Addressing climate change, the House virtually eliminated all funding for climate research and prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources such as power plants, factories and refineries.

Additionally, the budget passed by the House will⁽¹⁾:

• Prohibit the EPA from collecting information about the sources and amounts of global warming pollution and making this information available to the public.
• Prohibit the EPA from setting limits on global warming pollution from power plants, factories and refineries, among the most significant sources of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.
• Prevent the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body tasked with reviewing the most recent scientific and technical information on climate change.
• Eliminate funding for the development of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Service — a program to efficiently supply scientific data and information about climate change and its impacts.
• Reduce or eliminate funding for dozens of clean energy and climate change-related programs across government agencies.
• Eliminate or reduce sources of international climate finance funding, inhibiting the U.S.’s ability to honor its international climate commitments.

In the Department of Energy a $2 billion reduction targets the agencies and offices with the most innovative clean energy research programs, including⁽²⁾:

• The agency which would be hardest hit would be the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds both the riskiest and most transformative, early-stage energy innovation projects, and would lose a staggering 75% of its budget under H.R. 1.
• The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which was responsible for roughly 34% of the DOE’s energy innovation investments in 2010, would lose 35% of its FY10 budget.
• The Office of Science, which funds critical early-stage energy innovation research, would see a 20% decline in its budget. Office of Science devoted 20% of its 2010 budget to energy innovation funding, while supporting additional fundamental physical science research.
• The Office of Nuclear Energy, which devoted 41% of its funds to energy innovation projects in 2010, would lose 23% of its budget.
• Meanwhile, the Office of Fossil Energy would see an 11% reduction in its budget. 43% of the office’s 2010 budget was devoted to energy innovation efforts.

If enacted these reductions will:

• Hasten climate change and ensure that it is more severe. 
• Result in a long-term, negative economic impact upon the U.S. that will soon be far greater than the cost savings claimed by the House Republicans.   The economic, public health, and social impacts upon other nations will be immeasurable.
• Result in increased unemployment as a consequence of a reduced economy and the loss of job opportunities in clean energy.
• Hasten the consumption of our fossil fuels.  There appears to be universal agreement that we are already past “Peak Oil” with total oil production continuing to decline in the future.    Consequently, energy prices will continue to increase and depress our economy; our energy prices and economy will become increasingly sensitive to foreign events, such as the current situation in Libya; and products such as plastics and fertilizer which are manufactured from fossil fuels will become more expensive and scarcer.  Oil is indeed already “too valuable to burn”.

While attempting to curry political gains, the House has done essentially nothing to reduce the debt or aid the economy.  To the contrary, by cutting $62 billion reduction from only the non-defense/non-security discretionary sector of the budget and including amendments that alter policy, not spending, and completely avoiding the hard financial choices that must be made the House has produced a bill that is counter-productive to their avowed objectives.   While reducing the total budget only one-sixteenth of one percent, the highly selective budget cuts and policy changes will ensure higher energy prices, increase our dependence upon foreign oil, reduce job opportunities, and harm public health.  Additionally the House bill contains reductions of funding for education that negatively impact our children, who will become the generation of scientists, engineers and physicians that must deal with the consequences of climate change.

By passing this budget the U.S. House of Representatives has done us a disservice, and if H.R. 1 is enacted as the final bill Congress will have done a disservice to the future generations of our world.

_______________________

1.)  http://repoweramerica.org/blog/a-budget-blow-to-our-climate/?source=em-fwd&utm_source=crm_email&utm_medium=email

2.)  http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2011/03/03/house-gop-budget-proposal-would-stifle-energy-innovation/

As I attempt to examine the consequences of this election, I will often turn to information collected and presented by others.   The summary below, by Scott Keyes, was published on the Think Progress site (a liberal blog) based on a September survey of Republican candidates conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

“REPORT: Meet The 2010 GOP Freshman Class

Following last night’s election, over 100 freshmen Republicans will take their seats in the 112th Congress. These GOPers come from disparate backgrounds, but they are united by their adherence to the extreme wing of conservative ideology.

A new ThinkProgress investigation has found that the incoming GOP freshman class is rife with legislators who not only oppose climate change legislation, but deny that manmade global warming even exists. They are pushing not just to end birthright citizenship, but also demand that the United States reduce the number of legal immigrants.

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

This is where individual incoming GOP freshmen stand on each issue:

Key

GW: Global warming denier
CC: No climate change legislation

BC: End birthright citizenship
RI: Reduce legal immigration

TP: No tax increase pledge
ET: Repeal estate tax

BB: Balanced budget amendment

Martha Roby (AL-02) CC TP ET
Mo Brooks (AL-05) GW CC TP ET

Joe Miller* (AK-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Paul Gosar (AZ-01) CC BC RI TP

Ben Quayle (AZ-03) GW CC BC TP ET
David Schweikert (AZ-05) CC BC RI TPET BB

Ruth McClung* (AZ-07) GW CC ET BB
Jesse Kelly* (AZ-08) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB

Rick Crawford (AR-01) CC TP ET
Tim Griffin (AR-02) CC BC RI TP ET

Steve Womack (AR-03) CC BC RI TP
John Boozman (AR-SEN) GW CC BC RI TPET BB

David Harmer* (CA-11) GW CC TP ET
Jeff Denham (CA-19) GW CC TP

Andy Vidak (CA-20) GW TP ET
Scott Tipton (CO-03) CC TP ET

Cory Gardner (CO-04) GW CC TP BB
Steve Southerland (FL-02) CC BC RI TPET BB

Rich Nugent (FL-05) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Daniel Webster (FL-08) CC BC RI TP ET

Dennis Ross (FL-12) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Allen West (FL-22) GW BC RI ET

Sandy Adams (FL-24) CC BC RI TP ETBB
David Rivera (FL-25) CC TP ET

Marco Rubio (FL-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Rob Woodall (GA-07) BC RI

Austin Scott (GA-08) CC BC RI TP ET
Raul Labrador (ID-01) CC RI TP ET BB

Joe Walsh* (IL-08) GW CC TP BB
Robert Dold (IL-10) GW CC TP

Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) CC TP
Randy Hultgren (IL-14) GW CC TP ET BB

Bobby Schilling (IL-17) GW CC BC TPET BB
Mark Kirk (IL-SEN) CC

Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) CC TP ET BB
Todd Rokita (IN-04) GW CC TP ET

Larry Bucshon (IN-08) GW CC TP ET BB
Todd Young (IN-09) GW CC TP BB

Dan Coats (IN-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) GW CC BC RI TPET

Kevin Yoder (KS-03) ET
Mike Pompeo (KS-04) CC TP ET

Jerry Moran (KS-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP
Rand Paul (KY-SEN) GW CC BC TP ET BB

Jeff Landry (LA-03) CC TP BB
Andy Harris (MD-01) CC BC RI TP ET BB

Dan Benishek (MI-01) CC BC RI TP ETBB
Bill Huizenga (MI-02) GW CC TP ET

Justin Amash (MI-03) CC TP ET BB
Tim Walberg (MI-07) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB

Chip Cravaack (MN-08) GW TP ET BB

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) GW CC BC TPET
Billy Long (MO-07) CC ET

Roy Blunt (MO-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) CC BC RI TP ETBB

Steven Palazzo (MS-04) CC BC RI TP ETBB
Renee Ellmers (NC-02) TP ET BB

Rick Berg (ND-AL) CC TP ET
John Hoeven (ND-SEN) GW

Frank Guinta (NH-01) CC TP ET BB
Charlie Bass (NH-02) GW CC BC TP

Kelly Ayotte (NH-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Jon Runyan (NJ-03) CC ET BB

Joe Heck (NV-03) CC BC RI TP ET
Steve Pearce (NM-02) GW CC BC TP ET

Mike Grimm (NY-13) GW CC TP ET BB
Nan Hayworth (NY-19) GW CC TP ET BB

Chris Gibson (NY-20) CC TP
Richard Hanna (NY-24) ET

Anne Marie Buerkle* (NY-25) GW CCTP ET BB
Tom Reed (NY-29) CC TP ET

Steve Chabot (OH-01) GW CC TP ET BB
Bill Johnson (OH-06) CC TP ET

Steve Stivers (OH-15) GW CC TP ET
Jim Renacci (OH-16) CC TP ET BB

Bob Gibbs (OH-18) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB
Rob Portman (OH-SEN) TP

James Lankford (OK-05) GW CC BC TPET
Mike Kelly (PA-03) CC TP ET

Pat Meehan (PA-07) CC TP ET
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) CC TP ET

Tom Marino (PA-10) CC BC RI TPET BB
Lou Barletta (PA-11) CC BC RI TPET

Pat Toomey (PA-SEN) GW TPET
Tim Scott (SC-01) CC TPET BB

Jeff Duncan (SC-03) BC RI TP
Trey Gowdy (SC-04) GW CC TP ET BB

Mick Mulvaney (SC-05) GW CC TP ETBB
Kristi Noem (SD-AL) GW CC TP ET

Chuck Fleischman (TN-03) BC RI TP ET
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04) CC BC RI TP ETBB

Diane Black (TN-06) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Stephen Fincher (TN-08) CC TP ET

Bill Flores (TX-17) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Francisco Canseco (TX-23) CC TP

Blake Farenthold (TX-27) GW BB
Mike Lee (UT-SEN) CC BC TP ET BB

Scott Rigell (VA-02) GW CC BC RI TP
Robert Hurt (VA-05) GW CC TP ET

Morgan Griffith (VA-09) GW CC TP ET
Keith Fimian* (VA-11) GW CC TP ET BB

John Koster* (WA-02) GW CC BC RI TPET BB
Jamie Herrera (WA-03) CC TP ET

Dick Muri* (WA-09) GW TP BB
Dino Rossi* (WA-SEN) GW TP ET BB

Sean Duffy (WI-07) CC TP ET
Reid Ribble (WI-08) CC TP ET

Ron Johnson (WI-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
David McKinley (WV-01) GW CC BC RITP ET BB

*- These races are currently too close to call.”

(List edited to update two races in Washington State.)

The study surveyed 2030 adults, selected on the basis of U.S. Census distribution, who were asked 43 questions to test their knowledge of climate change, and 12 questions about their sources of information.  Based on the number of correct "knowledge" answers, only 1% of the respondents received an grade of “A”, while 77% received either a “D” (25%) or an “F” (52%). 

The authors’ summary of the study⁽²⁾ is:

"Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change reports results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming. Among other findings, the study identifies a number of important gaps in public knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change.

Overall, we found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why. In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many Americans lack some of the knowledge needed for informed decision-making in a democratic society. For example, only:

• 57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
• 50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
• 45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;
• 25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification. 

Meanwhile, large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions.

However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.

In addition, despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.

Americans also recognize their own limited understanding. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans more about the issue."

If we, as a society, are to make the intelligent decisions and choices that are necessary to adapt to climate change, and reduce global warming, our citizens must have far more complete understanding of basic climate science.  We must all Learn, Teach others, and Act!

The Yale study was restricted to the United States – how do the results compare to your country?  Leave a comment and let us know.

___________________

1.)  Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. &  Marlon, J.R. (2010) Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf

2.)   http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change

Two environmental events gained national attention in 1969, one was the massive, 200,000 gallon, Santa Barbara (California) oil spill which started on January 29th, and in June the heavily polluted Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught on fire.  The Santa Barbara oil spill quickly resulted in an unprecedented volunteer effort to cleanse and care for oil-coated seabirds.  This rescue effort rapidly became a major news story.  While the Cuyahoga River fire had burned on several previous occasions, and the June fire was readily extinguished, it also received national publicity and was widely used to illustrate how polluted the Nation’s rivers had become.

In the fall of 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson was returning to Washington, D.C. from an visit to the Santa Barbara oil spill site, when he  conceived  the idea that would become Earth Day.   Senator Nelson, who while serving as the governor of Wisconsin had been nicknamed the “Conservation Governor”, had been reading an article about the “teach-ins” that were then spontaneously occurring on college campuses around the nation.  Why not, he reasoned, have environmental teach-ins?   And if they were all held on the same day would they not gain maximum publicity?  Senator Nelson later mentioned the idea in a Seattle speech and it was soon reported in the press.  Senator Nelson had envisioned the idea as one of locally organized and managed events, not one that was nationally organized.  However, as his senate office rapidly became overwhelmed with requests for information he established an Environmental Teach-in organization and hired a young Harvard graduate student, Denis Hayes, to manage the organization in supply of information and support.  While interest rapidly grew beyond college campuses, the date of April 22 was chosen strictly because of college spring break and exam schedules.  No doubt it did not hurt that the Spring equinox occurred on April 22 in 1970.

A mere eight months after Senator Nelson had the idea, 1 of every 10 Americans actively participated in Earth Day 1970 activities.  From a crowd of over 100,000 people on Fifth Avenue, New York to small groups of school children planting trees, Earth Day was celebrated across the nation.   One unanticipated, but remarkable consequence was the number of local coalitions that resulted from the emphasis on grassroots planning as local organizations came together to promote a common cause; and which resulted in truly community-oriented Earth Day celebrations. 

While organized locally, most Earth Day celebrations had common elements of educational events, service activities such stream or park cleanups, entertainment and of course, speeches.  While the  major environmental emphasis was on pollution, population was also a major issue at the time and was a component of many Earth Day celebrations. 

Earth Day was not without its detractors.  Fanned by releases from the John Birch Society some felt that it was an attempt at a communist take-over of the United States since April 22 also happens to be Lenin’s birthday, and organizations from the Daughters of the American Revolution to the anti-war movement denounced it as subversive, or detracting.  And or course, just as today there were a number of “deniers”  who claimed that pollution did not exist, or was a sign of progress, or not worth spending money to clean up.  But the the massive outpouring of public interest and involvement was a surprise to many, and could not be ignored.

Presidential papers show that President Nixon didn’t really understand many of the environmental concerns and was not particularly interested in environmental matters; but, as a result of Earth Day he recognized that environment issues had broad public support. Therefore in July he proposed the formation of an Environmental Protection Agency, and the EPA was authorized by Congress in December.  Congressional support for the EPA was no doubt enhanced by the fact that environmental support became a major issue in the 1970 mid-term elections, contributing to the removal of several dissenting members of Congress by candidates who pledged support on environmental matters.  With the support of both the administration and Congress a landslide of environmental legislation was enacted, including:  significant amendments to both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act (1970), the Environmental Education Act of 1970, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Ironically, President Nixon rejected any attempt to control automobile emissions, believing it to be bad for the (then faltering) economy.

Forty years later we still celebrate Earth Day, but sadly not with the enthusiasm, nor broad public support, that marked the 1970 event.  In fact today it is difficult to imagine that 1 out of 10 Americans joining with other members of their community to partake in such an event.  It is also difficult to imagine that our elected leaders would respond as they did in 1970.

In the years since Earth Day 1970 the concern about population has all but evaporated, while the U.S. population has increased from 203 million in 1970 to 309 million today. In the same time period the world’s population has increased from 3.7 billion to over 6.8 billion, and on average 1 person a second, or 36 million people a year now die of starvation. 

On the other hand,  the laws passed in the ‘70s have provided significant protection for our air and waters.  However, in many regards the laws and regulations have not kept up with the threats, and current health concerns.  For example, water standards for heavy metals and organics are deficient or lacking, while the concentrations of both are increasing in many of our surface waters.  And, one does not need to look beyond the emission of greenhouse gases as an example of current air pollution concerns.  In the 40 years since 1970 the CO₂ concentration of the atmosphere has risen from 325ppm to 391ppm, an increase of 20%.

The lasting legacy of Earth Day 1970 is true to Senator Nelson’s vision of an environmental teach-in.  Earth Day is now celebrated in nations around the world, an annual reminder of our responsibility to planet earth and those who will inhabit her in our stead.  There can be no doubt that the inhabitants of Earth are now far better informed about the environment than they were in 1970; but, while that knowledge is far broader,  the intensity of concern, and the commitment to environmental protection appears to be far less. 

The January 29th announcement establishes the targets required by the October 5, 2009 Executive Order 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, energy and Economic Performance) mandated that Federal Agencies submit a 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target within 90 days; and, increase energy efficiency, reduce petroleum consumption, conserve water, reduce waste and increase recycling.

The announcement does not include any emission reductions by federal contractors and suppliers, or resulting from employee commuting as called for by the executive order.

The full text of the White House announcement is:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 29, 2010

President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations

 

Target to Drive Energy Cost Reductions in Federal Operations, Creating Clean Energy Jobs

WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.  Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy.  Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone.  Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.  This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.  Examples of agency actions that are underway are available on the White House Council on Environmental Quality website and can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, setting measureable environmental performance goals for Federal Agencies.  Each Federal Agency was required to submit a 2020 GHG pollution reduction target from its estimated 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by January 4, 2010.  The Federal target announced today is the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

Greenhouse gas emissions serve as a useful metric to measure the effectiveness of agency energy and fuel efficiency efforts as well as renewable energy investments. Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays at military installations, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models.

As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual progress will be measured and reported online to the public.

A 20 page brochure intended for the general public is highly recommended. The key findings of the report were summarized and are presented below verbatim:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)

4. Climate change will stress water resources. Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge. Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)

7. Threats to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses. Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems. There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today. The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)

Factsheets and brochures can be downloaded from: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/usimpacts-brochures The full report can be found at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report.

During October of 2008 researchers from Yale and George Mason universities conducted nation-wide, in-depth interviews with more than 2000 Americans, focusing on attitudes toward climate change and supporting demographic data.  The initial report, "Global Warming's Six Americas"⁽¹⁾ identified and described six, distinct groups of Americans based on climate change beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors and other factors.  Two subsequent reports focused on energy saving behaviors and on climate change "beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences and actions".  A "final" report⁽²⁾ released in May of 2009 updates and expands upon the previous reports.  The findings are too voluminous to present here, and thus online access is recommended to those with more than a casual interest.

The six groups identified in the report range for those most convinced about the reality of global warming and that it is human caused and an urgent threat.  The Alarmed are making changes in their personal lifestyles and directly support an aggressive national response.  The Concerned also are convinced that global warming is a serious problem, but are less likely to be directly involved, or taking personal actions than the Alarmed.  Together, these two groups make up 51% of the population.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Dismissive are equally convinced about the reality of global warming, and engaged,  as the alarmed, except that they strongly believe that it is not happening, is not a threat, and strongly believe that a nation response is not needed.

The Cautious also believe that global warming is a real problem, but they are less certain about it than either the Alarmed or Concerned, and do not view it as a personal threat to them or their children, and don't see any urgency to deal with the problem.

The Disengaged basically haven't thought about it and don't know much about it.  In many ways they are the group with the most open mind and could easily change their beliefs about global warming.

The Doubtful are evenly split among those who believe that global warming is real and those who think that it is not.  Those who do believe in the reality of global warming tend to believe that it is due to natural causes, and is not a threat.  Most of the Doubtful feel that America is already doing enough to respond to global warming.

The reports identify how each of these "six Americas" response to the global warming issue in their own, distinctive manner, and provides detailed analyses of the attitudes, demographics and behavioral profiles of each group.  This information should prove essential in the establishment of the meaningful dialogs between these groups that will be necessary in the formulation and implementation of national policies addressing climate change.

_____________________________

1.) Global Warming's "Six Americas":  An Audience Segmentation.  Leiserowitz, A.,  E. Maiback and C. Roser-Fenouf.  2008.  42 p.  A Yale Project on Climate Change and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication report.  Online at: http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/SixAmericas-final-v3-Web.pdf

2.)  Global Warming's Six Americas 2009:  An Audience Segmentation Analysis.  Maibach, E., C Roser-Renouf and A. Leiserowitz. 2009.  131 p.  A Yale Project on Climate Change and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication report.  Online at:  http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/Global_Warming%27s_Six_Americas_2009r.pdf