Global Climate Change case study: How do industrialized nations contribute to climate change?
AAG Center for Global Geography Education

Introduction

The goal of this case study is to explore the question of how the United States influences or is contributing to global climate change and how climate change will affect the natural and human environments of the United States.  This case study also explores government efforts in the United States -- at the national, regional and local levels -- to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Back to main menu 

Suggested citation: Silvern, S. 2010. Global Climate Change case study: How do industrialized nations contribute to climate change? In Solem, M., Klein, P., Muñiz-Solari, O., and Ray, W., eds., AAG Center for Global Geography Education. Available from http://globalgeography.aag.org.

Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Footprints

One way to measure the contribution of a country, city, business, household or individual to the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global climate change is the "carbon footprint".  Carbon footprints specifically measure carbon dioxide emissions and are usually expressed in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (mt CO₂) (Widemann and Minx 2007).  In general, the most developed countries and affluent regions of the world have the largest carbon footprints.  The wealthiest countries with 15% of the world's population contribute 50% of the world's carbon emissions (Figure 3).   According to a recent United Nations Human Development Report (United Nations Development Programme 2007), the world's poorest 1 billion people contribute only 3% of the global carbon footprint!  In contrast, the United States (U.S.) with just 4% of the world's population and one of the wealthiest populations on the planet has one of the largest carbon footprints in the world (Figures 1-2). 

Figure 1. The Carbon Footprint (Bennett 2009).

Cumulatively, between 1940 and 2004, the U.S. has been responsible for 28% of global CO₂ emissions.  In the early 1960s, the U.S. was responsible for 44% of world annual carbon dioxide emissions (Boden, Marland, Andres 2009).  In 2004 this percentage had declined and the U.S. contributed 6,046 mt CO₂ or about 21% of world CO₂ emissions.  China with 20% of the world's population was second with 5,107 mt CO₂ or 17.3% of the world CO₂ emissions (see Figure 3).   The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2008) estimates that China overtook the U.S. in 2006 as the largest CO₂ emitter and is now responsible for 24% of global CO₂ emissions (see also: Harrabin 2008).  On an individual or per capita basis, however, Americans continue to have one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet.  In 2004, per capita CO₂ emissions in the U.S. were 20.6 mt CO₂ (Figure 2).  In the same year, China's per capital emissions were 3.8 mt CO₂.   The average American's carbon footprint was five times as large as the average Chinese citizen (United Nations Development Programme 2007).

Figure 2.  The U.S. Annual Carbon  Footprint (Chandler 2008).

Figure 3. Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions (World Bank 2008).

Figure 4. Carbon Dioxide Emissions per capita (World Bank 2008).

Back to main menu 

Sources of America's Carbon Footprint

The primary source of America's large carbon footprint is the combustion of fossil fuels to satisfy the country's constantly growing energy needs.  As Figure 5 shows, three fossil fuels --coal, petroleum and natural gas-- are the primary energy sources used to fuel transportation, residential and commercial buildings, and industry.  They constitute approximately 85% of the nation's total energy production (in 2007) and they are responsible for 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.   Renewable energy sources with a relatively small or nearly zero carbon footprint, such as solar and wind power, make up a very small percentage of the nation's overall energy supply.

Figure 5. U.S. Energy Production by sector (Energy Information Administration 2008a).

Back to main menu 

Sources of Carbon Emissions I

Since 1980 U.S. carbon emissions have increased at 1% annual rate.   Figure 6 shows Americans are driving more personal vehicle miles (in passenger cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles) and consuming increasing amounts of gasoline derived mainly from imported oil.   Commercial trucking and the aviation sector consume diesel and jet fuels derived from petroleum.  Overall, the transportation sector accounts for 33% of the nation's CO₂ emissions. 

Figure 6. Miles Traveled and Fuel Consumption in the United States (Energy Information Administration 2008b).

Industry, residences and commercial buildings demand increasing amounts of electricity.   According to the Energy Information Administration (2008b): "From 1949 to 2000, while the population of the United States expanded 89 percent, the amount of electricity use grew 1,315 percent. Per-capita average consumption of electricity in 2000 was more than seven times as high as in 1949."  Residential electricity consumption rose due to the energy demands of lighting, heating, cooling and the ever increasing number of appliances (refrigerators, microwaves, washing machines, clothes dryers), televisions, computers and other consumer electronics (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Household End Uses: Fuel Types and Appliances (Energy Information Administration 2008b).

Back to main menu 

Sources of Carbon Emissions II

Business demand for electricity has also increased.  Homes and business also use natural gas for their heating and electricity needs.  Together, residential and commercial buildings produce roughly 39% of the nation's carbon footprint; the largest portion of the U.S. carbon footprint.  The industrial sector uses coal and natural gas for industrial processes and for its electricity needs.  This sector's energy consumption contributes roughly 28% of the nation's carbon footprint (Figure 8). 

Figure 8.  U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions  (Sarzynski, Brown and Southworth 2008, 5).

Take a moment to pause and consider the following question:

Back to main menu 

Sources of Carbon Emissions III

As shown in Figure 9, almost 50% of the electricity for homes, businesses and industry comes from coal-burning power plants.  Natural gas, a much cleaner burning fossil fuel, supplies roughly 20% of the nation's electricity.  Coal, a dirtier and more carbon-rich fossil fuel, is used in power plants that are responsible for 40% of U.S. CO₂ emissions.  Renewable energy sources, such as hydropower, wind and solar power, which have a small carbon footprint, contribute only 9.4% of the nation's electricity supply.

Figure 9.  U.S. Electric Power Industry Energy Sources, 2007. (Energy Information Administration 2009).

Some power plants have particularly large carbon footprints.  Go to www.carma.org to learn more about their location and the relative size of their carbon footprint.   Is there a geographic pattern to their location?

Back to main menu 

The Geography of America's Carbon Footprint:  Metropolitan Areas and Regions

We now change geographical scale (from the national picture to a more local scene) to look inside the U.S. to discover that certain types of settlements and regions are more or less responsible for the American carbon footprint.  One might reasonably assume that cities and regions with large populations would have a larger carbon footprint than rural areas with low population density.  A recent map (Figure 10) produced by the Vulcan Project at Purdue University confirms this, showing that areas with the highest carbon dioxide emissions include the following: urbanized regions of the Northeast, urban-industrial centers in the Mid-West, West Coast urban centers, cities of the front range of the Rocky Mountains and Salt Lake, and the Gulf Coast industrial region.  The southeast U.S. also turns out to be a region of high CO₂ emissions due to post-World War II urbanization, industrialization and power plant emissions.  One can also see line patterns on the map that are major highways and others that represent mobile sources (trucks and cars) of CO₂.   Rural areas such as northern Maine, the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains and Basin Range region are low carbon dioxide emitting regions.

Figure 10.  Project Vulcan Map of the United States' Carbon Emissions at the National Scale.  (Project Vulcan 2008).

Back to main menu 

Geographic Patterns of U.S. Carbon Emissions

In Figure 11, we can see the following geographic pattern for CO₂ emissions at the state scale.   Which state has the largest carbon footprint?

CO₂ emissions from Industry

CO₂ emissions from Utilities

CO₂ emissions from Utilities

Figure 11.  CO₂ Emissions for States by Economic Sector. 

(NASA Earth Observatory 2008).  (The above maps are based on data use in the Vulcan Project).

Back to main menu 

Carbon Footprints in the U.S.

At a smaller geographical scale, a report from the Brookings Institution found that the nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas, with 2/3 of the U.S. population and 3/4 of its economic activity, were responsible for only 56% of the nation's carbon emissions from transport and residences in 2005 (Sarzynski, Brown, and Southworth 2008). The study results, depicted in Figure 12, show "partial" carbon footprints because the authors excluded industrial and commercial carbon dioxide emissions from their analysis.  Residents of metropolitan areas had a smaller partial carbon footprint than "the average American" (2.24 metric tons of carbon dioxide versus 2.60 metric tons).  The study found that urban form, settlement density and availability of public transit influence levels of energy consumption and thus the size of the carbon footprints for metropolitan areas.  Carbon emissions per capita were reduced in high density, mixed land-use developments where people made shorter daily trips, traveled less by automobile and had higher use of public transit. City dwellers had smaller energy requirements because of shared walls and more efficient urban building design. 

Weather and climate also shape per capita carbon footprints.  Metropolitan areas in the west, where winters are mild, had lower energy need and smaller per capita residential carbon footprints.   Metropolitan areas in the South experienced the most rapid five year growth (2000-2005) in their carbon footprint and had the highest per capita carbon footprints from transportation and residences.  The rapid growth in the carbon footprint was caused by regional population growth and suburbanization and decentralization of the population.  Per capita footprints were high due to high residential energy needs created by a reliance on air conditioning and higher emissions from transportation caused by a decentralized settlement landscape.  The Northeast has high residential carbon emissions because of reliance on home heating fuels for heating in the winter months.  

Figure 12.  Carbon Footprints of Large Metropolitan Areas (Barringer 2008).

Back to main menu 

Reducing the Carbon Footprint of the U.S.

How does any country, region, city or individual reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and their carbon footprint?  This is a difficult, complex and challenging problem.  In the United States, the public policy discussion has focused on how to combine government regulation with free market forces to cap or reduce emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and to promote renewable, cleaner forms of energy for use in electricity generation and in transportation.  In this section we briefly explore one example of clean, renewable energy: wind power generation in the U.S.  Wind energy, like hydro and solar power, is an energy source that can substantially reduce the carbon footprint.  Next we will examine some of the key public policy developments that have recently emerged to promote energy efficiencies and renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar power and bio-fuels in order reduce the nation's carbon footprint.

Wind generated electricity has great potential to reduce U.S. fossil fuel consumption (primarily coal and natural gas) and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  Wind turbines harness the power of the wind to generate electricity and do not emit greenhouse gases (Figure 12).  According to a recent U.S. government study, if 20% of the nation's electricity in 2030 came from wind power, it would reduce CO₂ emissions by 25%.  Initial high capital costs of developing wind power would be offset by reduced expenditures on fuel and water and reductions in air pollution and damage to the environment.  Although wind supplies only 1.2% of the nation's electricity needs, investment in wind power and new power capacity is growing very rapidly (Figure 13).         

Figure 12. Wind Turbine in Chelsea, Massachusetts, USA. (Photo credit: Steven Silvern).

In 2007 alone, nine billion dollars was invested in new wind power capacity.   The U.S. added twice as much wind power capacity in 2007 as it did in 2006!  In 2007 the U.S. led the world in newly installed wind power capacity.  It is second, behind Germany, in total cumulative wind power capacity with 16, 904 MW.

Figure 13.  Growing Wind Power Capacity in the United States (Wiser and Bolinger 2008, 4).

The potential for growth in wind generated electricity varies geographically across the U.S.  The wind resource potential map below (Figure 14) indicates that areas with high potential for wind power include:  the Great Plains; the Atlantic coast from North Carolina to Maine; the Pacific coast from Point Conception, California to Washington; the Texas Gulf coast; the Great Lakes; mountain ridges and summits in the Appalachians, Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada Range. 

Figure 14.  Wind Resources (Energy Information Administration 2000, 21).

Back to main menu 

Wind Turbines

Although wind turbines were installed in 18 states in 2007, Texas led the nation in new wind turbines installed and overall cumulative wind generating capacity (Figure 15).

Figure 15.  Installed Wind Power, 2007 (Wiser and Bolinger 2008, 8).

To date, all wind turbines in the U.S. are land based.  There is, however, substantial interest establishing off-shore wind farms to take advantage of off-shore wind resources that are proximate to large population centers. These proposed projects, some controversial, are in various stages of development (Table 1).

Table 1.  Proposed Offshore Wind Development. (Wise and Bolinger 2008, 9). 

Back to main menu 

Public Policies to Reduce National, State and Local Carbon Footprints

At the national level, the United States may be characterized as having a relatively weak policy response to global climate change (Figure 16). Under President George W. Bush (2001-2009), the U.S. rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries committed themselves to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012.  Bush was opposed to Kyoto because he felt that mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would hurt the U.S. economy and that is was unfair that large emitters, such as China and India, were exempted from mandatory emissions reductions.  Bush's goal was to slow U.S. emissions by reducing the intensity of carbon emissions relative to economic growth rather than commit to any absolute reduction in carbon emissions.  This would be accomplished by voluntary and market-based approaches, not by government-mandated reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.  The federal government currently has a number of "greenhouse reduction initiatives" that are voluntary programs which include financial incentives and tax credits for businesses to improve energy efficiency and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  Among the voluntary programs are:  Clean Energy-Environment State Partnership, Climate Leaders, Transportation and Air Quality Voluntary Programs, Green Power Partnership and the Energy Star Program (see:  U.S. EPA 2009, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/neartermghgreduction.html).

Figure 16. Bush Climate Change Policy Emphasizes Voluntary Emissions Reductions (Sack 2009).

Under Bush, the U.S. government has emphasized and funded research on new technologies that would lead to future emissions reductions.   This has included renewable fuels and energy such as wind and solar power.   Funding has also been provided for "clean coal" technologies and carbon sequestration or storage.  Bush has also supported an expansion of nuclear power as a means to reduce U.S. carbon emissions.   In April 2008, Bush outlined a new goal for U.S. climate change policy.  In a departure from his earlier policy statements on slowing the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, Bush stated that the goal of the U.S. was now to stop the growth of emissions by 2025.  Bush did not adopt the Kyoto standard which is to mandate a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  Stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would happen, he said, through market based incentives to spur investment in new technologies including "clean coal" and the promotion of nuclear power (see: Video, President Bush Discusses Climate Change,  16 April 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4667880).

Back to main menu 

State and Regional Initiatives to Reduce Carbon Footprints

Many states in the U.S. have taken the lead in developing and implementing innovative programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Coastal states are concerned about the impacts of rising sea levels, whereas agricultural states in the central U.S. are concerned about the losses to their agricultural based economies.  Arid western states are concerned about the impacts of longer and more severe droughts.   Moreover, some states see the promotion and development of "green" technologies and renewable energy sources as a potential source of jobs and economic development.

Policies at the state level include a combination of voluntary and mandatory approaches to greenhouse gas reduction.  Twenty nine states have created renewable portfolio standards which require that electrical utilities generate a specified amount of electricity from renewable sources by a specific date (Figure 17).

Figure 17.  State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies:  Renewable Portfolio Standards (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2009, 3).

Seventeen states have implemented emission targets and caps that will reduce the state's overall greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 17).  California, for example, passed the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 which requires state regulators to develop regulations and market mechanisms in order to cap state greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020.  The law requires that the state's emissions be reduced to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.  The California law has become a model and a similar law was recently passed in Massachusetts (see: Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2010a and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2010).

Figure 18.  State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goals (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2009, 6).

Some states have passed renewable fuel standards requiring that gasoline contain a certain percentage of renewable and low-carbon fuels such as ethanol derived from corn or other plant materials (Figure 19).  Over one-half of the states have created financial incentives in the form of tax breaks and exemptions to promote ethanol and other bio-fuel production.  For example, Massachusetts recently passed the "Clean Energy Biofuels Act" which will provide a tax exemption for cellulosic bio-fuels; fuels derived from switchgrass, agricultural waste and forest products instead of corn or soybeans.  This act also requires bio-fuel content in all diesel fuel and home heating oil sold in the state.

Figure 19. States with policies and incentive for alternative and bio-fuel production (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2009, 5).

For more information about state government climate change policies, visit the Pew Center on Global Climate Change website on U.S. states and regions (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2010b).

Back to main menu 

Regional Initiatives

A number of states have joined in collaborative efforts with other states to create regional initiatives or organizations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop low-carbon energy sources across their regions (Figure 20).  These initiatives are designed to reduce duplication and to provide certainty and a uniform regulatory environment for businesses.

Figure 20.  Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2009, 2).

For example, in 2005, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI was formed by the governors of seven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.  Today, RGGI consists of the following ten states:  Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.   RGGI's goal is to promote investment in low-carbon energy generation by setting a cap on carbon-dioxide emissions from electricity generating power plants in the region.   In 2009 emissions will be capped at current levels and will be reduced ten percent by 2019.  The first regional cap-and-trade system has been created that will cap emissions and allow generators to trade emissions allowances; companies below emissions requirements can trade allowances to companies that exceed permitted emissions levels (see: Pew Center for Climate Change 2009 and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative).

Back to main menu 

Local Initiatives I:  Cities and Towns

As we saw earlier, cities and towns have large carbon footprints.  Similar to states, many cities and towns have taken an active role in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.   Local governments can use zoning regulations for land use planning, building codes to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy in municipal and private buildings and implement public transit improvements to reduce their carbon footprint (for examples, see: http://www.icleiusa.org/success-stories). Figure 21 shows the locations of 944 cities and towns that have signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, committing themselves to the principles of the Kyoto Protocol by pledging to reduce their emissions 7% below 1990 levels.

Figure 21.  Participating Cities and Towns in the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Center 2009).

Back to main menu 

Local Initiatives II:  Cities and Towns

Other cities and towns have joined the Cities for Climate Protection Program (CCP).  This program, sponsored by ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives--Local Governments for Sustainability), assists town and city efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  CCP (ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability 2009) requires that cities and towns commit to the following "5 Milestones": 

1.   conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast,

2.   adopt an emissions reduction target.

3.   create a Local Action Plan that describes the measures that the local government will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

4.   implementation of the Local Action Plan 

5.   monitoring and verification

New York City, for example, has developed a comprehensive strategy called PlanNYC (New York City 2009) to reduce the city's carbon footprint (Figure 22).  The Plan's goal is to reduce the city's overall greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2005 levels.

Figure 22. New York City's carbon emissions compared to other cities (New York City 2007).

Like other cities, New York's plan (New York City 2009) will focus on:

• improvements in public transit to reduce the number of automobiles on the road and improvements to the energy efficiency of taxis and other vehicles
• use building codes to promote "green" buildings and the improved energy efficiency of buildings and appliances
• clean power sources including new power plants and creating a market for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power (for example, see: "Bloomberg Offers Windmill Power Plan"  (Barbero 2008)
• promote the use of alternative fuels such as bio-fuels and fuel cells.

Back to main menu 

Summary

In this case study, we have introduced you to the impact of the United States on the global climate and how global climate change will impact the United States.  We have explored the sources and size of the U.S  greenhouse gas emissions by calculating its carbon footprint.   We saw how the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation was a major component of the nation's carbon footprint.  We also learned that while China may now have the largest carbon footprint of all nations, on a per capital basis, Americans have the largest carbon footprint.    At the same time, we examined how global climate change will result in new temperature and precipitation patterns that will reshape the geography of ecosystems, agriculture, urban systems and the socio-economic development of different regions of the U.S.  Finally, we explored the different types of public policies, especially at the state and local level, that are designed to promote renewable energy sources, energy efficiencies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus the size of the U.S. carbon footprint. 

If you are collaborating on this module with a class in a different country, your instructor may assign activities that provide you with the opportunity to conduct your own research, working individually and in groups, to further think about your individual carbon footprint and how to reduce your country's carbon footprint.   In the first two activities you can explore the personal dimensions of the carbon footprint and compare your footprint with students and citizens of other nations.  You can then begin to explore how you own campus is reducing its carbon footprint and how it compares with other campuses.   

Other learning activities challenge you to consider the costs and benefits of proposed public policies and private sector efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and around the world.   Working with fellow students, you will create wikis where you present your research on such topics as wind power, bio-fuels, nuclear power and the debate over local versus global food systems.  Your goals will be to thoughtfully consider and present evidence about the merits of these proposals and to develop conclusions and a position about their implementation and impact on the nation's carbon footprint and on global climate change.

Back to main menu 

References

• Barbero, M.  2008.  Bloomberg Offers Windmill Power Plan,  The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/nyregion/20windmill.html  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• Barringer, F.  2008.   Urban Areas on West Coast Produce the Least Emissions Per Capita Researchers Find, The New York Times.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/29pollute.html  (last accessed 16 June 009).
• Bennett, C.  2009.  The Carbon Footprint.  http://www.csmonitor.com/globalwarming (last accessed 15 June 2009.
• Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2009. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO₂ Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_usa.html (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• Chandler, D. 2008.   Leaving Our Mark.  MIT Tech Talk  52 (23): 1,4.    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/footprint-tt0416.html (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2010. Chapter 298 of the Acts of 2008. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw08/sl080298.htm (last accessed 7 September 2010).
• Elliott, D.L. et al. 1991. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department of Energy. http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/chp2.html. (last accessed 7 September 2010).
• Energy Information Administration.  2000.  Energy Consumption and Renewable Energy     Development Potential on Indian Lands.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/ilands.pdf  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• Energy Information Administration.  2008a.  Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prerepo    rt.html  (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• Energy Information Administration. 2008b. Annual Energy Review 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf
• Energy Information Administration. 2009. Electric Power Annual.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html  (last accessed 16 June 2009).
• Frumhoff, P. and J. McCarthy, J. Melillo, S. Moser,  D.J. Wuebbles. 2007. Confronting Climate Change in the Northeast: Science, Impacts and Solutions.  Synthesis Report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.  http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-     s-northeast.pdf  (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• Harrabin, R.  2008.  China 'now top carbon polluter,"  BBC News.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• Hodgkins, G. and I. James II, T. Huntington.  2005.  Historical Changes in Lake Ice-Out Dates as Indicators of Climate Change in New England, 1850-2000.  United States Geological Society, Fact Sheet 2005-3002. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/#pdf  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability.  2009.  Cities for Climate Protection Program. http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.  Contribution of Working Group II to the  Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
• Kling, G.W. and K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johns, J.J. Magnuson, S. Polasky, S.K. Robinson, B.J. Shuter, M.M. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles, D.R. Zak, R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser, and M.L. Wilson.  2005   Executive Summary, Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region:  Impacts on our Communities and Ecosystems.  Cambridge, MA:  Union of Concerned Scientists and Washington, D.C.:  Ecological Society of America. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/gl-exec-summary    -update-05-doc.pdf  (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• Kling, G.W. and K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johns, J.J. Magnuson, S. Polasky, S.K. Robinson, B.J. Shuter, M.M. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles, D.R. Zak, R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser, and M.L. Wilson. 2003. Technical Appendix: Impacts of Climate Change on Lake and River Ice Cover, ConfrontingClimate Change in the Great Lakes Region:  Impacts on our Communities and Ecosystems.  Cambridge, MA:  Union of Concerned Scientists and Washington, D.C.:  Ecological Society of America. http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/pdf/ice_cover.pdf  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Observatory. 2008. American Carbon:  Vulcan Project Maps Nation's Fossil Fuel Emissions in Detail. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/AmericanCarbon/  (last accessed 16 June 2009).
• National Oceanic and Aviation Administration (NOAA).  2009.   NOAA GFDL Climate Research Highlights:  Summaries, Graphics, Animations. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/GFDL_V1N5_gallery.html (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2009. Glacier Photograph Collection, Repeat Photograpy of Glaciers. http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/special_high_res_mccall.html (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• National Technology and Science Council [NTSC]. 2008.  Scientific Assessment of the     Effects of Global Change on the United States: A Report of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/Scientific-AssessmentFINAL.pdf  (last accessed 16 June 2009).
• Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.  2008.  Global C02 emissions:     increase continued in 2007.  http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2008/GlobalCO2emissionsthrough2007.html (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• New York City.  2007.  Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions.  Mayor's     Office of Operations, Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability.  http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/ccp_report041007.pdf   (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• New York City.  2009. PlaNYC. Climate Change http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/climate.shtml  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009.  Climate Change 101: State Action.January 2009.  http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-State-Jan09_0.pdf  (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2010a. California. http://www.pewclimate.org/states-regions/states/California (last accessed 7 September 2010).
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2010b. U.S. States and Regions. http://www.pewclimate.org/states-regions (last accessed 7 September 2010).
• Project Vulcan. 2008. http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/images/Vulcan.totalFinal.jpg  (last accessed 16 June 2009).
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 2010. Home Page. http://rggi.org/home (last accessed 7 September 2010).
• Sack, Steve. 2009.  Bush Global Warming Cartoon. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/environment/ig/Environment-Cartoons/Bush-global-Warming-Policy.htm (last accessed 24 September 2010).
• Sarzynski, A. and M. Brown and F. Southworth.  2008.  Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America.  The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski.aspx(last accessed 16 June 2009).
• United Nations Environment Programme/GRID-Arendal.  Vital Climate Graphics, Forest Composition-Case Study: North America.  http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3080.aspx  (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• United Nations Development Programme.  2007.  Human Development Report.  Palgrave Macmillan:  New York.
• United States Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP). 2008a. The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States.  Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3.     
• http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm  (last accessed on 16 June 2009).
• United States Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP).  2008b.  Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate.  Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/ (last accessed on 16 June 2009).
• United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA].  2009. Sea Level Rise Maps. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/slrmaps.html (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA].  2009. Current and Near-Term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/neartermghgreduction.html (last accessed 20 June 2009).
• United States Forest Service.  2002.  Biotrends Climate Change Presentation. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/biotrends/trends_climchange.html (last accessed 18 June 2009).
• U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Center.  2009.  Map of Participating     Mayors. http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/map.asp (last accessed 20  June 2009).
• Wiedmann, T. and J. Minx.  2007.  A Definition of `Carbon Footprint'. http://www.isa-research.co.uk/docs/ISA-UK_Report_07-01_carbon_footprint.pdf (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger.  2008.  Annual Report on the U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends; 2007.  NREL Report No. TP-500-43205, DOE/GO-102008-2590. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43025.pdf  (last accessed 19 June 2008).
• World Bank.  2008.  World Development Indicators Online 2008.http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/WDI08_sectio      n3_intro.pdf  (last accessed 15 June 2009).
• Video:  President George W. Bush, 16 April 2008. http://mfile.akamai.com/5913/wmv/whitehouse.download.akamai.com/5913/2008    /04/20080416-6.v.asx ).   

Back to main menu