as
waste-management practices are
modified to enhance methane
generation in order to increase
profitability.
There are still other opportunities to
achieve reductions in methane
emissions. For example, a panel of rice
experts recently concluded that
improved irrigation and fertilizer
practices, combined with better rice
selection, could reduce methane
emissions from rice cultivation by 10 to
30 percent.
Since many methane
emissions-reduction techniques are
profitable in themselves, cost is not a
major obstacle to their widespread
adoption. However, this does not mean
that these techniques will automatically
"catch on" around the world. Further
efforts are needed to overcome barriers
to change. One approach might be to
define a set of internationally preferred
practices in key methane-emissions
areas. National bodies such as the
National Academy of Sciences in the
United States as well as international
bodies could play a role in defining and
describing these practices. The preferred
practices could then be adopted as part
of international agreements and
assistance programs, for example.
Parties to the agreements would be
responsible for promoting the applicable
set of practices in their own countries.
Clearly, much work remains to he
done. The cost and effectiveness of the
various techniques for reducing
methane emissions must be documented
for the wide range of conditions that
exist in the United States and around
the world. These efforts are proceeding.
Based on work up to this point, there is
reason to hope that continued
technological development and the
implementation of profitable and
low-cost options can substantially
reduce methane emissions. By the end
of the century, it should be possible to
halt the increase in atmospheric
concentrations of methane, a
MARCH/APRIL 1990
25
-------
Policy Options
Transportation:
The Auto
by Deborah Bleviss
Our present transportation system in
this country contributes
significantly to the threat of global
warming. The fossil fuels—principally
petroleum—used by our transportation
vehicles are a major source of emissions
of the Greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide
(CO2). The refrigerants used to cool
these vehicles are a source of another
Greenhouse gas, chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs).
Highway road vehicles, principally
cars and light trucks, account for nearly
75 percent of the energy used for
transportation, and their numbers
continue to climb. Not surprisingly,
their contribution to Greenhouse-gas
emissions is considerable. Nearly 25
percent of all CQ2 emissions and 13
percent of all CFC emissions in this
country can be traced to these vehicles.
In considering how to reduce the
global-warming threat posed by our
present transportation system, we must
focus on these vehicles. The recently
implemented Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer agrees to a 50-percent reduction
in production of CFCs in this country
by the end of the century. In addition,
the United States and other parties to
the Protocol have called for a complete
phaseout by the year 2000 if substitutes
can be produced. The next step is to
focus attention on controlling COj
emissions from transportation vehicles.
There are three options for doing this:
• Improving the fuel efficiency of
vehicles and the systems in which they
operate.
• Converting to alternative fuels that
produce little or no CO2.
• Switching to more energy-efficient
modes of travel.
(Bleviss is Executive Director of the
International Institute for Knergy
Conservation and author of The New
Oil Crisis and Fuel-Economy
Technologies [Quorum Books, 1988).)
Only the first option can have a
significant impact in the short term.
Improved fuel efficiency has a direct
impact on Greenhouse-gas emissions:
Doubling the fuel economy of a vehicle
reduces its CO2 emissions by half. The
United States has already achieved a
dramatic improvement in the fuel
economy of its vehicles. In 1973, when
the first oil crisis occurred, the average
fuel economy of new cars was 14 miles
per gallon (mpg); today, it has roughly
doubled.
Nearly 25 percent of all CO2
emissions and 13 percent
of all CFC emissions in this
country can be traced to these
vehicles.
Fearing the prospect of new
legislation to push for major strides
once again in the fuel economy of new
light vehicles (cars and light trucks),
some have argued that the gains made
in the past cannot be repeated. While it
is true that future progress in fuel
economy will not come as easily as past
progress, the technological frontier in
fuel economy is far from crossed.
The numerous high-efficiency
"concept" cars developed in the early
1980s, mainly by European automakers,
in reaction to the 1979-80 oil crisis offer
ample evidence of this point. Most of
these cars achieve a city fuel economy
of at least 60 mpg and a highway fuel
economy of at least 75 mpg. While they
were never designed for mass
production, these cars clearly
demonstrate that we can do much better
than the 28 mpg that typifies a car
today. There is still substantial potential
to increase engine and transmission
efficiencies, to reduce aerodynamic
drag, and to substitute lightweight
materials for the steel that predominates
in today's light vehicles. (Needless to
say, as these technologies are pursued,
care must be taken to meet the
fuel-economy challenge without
sacrificing other consumer needs, such
as occupant safety in lighter vehicles.)
Yet while the technological potential
for increasing fuel economy is great, the
likelihood it will be achieved in an
expeditious manner, without
government intervention, is very small.
Oil prices are low at present; hence
interest in fuel economy is low. Even if
prices were to rise, consumers are not
likely to react quickly because fuel costs
as a fraction of the cost of owning and
operating a car are declining.
Instead, the government must act. It
needs to offer incentives to
manufacturers to improve the efficiency
of the vehicles they produce. The
practice of setting progressively tighter
fuel-economy standards has worked in
the past and could work again. By the
end of the century, an average new-car
fuel economy of 45 mpg and an average
new light truck fuel economy of 35 mpg
are feasible goals, and aggressive enough
to have a substantial impact on reducing
CO2 emissions.
The government also needs to offer
incentives to consumers to buy
fuel-efficient cars. Strengthening the
existing tax on the purchase of gas
"guzzlers" and offering a financial
incentive for the purchase of gas
"sippers" are two strategic initiatives.
Finally, the government needs to
stimulate research and development by
the automotive industry to bring
forward new fuel-efficient technologies
for automobiles; a jointly funded,
government/industry research program
is one means of doing this.
In addition to improving the
efficiency of vehicles, it is important to
improve the efficiency of the systems in
which they operate. No matter how
efficient a vehicle is, it needlessly
wastes fuel if it must stop at every
traffic light. Computerized control of
traffic lights offers promise in reducing
this problem. Similarly, fuel is
needlessly wasted by the slow speeds
and stop-and-start patterns of congested
roads and highways. Initiatives are now
underway to develop "smart" traffic
EPA JOURNAL
-------
- "./" r
-^-" >
Energy-efficient modes of
travel, such as van pools for
commuters, can reduce the
threat of global warming.
systems that will automatically reduce
traffic flow to congested spots in order
to maintain a continual flow of vehicles;
these systems need to be actively
pursued in the future.
The second option for reducing CO2
emissions by the transportation sector is
to switch to a clean and viable
alternative fuel. Ultimately, for the long
term, this is the only solution.
Therefore, it is critical to begin
significant research efforts now to
develop cost-effective clean fuels; these
would include hydrogen, biomass-based
fuels (ethanol or methanol), and
electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
For the short term, however, there are
problems with alternative fuels and the
vehicles that use them. Electric cars
continue to have problems with their
limited range; moreover, fossil
fuel-generating plants are the main
source of the electricity that would
power these vehicles today. The-other
fuels currently seen as potentially viable
include compressed natural gas,
methanol derived from natural gas, and
ethanol produced from agricultural
wastes such as excess corn supplies.
Converting our transportation fleet to
methanol will not solve global-warming
problems because methanol produces as
much CO2 per unit of energy burned as
gasoline. Compressed natural gas would
mean reduced CO2 emissions as
compared with gasoline (about 30
percent per unit of energy), but
problems with storage of this fuel as
well as the limited range of natural
gas-fueled vehicles will necessarily
inhibit its widespread use. Moreover,
the reduction in C02 achievable per
vehicle with the use of this fuel would
probably be more than offset by the
projected growth in the number of
vehicles on the road.
Of all the alternative fuels
commercially available today,
ethanol—if produced from renewable
sources such as corn or other
feedstock—is the only fuel with the
potential for generating no net CO2
emissions. But it is very expensive.
Moreover, U.S. agricultural waste would
not provide sufficient feedstock to
supply enough ethanol to meet our
needs as drivers of ethanol-fueled
vehicles. To meet these needs, a
substantial amount of land presently
used to grow food crops or to support
forests would have to be diverted for the
purpose of producing ethanol feedstock.
While today's alternative fuels will
not solve the global warming problem,
they are likely to be used to solve
certain local air-pollution problems.
Such cases should be closely watched
and documented, for they will provide
valuable insights into the
infrastructural, social, and technical
problems that will have to be addressed
when clean fuels are developed to
which the national fleet can be
converted.
The final option for reducing the
global warming impact of our
transportation system is to switch to
more efficient modes of travel. Over 70
percent of all trips today take place in a
car or van occupied by just one or two
persons—a very energy-intensive mode
of traveling.
Many have suggested that a major
shift to mass transit needs to occur to
reduce the threat of global warming.
Certainly this strategy should be
pursued to its fullest extent. But within
the United States, the use of cars so far
exceeds the use of mass transit that
even significantly shifting to public
transit systems will not substantially
reduce energy use for transportation.
For example, if the size of mass-transit
systems were tripled in this country—a
sizeable financial commitment—and
filled to capacity, energy use for
passenger road transportation would fall
by only 10 percent.
A more promising alternative is to
increase the load factor in today's cars.
The average number of persons traveling
in a car today is 1.7; if the average were
increased to four, energy used for
passenger road transportation would
drop by 45 percent. While promising,
this scenario would require significant
changes in personal behavior. Increasing
the "high-occupancy vehicle" lanes on
highways, requiring employers to
establish vanpooling programs for their
employees, and charging high fees for
parking are some possible ways to
increase the load factor in cars. These
need to be tested now in pilot programs
to determine their applicability for
widespread use in the future.
Changes in our transportation
infrastructure will require considerable
time. Therefore, it is critical to act now
to change our transportation system in
order to minimize its contribution to
global warming, a
MARCH/APRIL 1990
27
-------
Policy Options
Transportation
Mass Transit
by David B. Goldstein and
John W. Holtzclaw
Appropriately enough, most of the
attention given to improving the
efficiency of personal transportation has
focused on bettering the fuel efficiency
of automobiles. In the short run—for the
next 5 to 30 years—this approach can
produce the largest savings in
Greenhouse-gas emissions. The reason is
the relatively short lead times required
for redesigning automobiles and
replacing the current capital stock,
But a complementary approach that
offers comparable savings potential over
the long run is to develop urban
infrastructures that minimize the use of
private vehicles.
Conventional planning assumptions
have focused on the need to
accommodate continued growth in
vehicle miles traveled as personal
incomes rise. The implicit assumption
is that the rate of growth in miles
traveled is beyond policy control. But
recent research has shown that the
number of vehicle miles traveled per
urban dweller is not a fixed function of
income. Instead, policies concerning the
taxation or subsidization of automobiles,
mass transit, highways, and land use,
for example, make immense differences
in per-capita vehicle miles traveled in
cities with comparable personal income.
In North America and around the
world, those cities with the largest
highway systems, the lowest densities of
both residential and commercial
development, and the lowest availability
of mass transit have the highest
per-capita auto use. Within the United
States, cities with higher densities and
better transit services have significantly
lower rates of auto travel. For example,
New York City residents drive only
one-fourth (Manhattan denizens about
(Dr. Goldstein is Director of the Energy
Program for the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NHDC'j in San
Francisco. Dr. Holtzclaw is a consultant
to NRDC on urban development and
transportation efficiency.]
Riding mass transit instead of driving means less C0? emissions. Many transit systems,
such as METRO in the Washington, DC, area, report yearly increases in ridership.
Residents of Australian cities
travel about half the
per-capita vehicle miles of
average Americans.
one-seventh) as much as average
Americans. Residents of Australian
cities travel about half the per-capita
vehicle miles of average Americans. In
western European cities, per-capita
vehicle miles amount to about
one-quarter .of the U.S. average; and in
Japanese cities the fraction is about
one-tenth.
Reductions in personal vehicle miles
traveled do not represent reductions in
mobility; indeed, the reverse is often
true. A recent study found that, even
though average traffic speeds increase in
low-density areas, the average time
spent commuting increases because trip
lengths also increase. This means more
time wasted in cities that concentrate on
improving traffic flow by constructing
new highways. In short, the
construction increases the need to travel
more than it increases the ability to do
so (resulting in higher energy use
without raising living standards).
Expanding mass-transit service,
focusing less on highway construction,
and adopting land-use policies that
encourage fairly high-density
development patterns could produce
much lower rates of per-capita vehicle
miles traveled than current projections
for the middle of the next century. Over
60 percent of the housing projected to
exist in the United States by 2050 has
yet to be built; along with more than 80
percent of the commercial development.
Changes in policy could affect where
and how these structures are built. Even
a change that reduces projected travel
miles by only 1 percent per year would
lead to an almost 50-percent reduction
by 2050, along with parallel reductions
in the need for freight transportation
due to higher densities and shorter
commute distances.
In the developing world, urban
growth will be faster, and policy
decisions will make even more dramatic
differences. Focusing more heavily on
transit systems rather than highways in
developing world cities will most likely
not prevent vehicle travel miles from
growing, even on a per-capita basis. But
it could greatly reduce the rate of
increase, with an immense effect on the
amount of gasoline consumed and
Greenhouse gases emitted. If developing
world cities evolve to look more like
Hong Kong than Brazilia or Athens,
their transportation energy consumption
could be curtailed by half.
Mass transit as a means of reducing
gasoline consumption can ultimately
save more than energy. Generally,
public transit facilities are significantly
less costly than the highways and
garaging and fue'ing facilities required
for personal vehicle travel. They also
rely more heavily on local labor and
equipment than on imported products
or services. These criteria are
particularly important in cash-strapped
developing countries.
Even the most efficient cars will still
produce a significant Greenhouse
problem by mid-century if autombile
usage rates continue to increase as they
have. But mass transit provides a
long-run option that complements the
energy savings potential of more
efficient vehicles, n
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Adaptation:
Another Approach
by Joel B, Smith
Staien Island Register photo
(Smith is Acting Chief oj the
Adaptation Branch within EPA's
Climate Change Division.)
Global warming may bring a
rise in sea level. To some
extent, it may be necessary to
adapt to the effects of climate
change.
People usually do not talk about
learning to live with pollution.
Adjusting to smog or dirty water, for
example, is just not an acceptable
prospect. Instead, the point is to
eliminate or reduce the problem.
To some extent, people may have to
learn to live with global warming. Since
the onset of the industrial revolution,
the buildup in Greenhouse-gas
concentrations in the atmosphere may
have committed the planet to
approximately a 1 "Celsius warming.
And atmospheric Greenhouse-gas
concentrations will likely continue
rising. Even an aggressive set of
emissions-control strategies would not
stop the growth in Greenhouse-gas
concentrations. Continued warming is
therefore likely, and people will
probably have to adapt to it.
If climate change is inevitable, one
approach to adaptation is to wait until
the climate actually changes, then make
the necessary adjustments. This
approach sidesteps the problem of
predicting future climate: People would
build sea walls as the oceans rise or
switch to heat-resistant crops as the
planet becomes hotter.
The problem with this strategy is that
it may be impossible to reverse the
damages of climatic change, and
adaptation after the fact may be very
costly. For example, a rapid climatic
change might precipitate an increased
rate of species extinction, since climate
zones would probably shift faster than
many plants and animals could migrate.
Once a species becomes extinct, it
cannot be replaced. A rise in sea level
would probably drown many wetlands.
Once wetlands are lost, they cannot
easily be restored.
Moreover, many decisions made today
concerning climate-sensitive systems
may have a long-range impact. Forests
planted today will take decades to reach
maturity. A dam or reservoir built now
may last for a century. During the
lifetime of these projects, the climate
MARCH/APRIL 1990
29
-------
may change enough either to threaten
the survival of the forests or to reduce
the usefulness of the reservoir. If the
forest dies off, it cannot he quickly
replaced; expanding the reservoir's
capacity could be very expensive. Thus
it makes sense for planners, faced with
possible irreversible impacts or with
costly responses, to try to anticipate
climatic changes in order to minimize
these impacts and responses.
Yet anticipating climatic change is
easier said than done. There is a
scientific consensus that increased
Greenhouse-gas concentrations in the
atmosphere will likely warm the Earth.
In general, actions that are
inexpensive, feasible, and
have benefits independent of
global warming should be
implem en te d firs t.
But how much warming will actually
occur—and how rapid it will be—is
uncertain. There is even more
uncertainty about regional climatic
change. For example, it is not known if
all regions will be warmed or if
precipitation in any specific region will
rise or fall—not to mention when real
impacts might be felt. Since adaptation
would take place on a regional and local
scale, these uncertainties make strategic
planning particularly difficult.
How do we manage natural resources
in anticipation of significant, but
unknown climatic changes? As a
beginning, it makes sense to explore
management options that meet the
following criteria:
• First, flexibility is needed. Since how
climate will change is unknown,
policies need to be successful under a
wide variety of contingencies, including
a scenario in which no change in
climate occurs.
• Second, low-cost options are
preferable. Measures taken today to
anticipate climatic change should be
relatively inexpensive; spending a lot of
time or money preparing for impacts
that may not occur for decades does not
make sense. A reservoir should not be
built now because it may be needed in
2030; however, if one is already being
built, it may be prudent to enhance its
flood- and drought-control capabilities
in anticipation of future climatic
change, rather than risk damages from
greater floods of droughts.
• Third, options which have benefits
even if climate does not change should
be given priority. Even if climate does
not change, we would not regret having
taken these measures.
Some examples of options that mee*
these three criteria follow:
Sea-Level Rise
There is no need to take anticipatory
action to protect developed coastal
areas, such as New York City, since we
can build sea walls as they are needed.
However, planning is required to
obviate significant ecological damage
from sea-level rise. Although many
wetlands would inevitably be lost, some
wetlands could adapt to sea-level rise
by migrating inland. However, such
inland migration could be blocked by
bulkheads and levees designed to
protect development.
Planning and anticipatory measures
are therefore required to allow for
inland migration of wetlands. One
simple measure is for coastal states to
prohibit construction of bulkheads.
Another measure is to restrict coastal
development by adopting set-back
requirements. However, since it is not
known how high sea levels will rise, it
will be difficult to calculate how far to
restrict development. Indeed, it may not
be feasible or economical to restrict the
use of coastal areas prior to sea-level
rises. A less costly and more flexible
option might be the "presumed
mobility" approach that has been
adopted in principle by the State of
Maine. Basically this means requiring
property owners to assume
responsibility for moving structures as
the oceans rise. If climate does not
change, no action is necessary. If it does
and the sea rises, property owners must
move structures that are threatened by
the sea.
Plant and Wildlife Migration
To survive, many plants and animals
would have to migrate northward as
temperatures rise and suitable climate
zones shift. Keeping up with a rapid
rate of climatic change will be difficult
levels?
the e^ironmental
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
and will be made even harder by the
presence of cities, farms, and roads that
block migration. While "presumed
mobility" may be a viable concept to
combat sea-level rise, wholesale removal
of settlements, roads, and farms would
not be feasible.
One way to facilitate migration and
reduce the loss of plants and animals is
to use migration corridors. Greenways
and hedgerows are examples of
corridors that would allow plants and
animals to migrate as climate changes.
Corridors should also be opened
between wildlife refuges to reduce
fragmentation of parks and reserves.
Migratory corridors have short-term
benefits in that they provide
recreational opportunities for people
and expanded habitats for wildlife.
In California, earlier
snowmelt would reduce water
supplies, while drier summers
could reduce water
availability everywhere.
Forests
Many trees planted today may not
survive to reach maturity, especially
those rooted in southern boundaries of
forest ranges. A number of steps can
now be taken by forest managers to
minimize potential impacts. Shorter
rotation times (harvesting trees at a
younger age) would reduce the
likelihood of trees being affected by
climatic change. Harvesting trees as
early as possible, then replacing them
with more adaptable species, would
help ensure adaptation to climatic
change.
Mixing the types of trees planted to
include heat- and drought-resistant
species reduces the risk of climatic
change affecting an entire forest. As
long as the heat- and drought-resistant
trees are still valuable species, there is
little risk in planting them in addition
to the trees currently grown. Harvesting
of trees should leave a diversity of
species uncut to enhance regrowth.
Finally, climatic change could
increase fire frequency and pest
infestations. Enhancing fire and pest
MARCH/APRIL 1990
monitoring, fire control, and
pest-eradication programs would help
reduce these impacts.
Water Use
Since scientists cannot predict changes
in precipitation patterns, there is much
uncertainty about how water resources
would be affected by global warming.
Very likely, however, snowpacks will be
smaller and melt earlier, and there will
be significant potential for increased
summer dryness and drought. In
California, earlier snowmelt would
reduce water supplies, while drier
summers could reduce water availability
everywhere.
A number of measures could help
safeguard water supplies. Water
conservation could be promoted by
pricing water at its replacement costs
and allowing markets to allocate water
to the most efficient users; this would
reduce current demand for water. If
demand is reduced, vulnerability to
reduced supplies is also reduced.
Apart from the prospect of global
warming, conserving water makes sense
because it lessens the need for
expensive new water projects. And as a
backup mechanism, operators of
adjacent water-management systems
could be encouraged to share water
supplies as needed during dry periods.
Finally, planners should consider
climatic change when designing water
projects. Projects tend to be designed
based on the historic record of floods
and droughts. But global warming
makes the historic record a less useful
guide in planning. Planners should
therefore evaluate the costs and benefits
of marginal enhancements of water
projects in view of potential climatic •
change.
Agriculture
In theory, farmers should be able to
adapt quickly to climatic change: As the
climate warms, farmers could simply
switch to crops that are better adapted
to higher temperatures and reduced soil
moisture. Yet government policies may
discourage such crop changes. Price
supports and other programs encourage
farmers to plant the same crops they
have historically raised.
Modifying such programs would
encourage farmers to react more quickly
to climatic change. Government could
also help farmers by maintaining an
adequate supply of heat- and
drought-resistant crops in reserve.
Research on developing new strains of
crops should be maintained.
By avoiding monocropping and
practicing crop rotation, efficient
irrigation, and conservation tillage,
farmers can be better prepared for
climatic change. In contrast to
monocropping, multicropping reduces
the chance that an entire harvest will
fail. Some crops do well in wet years;
others, in dry years. So planting a
variety of crops is a good strategy for
dealing with any year-to-year climatic
changes that occur. Crop rotation and
conservation tillage help improve the
long-term sustainability of soils and
improve water retention. Efficient
irrigation reduces vulnerability to water
shortages and to increases in the price
of water. Pest-infestation control
programs should also be prepared for
northward shifts in pest locations.
Timing
Since the effects of climatic change may
be delayed and the costs of response
actions will vary considerably, it is not
necessary to implement all actions
immediately. Some actions can be
delayed; others should probably be
implemented in the short term.
Research that enhances our
understanding of the impacts of climatic
change and the ability to adapt to them
should receive high priority. For
example, maintaining genetic diversity
in crops will help ensure that
appropriate crop varieties are available
when needed.
In general, actions that are
inexpensive, feasible, and have benefits
independent of global warming should
be implemented first. Thus, if climate
does not change, little is lost. More
expensive, less flexible measures can be
delayed until there is more certainty
about future impacts—or until climatic
change makes action necessary, o
31
-------
What We Can Do
by William K. Reilly
To address an issue as complex
as gfobal climate change, the
full range of human activities
will need to be considered,
from transportation to
energy use. This Los
Angeles Harbor Freeway
interchange is an example of
the scope of modern-day
projects, with implications for
many aspects of the
environment.
For hundreds of years, the ancient
Greek city-states of Athens and
Sparta were bitter enemies, kept at
loggerheads hy opposing cultures,
values, and interests. The breach
between the two was so complete that
even today, implacable adversaries are
sometimes referred to as being "like
Athens and Sparta."
But in 479 B.C., Athens and Sparta
joined forces to defeat the Persian army
in a heroic; battle to reclaim their
independence from the Persian Empire.
Neither city by itself could have
prevailed against the more powerful
Persians; but by putting aside their
differences and joining forces, the
Greeks were able to rout their mutual
enemy.
This Greek example of
synergy—literally, "working
together"—has been repeated many
times since then. In times of crisis,
prudent societies have put.aside their
regional, professional, social, and other
differences—their competing
interests—and worked in concert to deal
with a common foe.
At the end of the 20th century, the
common foe for the people of every
nation is the deterioration of the global
environment. The need to join forces to
confront this urgent problem is
compelling.
President Bush recognized this in tin
article in the January/February 1990
issue of EPA Journal, in which he noted
that a president "quickly learns to see
policy in the broadest terms possible.
"Urban and housing policy must be
related to transportation, transportation
policy to energy, energy policy to
agriculture, and so on," the President
wrote. "Applying this same perspective,
one cannot fail to see that deforestation,
ozone depletion, ocean pollution, and
the threat of global wanning
interconnect to challenge our future."
(HeiJIy is Administrator of EPA.}
As the President's comments suggest,
we are living at a time when human
activity may be affecting the global
environment as profoundly as the
billions of years of evolution that
preceded our tenure on Earth.
In many ways, the ultimate
cross-cutting policy challenge is global
climate change—the buildup of
heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. It
is an issue that transcends all the
sectors into which our society tends to
Simply stated, "no regrets"
means: "Act toward the future
in such a way that you will
have no reason to regret the
past."
divide itself: public and private; federal,
state and local; domestic and
international; manufacturing and
consuming; agriculture, energy,
transportation and environment.
The issue of global climate change
illuminates, as few others do, the full
extent to which the traditional policy
sectors and interest groups that compete
so hard with one another are actually
closely interrelated. It reveals to us a
fundamental, increasingly
acknowledged truth: the fate of one is
tied to the fate of all.
Unfortunately, our current state of
knowledge of the global atmosphere is
sketchy at best. We have a great deal of
data, but we don't yet know for sure
what they mean.
Yet there is growing scientific
agreement that something significant is
happening; six of the ten warmest years
on record occurred in the past decade.
Just a temporary warming cycle?
Perhaps. But carbon dioxide (CO;.) in
the atmosphere, a major contributor to
climate change, has increased 25
percent in the last 100 years. In the
opinion of the National Academy of
Sciences, significant global climate
change is at least as likely to occur as
not. The Academy has estimated that if
CO2 levels double, global temperatures
could increase by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees
Celsius by the latter half of the next
century.
And the possible consequences? If
such increases were to occur—and that
is by no means certain—EPA concluded
in a report sent to Congress in January
that significant, virtually irreversible
changes in natural systems could result.
Many forests could become grasslands;
species extinction could increase and
habitat loss accelerate; sea levels could
rise; agricultural and water supply
patterns could be disrupted; and
adjustments to these changes could cost
society hundreds of billions of dollars.
A great many uncertainties are
associated with these findings. Our
computer models are not yet able to tell
us exactly how the atmosphere is
changing, why, hoiv quickly the changes
are likely to occur, or where they will
have the greatest impact.
To improve the base of knowledge on
which to make better informed
decisions, the United States is
accelerating its scientific and economic
analyses so that we get some answers to
these questions.
The U.S. Government is spending
$500 million on an interagency research
program on global climate change this
fiscal year; this includes $300 million
for NASA's remote sensing and other
monitoring programs, along with a
number of EPA projects to evaluate
potential effects and response strategies.
And in his 1991 budget, the President
asked Congress to double that amount
in order to pick up the pace of global
climate research.
This country also has made a firm
commitment to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
international body that is assessing the
scope of the problem. The United States
chairs a key IPCC workgroup looking at
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
**.'
response strategies and options for
reducing CO2 and other emissions
related to global atmospheric change.
President Bush—having already
endorsed the need for a framework
convention, or international treaty, on
global climate change—offered in
December at the Malta Summit with
President Gorbachev to host the first
negotiating session. And in February, an
IPCC meeting was held in Washington
to consider the legal, technological,
economic, and educational measures
needed to respond to global climate
change; President Bush became the first
head of state to address this group.
While we work to improve our
knowledge of the causes and effects of
climate change, there are many things
we can do—and are already doing—to
combat the problem.
Global climate change isi of course,
only one of a number of troubling
stresses on the global environment;
others include tropical deforestation; the
growing extinction of plant and animal
species; loss of natural habitats caused
by encroaching development; acid rain,
which damages ecosystems; and
growing contamination of air and water
by toxic chemicals, especially in the
cities of the developing world.
A number of activities already under
way will help deal with these problems
as well as with global climate change.
For example, air pollution from
fossil-fuel combustion—from
automobiles, from utilities, from
factories—damages the environment in
many ways. Besides releasing
heat-trapping gases, it contributes to
urban smog, acid rain, and toxic air and
water pollution. Thus, the President's
proposed amendments to the Glean Air
Act to reduce emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion and promote energy
conservation—while aimed primarily at
smog and acid rain—will also reduce
Los Angeles Convention and Visuois Buieau phoro
emissions of CO2 and other
heat-trapping gases.
President Bush's acid rain proposal is
especially important in promoting
energy conservation. The President's bill
requires a 10-million-ton reduction in
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by the
year 2000. To preserve these gains, the
bill also sets a cap on total emissions
generated. Increased energy
conservation would be a natural result
from applying a cap to SO2 emissions
after the year 2000. Utilities will find it
increasingly beneficial to seek more
efficient means of power generation and
to re-educate consumers about the
importance of energy conservation.
And there are other examples of
environmental serendipity: Phasing out
chlorofluorocarbons (GFCs) to save the
ozone layer will help limit global
climate change because CFCs account
for almost one-fifth of all heat-trapping
gases. Working with the World Bank
MARCH/APRIL 1990
33
-------
and other multilateral aid and lending
institutions to curb deforestation and to
reforest degraded lands not only will
help prevent the release of C02 from the
burning of trees but also will help grow
new trees to absorb C02 during
photosynthesis. And President Bush's
"America the Beautiful" reforestation
program—planting one billion new trees
a year across the country—will help
reduce soil erosion, improve air quality,
and provide wildlife and recreation
benefits and jobs, all while helping
remove COZ from the atmosphere.
The Administration has coined a term
to describe the fortunate and pervasive
synergy between some of the policies
we need to undertake to address global
warming and those policies that are
desirable in and of themselves for the
country's overall environmental and
economic good: "no regrets."
Simply stated, "no regrets" means:
"Act toward the future in such a way
that you will have no reason to regret
the past."
This is a policy of doing things that
make sense environmentally for many
reasons—pollution control, forest
conservation, elimination of CFCs,
reduction of waste through recycling.
Each is an important and compelling
policy in its own right; each also
happens to reduce emissions that
contribute to global climate change.
"No regrets" is not a bad way for us to
think about the environment in a
broader sense—about our individual
roles and responsibilities for
stewardship of our planet.
If the United States is to play a major
role in the great cause of restoring the
productive natural systems of this Earth
and if we aspire to lead this effort, we
must set a shining example here at
home. Yet the energy we use and the
waste we generate make this nation the
source of a fifth of all heat-trapping
gases.
To be a beacon to the world, we will
have to do better. We in the United
States produce twice the solid waste per
capita of West Germany, and three times
that of Italy. We use twice as much
energy per capita as Switzerland and
nearly three times as much as Japan.
These are prosperous countries, which
already are honing their competitiveness
internationally by cutting waste and
improving efficiency.
The fact is that there are many
inefficiencies in the way we use
energy—from how we burn fuel in our
cars and trucks, to the bulbs we use to
light our homes and offices. Together,
these inefficiencies add up to a
Despite the scope and
complexity of the problems, I
remain encouraged.
substantial and costly, yet correctable
share of the emissions that contribute to
climate change and other environmental
problems. Many additional cost-effective
steps can be taken—increased vehicle
fuel efficiency, improved energy
efficiency of appliances and lighting,
beefed-up building insulation—that
would reduce energy waste at little cost.
Global climate change, in my view,
presents the United States and the
community of nations with two key
policy challenges. The first is getting
governments to agree, among themselves
and within, on a set of appropriate
responses to these problems. The
second and perhaps even greater
challenge lies in convincing individual
producers and consumers of the
importance of their own everyday
activities in helping to mitigate global
climate change.
I believe that we human beings have
an ethical obligation to practice
environmental reciprocity—to protect,
nourish, and sustain the natural systems
that protect, nourish, and sustain us.
Doing so is not just a job for
government, or business, or farmers, or
conservationists—it's a job for all of us.
Sixteen years ago, scientist James
Lovelock popularized the Gaia
hypothesis—the theory, named after the
Greek goddess of Earth, that life,
through its interaction with the physical
environment, creates the conditions it
needs to exist. Now international
environmental problems like ozone
depletion, global climate change, and
environmental degradation in the
developing world are putting that theory
to a real test. Our response to these
global challenges will tell us whether
we are in fact able to protect the
environment which sustains us—or
whether we will be forced to adjust to a
world that may be much different,
perhaps much less hospitable, than the
one we live in today.
Despite the scope and complexity of
the problems, I remain encouraged.
Working together in a spirit of
international cooperation and goodwill,
accepting our own individual
responsibility for the well-being of our
planet, we humans can and will
succeed in putting aside our differences
and cooperating to achieve both a
sound, sustainable economy and a safe,
healthy environment.
We will do so because, in the end, we
have no choice: Our common enemy,
the deterioration of our planet's
environment, is at the gates, o
34
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Views from Other Nations:
Any elective effort to deal
with climate change must be
a fully international one; the
opinions and actions of all
nations will influence the
outcome. To provide the
reader with some sense of
what others are thinking
about the global warming
issue, the Journal invited
representatives of six
different nations to comment.
The countries, which differ
widely in terms of
economics, geography, and
contributions to the
Greenhouse Effect, are
Poland, Brazil, West
Germany, the Netherlands,
Japan, and India.
Each representative was
asked these questions: From
your perspective, how serious
is the problem of global
warming? In what way does
your country contribute to it?
What is your nation planning
to do about this issue? The
six commentaries follow;
B
Kassenberg
Sitnicki
MARCH/APRIL 1990
Poland
by Andrzej Kassenberg
and Stanislaw Sitnicki
Economic reform could
enable Poland both to
improve its living standards
and to reduce the risk of
global warming by curbing
emissions of Greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide
(CO2). Our nation is the
world's eighth largest source
of carbon emissions from
burning fossil fuels. Yet low
incomes and shortages of
consumer goods make it
unlikely that the control of
CO2 emissions will be in
itself a high priority.
However, efforts to
restructure the Polish
economy could help cut
Greenhouse-gas emissions by
20 percent. Policies which
would help protect the
environment while
improving the economy
include; reducing demand for
fossil fuels by increasing
energy efficiency; switching
from coal to natural gas; and
managing land and biomass
resources more effectively.
Energy efficiency is a high
priority for Poland. Heavy
industrial production and
lack of market signals have
made the Polish economy
two to three times more
energy-intensive than
Western European
economies. In other words,
the nation uses two to three
times more energy than
necessary to produce goods
and services. Better use of
energy could save Poland
money by saving
expensive-to-mine coal and
imported oil and natural gas.
Reduced energy costs would
mean a healthier economy
and, at the same time, lower
CO2 emissions.
Poland can save
approximately one-quarter of
its current energy
consumption (1.4 quadrillion
BTU) by purchasing new,
more efficient industrial
technology, installing
space-heating controls, and
plugging steam leaks. Studies
show that gains in energy
efficiency can be achieved for
less investment than new
coal mines cost to open or
new power plants cost to
build. However, loan money
will be necessary to take
advantage of these
opportunities, and it is not
clear where these funds will
come from.
Fuel switching is also a
high priority for Poland. Coal
currently supplies 75 percent
of Poland's energy demand,
and producing it requires
one-fifth of all Polish
industrial investment capital.
Mining places heavy
demands on labor, materials,
and electricity. Geological
and mining conditions are
deteriorating rapidly, and
coal mines must be extended
some 10 to 30 meters deeper
each year. These economic
factors impose strict
constraints on the growth of
this energy supply.
A shift to natural gas
would reduce the economic
burdens of coal mining and
also reduce CO2 emissions.
Natural gas contains only
half as much carbon per unit
of energy as coal. Gas could
be supplied by the Soviet
Union, though Poland will
have to develop exports to
acquire the hard currency to
pay for imported fuels.
Better land and forest
management is becoming a
higher priority in Poland.
Land-use planning is needed
to protect water supplies,
forest resources, and
agricultural productivity.
Planning for the protection of
natural areas can protect
economic resources and, at
the same time, protect forests
and plants which, through
photosynthesis, take CO2 out
of the air.
Changing land management
practices to protect trees in
reserves and to increase tree
growth in both forests and
wood-fuel plantations can
improve Poland's economy,
sequester carbon, and replace
fossil fuel with
plantation-grown wood,
which serves to recycle CO2.
In addition, encouraging
agricultural practices that
collect carbon in soils can
help improve soil
productivity.
Of course, carbon
emissions are not the only
source of concern. Municipal
solid waste generates
methane, another important
Greenhouse gas. Recycling
policies could reduce this
pollutant as well as save
Poland energy, materials, and
money. Studies are beginning
to assess how management
measures for recycling could
be applied in the cities of the
"Green Lung" of Poland, a
relatively undisturbed area
that covers almost 15 percent
of the nation's total land
mass. This northeastern
region is called the "Green
Lung" because it remains
pastoral and forested and
thus produces the purest air
in Poland.
If Poland is able to save
energy, switch from coal to
natural gas, and better
manage its land, forest, and
agricultural resources, then
carbon emissions will be
reduced as a result of
economic growth. Infusions
of technology and investment
capital from the West could
speed Poland's progress
toward these goals. Because
the consequences of climate
change will be global, it
makes sense for the United
States and other nations to
consider their loss if Poland's
efforts at economic reform,
energy efficiency, and
resource management fail for
lack of help, u
(Kassenberg is Director of
the Green Lung of Poland
Project at the Polish
Academy of Sciences and
Vice-President of the Polish
Ecology Club. Sitnicki is
Chief Advisor to the
Environment Minister in
Poland and is now heading a
World Bank project for
environmental protection in
cooperation with the
Environment Ministry.)
35
-------
by Antonio
Carlos do Prado
Prado
Major contributors to
global carbon-dioxide
(CO2) emissions include the
United States, the Soviet
Union, China, and Brazil.
Brazil differs from these
other countries in that its
emissions are principally due
to burning forests, not to
fossil-fuel consumption.
Brazil does not have an
official estimate of its
contribution of Greenhouse
gases. However, according to
Jose Goldemberg, Secretary of
Education for the State of Sao
Paulo, Brazil may contribute
a total of 5.5 percent of
yearly human-induced
emissions of CO2. Nearly 4.5
percent may come from
burning of the Amazon, with
the energy sector making up
the 1-percent difference.
The Brazilian government,
like the majority of other
governments, does not have
an official policy, legislation,
or national plan that is
specifically or solely
concerned with global
climate change or emissions
of Greenhouse gases.
However, the government
does officially recognize the
problem of global climate
change and the need to
control Greenhouse-gas
emissions.
Recently, on January 9-11,
1990, Brazil and the United
States co-hosted a conference
of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Glimate Change
(IPCC) on response options
concerning tropical forestry
and global climate change. A
major result of this
conference was that the iPCC
resolved to support the
development of a forestry
protocol to govern the use of
all forest resources in the
context of international treaty
negotiations on climate
change.
One conclusion that
emerged from the recent
IPCC conference in Brazil is
that there are insufficient
data on the actual rate of
forest loss and the amount of
carbon released from biomass
when forests are burned.
Data-gathering on these
points will begin in 1990 as
the world's top space
agencies begin a remote
sensing program, under
Brazil's leadership, to
determine the status of the
world's tropical forests.
The Brazilian government's
concern about forests and
climate change is part of its
broader recognition that
sustainable use of forests is
necessary for long-term
economic and social
development and
preservation of
environmental resources.
Thus in April 1989, President
Sarney announced the "Our
Nature" program, an
ensemble of different acts,
regulations, and bills to
promote better
forest-management practices
by bolstering previously
existing laws and programs
and creating new ones.
As part of this program, the
Brazilian space and
environmental agencies are
cooperating in a
fire-prevention program to
prevent illegal burning of the
Amazon. In 1988-89 satellite
images were used to detect
fires, and helicopters were
dispatched to check for
clearing permits; fines were
imposed on violators. During
this period, deforestation in
the Brazilian Amazon
declined by an estimated 30
percent, at least in part as a
result of this program.
Among other initiatives,
the "Our Nature" program
also requires companies that
manufacture forest products
to create forest-management
plans outlining how they will
sustainably grow or harvest
from the natural forest
enough wood to meet 50
percent of their needs in
1990. The plans for
subsequent years must show
increasing increments of 10
percent a year until 1995,
when 100 percent of wood
needs must be met
sustainably. Firms that fail to
comply with this regimen are
subject to closure or other
penalties.
Of course, the prices of
Brazil's wood products must
rise on the international
market to reflect the
increased costs of sustainable
production; Brazilian
companies cannot be
expected to compete with
producers in other countries
who do not use sustainable
practices. Importers in
developed nations could
encourage widespread
adoption of sustainable wood
production techniques by
setting appropriate
conditions for all wood
imports.
The Brazilian government
is also taking numerous other
steps to manage its forest
resources. In February 1990,
it announced a forthcoming
program to establish an
"extractive reserves" program
to encourage the sustainable
harvest of products from the
forest. A national plan
designating land for
conservation will be
launched soon. And while it
is still early to characterize
government policy directions
under the new government of
President-elect Fernando
Collor de Melio, declarations
show a willingness to
consider proposals, such as
debt-for-nature swaps, that
have been previously rejected
on the basis of national
sovereignty.
In addition, under the
Ministry of Mines and
Energy, Brazil has instituted
a number of programs to
encourage energy efficiency.
Again, however, these are not
specifically targeted to the
Greenhouse Effect, n
f Prado is Director of
Renewable Natural Resources
for the Brazilian
environmental protection
agency (Institute BrasiJero do
Meio Ambiento e dos
Recursos Naturais
Renovaveis (JBAMAj.)
36
EPA JOURNAL
-------
West Germany
by Dietrich Kupfer
Kupfer
Many scientists are
sounding the alarm on
global warming. Others
dispute that the
consequences of the
Greenhouse Effect are really
as dramatic, or potentially
catastrophic as claimed. The
leading opinion, however, is
that significant changes must
be expected. And the Federal
Republic of Germany agrees.
The West German
Bundestag has adopted the
conclusions and
recommendations of its
inquiry commission as
submitted in the report,
"Anticipatory Action to
Protect the Earth's
Atmosphere." Basically, the
commission concluded that
despite the uncertainties
underlying current forecasts
and model calculations,
effective measures to combat
the Greenhouse Effect must
be taken now.
While West Germany
accounts for only 3.8 percent
of the world's
Greenhouse-gas emissions,
our country's per-capita
emission rate of 11.7 tons per
year ranks comparatively
high among nations. At
present, industrialized
countries shoulder the
primary responsibility for the
increase of man-made
carbon-dioxide (CO2)
emissions. However, as Third
World countries
develop—striving to imitate
the West—significant
increases in emissions must
be expected.
West Germany has already
demonstrated the
conservation ethic needed for
the future. Although gross
national product has risen by
over 30 percent in real terms
since 1973, there has been
hardly any increase in the
consumption of primary
energy. During this period,
our CO2 emissions have
actually decreased slightly.
Nevertheless, the potential
for energy-saving is still
considerable, particularly in
house heating (insulation),
transportation, and industrial
processing.
In order to save energy, the
government has introduced
legislation to provide
economic incentives for
energy-conservation
strategies. A tax based on
motor-vehicle emission levels
has been proposed to
motivate development of
fuel-efficient engines. Other
proposals are directed at
creating more economical
and rational use of energy.
In addition to addressing
existing sources of CO2, the
government has encouraged
the use of renewable energy
resources for many years.
Still, only 3 percent of the
annual consumption of
primary energy in West
Germany is at present
supplied by renewable
energy resources. However,
this does not mean the use of
renewable energy resources is
not a serious option in
solving the climate problem.
On the contrary, the way
must be paved today towards
increasing the share of
renewable energy resources
in our energy supplies.
Forests represent a further
important factor in the
global-warming equation.
Every possible action must be
taken to conserve forests
around the globe since they
are important "sinks" that
soak up CO2. Particular
significance has been
attached to tropical
rainforests, and for 1989 and
1990, West Germany has
doubled its monetary support
for rainforest conservation.
But it must be remembered
that other types of forests are
just as important for
controlling global warming
and therefore need
protection. The government
has implemented rigorous
measures to reduce emissions
of sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide from its power
stations, which will benefit
forests throughout central
Europe.
The West German
government supports the
Montreal Protocol, which
addresses the
CFC-production problem.
The protocol regulates the
gradual, worldwide phaseout
of a group of substances
which not only is destroying
Earth's protective ozone layer
but also contributes
significantly to the
Greenhouse Effect. Stopping
the production of GFGs
worldwide will considerably
lessen the Greenhouse Effect.
The West German
government advocates a
drastic tightening of the
Montreal Protocol at the
forthcoming conference of
participating countries. The
aim should be to phase out
all production and use of
CFCs by the end of the
century.
Because the Greenhouse
Effect is a global
phenomenon, efficient
preventative measures to
combat possible climate
changes will succeed only if
industrialized and
developing countries adopt a
parallel, well-coordinated
approach. Realizing this, the
West German government has
played a decisive part in
preparations for an
international climate
convention and emphatically
supports the work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Our
aim is to get the Framework
Climate Convention signed
by 1992 as well as protocols
for its implementation which
set strict limits for CO2
emissions and forest
protection.
The West German
government is convinced that
climate problems can be
solved. However, this will
require considerable effort at
national and international
levels, and possibly the
partial sacrifice of highly
valued personal habits.
All governmental
measures—including
economic incentives,
regulations, and bans—will
have only limited impact if
governments fail to make
clear to the polluter the need
for environmental protection.
Therefore, providing
comprehensive information
and developing
environmental awareness are
extremely important. Without
changing the habits of
producers and consumers, all
measures will remain
patchwork and
environmental policy will be
fighting a losing battle. D
(Kup/er is head of the
Section on Basic Questions
of fnternationaJ Cooperation
in the Federal Ministry for
Environment, Nature
Conservation, ami Nuclear
Sajety, West Germany.)
MARCH/APRIL 1990
37
-------
The Netherlands
by Bert Metz
and Pier Vellinga
Metz
Vellinga
Like many other countries,
the Netherlands is
vulnerable to accelerated
climate change. Much of the
country is presently well
below sea level. Yet the
prospect of a rise in sea level
is not our major concern
among the potential
consequences of the
Greenhouse Effect. Over the
centuries, the Netherlands
has created an infrastructure
capable of coping with an
additional one-meter rise in
sea level without major
difficulties.
However, the secondary
ramifications of global
warming are likely to cause
serious problems for the
Netherlands—for example,
salt intrusion into our ground
water or changes in rainfall
patterns that could affect
river run-off and cause
inland water management
problems. In general, if
scientific projections are
right, climate change could
threaten global security by
disrupting ecosystems and
food production systems
around the world and
increasing the risks of natural
disasters such as floods and
tornadoes: All of these
impacts would seriously
affect the Netherlands as well
as other countries.
The Netherlands'
contribution to the global
increase in Greenhouse-gas
concentrations is a little less
than 1 percent—a relatively
minor contribution. However,
our per-capita emissions are
among the largest in the
European Community. As a
framework for reducing
Greenhouse-gas emissions,
the government has
developed a National
Environmental Policy Plan.
The national plan commits
the Netherlands to an
85-percent reduction in
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)
emissions by 1995 and a
total phaseout by 1998. It
also calls for an 8-percent
reduction in anticipated
carbon-dioxide (CO-,>)
emissions by 1994-95, with
continued reductions
thereafter; this means that
1994-95 CO2 emissions will
be stabilized at 1989-90
levels.
Seventy-five percent of our
target reductions in CO2
emissions will depend on
changes in the energy sector.
A broad range of measures is
being developed to achieve
these emissions reductions.
These include:
• Tightened building-code
standards for better
insulation
• Regulations to set
energy-efficiency standards
for appliances
• Subsidies for
energy-conservation programs
(e.g., residential building
insulation and industrial
conservation projects)
• Fuel switching from coal
to natural gas for electricity
generation
• Subsidy and tax-break
programs for renewable
energy and other
high-efficiency
energy-generation methods
• Matching funds for
relevant research and
development
• Energy-consulting services
provided to industry
• A C02 tax in addition to
existing fuel taxes.
About 20 percent of
targeted emissions reductions
will come from the
transportation sector, where
policies will encourage
means of transport other than
the automobile. Among the
measures planned to achieve
these emissions reductions
are:
• Improving public transport
systems for commutes and
long-range travel
• Instituting plans to reduce
automobile use by businesses
and other institutions
• Upgrading bicycle facilities
• "Road pricing," meaning
that toll rates will vary
depending on the time of day
and the day of the week
• Using zoning regulations to
coordinate building locations
with public transport.
The Netherlands has also
instituted a national climate
research program and a
program of assistance to
developing countries
concerning global warming.
The national research
program will include
atmospheric research,
environmental impact
studies, policy analyses, and
studies on sustainable
solutions. In providing
assistance to developing
countries, the Netherlands
uses existing channels,
including the Tropical
Forestry Action Plan, the
lending programs of the
World Bank and other
multilateral development
banks, and bilateral aid
programs.
The Netherlands is actively
involved in international
negotiations on climate
change and in 1989 helped to
initiate two major
international conferences. In
March 1989, at the initiative
of the prime ministers of
France, Norway, and
Holland, a 24-country
environmental summit
conference was convened in
The Hague. The resulting
declaration of The Hague
called for stronger global
decision-making structures
to address global
environmental problems and
stressed the need for
technology transfer to poorer
countries and adequate
funding mechanisms for this
purpose.
In November 1989, 67
countries and 11
international organizations
met in Noordwijk, the
Netherlands. The result was
the "Noordwijk Declaration
on Climate Change," adopted
by consensus. The
declaration calls for a
stabilization of CO2
emissions as soon as
possible. It was agreed that
target dates and stabilization
levels should be addressed
by the upcoming Second
World Climate Conference in
November 1990.
In summary, the Dutch
government is vigorously
pursuing an international
treaty on global warming
because only through the
cooperation of all countries
can this problem be
addressed effectively. At the
same time, however, the
Dutch government is also
taking unilateral action
involving substantial
financial sacrifice: Between
now and 1994, an additional
amount equal to $1,000 (U.S.
dollars) per citizen will be
spent on environmental
issues, of which 20 percent is
targeted to global-warming
issues, a
(Metz is Counselor for Health
and Environment at the
Netherlands Embassy in
Washington, D.C. VeJIinga is
Coordinator of the National
Climate Programme for the
Netherlands Ministry of
Housing, Physical Planning,
and Environment.)
38
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Japan
by Keiichi Yokobori
Yokobori
No environmental
challenge is as
far-reaching as global
warming. This holds true by
any measure: scope,
timefrarne, and possible
consequences. The required
response, therefore, may be
more comprehensive, more
costly, and perhaps more
controversial than any other
action mankind has
undertaken. On the other
hand, the uncertainty of the
science and economics of the
Greenhouse Effect also far
surpasses uncertainties
surrounding other
environmental problems.
Considered together, these
dimensions of the
global-warming problem
underscore the importance of
developing and
implementing an equitable,
flexible, long-term response
strategy that provides
insurance against the
potential damage while also
ensuring stable economic
development.
These are the main
concerns driving the ongoing
international discussions.
The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(1PCC) is due to come out
with its first assessment
report in August. The report
undoubtedly will play a
crucial role in shaping future
international and domestic
action.
In light of these concerns,
where does Japan stand on
the global-warming issue?
First, we are taking all
possible steps to limit
Greenhouse-gas emissions
and increase "sinks" for
Greenhouse gases, such as
more forested areas that can
absorb carbon dioxide (CO2}
while striving for stable
growth in tho economy.
Second, we are actively
participating in international
efforts to reach consensus on
concerted global action in the
face of uncertainties.
Specifically what is Japan
doing to meet the challenge?
The Japanese government,
responding to the energy
crisis, has provided a
framework for energy
conservation and fuel
switching through two laws:
the Law Concerning the
Rational Use of Energy, and
the Law Concerning the
Development and
Introduction of Alternative
Energy. It has also actively
promoted thermonuclear
electricity plants, japan is in
the process of revising and
extending its long-term
energy scenario to the year
2010.
Japan has supported
private-sector research in
these areas through extensive
financial and tax measures
while maintaining
exceptionally high energy
taxes. For high-cost, high-risk
technological development.
where private-sector response
is difficult, the government
has sponsored the Sunshine
Project for alternative energy
and the Moonlight Project for
energy efficiency. The New
Energy Development
Organization, overseen by
our Agency of Natural
Resources and Energy, within
the Ministry of International
Trade and Industry, helps to
coordinate joint efforts
between the government and
the private sector in
developing and promoting
new energy sources.
As a result, Japan has one
of the most emissions-
efficient economies in the
world: Per-capita emissions
of CO2 are very low, despite
a high per-capita income.
Japan's achievement
should be an encouragement
to others, including
developing countries,
because CO,> emissions were
curtailed in the process of
our economic development.
At the same time, it suggests
the potential for increased
energy efficiency and fuel
switching in many countries.
To realize this potential,
governments must have the
will to act.
All of these measures,
however, are short- and
medium-term responses in
terms of the global-warming
timefrarne with which we are
dealing. We must come up
with fundamental
technological breakthroughs
if we are to achieve a
convergence of sound global
environmental and economic
policies.
For this reason, Japan is in
the process of launching the
Research Institute for Global
Environment Technology.
The institute will conduct
and encourage the
development of full carbon
cycle technology and other
environmentally benign
materials and technology.
Helping developing
countries is also of great
importance. Emissions from
the developing countries,
which usually have poor
energy efficiency, are
growing far more quickly
than those from the
industrialized countries.
Tropical forests, a major sink
for CO2, will continue their
decline unless more is done.
Assistance to developing
countries, therefore, will be
one of Japan's greatest
concerns. Assistance from the
industrialized countries
should help the developing
countries to carry their full
share of the burden.
Without this sharing of
responsibility, there will be
no truly effective answer to
the problem.
For we all share the global
environment. Let me end on
a cautiously optimistic note:
We will prevail if we all
share fully in the protection
of the planet. Q
(Yokobori is Executive
Director of the Research
Institute of International
Trade and Industry in
Japan. He is also
Co-Chairman of the Knrruv
Industry Subgroup of the
Intergovernmental PaneJ on
Climate Change.)
MARCH/APRIL 1990
39
-------
India
by Dilip R, Ahuja
Ahuja
India's current contribution
I to emissions of Greenhouse
gases from non-natural
sources has been estimated to
be 4 percent. Given that 16
percent of the world's
population lives in India, this
contribution, per person,
represents one-fourth of the
global average and just
one-eighteenth of the
contribution of an average
American.
In India, Greenhouse-gas
emissions consist
predominantly of carbon
dioxide (CO2) (47 percent)
and methane (38 percent).
Coal-burning and rice
cultivation are the primary
sources of these emissions.
Policies to respond to the
threat of climate change are
still evolving in India. One
school of thought favors a
wait-and-see approach,
influenced by conflicting
opinions in the literature
about the potential
seriousness of the
global-warming problem. For
instance, one of the
arguments against global
warming as a significant
problem is that negative
climatic feedbacks may hold
warming trends to negligible
levels. Much of the literature
that raises questions about
global-warming projections
comes from organizations
that regard developing
countries as potential allies
in resisting
emissions-reduction efforts.
Others cite pragmatic
arguments against policy
initiatives to mitigate the
Greenhouse Effect—namely,
the hypothesis that a
global-warming trend may
benefit India. For example, it
is widely believed that
increased temperatures will
increase the total amount of
rainfall over the
subcontinent: More rainfall,
coupled with higher CO2
concentrations in the
atmosphere, might work to
enhance agricultural
production. However, this
hypothesis discounts other,
undesirable effects that
could complicate the
scenario. Such effects might
include regional shifts in
rainfall patterns, increased
run-off and soil erosion, and
life-threatening floods and
droughts in unexpected
places.
The third and perhaps
most compelling reason why
India does not at this time
have more pro-active policies
for mitigating the Greenhouse
Effect is the competition for
limited resources by more
pressing needs. This situation
applies not only in India, but
also in other developing
countries. For this reason, the
International Conference on
Global Warming and Climate
Change held at New Delhi in
February 1989 made the
following recommendation:
The developing
countries' contribution
in response to the
Greenhouse challenge
should be carried out in
a way that enhances,
rather than diminishes,
development prospects.
Where these are in
conflict, priority should
be given to
development ....
Thus, for India and other
developing countries, the key
is to determine what
initiatives will help
development and reduce
emissions of Greenhouse
gases and then to pursue
these initiatives aggressively.
Realistically, given India's
chronic shortages of
electricity and unmet
demands for energy services,
it is unlikely that
Greenhouse-gas emissions
from the energy sector will
be reduced in the near future.
Most credible projections
indicate that these emissions
will grow at an average
annual rate of nearly 4
percent, quadrupling over the
next 40 years. However, with
effective conservation and
energy-efficiency policies, the
rate of increase in emissions
could be halved while still
meeting the basic needs of an
expanding
population—currently
growing at an annual rate of
2 percent.
The Indian government is
taking steps to promote
awareness of the Greenhouse
issue. The government is also
sponsoring research on the
potential effects of climate
change in India, especially in
coastal areas that would be
vulnerable to a rise in sea
level. The possibility of
flooding in densely
populated coastal zones
warrants special concern
because it could cause very
serious resettlement
problems. In addition,
researchers are participating
in internationally
coordinated studies on the
potential effects of climate
change on sea level and
agriculture.
India is currently
promoting the development
of renewable energy sources
such as biomass, small-scale
hydroelectric power, and
solar and wind energy. The
government has also initiated
several reforestation projects
that will increase
CO-^-absorbing tree cover in
the country. In addition, it is
subsidizing higher-efficiency
cookstoves that have the
potential to reduce fuelwood
consumption in areas where
wood is the dominant fuel.
Some other actions that
represent environmentally
positive steps include using
natural gas for electricity
production, curbing energy
losses during the
transmission of electricity,
and phasing out coal-driven
locomotives. These policies
can help hold back India's
Greenhouse-gas emissions
while they also make sense
for other reasons.
In international
negotiations on climate
change, India is in favor of
equitable agreements that, so
far as possible, take into
account each country's
population, its recent
cumulative contribution to
all known Greenhouse-gas
emissions, and its need to
seek a reasonable standard of
living for its citizens. Clearly,
it will not be easy to reach
consensus on this kind of
agreement, but it is important
to press forward with the
negotiations.
One final point: Last year,
India proposed that an
international
planet-protection fund be
established to help finance
the development and transfer
of technology where it is
most needed to mitigate
climate change. Norway,
Sweden, and the Netherlands
have made proposals along
similar lines. If appropriate
institutional mechanisms for
such a fund can be worked
out in international
negotiations, this would be a
small step forward in dealing
with the global-warming
problem, c
(Dr. Ahuja is a Fellow of the
Tata Energy Research
Institute in New Delhi,
currently on a sabbatical
with the Bruce Company, a
contractor to BPA's Climate
Change Division.]
K)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Lessons from
"the Ozone Hole
by Richard Elliot Benedick
On September 16, 1987, a treaty was
signed that was unique in the
annals of international diplomacy. The
"Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer" mandated
significant reductions in the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.
At the time of the treaty's negotiation,
these compounds enjoyed rapidly
growing use in a wide range of
industries, involving billions of dollars
The existence of gaps in
scientific and economic
knowledge should not become
an excuse for postponing the
start of negotiations.
Negotiated in 1987, the "Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer" set a precedent for preventive action
on a global scale to protect the
environment.
of investment worldwide. Scientists
suspected, however, that CFCs might
cause future damage to a remote
gas—the stratospheric ozone layer—that
shields life on Earth from potentially
disastrous levels of ultraviolet radiation.
Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect
of the Montreal Protocol was that it
imposed substantial short-term
economic costs in order to protect
human health and the environment
against speculative future
dangers—dangers which rested on
scientific theories rather than on proven
facts. Unlike environmental agreements
of the past, it was not a response to
harmful events, but rather preventive
action on a global scale.
The problem of Greenhouse warming,
although admittedly more complex,
shares some attributes of the threat to
the ozone layer. The ozone negotiators
confronted dangers that could affect
(Ambassador Benedick, as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State, was the
chief U.S. negotiator for the Montreal
Protocol. Currently, he is on assignment
as Senior Fellow of The Conservation
Foundation/World Wildlife Fund.]
every nation and all life on Earth, over
periods far beyond the normal time
horizons of politicians. At the time,
however, these potential consequences
could neither be measured nor
predicted with any certitude.
Moreover, entrenched industrial
interests claimed that new regulations
would cause immense economic
dislocations. Technological solutions
either were nonexistent or were
considered unacceptable by most major
governments. The scientific positions
taken by some parties were influenced
by commercial self-interest, and
scientific uncertainty was used by some
as an excuse for delaying hard
decisions. Many political leaders were
long prepared to accept potential future
environmental risks rather than to
impose the certain short-term costs
entailed in limiting products seen as
important for modern standards of
living.
Does all of this sound as familiar as
recent headlines on the international
debate over climate change? There were
scoffers of the ozone-depletion
hypothesis just as there are skeptics of
the prospects for Greenhouse warming.
Short-range political and economic
concerns are formidable obstacles to
international action based upon arcane
theories and computer model
projections. The Montreal Protocol was
not an inevitability; knowledgeable
observers had long believed it would be
impossible to achieve.
Climate change does pose some
unique challenges to international
cooperation. Because the impacts of
Greenhouse warming are so uncertain
and distant, there is a possibility of
"winners" and "losers" among nations.
In addition, efforts to limit the
magnitude and rate of temperature rise,
and to adapt to the effects of warming,
will require perhaps costly changes in
energy, industry, agriculture,
development, and population policies,
as well as in consumer lifestyles.
Further, as energy is so essential to the
development of such heavily populated,
low-income countries as China and
India, they will be reluctant to forego
fossil fuels unless economical
alternatives are available.
Nevertheless, the international
community's response to the ozone
issue suggests several lessons for the
MARCH/APRIL 1990
41
-------
new global diplomacy needed for
addressing the heat-trap effect:
• Scientists must assume an
unaccustomed but critical role in
international negotiations. Science
became the driving force behind ozone
policy. The development of a commonly
accepted body of data and analysis and
the narrowing of ranges of uncertainty
will also be prerequisites to a political
solution on Greenhouse gases. In this
process, close collaboration among
scientists, policy makers, and diplomats
will be crucial.
• Governments must nevertheless act
while there is still scientific uncertainty,
based on a responsible appraisal of the
risks and costs of delaying action.
Politicians need to resist a tendency to
assign excessive credibility to
self-serving economic interests that
demand scientific certainty, insisting
that dangers are remote and therefore
unlikely. By the time the effects of
ozone layer depletion and climate
change are self-evident, it may be too
late to forestall serious harm to human
life and draconian costs to society.
• Educating and mobilizing public
opinion are essential to generate
pressure on often hesitant politicians.
The interest of the media in the ozone
issue and the use of television and press
by U.S. diplomats, environmental
groups, and legislators had a major
influence on governmental decisions.
• Strong leadership by a major country
can be a significant force /or mobilizing
international consensus. The United
States is the largest emitter of both
ozone-destroying chemicals and
Greenhouse gases. Its influence in
achieving the ozone treaty was
enormous. The rest of the world
expects, and would be responsive to,
similar U.S. leadership on the
Greenhouse issue.
• The catalytic and mediating
/unctions of a multilateral institution
can be critical when an issue, like
ozone and climate, has planetary
consequences. The United Nations
Environment Programme was
indispensable for the Montreal Protocol
and can be equally effective for
coordinating international negotiations
on climate.
• Economic inequalities among
countries must be adequately reflected
in any international regulatory regime.
In the longer run, developing countries,
with their huge and growing
populations, could undermine efforts
both to protect the ozone layer and to
forestall Greenhouse warming. They did
not cause these problems, and the rich
nations that were responsible must now
help them to participate in cooperative
efforts without sacrificing their
aspirations for improved living
standards. It is now essential that ways
be explored to transfer needed
technology while maintaining
intellectual property rights and
incentives for private entrepreneurship
to undertake research on new
technologies.
• A regulatory agreement is most
effective when it employs the market
mechanism to encourage technological
innovation. The ozone protocol set
emission targets that initially appeared
difficult; however, they effectively
signaled the market that research into
alternatives would be profitable.
Similarly, market incentives—and
disincentives—must be devised to
stimulate producers and consumers
toward investments and actions that
reduce Greenhouse-gas emissions.
• The Montreal Protocol broke new
ground in the way it was planned and
framed. Complicated issues were
separated into manageable components;
informal fact-finding
efforts—workshops, conferences, and
consultations—built up gradual
consensus and facilitated the formal
negotiations. The protocol itself is a
dynamic and flexible instrument,
designed to be adapted to evolving
conditions on the basis of regularly
scheduled scientific and technical
reassessments. Like the Montreal
Protocol, an international accord on
climate change should not be a static
solution, but rather an ongoing process.
• Finally, pragmatism, combined with
firmness, can mean success in a
complex diplomatic engagement. The
United States and other proponents of
strong controls did not insist on a
perfect solution to the ozone problem.
They refrained from extreme positions
and exaggerated claims but never
relented in their pressure for a
meaningful treaty. The basic objective
Reprinted by permission Tribune Media S
42
EPA JOURNAL
-------
NASA'Goddard Space Flight Center. Laboratory for Atmospheres
was to get a reasonable agreement in
place that could also serve as a
framework for future action.
These lessons from the Montreal
Protocol can definitely be applied to the
current debate over global climate
change. Indeed, the relevance of this
experience has not been lost on the
international community.
For example, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, with its
varied participation from public and
private sectors and multiple scientific,
economic, and policy workshops, is
analogous to the fact-gathering phase of
the ozone history. Similarly, many
governments announced their support
last year for a framework agreement on
climate change, comparable to the 1985
Vienna Convention on Protecting the
Ozone Layer. Such a climate convention
need not be a complicated undertaking,
and it should be achieved at the earliest
possible date. The existence of gaps in
scientific and economic knowledge
should not become an excuse for
postponing the start of negotiations.
Ideally, a framework convention
would enable governments to formalize
agreement in principle on the
dimensions of the climate problem and
the scope of possible responses.
Governments would undertake general
obligations for actions to mitigate and
adapt to global warming. They would
also agree on coordinated research to
develop additional data as guidelines
for future measures.
It would be useful to go beyond the
Vienna precedent at this stage and try to
build into a climate convention some
general targets and timetables. However,
it would probably be problematical for
advocates of stringent Greenhouse-gas
controls to attempt to load a convention
with overly detailed and
still-controversial commitments. A
premature insistence on optimal
solutions could have the unintended
effect of bogging down the negotiators
and unnecessarily prolonging the entire
process. On the other hand, an early
convention would in itself set in motion
an international momentum toward
concrete actions.
The framework convention would
provide the legal and logistical structure
for the critical next step—corresponding
to the Montreal Protocol—which would
entail agreement on specific
international regulations. Indeed, work
on such protocols might well begin even
before the convention itself is
completed. Because of the complexity of
the climate issue, it would not be
realistic to attempt to achieve an ideal
solution at a single stroke. Here again,
the quest for perfection might only serve
to delay action. Instead, the way to
success may lie in incremental stages
and partial solutions.
Thus, governments could negotiate
several separate implementing
protocols, each one containing specific
measures for dealing with a different
aspect of the climate problem. One
example could be a treaty mandating
greater energy efficiency in the
transportation sector, which should be
manageable as it need involve only a
handful of manufacturing countries. The
ozone accord itself exemplifies a partial
solution to the climate problem by
means of a constituent protocol: A
recent National Air and Space
Administration study estimated that if
CFCs had continued to increase at the
growth rates of the 1970s, they would
by now exceed carbon dioxide (CO2) in
their Greenhouse impact.
When is a
white space in this diagram, th
ozone "ho
Worldwid',
varies—depending c
patterns—from 250 to 550 Dobsof
(the Dobson unit is a nit
"thickness1
Antartt
stratospheric or decreases
drastically—a 50-percent reduction from
normal levels—for a three-month perio'd
It might be useful to establish
standing negotiations under a
permanent secretariat, similar to the
arrangements for the Geneva
disarmament talks. By this means,
individual protocols could
simultaneously be in the process of
development, each at its own pace.
The climate convention and protocols
need not be universal in
membership—that is an unnecessary
complicating factor. In actuality, the
overwhelming proportion of carbon
emissions from fossil fuels and
deforestation is concentrated in a
relatively small number of
industrialized and developing nations.
Indeed, the major industrialized
countries, who are primarily responsible
for the world's current precarious
ecological condition, could make a vital
contribution by agreeing on pre-emptive
actions even before a broader climate
treaty is negotiated. North America, the
Soviet Union, the European Community,
and Japan together account for about 60
percent of carbon emissions from fossil
fuels. By not delaying feasible actions to
increase energy efficiency and reduce
CO2 emissions, these countries could
significantly slow the warming trend.
This would buy time for technological
innovation that could later be shared
with poorer countries—principally
China, Brazil, India, and Indonesia—to
aid them in assuming their own
responsibility.
In conclusion, in the realm of
international relations, there will always
be resistance to change and there will
always be uncertainties—political,
economic, scientific, psychological. The
ozone negotiations demonstrated that
the international community, even in
the real world of ambiguity and
imperfect knowledge, can be capable of
undertaking difficult cooperative actions
for the benefit of future generations. The
Montreal Protocol may well be a
paradigm for international cooperation
on the challenge of global warming. Q
This article is adapted from Ozone
Diplomacy: New Directions in
Safeguarding the Planet [Washington:
The Conservation Foundation and
Georgetown University Institute for the
Study of Diplomacy, 1990.)
MARCH/APRIL 1990
43
-------
A Perspective
on Costs
and Benefits
by William D. Nordhaus
Many scientists are concerned about
the possibility of a major
human-induced climate change over the
next century. In this article, I assume
they are right and take a look at the
economics of the Greenhouse Effect,
including the projected impacts of
climate change and the costs of
preventing or slowing it,
What are the likely costs of climate
change over the next century? In the
United States, according to studies done
by EPA and others, there are likely to be
major impacts upon farming, forests,
energy use, coastal areas, and some
industries. On the other hand, most
economic activity—such as
manufacturing, mining, and
communications—is not likely to be
significantly affected by climate changes
over the next 50 or 75 years,
Existing research indicates that the
net economic damage from a global
warming of 3 "Celsius, insofar as
economic variables have been
quantified, is likely to be less than 1
percent of U.S. national income.
However, because it is difficult to
quantify many activities which do not
pass through markets—such as
ecological, amenity, and health
effects—the impact may be higher or
lower than this estimate.
Strategic Options
What are the possible responses to the
threat of Greenhouse warming? A first
option—taking steps to slow or prevent
a warming trend—has received the most
public attention. Such steps would
include reducing energy consumption,
switching to non-fossil fuels, halting
deforestation and planting new forests,
and other measures.
A second option is to offset global
warming through climatic engineering.
Several schemes have been suggested
over the last two decades, such as
changing the reflectivity ("albedo") of
the globe—for example by shooting
particulate matter into the stratosphere
(Dr. Nordhaus is Professor of Economics
at Yale University.)
or changing cultivation patterns in
agriculture and forestry. Many
environmentalists fault these proposals,
saying that "you shouldn't fool with
Mother Nature." But climatic
engineering proposals deserve further
analysis and should not be dismissed
out of hand.
A third option is to adapt to the
warmer climate. Such adaptation would
take place gradually, in a decentralized
fashion, through the automatic
responses of people, institutions, or the
marketplace as the climate changes and
the oceans rise. If particular areas
become unproductive, labor and capital
would tend to migrate to more
productive regions. As the sea level
rises, unprotected settlements would
gradually retreat inland. In addition,
governments could take steps to
preempt possible harmful climatic
impacts by regulating land use or by
investing in research on living in a
warmer climate.
Most analyses treat adaptation and
prevention as if they were parallel
responses, but they differ in one crucial
respect: While preventive policies must
be taken before substantial global
warming occurs, adaptative policies
would be implemented more or less
simultaneously with the advent of
climate change. This distinction is
crucial for the problem at hand for
cause precedes effect by a half-century
or more. If we are truly to stabilize
climate, we must begin to act today;
adaptations to climate change can take
place gradually over the decades to
come.
Yet our knowledge of the costs of
slowing climate change is rudimentary.
Total Cost for Greenhouse Gas Control
I have reviewed estimates of the costs of
reducing global Greenhouse-gas
emissions. Using 1989 emissions and
world output as a base, the chart
drawing shows estimated costs as a
function of percentage reductions in
Greenhouse-gas emissions.
The chart indicates that a substantial
reduction, perhaps one-sixth, of
Greenhouse-gas emissions can be
attained at very low cost. Among
policies to slow Greenhouse warming,
the most cost-effective are curbing
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production
and preventing uneconomic
deforestation. Beyond these relatively
inexpensive strategies, reducing
emissions rapidly becomes quite costly.
I estimate that a 50-percent reduction in
Greenhouse-gas emissions (relative to
what emissions levels would be in the
absence of policy controls) will in the
long run cost around 1 percent of total
world output. In other words, the
annual cost would be around $200
billion annually at today's level of
world output. A more modest goal, such
as reducing Greenhouse-gas emissions
by 20 percent (again relative to
emissions levels in the absence of
policy controls) will cost around $12
billion.
A Modest Proposal
Weighing costs, benefits, and
uncertainties, I believe we should today
take modest steps to slow global
warming while avoiding precipitous and
ill-designed actions that we may later
regret. More precisely, I would suggest
three specific policies to be acted on
immediately—and a fourth that could be
Global Cost (in SU.S, billions)
600
UOO
40
50
60
70
10 20 30
Percentage Reduction of Total Greenhouse Gases
Source: William D Nordhaus, "To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect" (paper
prepared for the 1990 meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 1990)
80
EPA JOURNAL
-------
considered if the problem becomes more
severe than this review suggests.
• First, continue to improve our
understanding of Greenhouse warming.
Our understanding has improved
enormously over the last two decades,
and further research will help prepare
us for the tough decisions to be made in
the future.
• Second, undertake research and
development (R&D) investments in new
technologies that will slow climate
change. One area where the government
has a particularly important role is in
encouraging technologies that have low
Greenhouse-gas emissions per unit of
output. These technologies are today
subject to underinvestment in the
marketplace for a combination of
reasons: The market underinvests both
because of the inapprophability of the
fruits of R&D and because Greenhouse
gases are "public goods" that are
underpriced in the market.
The major areas that require
significant government support are basic
and applied research on energy
technologies to replace fossil-fuel use.
Particularly promising here are "clean"
nuclear power, solar energy, and energy
conservation.
• Third, take "no-regret" steps to
reduce Greenhouse-gas emissions. We
should identify and accelerate those
policy measures that are otherwise
sensible and that would tend to slow
global warming. Presently languishing
on the back burner are a number of
sound policies that our Greenhouse
concerns should move to the front
burner. They would impose little cost
and would represent the first steps to
slow global warming.
Among the steps to slow Greenhouse
warming I would suggest the following:
Strengthen international agreements that
severely restrict CFCs; move to slow or
curb uneconomic deforestation; take
steps to slow the growth of fossil-fuel
use; and pursue pollution-control
strategies that emphasize combustion
efficiency (such as low-sulfur coal
instead of sulfur scrubbing).
Given the long agenda of pressing
problems apart from Greenhouse
warming, it is reasonable to stop with
the first three items. If we must go
further—perhaps because new evidence
emerges to indicate that more stringent
steps are warranted—we should go to
another policy stage:
• Impose environmental taxes on
emissions of Greenhouse gases. In order
to slow Greenhouse-gas emissions, we
should tax consumption or production
of these gases. My analysis suggests that
a tax on the order of $5 per ton of CO^
equivalent would be a reasonable
response to the future costs of climate
change. Among possible approaches, a
carbon tax would be preferable to
regulatory interventions because taxes
provide incentives to minimize the costs
of attaining a given level of
Greenhouse-gas reduction. To reap the
maximum advantage from a carbon tax,
it should be applied by all major
countries.
Some would argue that carbon taxes
actually fall in the category of sensible
economic policy. They have many
economic and environmental advantages
since they would tend to restrain fossil
fuels use, encourage R&D on non-fossil
fuels, lower oil imports, alleviate many
other environmental problems, and
reduce the trade and budget deficits.
Indeed, a carbon tax is the exceptional
tax that increases rather than reduces
economic efficiency.
Why should we not go beyond these
modest three or even four steps? The
reason is not that the costs of climate
change are insignificant. Rather, these
steps must suffice given the immense
call upon our resources and the limited
scope for diverting investment to
preventing climate change. Slowing
climate change is but one contender for
our investment resources—along with
factories and equipment, training and
education, health and hospitals,
research and development, housing, and
other environmental concerns. Given
our urgent needs in other areas, I
believe the modest proposal laid out
above is a sensible goal for the next few
years.
However, whatever steps are taken,
my main advice would be as follows:
Climate change is unwelcome, but steps
to slow climate change are not free.
Don't forget that humans have the
capacity to inflict great damage on
themselves through ill-designed
economic and regulatory schemes, as
the Communist experiment clearly
shows. Gather information, move
cautiously, and fashion policies flexibly
so that you can throttle them up or
down as new information becomes
available, n
Coal, widely used as an energy source, is also one of the world's foremost sources of
carbon-dioxide emissions. The at1 .nor raises the prospect of carbon taxes if necessary
to reduce emissions of this Greenhouse gas.
Mike Bfisson photo
MARCH/APRIL 1990
45
-------
A Skeptic Speaks Out
by Richard S. Lindzen
Amidst (he present thoughtful
approaches to the purported coming
global warming, one cannot help feeling
that expressing doubts about the
phenomenon is in distinctly poor taste.
Risking this, I will nonetheless proceed.
There is, superficially, a basis for
expecting Greenhouse warming.
However, it is not evident that a few
degrees' warming would indeed
constitute a catastrophe. In the absence
of an atmosphere, the Earth would have
an average temperature of about -18
degrees Celsius. The actual average
temperatun; is 15 "G. The difference is
due to the presence of Greenhouse
substances in the atmosphere.
Of these substances, the most
important by far are water vapor and
layer clouds. There are also minor
Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide
(CO;,), methane, nitrous oxide, and
chlorofluorocarbons, and these are
known to bo increasing in
concentration. It seems only reasonable
that the increase in these gases will lead
to warming, and this suspicion is
supported by complex computer models
(Dr. I.imf/rn is Sloun Professor of
Meteorology tit Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.)
which predict that a doubling of CO2
will lead to warming of about 1.5 to
5 "C. The lower value does not seem
overly worrisome, but the larger value
might be quite noticeable.
As reasonable as the above scenario
may seem, there are serious reasons for
believing that it represents a very
substantial exaggeration. There are also
The Greenhouse Effect is so
powerful that the Earth wisely
finds more efficient ways to
cool its surface.
ample reasons for believing that most
viable strategies for mitigating a
warming trend would have little impact
on global temperature, regardless of
which scenario one believes. Moreover,
the present sense of urgency concerning
such actions is supported by few facts.
In discussing doubts about the
warming scenario, it is difficult to know
where to begin. However, a useful start
might be to note that the Greenhouse
Effect as it actually operates for the
Earth is neither simple nor
straightforward. The Earth is, as already
noted, warmer than it would be in the
absence of Greenhouse substances.
However, if the Earth's surface were
restricted to cooling only by radiating
Christopher J Johns photo
heat away from the planet (as
represented in most explanations of the
Greenhouse Effect), then the Earth
would have an average temperature of
77 "C, given present concentrations of
Greenhouse substances.
But the Greenhouse Effect is so
powerful that the Earth wisely finds
more efficient ways to cool its surface.
For example, by means of air currents in
cumulus clouds, storm systems, and
large-scale circulations, it transports
heat from regions of large
Greenhouse-heat absorption (near the
ground, and in tropical latitudes) to
regions of much-reduced absorption
(higher altitudes and latitudes), thus
short-circuiting over 75 percent of the
Greenhouse Effect.
Present climate models do not
reproduce the intensity and distribution
of these air currents adequately. As a
result, they would, without gross
adjustments, fail to predict the present
temperature of the Earth. Even with
such adjustments, however, the models
still are likely to fail to properly
apportion cooling between radiation and
motion. The use of such models to
predict the future seems unwise at best.
The situation is further complicated
in that present models predict that the
•it,
EPA JOURNAL
-------
One point at issue in the Greenhouse
debate is how the oceans, with their vast
capacity to hold heat, may affect
global-warming scenarios.
warming from simply doubling CO2 is
very modest (between 0.6 and 1.2 °C).
The larger predictions come from
so-called "positive feedbacks"—effects
of global warming that would in turn
exacerbate the warming trend. In the
models, any warming is accompanied
by increased water vapor, increased
upper-level clouds, and decreased sea
ice and snow—all of which act to
amplify the warming.
Much scientific debate centers on the
reality—or lack thereof—of these
feedbacks. Model experiments show that
small changes in the specifications of
clouds can turn a positive feedback into
a negative feedback. The standard
equations for water vapor show that
warming is indeed accompanied by
increased water vapor near the ground;
however, these equations also show that
warming would be accompanied by
decreased water vapor above about four
miles.
As noted above, air currents
short-circuit Greenhouse absorbers
(especially water vapor) near the
ground. Calculations performed at
NASA show that water vapor above four
miles is 100 to 1,000 times more
effective (molecule for molecule) in
determining surface temperature than is
water vapor near the ground. Thus, the
distinct possibility exists that the
positive feedbacks could turn out to be
negative and could actually reduce the
already small direct response to
increased CO2. This is one vital area
where we can reasonably expect much
improved information within a few
years.
Data from the last 100 years support
the suspicion that existing models are
exaggerating the predicted warming.
The point here is that models which
predict future warming on the order of
4.5 °C from a doubling of CO2 also
"predict" warming over the last century
on the order of 2 "C. A warming of 2 "C
has not occurred over the last hundred
years. However, there is presently much
debate over whether the temperature
records over the past century indicate a
warming of 0.5 "C or not. Such warming
does appear in the land-based record for
the globe; however, the warming mostly
occurs before 1940, before the bulk of
industrial additions of minor
Greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Some scientists have noted that this
warming may simply be a natural
rebound from the "little ice age" of the
18th century. Others have noted that it
could be an artificial result of poor
sampling. Still others have noted that
this record has not been adequately
corrected for the temperature distortions
characteristic of urbanization. Indeed,
the temperature record for the
continental United States—which has
been carefully corrected for urbanization
effects—does not show such warming.
Finally, since fluctuations on the order
of 0.5 °C occur from year to year within
any climate record, the observed trend
is still indistinguishable from normal
climatic variability. Of course, all this
debate obscures the obvious fact that 0.5
°C is less than the models suggest we
should be seeing.
A possible explanation is that the
oceans, with their huge heat capacity,
may be delaying the warming. However,
one model which has a sufficient
adjustment for delay to be compatible
with a warming of only 0.5 "C is
grossly at odds with present
oceanographic data. Moreover, the delay
in this model is so great that even the
4.5 "C warming predicted for a doubling
of CO2 would be delayed for more than
100 years. Another model with a more
reasonable specification of ocean delay
predicts that we should have already
seen a 1 "C warming. This model could
be made compatible with a 0.5 "C
warming only by eliminating almost all
positive feedback factors. If, as seems
entirely likely, even the 0.5 "C warming
is an artifact, then this model would
have to be still further adjusted to
reflect negative feedbacks.
Where then does this leave us? At the
very least, it leaves us with an
unobserved phenomenon predicted by
models operating beyond the limits of
their credibility. For the reasons I have
sketched, I feel there are substantial
grounds for believing that any warming
that may occur will actually be much
smaller than predicted by current
models. In either case, there is little
basis for implementing draconian
policy—especially if the nominally
disastrous consequences of warming
have also been exaggerated.
What about policies which are less
than draconian? Should we not do at
least something in case warming should
prove to be a more serious problem than
I am suggesting? Can there be any harm
in implementing policies that should be
implemented anyway? In answer to
these questions, it must be understood
that, according to those models which
predict large warming, there is little that
any non-draconian policy could do
which would lead to significant
mitigation. Under the circumstances, it
is misleading to attach these policies to
the problem of global warming. This is
particularly dangerous for policies that
are independently virtuous. The harm
done in attaching such policies to
warming is simply that it allows these
policies to be discredited for irrelevant
reasons.
In light of the above analysis, one
may reasonably ask how the issue of
global warming has generated such
dramatic concern. At least part of the
answer must lie in the fact that the
Greenhouse hypothesis fits conveniently
into the agenda of many groups who see
that fear of this illusive phenomenon
may help generate support for a wide
range of activities. The dangers of this
situation are evident, a
MARCH/APRIL 1990
47
-------
Industry's Position
One View
by Michael Redemer
In the United States, deliveries of motor
gasoline from tank farms such as this
currently total more than 288 million
gallons each day. Gasoline and other
fossil-based fuels could contribute to global
warming.
(Redemer is Coordinator for Air Quality
Program, Texaco Inc., and also
Chairman of the Global Climate Task
Force, American Petroleum Institute.)
The atmospheric concentration of
infra-red absorbing Greenhouse gases
has been increasing since the industrial
revolution. That incontestable fact is
responsible for widespread concern over
global warming. But its actual
implications for the Earth's future
climate and, more importantly, for the
quality of human life, are unknown
today. Current understanding of the
forces influencing climate is inadequate
to enable anyone to predict with any
degree of confidence the magnitude,
timing, and geographical distribution of
future climate change.
That may seem to be a harsh
judgment, but it is true. Even the best
current computer models cannot
accurately describe the Earth's climate.
They cannot even reproduce the historic
behavior of its average temperature over
the past few centuries, to whatever
extent that crude, ill-defined, and
poorly measured proxy is known. That
failure is not surprising, because climate
is affected by a multitude of interactions
among not only solar radiation and
atmospheric gases, but also oceans,
clouds, ice, vegetation, human and
animal activity, and such wild cards as
volcanic eruptions, varying solar
activity, and long-term changes in the
Earth's rotation. But it calls into
question any far-reaching conclusions
about the inevitability, magnitude, and
effects of, and appropriate responses to,
global warming.
Climate scientists agree that
increasing concentrations of Greenhouse
gases, looked at in isolation, would tend
to increase the average global
temperature. But it is still an open
question, unanswerable by even the
most advanced of today's climate
models, how all the other factors
involved in determining climate modify
the rate and magnitude of the
Greenhouse Effect. Even if the answer to
that question were known, it would not
tell us the significance of global
warming for human life, which depends
not on global average figures, but on
changes in local climate. And current
climate models are in glaring
Texaco. Inc., photo.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
disagreement with each other when they
try to describe the geographical
distribution of the effects of global
warming.
Certainly, some effects of global
warming might be negative—rising sea
levels and worse prospects for some
crops in some places. But others could
be positive—more CO2 and higher
temperatures encourage plant growth,
and people in cold regions might enjoy
milder winters. In short, the effects are
uncertain but almost certainly mixed.
That means that global warming, as
matters«stand today, poses not a
well-defined and imminent threat but
rather a classic problem in public
policy, where far-reaching decisions
must be made in the absence of
definitive information. Until we possess
a far better understanding of climate
than is the case today, it is surely
premature to rush to make drastic and
expensive changes in existing social and
economic structures in the hope that
their uncertain climatic benefits will
exceed their costs.
Because some results of global
warming might require changes in
patterns of human habitation,
agriculture, and lifestyle, concern is
certainly appropriate. But the world is
full of phenomena that call for concern.
Sensible policymaking must go beyond
concern to a realistic assessment of the
likely magnitude of the problem and its
relative urgency, accompanied by sober
analysis of the options available to deal
with it.
Some people argue that such a
measured approach does not face up to
the problem of climate change. Ignoring
the fact that the magnitude of the
problem is unknown, they maintain that
its potential threat makes it imperative
for the United States to reduce
drastically its use of fossil fuels. A short
examination of that proposal, however,
shows that it would have little positive
effect but carries major drawbacks. Its
potential is quite limited because the
United States now produces only 20
percent of total world CO2 emissions, a
fraction that is likely to diminish as the
third world continues to industrialize.
And on the negative side, forcing a
major reduction in fossil-fuel use would
be enormously expensive.
A recent study by Alan Manne of
Stanford University and Richard Richels
of the Electric Power Research Institute
found, for example, that holding CO2
emissions constant from 1990 to 2000
and then reducing them by 20 percent
over the next 20 years would cost the
United States about 3 percent of its
national income—a sum comparable to
cold war defense budgets.
But William Nordhaus of Yale has
estimated the identifiable costs to the
United States of a 3-degree Celsius
increase in the 21st century (a figure
typically cite'd by those who forecast a
Greenhouse warming), taking into
account effects on agriculture, sea-level
rise, and increased demand for cooling
energy and other goods and services,
and arrived at a figure of only 0.25
percent of national income. In short,
even if it is assumed that the costs of
global warming may be considerably
higher than Nordhaus has calculated, a
strategy of preventing the warming by
drastically reducing energy use is
unlikely to be cost-effective.
Economic studies like these suggest
that in many cases, strategies of
accommodation to climate change may
be more appropriate than those aimed at
preventing it. That is a conclusion in
accord with common sense and a
historical perspective. The human race
has a long record of coping with
climatic variation, and over time, its
ability to cope has grown immensely.
As Thomas Schelling of Harvard points
out, in 1860 only 2 percent of
Americans lived outside temperate or
subtropical zones, but by 1980, 22
percent did. The ability to cope has
improved along with growing wealth
and access to ever-advancing
technology, a trend that is likely to
continue.
If the Earth's temperature were to
increase by a few degrees, the sea level
were to rise, and more monsoons were
to occur in the tropics, then the people
living there would be better able to cope
if they were economically better off,
better housed, and more mobile than
they are today. Using limited
investment funds to produce that
economic growth is more in their
interest than spending it on expensive
ways to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact,
economic growth will help them
regardless of whether global warming
occurs or not, because it will make them
more able to cope even with today's
climate.
That does not mean that we should
not also take specific actions with the
potential to reduce future global
warming if they are sensible in their
own right. For example, efficient ways
of reducing CO2 emissions do exist: One
simple way is to encourage the use of
natural gas in applications where it is
cheaper than other fossil fuels. And it
may prove practical in additional ways
to reduce other Greenhouse gases. For
example, emissions of CFCs, which
absorb infrared radiation much more
intensely than CO2, will automatically
decline as a consequence of the recently
adopted agreement that resulted from
international discussions. And
reforestation may present the possibility
of increasing absorption of CO2.
Furthermore, advances in technology
occurring on a wide variety of fronts are
likely to improve our ability to mitigate
the consequences of global warming.
For example, genetic engineering
techniques have the potential to develop
plant strains that are able to cope with
conditions of temperature and rainfall
different from those that have occurred
in the past. In short, emphasizing
human problem-solving ability is likely
to prove a more fruitful approach than
fearing the worst and closing options.
Taking a truly global view suggests
that both the United States and the
world will be better off if our global
warming agenda avoids apocalyptic
rhetoric and concentrates on the
threefold approach of intensified,
high-quality research, cost-effective
action, and international cooperation, o
MARCH/APRIL 1990
49
-------
Industry's Position
Another View
by Margaret G. Kerr
There is little doubt that concern is
growing about the environmental
dangers of the Greenhouse Effect. But,
so far, the sheer magnitude of the
problem has meant that any solutions
are necessarily piecemeal. While
collective effort is ultimately required,
the first step requires each industry to
acknowledge its individual role in
creating the problem. The second step is
to accept responsibility for eliminating
future pollution by developing new
manufacturing techniques that are
environmentally benign.
Over the past two years, Northern
Telecom, a Toronto-based
telecommunications company^ has
tackled the challenges of one
Greenhouse-related issue: the reduction
and elimination of chemicals that both
destroy the ozone layer and contribute
to the Greenhouse Effect.
Expressed in the simplest terms, the
ozone layer is being attacked by
chlorine and bromine derived from
chlorofluorocarbon compounds (CFCs)
rising into the stratosphere. As a direct
result, the chemical destruction of the
ozone layer allows ultraviolet rays to
reach ground level, where they present
a danger to all living organisms.
While the electronics industry
accounts for only 16 percent of
worldwide CFC use, the consequences
of ozone depletion and the Greenhouse
Effect demand effective, long-term
solutions from all quarters. In July 1988,
Northern Telecom started a
comprehensive program to eliminate
CFC-113 cleaning solvents from its 42
manufacturing plants worldwide.
Today, the company is more than
halfway toward reaching its goal of total
(Dr. Kerr is Vice-President for
Environment, Health, and Safety at
Northern Telecom Limited.]
elimination and expects to be
100-percent free of CFC-113 by the end
of 1991, well before any regulatory
obligation to do so. Northern Telecom
was the first company in the electronics
industry to announce a program to
completely phase out CFC-113.
Northern Telecom's experience in this
specific area of environmental
problem-solving has taught us some
practical lessons that may be useful to
other industries confronting the need to
reduce Greenhouse-gas emissions
worldwide.
After 18 months we have
achieved a 50-percent
reduction in CFC use—right on
target.
From Northern Telecom's perspective,
there are three general thrusts that must
underpin any successful industry
program.
• There must be management
commitment to change at the highest
levels of the organization. Companies
must adopt a "fast-track" management
approach and give their environmental
experts the mandate to devise
innovative solutions. In our case, the
driving force of our CFC program is a
senior executive of the corporation.
• Companies must actively encourage
and support suppliers in their efforts to
develop products and services that do
not harm the environment. That means,
among other things, being willing to
allow suppliers access to the company's
plants and investing in pilot projects
using alternative technologies and
processes.
• Companies must foster better
cooperation between their
manufacturing and environmental
engineers—internally and
externally—by building partnerships
with public and private organizations.
Our involvement in the Industry
Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection
(ICOLP) is one example of such
partnerships among companies.
ICOLP, a consortium of nine of the
largest North American electronics
companies, will be making available the
latest information on CFC alternatives
through seminars, databases, and
technical reports. Although several
ICOLP companies are competitors, they
share the common cause of finding
alternatives to CFC-113.
Before Northern Telecom could make
real progress toward CFC elimination,
there were several obstacles to
overcome. For example, amassing
resources across a decentralized
corporation with global operations
presented some formidable
organizational challenges.
In our experience, people are not
motivated by policy statements alone.
The key message—the need to reduce
CFC-113 use—was communicated
effectively in various company forums
and media.
The first task was to collect
information to support the position that
changes in operating practices were
needed. We conducted a company-wide
survey to assess the volume and costs of
our CFC use. Our 1987 purchases of
CFCs were approximately 1 million
kilograms—of which 97 percent was
CFC-113, used principally for cleaning
printed circuit boards and wiring
assemblies.
The next step was a two-day CFC
seminar involving senior technical
experts, representatives from EPA and
Environment Canada, and several
consultants. As a result of these
meetings, our efforts became focused on
three key areas: conservation options,
longer-term alternatives to CFC-113, and
outreach programs to other companies
and organizations.
Drawing on the results of our survey
and the full support of senior
50
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Nonhein Telecom p/iofo
management, our team of environmental
specialists and engineers began to work
closely with representatives in each
company facility.
After 18 months we have achieved a
50-percent reduction in CFC use—right
on target. An 80- to 85-percent
reduction appears to be attainable in the
near future: We will achieve this by
improving our conservation techniques
and investing in alternative "no-clean"
manufacturing technology. (No-clean
technology is a soldering process that
dramatically reduces the amount of
residue or flux on the printed circuit
board, thus eliminating the need for
CFC-based cleaning solvents.) The plan
is to eliminate the remaining 15 percent
through more experimental concepts
currently under evaluation.
As part of our outreach program,
Northern Telecom presented a report on
the development of CFC solvent
substitutes in the electronics industry at
an October 1988 workshop hold by the
United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) in The Hague, Netherlands.
Our participation in The Hague
workshop led to an invitation to become
a working member of the UNEP
Solvents Technical Options Committee.
This committee was formed in response
to provisions in the 1987 Montreal
Protocol, the CFC-reduction agreement
now ratified by more than 50 countries.
The committee's recently published
report describes, for various industries,
the technical progress made through
mid-1989 in reducing CFC solvents and
in finding alternatives.
By providing test materials and
engineers, Northern Telecom was also a
key participant in a joint initiative
involving industry, the U.S. Department
of Defense, and EPA. This initiative is
expected to result in the rewriting of
U.S. military specifications for the
cleaning of printed circuit boards and
wiring assemblies to permit the use of
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113.
Northern Telecom has written and
co-published with EPA a manual on
CFC-solvent management practices. The
manual is now being provided to small-
and medium-sized users of CFC-1 13.
Additionally, our experts are routinely
participating in technology-transfer
seminars around the world.
We are frequently asked at these
seminars, "What are the costs of such
initiatives?" To date, savings on reduced
CFC consumption are impressive. Our
reductions in CFC-113 represent $1.5
million in direct savings. In addition,
we have also saved on approximately $1
million in CFC consumption taxes,
which are now being imposed in the
Northern Telecom uses a new soldering
process, called "no-clean" technology, that
reduces the amount of residue or "flux" on
printed circuit boards. This eliminates the
need for cleaning with CFC-based solvents.
United States. In the final analysis, our
CFC elimination program is not a factor
in either improving or detracting from
our competitive performance. We have
accelerated some capital-spending
programs, but these costs are more than
offset by money saved using less
CFC-113.
We believe, however, that as
consumers become more sensitive to
environmental concerns, a heightened
awareness of these issues will prove to
be a competitive advantage.
While Northern Telecom has achieved
measurable results with CFCs, the
challenges in other areas will require
even more concerted, sustained effort to
change entrenched attitudes and instill
new corporate values with respect to the
environment. The Greenhouse Effect has
global implications, and, as such,
requires solutions involving an
unprecedented level of international
cooperation among governments,
industry, environmental groups, and
affected sectors of society.
To date, scientists, governments, ami
environmental groups have been in the
vanguard in identifying the problems
associated with the Greenhouse Effect.
These organizations have pressed ior
sense of urgency and corporate
responsibility in finding effective
solutions. As the engine driving
economic growth, the industrial sector
faces hard decisions about the
production methods that provide the
goods and services associated with our
current standard of living.
To fulfill our responsibilities, industry
must now demonstrate sustained
environmental loader-ship. Individual
companies can contribute by serving as
catalysts for fundamental changes in
manufacturing practices and
philosophies. That, in our view, is the
real measure of leadership. 0
MARCH/APRIL 1990
-------
The Challenge
Facing the Developing World
by Mohan Munasinghe
Developing countries share the
worldwide concerns about
environmental degradation; some have
already started to bring management of
their natural resources in line with the
goal of sustaining their economic
development. However, these countries
also face urgent issues like poverty,
hunger, and disease, as well as rapid
population growth and high
expectations.
The paucity of resources available to
address all these problems reduces the
ability of developing countries to
contribute to the protection of the global
commons. The crucial dilemma is how
to reconcile development and the
elimination of poverty—which require
increased use of energy and raw
materials—with stewardship of the
environment. The per-capita GNP of
low-income countries, which include
half the world population, averaged
$290 in 1987, or less than one sixtieth
the U.S. per-capita GNP of $18,530. In
the two largest developing countries,
India and China, per-capita GNP was
$300 and $290, respectively.
Correspondingly, the U.S. per-capita
energy consumption of 7,265
kilograms-of-oil-equivalent in 1987 was
35 and 15 times greater, respectively,
than the same statistic in India and
China.
Economic growth has already placed a
heavy burden on humankind's natural
resource base; fossil fuel carbon-dioxide
(C02) accumulation in the atmosphere is
a good example. Developed countries
accounted for more than 80 percent of
(Munasinghe is Chief of The Worid
Bank's Environmental Policy and
Research Division. Until recently, he
also served as Senior Advisor to the
President of Sri Lanka.J
this accumulation in the period 1950 to
1986. On a per-capita basis, they
emitted more than 11 times the
cumulative CO2 as developing countries.
The letter's share would be even smaller
if emissions prior to 1950 were
included. Clearly, any growth scenario
for developing nations that followed the
same material-intensive path as the
industrialized world would result in
unacceptably high levels of
Greenhouse-gas accumulation as well as
a general depletion of natural resources.
In the area of policy reform,
especially pricing, developing
countries are showing a
greater willingness to use
market forces more
effectively.
Scientific analysis has provided only
broad and rather uncertain predictions
about the degree and timing of global
warming. However, it is generally
accepted that mankind would be
prudent to buy an "insurance policy" in
the form of mitigatory actions to reduce
Greenhouse-gas emissions.
Ironically, environmental degradation
might affect developing countries more
severely since they depend more on
natural resources while at the same time
they lack the economic strength to
prevent or respond quickly to such
problems as flooding, drought, and soil
erosion. From their viewpoint, an
attractive insurance premium would be
a set of inexpensive measures that
would address a range of national and
global environmental issues without
hampering development efforts.
However, the adoption of mitigatory
measures to reduce Greenhouse
warming that went beyond their own
immediate economic interests would
constitute crossing a definite "pain
threshold."
In the area of policy reform,
especially pricing, developing countries
are showing a greater willingness to use
market forces more effectively.
Typically, by raising the subsidized
price of a scarce resource like energy to
reflect real economic costs, it is possible
to signal to consumers that this resource
is valuable and should be conserved.
Further, governments could take steps
to protect the environment in cases
where market forces have not worked.
One example is the overuse of a
common resource, such as the excessive
discharge of noxious gases into the air.
Here, restructuring the market to make
the polluter pay or limit the discharges
is essential.
Improved natural-resource
management also requires laws that go
beyond the short-term concerns of
political leaders. Implementation of
environmental regulations is a serious
problem, too, requiring cooperation
among public and private organizations
with multi-disciplinary teams. Finally,
enlightening the public is necessary if
citizens are to participate actively in
making and implementing
environmentally sound decisions.
Economic efficiency is critical in
obtaining the maximum value from the
scarce resources of a developing
country's economy. When market
incentives are brought to bear, and the
costs of growth-related environmental
damage are considered, economic
efficiency can help to protect the
environment as well. Energy issues are
especially illustrative, because energy is
a primary cause of the current global
ecological crisis, and in most
developing countries, energy use is
growing rapidly. In many, energy is
wasted. For example, more than one
third of electricity generated is often
lost before reaching consumers; an
acceptable norm might be less than one
tenth. Devices ranging from
sophisticated industrial boilers to
simple woodstoves consume fuel
inefficiently. Energy policies aimed at
improving methods of supply, managing
demand, and encouraging end-use
conservation could lead to simultaneous
gains in efficiency, conservation, and
environmental protection.
Particularly in rural areas, which in
developing countries contain more than
70 percent of the population, per-capita
energy consumption is low, and
potentially profitable energy uses are
constrained by lack of supply. In such
cases, it may be necessary to promote
energy consumption in order to raise
output and incomes. Other social goals
52
EPA JOURNAL
-------
complicate the decision-making process
even further. For example, most
countries want to satisfy the basic needs
of their citizens, especially the
low-income populations. In the energy
sector, this may have to be achieved by
providing a minimum of energy to all
families at a price that is well below its
economic cost.
Several proposals have been made for
setting up a global environmental fund
to help developing countries, and some
industrialized countries have indicated
their willingness to contribute.
Currently, discussions are under way to
define criteria and mechanisms for both
generating and disbursing funds from
such a fund. While agreement will not
be easy to reach, global financing might
be approached in terms of several
criteria: affordability or "pain threshold"
considerations, fairness or "equity," and
economic efficiency.
Developing countries cannot afford to
finance their existing energy-supply
needs. Assuming 4.5 percent annual
economic growth and a continuation of
techno-economic trends, the power
sector capital requirements alone could
average $100 billion annually in the
1990s, compared to the $50 to 60 billion
being spent currently, of which less
than $10 billion is official foreign aid.
Even though better management could
reduce this burden significantly, some
growth in energy use is inevitable. The
adoption of pollution-abatement policies
that further increase energy
Non-mechanized farming in Sri Lanka uses little fuel. However, as agriculture
modernizes here and in other developing countries, energy use and pollution will
increase.
MARCH/APRIL 1990
World Bank photo
costs—thereby crossing the "pain
threshold"—will not be feasible without
external funding. Further, such
assistance should be additional to
existing conventional aid received by
developing countries.
In terms of the global commons, the
fairness criterion recognizes that
historically, growth in the industrialized
countries emphasized needs rather than
resource limitations. Development of
these societies exhausted a
disproportionately high share of global
resources, including physical resources
consumed in productive activity, as
well as the waste-absorbing capability of
the global ecosystem. Indeed, this
resource-intensive historical growth
pattern suggests that developed
countries owe an "environmental debt"
to the larger global community.
Applying this criterion could help
determine how remaining global
resources might be shared equitably and
used sustainably.
The final consideration is economic
efficiency. To the extent that global
environmental costs of human activity
can be quantified, the "polluter pays"
principle may be applied to generate
revenues. If total emission limits are
established under a permit system, then
emission permit trading among nations
and other market mechanisms could
help increase efficiency.
Pressures to address environmental
issues, especially global ones, place a
severe burden on developing countries.
Even with additional external
assistance, the near-term response
cannot extend much beyond sound
economic management of natural
resources that is consistent with both
developmental and environmental goals.
Thus, the energy policies of these
countries in the 1990s are likely to
focus mainly on conventional supply
efficiency improvements, pricing,
demand management, and end-use
conservation.
The developed countries, particularly
the United States, can facilitate this
process by providing financial and
technical assistance based on the
principles described above. They can
also show leadership by trading some
growth for improved environmental
quality and pioneering the use of
advanced technologies that will usher in
the less material-intensive economies of
the future. The example set by
industrialized countries would help
convince the developing countries to
undertake more costly abatement
measures and cross this "pain
threshold" early in the 21st century, a
53
-------
Western Know-How
Can Help
by Jack Vanderryn
Many of the most serious impacts of
global climate change will occur in
developing countries. These countries
are much more dependent for their
economic well-being on natural
resources and natural systems (for
example, agriculture, fisheries, forests,
and grazing lands) than the
industrialized world, and these systems
in turn are heavily dependent on
climate.
Yet in many developing countries
both people and ecosystems already
lead a perilous existence. Furthermore,
the poorer countries lack the financial,
technical, institutional, and human
resources to make the costly and
difficult changes that adapting to
climate change would require. Finally,
many developing countries are
particularly vulnerable to floods,
droughts, tornadoes, rising sea levels (a
large fraction of their population lives
in coastal areas and this will increase in
the future), and other weather events
that could increase in severity with
further increases in emissions of
Greenhouse gases.
Economic growth, while it means
heavier energy demand, potentially
greater pollution, and in>*reased natural
resource use, is nevertheless the most
effective response developing countries
have to combat climate change.
Economic growth means increased
capability to implement new options
and increased resiliency to change. It
can provide opportunities to increase
energy production and use while
minimizing Greenhouse-gas production,
invest in pollution-control technologies,
A major global
energy-efficiency initiative,
involving both developed and
developing countries, is
neede
and adopt improved agricultural
practices which reduce natural resource
degradation. But this will require
increased collaboration between
industrialized and developing countries
and increased foreign assistance to
markedly increase the efficiency of
energy production and use and to
improve forest management, step up
tree planting, and foster agricultural
practices that would enhance crop
production on existing lands and thus
reduce forest destruction. The need for
improved energy and natural resource
policies, always critical in developing
countries, has increased since concerns
arose over the Greenhouse Effect.
Much of what developing countries
must do to meet the global climate
change challenge is not new. Foreign
assistance programs have already
resulted in more realistic pricing of
energy and improved efficiency and
management of energy systems; in
addition, research has been sponsored
on more sustainable agricultural
systems. But much more needs to be
done and can be done. Sound use of
energy, plus sustainable natural
resource and environmental
management, must pervade all aspects
of foreign aid programs. A key
component in efforts to achieve both
goals will be technology transfer: the
transfer from the developed world to the
developing world of ecologically
advanced technologies and the
Nathan Benn phoro Woodfrn Camp, Inc
(Vunderrvn is the Director/or Energy
and Natural Resources «l Iho U.S.
Agency for International Development.
54
EPA JOURNAL
-------
know-how to make them work.
Energy Efficiency
Energy production and use is the single
largest contributor to global warming.
Currently, developing countries' energy
systems—electricity production, heat
and mechanical energy generation (for
example, for industrial processing and
water pumping), and transportation—all
depend heavily on fossil fuels,
principally coal and oil. Significant
efficiency improvements in these energy
systems are possible particularly
because many of them are outdated and
their performance has deteriorated.
A major global energy-efficiency
initiative, involving both developed and
developing countries, is needed. Targets
for such an initiative span a wide
spectrum—from the highly inefficient
woodburning cookstove used by almost
2 billion people in developing countries
to coal-burning power plants and
electrical transmission lines. The fuel
efficiency of the millions of automobiles
and trucks in use, and the efficiency of
industrial plants in developing
countries that manufacture cement,
steel, or chemical products, can be
greatly improved with existing
techniques and technology. Woodstoves
are now available which can improve
energy efficiency by a factor of six (from
5 percent to 30 percent) while providing
the same amount of useful heat for
cooking. The efficiency of industrial
processes in many developing countries
can be readily improved by 15-30
percent through good "housekeeping"
A car factory in Pupyang, South
Korea. As countries industrialize
and gain the symbols of
affluence, must they repeat the
pollution history of the West?
measures (insulating piping, repairing
steam leaks, installing controls, etc.) and
the installation of more efficient boilers,
heat exchangers, and similar devices.
The additional cost of such equipment
can often be paid off in one to three
years from savings in fuel costs.
Improved efficiency in developing
countries' transportation systems can
result from improved operations and
maintenance of vehicles. Increased
availability of equipment for
maintenance, such as spare parts and
engine test equipment would help
significantly. Buildings can be more
effectively designed to use less energy
for lighting, heating, and cooling. Based
on technology transfer from the United
States and elsewhere, developing
countries have begun to improve some
of their commercial buildings. It is
possible to design a large
air-conditioned office building in a
tropical environment which uses only
half as much energy as a "standard"
air-conditioned building in the same
city. (An example is the PC] Resource
Center in Jamaica, designed with
support from the U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID) and
opened in 1986.)
To reduce Third World dependency
on high Greenhouse gas-emitting fuels
such as coal and oil, a major assistance
effort needs to be undertaken to
accelerate the use of natural gas, which
produces less CO2 per unit of useful
energy output, and the use of renewable
energy sources such as photovoltaics
(which convert sunlight directly to
electricity), wind, solar, and geothermal
energy, all of which produce no CO2. In
addition, burning biomass (such as the
residues from sugar and rice
production) to produce heat and
electricity yields no net CO2 since
biomass absorbs CO2 in its growing
cycle and returns it to the atmosphere
when burned.
But thorough public education and
training programs, coupled with local
and national campaigns to promote
energy efficiency, are essential for any
efforts in energy-related technology
transfer. To raise awareness, there will
be a need for stronger national and local
institutions, more competent manpower,
increased availability of information,
and a vigorous training program so that
all levels of society—from farmers to
schoolchildren, from teachers to
high-ranking public
officials—understand the significance of
environmentally sound development
and both the technologies and the
everyday practices that make it possible.
One way of getting started is to establish
energy-efficiency organizations in both
the private sector and the government.
AID, the U.S. foreign assistance agency,
has already helped initiate such efforts.
For example, it supported setting up an
energy-efficiency group in the Ministry
of Energy in Pakistan, and it helped
establish a professional society of
energy auditors in the Philippines.
Natural Resource Management
In the realm of natural resource
management, there is a pressing need to
increase investments in developing
forestry management systems and
technologies that can help protect
forests while simultaneously deriving
economic benefits from them for people
in the rural areas. We need more efforts
to identify and develop new tree species
and learn more about the environments
they need to grow best.
Some technologies and management
systems are evolving that can help
increase tree cover and increase and
sustain agricultural production while
helping to protect and manage natural
resources. These include:
• Community forestry, in which local
populations manage forest areas for
sustained yields, prune and harvest
trees for wood, graze livestock, and
harvest non-wood forest products such
MARCH/APRIL 1990
55
-------
as nuts and plant materials for
medicinal purposes.
• Agroforestry, in which fast-growing
and nitrogen-fixing trees are
intercropped with food crops in order to
produce sustained yields of food, forage,
and wood.
• Alley-cropping, an agroforestry
system in which hedgerows of
fast-growing and nitrogen-fixing trees or
shrubs are planted on the slopes
between which food crops are grown.
This helps to stabilize the soil, while
the leaves from the trees or shrubs are
mixed into the soil.
The development of management
systems and technologies such as these
will reduce the need to clear forest land
for food crops, and the increased tree
planting will increase the absorption of
GO2 from the atmosphere. A significant
expansion of tropical forestry research is
being planned by the international
forestry and agricultural community, to
be supported by donor agencies.
Population
Another priority action that developing
countries should take to help minimize
climate change is already fundamental
The United Nations estimates
that by the year 2025, the
world will grow from its
present 5.3 billion people to
between 7.6 and 9.4 billion.
to their development agenda: reducing
their rate of population growth through
voluntary family planning and
improved birth-control technologies.
Third World environmental degradation
is accelerated by rapidly increasing
populations destroying forests to clear
land for additional food, using
pesticides excessively and thus
polluting water resources, etc. The
United Nations estimates that by the
year 2025, the world will grow from its
present 5.3 billion people to between
7.6 and 9.4 billion. And 90 percent of
that growth will take place in
developing countries.
The United States has been the world
leader in providing family-planning
assistance to developing countries and
supporting research on new and
improved contraceptive technologies to
make available to them (e.g., the
Norplant subdermal implant, a new
To build a future that is
environmentally and
economically sound,
collaboration between the
industrialized and
developing countries
seems essential. Shown is
an alarm clock factory in
Anshan, Manchuria.
Audrey Topping photo Photo Researchers
copper IUD with a six-year lifetime, and
improved injectable contraceptives).
U.S. organizations are also providing
assistance in contraceptive
manufacturing (e.g., condom production
in China and IUD production in India).
This form of technology transfer needs
to be not just continued but expanded.
Looking Ahead
Sound technologies are already
available to help minimize
Greenhouse-gas production in
developing countries, and others need
to be developed requiring additional
resources for research and development.
But for impacts to be significant, a
major collaborative undertaking between
developed and developing countries is
needed to accelerate the joint
development, transfer, and
implementation of technologies and
policies essential to stimulating their
use. This will require political
commitment in the Northern and the
Southern Hemispheres, additional
financial resources from the
industrialized world, and significant
strengthening of developing-country
institutions and their staffs. New and
innovative approaches are needed to
accelerate these efforts.
For example, establishing a major
global energy-efficiency program,
supported by an international
energy-efficiency foundation or fund or
a multi-donor coordinated effort, and
implemented through expansion of
existing national or regional centers,
would provide a major push for the
single most important area which can
reduce Greenhouse-gas emissions.
Intensified research and demonstration
of renewable energy systems is also
needed. The United States could be a
leader in stimulating such worldwide
efforts.
Most important of all is collaboration
between the industrialized and
developing countries. We share the
responsibility for a more
environmentally sound future, and thus
our agenda needs to be one of
cooperative and joint undertakings,
supported by those who can best afford
to ensure a healthier and more stable
planet for mankind, o
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Task Ahead
by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
In a recent speech to the United
Nations General Assembly,
Great Britain's Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher urged a
global effort to protect the
environment. If pollution of the
planet continues, she argued,
profits and quality of life will
suffer.
London Press Service photo. Central Office oi Intorrndlion
During his historic voyage through
the South Seas on the Beagle,
Charles Darwin landed one November
morning in 1835 on the shore of
Western Tahiti. After breakfast, he
climbed a nearby hill for a vantage
point to survey the surrounding Pacific.
The sight seemed to him like "a framed
engraving," with blue sky, blue lagoon,
and white breakers crashing against the
encircling coral reef.
As he looked out from that hillside,
he began to form his theory of the
evolution of coral. Since then, 154 years
after Darwin's visit to Tahiti, we have
added little to what he discovered.
What would he have learned as he
surveyed our planet from that altitude?
From a moon's eye view of that strange
and beautiful anomaly in our solar
system that is Earth?
Of course, we have learned much
detail about our environment as we
have looked back at the world from
space, but nothing has made a more
profound impact on us than these two
insights:
• First, as the British scientist Fred
Hoyle wrote long before space travel
was a reality, "Once a photograph of the
Earth taken from the outside is
available ... a new idea as powerful as
any other in history will be let loose,"
That powerful idea is the recognition
of our shared inheritance on this planet.
We know more clearly than ever before
that we carry common burdens, face
common problems, and must respond
with common action.
• Second, as we travel through space,
as we pass one dead planet after
another, we look back on our Earth, a
speck of life in an infinite void. It is life
itself, incomparably precious, that
distinguishes us from the other planets.
It is life itself—human life, the
innumerable species of our planet—that
we wantonly destroy. It is life itself that
we must battle to preserve.
For over 40 years, this has been the
main task of the United Nations: To
bring peace where there was war;
comfort where there was misery; life
where there was death.
The struggle has not always been
successful. There have been years of
failure. But recent events have brought
the promise of a new dawn, of new
hope. Relations between the Western
nations and the Soviet Union and her
allies, long frozen in suspicion and
hostility, have begun to thaw.
In Europe, this year, freedom has been
on the march.
In Southern Africa—Namibia and
Angola—the United Nations has
MARCH/APRIL 1990
57
-------
The challenge for our
negotiators on matters like this
is as great as for any
disarmament treaty.
succeeded in holding out better
prospects for an end to war and for the
beginning of prosperity.
And in Southeast Asia, too, we can
dare to hope for the restoration of peace
after decades of fighting.
While the conventional, political
dangers—the threat of global
annihilation, the fact of regional
war—appear to be receding, we have all
recently become aware of another
insidious danger. It is as menacing in its
way as those more accustomed perils
with which international diplomacy has
concerned itself for centuries. It is the
prospect of irretrievable damage to the
atmosphere, to the oceans, to Earth
itself.
Of course, major changes in the
Earth's climate and the environment
have taken place in earlier centuries
when the world's population was a
fraction of its present size. The causes
are to be found in nature itself—changes
in the Earth's orbit; changes in the
amount of radiation given off by the
sun; the consequential effects on the
plankton in the ocean; volcanic
processes. All these we can observe, and
some we may be able to predict. But we
do not have the power to prevent or
control them.
What we are now doing to the
world—by degrading the land surfaces,
by polluting the waters, and by adding
Greenhouse gases to the air at an
unprecedented rate—all this is new in
the experience of the Earth. Mankind
and his activities are changing the
environment of our planet in damaging
and dangerous ways.
Of course, there are examples of
environmental degradation from the
past. Indeed we may well conclude that
it was the silting up of the River
Euphrates which drove man out of the
Garden of Eden. Or consider the tragedy
of Easter Island, once covered by
primeval forests. Humans landed, the
population surged to more than 9,000,
and pressure on the island's resources
eventually left it mostly barren and
uninhabitable.
The difference now is in the scale of
the damage we are doing.
We are seeing a vast increase in the
amount of carbon dioxide (C02)
reaching the atmosphere. The annual
increase is three billion tonnes. And
half the carbon emitted since the
industrial revolution still remains in the
atmosphere.
At the same time, we are seeing the
destruction on a vast scale of tropical
forests that are uniquely able to remove
CO2 from the air.
Every year, an area of forest equal to
the whole surface of the United
Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates
of clearance, we shall, by the year 2000,
have removed 65 percent of forests in
the humid tropical zones.
The consequences of this become
clearer when one remembers that
tropical forests absorb more than 10
times as much carbon as do forests in
the temperate zones.
We how know, too, that great damage
is being done to the ozone layer by the
production of halons and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). But at least
we have recognized that reducing and
eventually stopping the emission of
CFCs is one positive thing we can do
about the menacing accumulation of
Greenhouse gases.
It is true, of course, that none of us
would be here but for the Greenhouse
Effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere
that sustains life on Earth. We need the
Greenhouse Effect—but only in the right
proportions.
When I was born, the world's
population was some 2 billion. My
grandson will grow up in a world of
more than 6 billion. Put in its bluntest
form, the main threat to our
environment is more and more
people—and their activities:
• The land they cultivate ever more
intensively
• The forests they cut down and burn
• The mountain sides they lay bare
• The fossil fuels they burn
• The rivers and seas they pollute.
The result is that future change is
likely to be more fundamental and more
widespread than anything we have
known hitherto: change to the sea
around us, change to the atmosphere
above, leading in turn to change in the
world's climate. These interacting
changes could alter the way we live in
the most fundamental way of all.
That prospect is a new factor in
human affairs. It is comparable in its
implications to the discovery of how to
split the atom. Indeed, its results could
be even more far-reaching.
The problem of global climate change
is one that affects us all, and action will
be effective only if it is taken at the
international level. It is no good
squabbling over who is responsible or
who should pay. Whole areas of our
planet could be subject to drought and
starvation if the pattern of rains and
monsoons were to change as a result of
the destruction of forests and the
accumulation of Greenhouse gases.
We have to look forward, not
backward. And a vast, international,
co-operative effort is needed.
Before we act, we need the best
possible scientific assessment.
Otherwise we risk making matters
worse. We must use science to cast a
light ahead so that we can move, step by
step, in the right direction.
The United Kingdom has taken on the
task of co-ordinating such an assessment
within the Inter-Governmental Panel on
Climate Change. This assessment will be
available to everyone by the time of the
second World Climate Conference next
year.
But that will take us only so far. The
report will not be able to tell us where
the hurricanes will strike; who will be
flooded; or how often and severe the
droughts will be. Yet we will need to
know these things if we are to adapt to
future climate change.
That means we must expand our
capacity to model and predict climate
change. We can test our skills and
methods by seeing whether they would
have successfully predicted past climate
change for which historical records
exist.
Britain has some of the leading
experts in this field, and I am pleased to
tell you that the United Kingdom will
be establishing a new Centre for the
Prediction of Climate Change, which
will lead the effort to improve our
prophetic capacity. It will also provide
the advanced computing facilities that
scientists need. And it will be open to
experts from all over the world—and
especially from the developing
countries—who can come to the United
58
EPA JOURNAL
-------
In addition to the science, we
need to get the economics
right
Kingdom and contribute to this vital
work.
In addition to the science, we need to
get the economics right. That means
first we must have continued economic
growth in order to generate the wealth
required to pay for the protection of the
environment. But it must be growth
which does not plunder the planet
today and leave our children to deal
with the consequences tomorrow.
Second, we must resist the simplistic
tendency to blame modern
multinational industry for the damage
being done to the environment. Far from
being the villains, industry has a critical
role to play in doing research and
finding solutions. It is industry that will
develop safe alternative chemicals for
refrigerators and air-conditioning, devise
bio-degradable plastics, and find the
means to treat pollutants and make
nuclear waste safe.
The multinationals have to take the
long view. There will be no profit or
satisfaction for anyone if pollution
continues to destroy our planet.
As people's consciousness of
environmental needs rises, they are
turning increasingly to ozone-friendly
and other environmentally safe
products. The market itself acts as a
corrective. The new products sell, and
those which caused environmental
damage disappear from the shelves.
And by making these new products
and methods widely available, industry
will make it possible for developing
countries to avoid many of the mistakes
which we older, industrialized countries
have made.
On the basis of sound science and
sound economics, then, we need to
build a strong framework for
international action.
It is not new institutions that we
need. Rather we need to strengthen and
improve those which already exist: in
particular the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
The United Kingdom has recently
more than doubled its contribution to
UNEP. We urge others—who have not
done so and who can afford it—to do
the same.
The most pressing task facing us at
the international level is to negotiate a
framework Convention on climate
change—a sort of good conduct guide
for all nations. We should aim to have it
ready for the World Conference on
Environment and Development in 1992.
The 1992 Conference is indeed
already being discussed among many
countries in many places. I draw
particular attention to the very valuable
discussion which members of the
Commonwealth had under the Prime
Minister of Malaysia's chairmanship at
our recent Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting in Kuala Lumpur.
But a framework is not enough. It will
need to be filled out with specific
undertakings (or "protocols," in
diplomatic language) on the different
aspects of climate change.
These protocols must be binding, and
there must be effective regimes to
supervise and monitor their application.
Otherwise those nations which accept
and abide by environmental agreements,
thus adding to their industrial costs,
will lose out competitively to those who
do not.
The negotiation of some of those
protocols will undoubtedly be difficult.
And no issue will be more contentious
than the need to control emissions of
C02, the major contributor—apart from
water vapor—to the Greenhouse Effect.
The United Kingdom therefore
proposes that we prolong the role of the
Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change after it submits its report next
year. The panel could thus provide an
authoritative scientific basis for
agreements to reduce Greenhouse gases.
And these agreements should allow all
our economies to continue to grow and
develop.
The challenge for our negotiators on
matters like this is as great as for any
disarmament treaty.
Before leaving the area where
international action is needed, let me
make a plea for a further global
Convention: one to conserve the infinite
variety of species of plant and animal
life that inhabit our planet.
The tropical forests contain half of the
species in the'world, so their
disappearance is doubly damaging. It is
astonishing but true that our
civilization, whose imagination has
reached the boundaries of the universe,
does not know, to within a factor of 10,
how many species the Earth supports.
What we do know is that we are
losing them at a reckless rate—between
three and 50 each day on some
estimates—species which could perhaps
be helping us to advance the frontiers of
medical science. We—as
nations—should act together to conserve
this precious heritage. No-one can opt
out.
We should work through the United
Nations and its agencies to secure
world-wide agreements on ways to cope
with the effects of climate change, the
thinning of the ozone layer, and the loss
of precious species.
We need a realistic program of action
and an equally realistic timetable. Each
country has to contribute, and those
countries who are industrialized must
contribute more to help those who are
not. The work ahead will be long and
exacting. We should embark on it
hopeful of success, not fearful of failure.
I began with Charles Darwin ano^his
work on the theory of evolution antJ the
origin of the species. Darwin's voyages
were among the high-points of scientific
discovery. They were undertaken at a
time when men and women felt with
growing confidence that we could not
only understand the natural world, but
master it too.
Today, we have learned rather more
humility and respect for the balance of
nature. But another of the beliefs of
Darwin's era should help to see us
through: the belief in reason and the
scientific method.
Reason is humanity's special gift. It
allows us to understand the structure of
the nucleus. It enables us to explore the
heavens. It helps us to conquer disease.
Now we must use our reason to find a
way in which we can live with nature,
not dominate nature.
We need our reason to teach us today
that we are not, that we must not try to
be, the lords of all we survey. We are
not the lords, we are the Lord's
creatures, the trustees of this planet,
charged today with preserving life
itself—preserving life with all its
mystery and all its wonder. Q
(This article is adapted from Mrs.
Thatcher's address to the 44th session
of the United Nations General Assembly
on Novembers, 1989.)
MARCH/APRIL 1990
59
-------
Appointments
Henry B. Frazier III is EPA's
new Chief Administrative
Law Judge.
Judge Frazier has been an
Administrative Law Judge for
EPA since 1987. Prior to his
appointment, he served as a
member of the Federal Labor
Relations Authority for eight
years; from 1984 to 1985 he
was Acting Chairman.
From 1970 to 1979, Judge
Frazier worked for the
Federal Labor Relations
Council; the last six years of
that time he was the
Council's Executive Director.
An Air Force veteran, he
held several civilian
positions in the Department
of the Army before joining
the Council.
Judge Frazier earned his
bachelor's degree in political
science at the University of
Virginia. He holds a law
degree from George
Washington University Law
School and an LL.M. in
labor law and a Master of
Laws in taxation from
Georgetown University
Graduate Law Center.
The new Deputy Associate
Administrator for EPA's
Office of Communications
and Public Affairs is
Christina M. Kielich.
Immediately prior to
joining the Agency, Kielich
was a senior communications
advisor to the Federal
Maritime Commission. From
1988 to 1989, she was the
Assistant Administrator for
Public Communications at
the U.S. Small Business
Administration. She was
president of WINNING
IMAGE, a public affairs and
media consulting firm, from
1985 to 1988.
Kielich was Director of
Outreach at the Department
of Energy's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste
Management from 1984 to
1985; Special Assistant to the
Administrator for Public
Affairs at the General
Services Administration in
1984; and the Director of
Public Affairs at the U.S.
Peace Corps from 1982 to
1984.
A 1973 graduate of Trinity
College in Washington, DC,
Kielich worked as Legislative
Assistant to Representative
Jack Kemp from 1974 to 1980
and as Administrative
Assistant to Representative
Jim Jeffries of Kansas in
1981. D
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
Congratulations on your November/December 1989
issue devoted to success stories in improving
environmental quality.
The goals of most of the programs described were
not controversial and indeed laudatory—ranging from
cleaning up a dry cleaning operation to finding a way
to keep jet fuel out of a salmon stream. The article on
plastics recycling by the manager of the plastics plant
was the one piece that stood out as praising a highly
questionable operation.
Nationally, the plastics industry is mobilizing a
public relations campaign to establish in the public
consciousness the idea that plastics can be
"recycled." Your magazine is contributing to that
campaign by publishing the article, and you should
in the future feature a more objective look at the
whole plastics recycling issue.
The extraction, transportation, and processing of oil
from which plastics come and the plastic production
process all have terrific environmental costs. The
supply of oil itself is a nonrenewable resource best
not spent on a lot of superfluous packaging.
So-called "recycling" of plastics is not really
recycling, which implies a continuous cycle of use
and reuse. Apparently, reused plastics go into
dead-end final use as a park bench or loose-fill
protective packaging, as mentioned in the article.
Finally, many throw-away plastic products are
better never produced in the first place, a conclusion
the plastics industry would prefer that we not make.
The classic example is, of course, those "clam shell"
burger containers which have a useful life of maybe
30 seconds. Burger King has stopped using those
things, and we are none the worse.
The readers of your magazine deserve a more
balanced piece on the controversial topic of plastic
recycling.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
Dana F. Gumb, Jr.
New York City
60
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Kann Kre/der photo Rginfotest Alliance
This tropical rain forest in Costa Rica is
protected as a national park. However,
many other such forests worldwide are
being destroyed every day, adding to
carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Back cover: The seasons: A colorful
reminder. Photo by Kim Heacox for
Woodfin Camp.
-------
------- |