CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change
Jane A. Leggett, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
March 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40270
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change

he Earth’s climate is warming, with observable effects on human and ecological systems.
Since 1900, the average global temperature has risen some 1.0 to 1.3ºF, with most
T warming since the 1970s. The current global temperature is approaching, possibly
exceeding, the maximum experienced by human civilizations. Virtually all scientists conclude
that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, driven by emissions of such
greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other air pollutants, as
well as land use changes. Northern high-latitude regions, such as Alaska have warmed the most.
Although worldwide precipitation has increased by about 2% since 1900, some regions have
gotten wetter, while others have dried, especially Africa. Demonstrable effects of observed
climate change include: improved cereal crop productivity in some regions; shrinkage of Arctic
ice extent, the Greenland ice sheet, and glaciers globally; accelerated sea level rise; shifts in
fisheries; and preliminary evidence of more of the most intense hurricanes in the Atlantic. The
wide occurrence of observable impacts has contributed to a growing sense of urgency among
scientists and a large part of the public to respond through both mitigation and adaptation.
While many uncertainties remain, most models project GHG-driven change to have important
impacts on regional economies, human safety and health, and ecosystems, with the potential for
surprising and abrupt shifts. Although some experts argue that the scientific uncertainties and
potential costs of mitigation outweigh the impulse for immediate action, diverse initial actions are
already underway at national and local levels in the United States and dozens of additional
countries. The question of appropriate timing of actions is exacerbated by the long time lags
between emissions and climate change impacts, raising potential inter-generational trade-offs.
Internationally, nearly all countries (192)—including the United States—have joined under the
1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to “avoid
dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.” Subsequently, 175 nations—not
including the United States—ratified the 1997 “Kyoto Protocol,” which sets binding GHG targets
-- on average a 5% reduction below 1990 levels during 2008-2012 for 38 industrialized countries.
Nations’ views diverge concerning the Kyoto Protocol and “post-Kyoto” steps: Avoiding
substantial climate change would not be possible, and industrialized nations fear harm to their
economic competitiveness, if developing countries do not also reduce emissions. Developing
nations, the source of most future emissions, argue that such industrialized countries as the U.S.
have been responsible for most historical emissions and should reduce emissions first and deeper,
allowing low-income nations to give priority to alleviating poverty. In December 2007, Parties to
the UNFCCC agreed to the “Bali Action Plan” to negotiate the next round of international
commitments by 2010 to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Intensified negotiations are expected
throughout 2009, with agreement scheduled for the end of 2009.
The election of Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency has altered the climate change policy
dynamic: In his budget overview for FY2010, Obama proposed to cap covered greenhouse gas
emissions at 14% below 2005 levels by 2020 and allow emission trading, a policy that the
Administration estimated would generate $650 billion over 10 years beginning in 2012. The plan
would also eliminate $30 billion of subsidies to oil and gas, and spend $15 billion per year on
investments in low-GHG technologies. Obama’s policy foresees reducing GHG emissions further
to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. While putting such a policy into place through legislation or
regulation may prove challenging, this request marks an abrupt change in U.S. policy. In 2001,
the George W. Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, citing controversy over the
science, the economic impacts of mitigation, and the waiver from actions by developing
countries. The Bush Administration approach was to advance science and technologies in order to
lessen uncertainties and to develop new options, while supporting voluntary actions that would
Congressional Research Service
1

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change

reduce energy intensity and greenhouse gas intensity by providing technical assistance and
various incentives.
Congressional activities have included ratification of the UNFCCC (1992), enactment of
implementing legislation and funding of research and development. For example, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised vehicle efficiency standards, which should reduce
related carbon dioxide emissions. Also, the Senate has twice passed resolutions—one saying the
United States should not agree to a Kyoto Protocol without developing country commitments (in
1997), and another more recently (2005), calling for international commitments and domestic
policies to reduce GHG emissions over the long term without disrupting the economy. Congress
has also authorized and funded scientific and technological research that most experts agree is
necessary to stimulating the radical technological change that would be necessary to reduce GHG
emissions below current levels. A number of evaluations have proposed changes to the structure
and priorities in the research programs, as well as an increase in mitigation and adaptation
measures.
More than 20 bills calling for near-term, specific and mandatory GHG reductions were introduced
in the 110th Congress, and one saw action on the Senate floor. Majority leaders in both chambers
of Congress have stated intentions to pass GHG control legislation in the 111th Congress. Some
suggest that passage of a new law in 2009 is unlikely. Interplay between a possible international
agreement, due at the end of 2009, and U.S. domestic policy on climate change highlights the
importance of the Congressional role in 2009: key issues will include authorities and mandates to
abate GHG, adequacy of appropriations and fiscal incentives to achieve goals and meeting
international commitments for assistance, and the Congressional-Executive Branch coordination
on the form of an international agreement, ratification and implementation.

Issue Team Members

Jane A. Leggett, Coordinator
Sarah A. Lister
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
jaleggett@crs.loc.gov, 7-9525
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
John Blodgett
Robert Meltz
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Legislative Attorney
jblodgett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7230
rmeltz@crs.loc.gov, 7-7891
Larry Parker
Jeanne J. Grimmett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Legislative Attorney
lparker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7238
jgrimmett@crs.loc.gov, 7-5046
Brent D. Yacobucci
Bruce Vaughn
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Specialist in Asian Affairs
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov, 7-9662
bvaughn@crs.loc.gov, 7-3144
James E. McCarthy
Carl Ek
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in International Relations
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
cek@crs.loc.gov, 7-7286
Mary Tiemann
Martin A. Weiss
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
mtiemann@crs.loc.gov, 7-5937
mweiss@crs.loc.gov, 7-5407
Congressional Research Service
2

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change

Peter Folger
Ian F. Fergusson
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
pfolger@crs.loc.gov, 7-1517
ifergusson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4997
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Paul Belkin
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Analyst in European Affairs
jramseur@crs.loc.gov, 7-7919
pbelkin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0220
Gene Whitney
Tiaji Salaam-Blyther
Section Research Manager
Specialist in Global Health
gwhitney@crs.loc.gov, 7-7231
tsalaam@crs.loc.gov, 7-7677
Renée Johnson
Wayne M. Morrison
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
wmorrison@crs.loc.gov, 7-7767
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Wayne A. Morrissey
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Information Research Specialist
psheikh@crs.loc.gov, 7-6070
wmorrissey@crs.loc.gov, 7-7072
Eugene H. Buck
Lynn J. Cunningham
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Information Research Specialist
gbuck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7262
lcunningham@crs.loc.gov, 7-8971
M. Lynne Corn
Rita Tehan
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Information Research Specialist
lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267
rtehan@crs.loc.gov, 7-6739
Kelsi S. Bracmort
Ross W. Gorte
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources Policy
rgorte@crs.loc.gov, 7-7266
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
Harold F. Upton
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Fred Sissine

Specialist in Energy Policy
fsissine@crs.loc.gov, 7-7039

Congressional Research Service
3