Global Warming Reports

Search • RSS Feed

Executive Summary

The majority of scientists are certain that the climate is changing around the world and that humans are causing the transformation. Fortunately, we have the technological know-how to reduce global warming emissions while saving consumers money. But the longer we wait to take serious action the more devastating the consequences. We should not be daunted by the task at hand. As difficult as it may seem to change the weather, the fact is that we may already have.

Burning fossil fuels—oil, coal, and gas—to power our cars and generate electricity emits global warming gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the primary pollutant, but nitrous oxide and methane also contribute to global warming. The buildup of these gases in the atmosphere has formed a heat-trapping blanket around the earth, causing average temperatures to rise. This in turn alters the climate of the planet, throwing weather systems out of balance.

There are numerous ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while saving consumers money and boosting the economy. Energy conservation and efficiency programs not only curb emissions of global warming pollution, but also lower the cost of powering homes and businesses. Manufacturing cars that can go farther on a gallon of gas reduces tailpipe emissions of global warming gases while saving consumers billions at the gas pump. Finally, increasing our electricity generation from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, would reduce global warming emissions while alleviating many of our most pressing environmental and public health problems, including acid rain, smog, asthma attacks, and mercury contamination. Renewable sources of energy also would benefit our economy; studies show that investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources lowers the price of natural gas and creates substantially more jobs than similar investments in oil and gas production.

Despite the availability and feasibility of these options, the federal government has not taken meaningful action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This delay has measurable opportunity costs—the savings that consumers could be enjoying as a result of energy efficiency programs and electricity generation from renewable energy. Specifically:

• By increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 30 percent, energy bills would be reduced by $75 billion every year for 15 years, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). ACEEE also found that energy savings from more efficient building codes could result in global warming emission reductions of nearly 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide cumulatively by 2020.
• The Appliance Standards Awareness Project projects that increasing air conditioners’ efficiency by 30 percent by 2030 would save consumers more than $1.4 billion cumulatively. This could reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than 3.3 million metric tons, the equivalent of eliminating almost one and a half 300 MW coal-fired power plants operating nearly all the time.
• ACEEE estimates that the net lifetime economic benefits for a public benefits fund to spark new investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be approximately $100 billion or nearly $1,000 per U.S. household by 2020. These efficiency and public benefit measures could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants cumulatively by 127 million metric tons by 2020, about a six percent reduction from projected business as usual carbon emissions.
•A 40-mile per gallon fleet-wide fuel economy standard for cars and light trucks implemented over the next 10 years would conserve two million barrels of oil daily, save consumers $16 billion annually at the pump when fully implemented, and cut global warming pollution from passenger vehicles by 20 percent, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
• The Union of Concerned Scientists also found that a national renewable energy standard of 20 percent of electricity generation by 2020 could save consumers $4.5 billion on their energy bills between 2002 and 2020 and reduce global warming emissions from power plants by 19 percent in 2020.

By delaying acting on global warming, we not only lose the benefits of powering our economy more efficiently, but we also increase the costs of dealing with the consequences. Over the years, scientists have noted a steady climb in the number and severity of extreme weather events. The year 2002 tied with 1998 to be one of the warmest years since global temperatures have been recorded. By the end of the year, about 50 percent of the United States had been afflicted with drought. In 2002, approximately 700 natural disasters worldwide caused $55 billion in economic damages and took 11,000 lives. Internationally, weather-related natural disasters in the last 10 years caused more than $550 billion in economic damages.

The United States has not been immune from the growing financial burden of global warming. In 2002, extreme weather events cost insurers and taxpayers almost $20 billion. Specifically:

• According to data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Flood Insurance Program, Army Corps of Engineers, Small Business Administration, and Farm Service Agency, the U.S. government spent $13.8 billion in 2002 on weather-related disaster assistance.
• Property Claims Service, the information resource for the insurance industry for compiling and reporting estimates of insured property loss, reported more than $5.8 billion in insured property damage due to catastrophic weather-related events in 2002.
• The states recording the highest economic costs due to extreme weather, including both federal government expenditures and insured losses, include Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky and Georgia.
• The states spending the most per capita in 2002 to recover from extreme weather events include North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming.

Fortunately, we can simultaneously reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and save Americans money. But our window of opportunity is closing. The longer we wait, the greater the risk that the consequences will be irreversible.