Action needed to manage climate change risks -- new report

May 12, 2011

Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts. The nation's options for responding to the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the final volume in America's Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.

"The goal of the America's Climate Choices studies is to ensure that climate decisions are informed by the best possible scientific knowledge, analysis, and advice, both now and in the future," said committee chair Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus and professor, University of California, Los Angeles.

The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun. The report adds that the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems can generally be expected to intensify with warming.

While it recognized that climate change is inherently a global issue requiring an international response, the committee focused on the charge from Congress to identify steps and strategies that U.S. decision makers could adopt now. A coordinated national response to climate change, which the country currently lacks, is needed and should be guided by an iterative risk management framework in which actions taken can be revised as new knowledge is gained.

"America's response to climate change is ultimately about making choices in the face of risk," noted committee vice chair William L. Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, N.C. "Risk management strategies must be durable enough to promote sustained progress yet sufficiently flexible to take advantage of new knowledge and technologies."

Substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions should be among the highest priorities in the national response, the committee said. Although the exact magnitude and speed of reductions will depend on how much risk society deems acceptable, it would be imprudent to delay taking action. The committee cited many reasons for not waiting, including that the faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks. And because the effects of greenhouse gases can take decades to manifest and then persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, waiting for impacts to occur before taking action will likely be too late for meaningful mitigation. Beginning emissions reductions soon will also lower the pressure to make steeper and costlier cuts later. "It is our judgment that the most effective strategy is to begin ramping down emissions as soon as possible," Carnesale said.

State and local efforts currently under way or being initiated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are potentially quite significant but unlikely to yield outcomes comparable to what could be achieved with a strong federal effort, according to the committee. It said the most efficient way to accelerate emissions reductions is through a nationally uniform price on greenhouse gas emissions with a price trajectory sufficient to spur investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies. Having such policies in place is crucial to guide investments in energy infrastructure that will largely determine the direction of greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.

The committee deemed the risks of sticking to "business as usual" to be a much greater concern than the risks associated with a strong response. Most policy responses could be reversed if they prove to be more stringent than is needed, but adverse changes to the climate system are difficult or impossible to undo. It also said that uncertainty in projecting the severity, location, or time of climate change impacts is not a reason for inaction. On the contrary, uncertainty about future risks could be a compelling reason for taking action given that abrupt, unanticipated, or more severe impacts could occur.

Aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the need for adaptation but not eliminate it, the committee emphasized, urging the nation to mobilize now to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts. While adaptation planning largely occurs at the state and local level, the federal government should help coordinate these efforts and develop a national adaptation strategy.

In addition, the federal government should maintain an integrated portfolio of research programs aimed at increasing understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and developing tools to limit climate change and adapt to its impacts. The government also needs to take the lead in collecting and sharing climate change information to ensure that pertinent knowledge is used to inform decisions. Public and private sector engagement through broad-based deliberative processes is essential as well. These processes should include transparent analyses of climate change information, an explicit discussion of uncertainties, and consideration of how decisions will be affected by differing personal values.

Because emissions reductions in the U.S. alone will not be adequate to avert dangerous climate change risks, U.S. leadership needs to remain actively engaged in international climate change response efforts, the committee emphasized. If the U.S. pursues strong emission reduction efforts, it will be better positioned to influence other countries to do the same. Given that impacts elsewhere in the world may affect U.S. interests, it would also be prudent to help enhance the adaptive capacity of other nations, particularly developing countries.

Explore further: EPA staff says agency needs to be tough on smog

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Report calls for coordinated information on climate change

Jul 23, 2010

A comprehensive national response to climate change should be informed by reliable data coordinated through climate services and a greenhouse gas monitoring and management system to provide timely information tailored to ...

How New York City is preparing for climate change

Jun 01, 2010

New York City is establishing itself as a global leader in forming a proactive response to climate change, reveals a new report detailing the city's plans to adapt to the challenges and opportunities the changing climate ...

Study: Next decade 'crucial' on warming

Jan 29, 2007

Climate effects from global warming will be irreversible in 10 years with "serious reductions in carbon emissions," British researchers have concluded.

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

20 hours ago

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

21 hours ago

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ted208
4 / 5 (4) May 12, 2011
LOL - Preaching to the choir - and crying wolf, they can't even get a page 20 footnote in the old allies the lame stream mess oh I meant press!

These alarmist never give up, at least they are recycling the same CAGW garbage over and over and over again and o.... - as predicted!
lengould100
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2011
When do you americans wake up and get some science training? After Japan and Germany finish exporting their high-speed train systems tech to you I suppose. Man, Japan is even having to provide financing for the Wa. to Balt. line. Getting sad.
Modernmystic
not rated yet May 13, 2011
When do you americans wake up and get some science training? After Japan and Germany finish exporting their high-speed train systems tech to you I suppose. Man, Japan is even having to provide financing for the Wa. to Balt. line. Getting sad.


What have we gotten from Canada in the last fifty years other than two drugs for constipation?
Justsayin
3.7 / 5 (3) May 13, 2011
I wish there were a way to suppress any article with "climate change" in the title so I would not come across this drivel.