Seattle, Washington

Worried that warming temperatures and glacier melt might endanger Seattle’s water supply, city officials took bold steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The city invested in public transportation to reduce auto travel. It rebuilt neighborhoods to create compact, walkable communities that are less dependent on the automobile. It offered incentives to homeowners and building owners to invest in energy-saving retrofits.

The effort paid off: In 2008 — four years ahead of deadline — Seattle met the Kyoto Protocol goal of reducing its greenhouse emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels set for the United States.

Seattle’s recycling and compost rates are among the highest in the United States. Cruise ships bound for Alaska now plug into the electric grid while at port, rather than idling their engines along the waterfront. According to Greg Nickels, Seattle’s former mayor, who spearheaded the environmental initiatives, cities are “laboratories for solutions.”

Rather than allowing emissions to spew into the atmosphere, Illinois researchers are trying to store them underground to ease climate change. being tested in Illinois.

Washington,
01 December 2011

That approach is called carbon sequestration, and a million-ton demonstration of CO2 storage has entered a critical phase — the injection of CO2 from a biofuels plant into a sandstone formation more than 2,100 meters below the surface of Decatur, Illinois.

“Establishing long-term, environmentally safe and secure underground CO2 storage is a critical component in achieving successful commercial deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage technology,” said Chuck McConnell, chief operating officer for the Office of Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

This injection test is managed by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC). McConnell said in a November press release that it will help “confirm the great potential and viability of permanent geologic storage as an important option in climate change mitigation strategies.”

The Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), part of the Prairie Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is leading the project, which has been in development since 2003. The group’s study indicates that the deep, sub-surface reservoir they’ve selected — known as Mt. Simon Sandstone — “has the necessary geological characteristics to be an excellent injection target for safe and effective storage of CO2,” according to Robert J. Finley, the leader of the ISGS sequestration team. The scientists estimate that the storage capacity of Mt. Simon Sandstone is as much as 150 billion metric tons.

The CO2 is being captured from a processing complex where the Archer Daniels Midland Company is fermenting corn to make ethanol. The captured CO2 is compressed into a dense liquid and injected into the underground formation. ISGS has confirmed that this formation is the thickest and most widespread saline reservoir in the Illinois Basin, a geological feature underlying two-thirds of the state of Illinois. When the CO2 is injected into the formation, it is stored permanently in pore spaces within the rock. The Mt. Simon Sandstone lies beneath the Eau Claire shale formation that serves as an impermeable cap of rock, a layer of protection preventing CO2 release into the atmosphere.

The infrastructure for this sequestration project has been under development since 2007. MGSC has conducted a seismic survey of the area and constructed a pipeline and a facility where the CO2 is compressed. Three wells have been drilled, including an injection well and a well to be used to monitor the ongoing injection and its effects on the surrounding rock formations.

This project is one of several demonstrations being conducted by regional carbon sequestration partnerships sponsored by DOE. Seven regional partner organizations around the country are working to identify the best approaches for capturing and permanently storing greenhouse gases.

Another group involving nine states from Indiana to the mid-Atlantic coast reported in November the discovery of underground storage capacity that could permanently store hundreds of years of CO2 emissions generated by the region. This group — the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership — has identified deep saline rock formations that could store almost 250 billion metric tons of CO2.

These sequestration efforts move forward at an important moment in the international discussion of climate change. Representatives from almost 200 nations, parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, are in Durban, South Africa, November 28–December 9 working to reach international agreement on how to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in an effort to slow the process of global warming.

International cooperative actions to mitigate climate change will be up for discussion when a major international meeting convenes in Durban, South Africa, November 28 through December 9. The chief U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, expects that this year’s session on the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will build on progress made in the last two years.

In a November 22 press briefing, Stern said the agreement that emerged from a meeting in Cancún, Mexico, in 2010 was “a solid commitment by all the parties — nobody takes it lightly,” even though it is not a legally binding act.

Some discussions will take an even longer view, Stern said, looking at the possibilities for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions after 2020. The U.S. envoy said the United States’ negotiators need to know the details of any such agreement before they would agree to adherence. The United States would insist that any long-range commitment “fully applies to all significant countries,” Stern said.

Stern noted other provisions of the Cancún agreement that he considers to be solid achievements toward containing climate change. Both developed and developing countries make comparable commitments on actions they will undertake to ease greenhouse gas emissions and turn back the thermostat on global warming. The agreement outlines a system of transparency that, Stern said, would keep nations on track to make the GHG reductions they had pledged.

The Cancún agreement also includes provisions on how to reduce deforestation in developing countries and establishes a climate technology center. In the event that adverse effects of climate change — such as rising seas — are already occurring in some low-lying countries, the Cancún agreement also spells out proposals on promoting international cooperation and action to help these countries and their citizens adapt to a changing environment.

Another provision of the Cancún agreement calls for establishing a Green Climate Fund to help less-developed nations adopt energy-efficient technologies and adapt to adverse consequences of climate change as they occur. Stern said the United States is “a strong supporter of the basic concept” and is optimistic that an agreement on the final details of the mechanism can be reached in Durban.

Overall, Stern said he is optimistic that the Durban meeting could produce a forward-looking agreement, “one that is balanced across the issues and makes good progress on all those issues.”

(end text)

A woman and child plow a field in Goz Beida, Chad

Washington,
21 October 2011

USAID and Swiss Re have announced a three-year partnership to help vulnerable communities in the Americas, Africa and Asia.

The new partnership will help fight hunger, build resilience to climate change, and reduce the costs of natural disasters, USAID said in an October 20 press release. The partnership combines the expertise of Swiss Re, a global reinsurance provider, with two initiatives of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

One USAID element is the Global Climate Change Initiative, which works to make communities more resilient to extreme climate events and accelerate the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy around the world. The other USAID element is the Feed the Future initiative, which tackles the root causes of hunger and malnutrition by helping countries develop more productive agricultural sectors.

The USAID–Swiss Re partnership will provide access to customized, market-based insurance for poor farmers. With better insurance, these farmers and their families will be more able to cope with the effects of droughts, floods and other severe weather events that may become increasingly common as the climate changes, according to USAID.

When farmers have better instruments to manage their risk, they can more easily get loans to buy new technologies that increase their yields and productivity, and they will have greater incentive to make such investments, knowing that they are buffered from extreme weather events.

“Private-sector involvement is crucial to USAID’s efforts to reduce poverty and foster long-term economic development in the countries where we work,” said USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah.

“Swiss Re has been an industry leader in the development of innovative new products to address weather-related risks,” Shah added. “We welcome this opportunity to join forces to develop affordable, market-based tools to reduce climate vulnerability in poor communities.”

This partnership follows USAID and Swiss Re’s recent announcement about joining Oxfam America and the World Food Programme to expand the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative from Ethiopia to Senegal.

It also builds on the two organizations’ previous collaborations under USAID’s Index Insurance Innovation Initiative, which invests in research and tests innovations that are improving USAID’s understanding of how the poor and vulnerable can best use insurance to manage risk.

“Building insurance capacity in developing countries is a critical step to limiting the vulnerability to extreme weather events that impact so many livelihoods,” said Walter Bell, chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation.

“Swiss Re’s innovative solutions, combined with USAID’s technical expertise and extensive development experience, will bring advanced risk management solutions to the communities who need them most,” Bell said.

(end text)

A boy crosses a sand dune in China's Gansu province, where overfarming has drained the water table so low that desert is overtaking farmland

By Charlene Porter
IIP Staff Writer
21 September 2011

Washington — Degradation of the land supporting human life and the food supply is an environmental threat that endangers the lives and livelihoods of more than 1 billion people worldwide. On September 20, world leaders met in a high-level U.N. forum for the first time to address desertification and drought.

“Land is life, and our life depends on land,” said U.N. General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser of Qatar. Fully one-fourth of the planet’s land mass is on the verge of degradation and desertification, he said. “The economic, social and human cost of desertification is tremendous.”

Administrator Rajiv Shah of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) represented the United States at the session, and said that progress on long-standing international goals to eradicate poverty and hunger could be undermined by serious and widespread land degradation. He presented sustainability as the solution.

“Addressing desertification through long-term sustainable land management and agricultural development is one of the most effective tools we have to prevent the crises that result from a lack of available food and nutrition,” he said.

Crisis takes form today in the Horn of Africa, where 13 million people are facing severe malnutrition, largely because of crop failure brought on by drought and poor land management. Shah has been to the region and oversees an aid effort involving more than $600 million. He delved into U.S. history for a comparable event, pointing out that in the 1930s, the United States faced a humanitarian disaster brought on by poor land use, driving millions of people off eroded lands in search of food and opportunity elsewhere.

“We strengthened collaboration between local governments and farmers, invested in agricultural universities to foster innovations in farming practices and water management,” said Shah, “and embarked on larger-scale efforts to manage our production lands more sustainably.”

Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, said the occurrence of drought worldwide has doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s. “In the drylands, due to drought and desertification, 12 million hectares are transformed into new man-made deserts. That is an area with the potential to produce 20 million tons of grain each year.”

Lee Don Koo, minister of South Korea’s forest service, said his nation is shifting its economic development strategy from one that is growth driven to one based on “green growth.” Recognizing that land sustains decent lives, Lee said his government now works to achieve expanded development through successful forestry practices.

The humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Horn of Africa was repeatedly cited in the U.N. discussion as an example of the worst consequences of land degradation and desertification, providing international leaders with enormous incentive to take action to move toward sustainable land use.

“And though the American people will always provide aid in times of urgent need, emergency assistance is not the most efficient or lasting solution,” said Shah. “The reality is we must do more to prevent these crises in the first place.” The Obama administration’s Feed the Future initiative aims to help vulnerable nations create more resilient agricultural sectors and food systems, Shah said, to prevent the famine and desperate migration that has beset East Africa today.

The U.N. Convention on Desertification was signed in 1994 and took effect in 1996. Today, almost 200 countries are parties to the agreement. The results of the U.N. discussion will be presented at the next conference of parties to the convention, to be held in South Korea in October.

U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern says that progress can be made to address greenhouse gas pollution and climate-related problems even if an international pact is delayed

By Karin Rives
IIP Staff Writer
19 September 2011

Washington — Seventy days remain until international leaders will gather in South Africa to discuss ways to tackle climate change. The road ahead is tough, U.S. lead climate negotiator Todd Stern told reporters September 19, “but I’m not pessimistic.”

A meeting held between leaders from 17 major economies in Washington September 16–17 to discuss the road forward was productive, Stern said, adding that several outstanding issues, such as the future of the Kyoto Protocol, remain thorny. The Kyoto Protocol, the world’s first legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, is linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the organization that runs the annual climate talks.

Several of the 37 industrialized countries that signed the Kyoto agreement in 1997, including Japan, Canada and Russia, have said they won’t support a second term. It looks now, Stern said, as if the European Union is the only party willing to sign up for a second period.

The United States did not sign the original agreement. U.S. negotiators maintain that they would agree to a binding agreement if all leading developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are also part of it.

“The world is a dramatically different place,” Stern said, referring to the time that has passed since the United Nations–led discussions began nearly two decades ago. “Just look at China and the fast degree to which it’s growing — six times the gross domestic product of 1992 already — and China is projected to be twice the size of the United States in [greenhouse gas] emissions in 2020. You just can’t go forward with a new legal agreement that simply is based on the same precise [Kyoto] structure.”

Stern also said that a future agreement must be based on a “genuine” will by all major polluters to reduce emissions. “So we don’t have a situation where countries make a commitment to do x, y or z to mitigate their emissions, but then there’s an asterisk that says, ‘But we only want to do this if we get financing and technology support,’” he said. “There can be no escape hatches.”

The Major Economic Forum on Energy and Climate held in Washington was the 12th meeting since 2009. The meeting also serves as a platform for partnerships and regional agreements on clean energy and climate projects that fall outside of the United Nations structure. The 17 forum members are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The forum invites other countries to attend such meetings. This time, representatives from Colombia, New Zealand, Singapore and Spain attended.

While in Washington, participants discussed funding for developing nations and other provisions that came out of last year’s climate talks in Mexico. The United States and other developed nations have promised to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries tackle emissions and adapt to climate change that is already happening. So far this year, some $15 billion has been invested in such green investments, Stern said.

Much of the future discussion will center on how to use government funds as effectively as possible, while at the same time leveraging capital from the private sector. Even in a strong world economy, governments will need some assurance that investment of public funds carries limited risk and a reasonable return, Stern said.

This article was written by Seattle journalist Jonathan Hiskes, who writes about clean technology, environmental innovation and the urban environment. He is the Pacific Northwest correspondent for Sustainable Industries magazine.

The Port of Seattle asks cruise ships to plug into the city electric grid while docking to decrease air pollution from the ships’ diesel engines

It is difficult to imagine a water shortage in Seattle, Washington. In this famously drizzly city in the northwestern United States, views of Puget Sound and freshwater lakes beckon from almost every hilltop. Two snow-capped mountain ranges, the Olympics and the Cascades, rise on the city’s eastern and western flanks.

Yet the threat of water shortages — triggered by glacier melt and accelerated by warming temperatures — has inspired the city of 609,000 to embark on one of the most ambitious climate protection plans in the nation. The city has launched plans to cut energy waste by insulating and retrofitting buildings, to reduce driving by building new transit networks, and to position itself as a hotbed of clean-energy jobs and innovation.

The results have been clear for several years: In 2008 — four years ahead of a deadline —Seattle met the Kyoto Protocol goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels set for the United States. Its leadership inspired more than 1,000 other U.S. cities and towns to agree to the same target.

“When I became mayor, climate was not on my list of to-dos,” he said. “I filled some potholes and had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, trying to put people back to work.”

“I assumed a couple of things: One, that climate change was something that was off in the future and would happen to other places first. And two, that the federal government was doing something about it. I was wrong.”

MAYOR LEADS THE WAY

The urgency of the threat hit home, city insiders say, during a senior staff meeting in January 2005. The city’s utilities director told Nickels that melting glaciers could create water shortages much sooner than the public expected. And because most of the city’s power supply comes from hydroelectric dams, water shortages could also create an energy crisis.

At the same time, 141 countries were about to ratify the Kyoto climate treaty, without the participation of the United States. Nickels told his staff that Seattle had to step forward even if the federal government wasn’t ready.

“He put his hand down and looked across the table, and said, ‘We aren’t thinking big enough,’” recalled Mike Mann, the former director of the city’s Office of Sustainability and Environment. When the mayor mentioned signing the Kyoto treaty, Mann said, “Staff members’ jaws kind of dropped as they realized he was dead serious.”

Nickels launched the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to enlist other mayors in committing to the greenhouse gas emissions targets. Later that year he traveled to the United Nations climate talks in Montreal to spread the message that plenty of local leaders in the U.S. were prepared to act on climate change.

Back at home, he had to convince Seattleites that it was time for bold steps. Most of Seattle’s electricity comes from hydroelectric dams, which have a much lower carbon footprint — an estimate of how much carbon dioxide is produced by an entity such as a company — than coal or gas-fired power plants. That means the bulk of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation, and that replacing car trips with transit is key to cutting the city’s carbon footprint.

DENSITY: A NEW CONCEPT FOR SEATTLE

Nickels understood that compact, walkable neighborhoods were necessary to support bus and light-rail networks. But while the city abounds with nature lovers drawn to the nearby mountains and waterways, many of them don’t see the connection between protecting the environment and higher housing densities in their urban neighborhoods. Seattle is one of the largest American cities with more single-family homes than high-density multi-unit dwellings.

“I don’t believe citizens have fully embraced the importance of dense, compact neighborhoods,” said Mann, who now works as an environmental sustainability consultant to the city.

For example, a plan to allow taller buildings near a new light-rail station in the Mount Baker neighborhood has faced opposition from local residents concerned that greater density would bring traffic congestion and crime. “People need yards and open space to be mentally healthy,” Pat Murakami, a nearby resident, told the Seattle Times. “Are we supposed to live like sardines crammed into a can?”

To make the case for higher urban density, the city has had the help of an energetic group of sustainability advocates. Seattle-based writer Alex Steffen promotes “bright green urbanism,” the idea that marrying environmental values with technology and smart land use allows city neighborhoods to be more social, healthy and prosperous than auto-dependent suburbs. Local nonprofits Climate Solutions, Great City and the Sightline Institute work to link the environmental leanings of Seattleites with large-scale public plans.

“I want to participate in a real revolution, not make futile gestures,” Climate Solutions policy director K.C. Golden said. “That’s why retreating back to just private and local action alone won’t work.”

The centerpiece of Seattle’s green urban vision has been the remaking of the South Lake Union neighborhood near downtown. A decade ago, the site was an expanse of car lots and underused warehouses. Through partnerships between the city and private investors, it has become a bustling high-tech corridor anchored by nine buildings that house the headquarters of online retailer Amazon.com. The transformation has worked, said Mann, because it included things that appeal to residents and office workers: a streetcar line, shops and restaurants, and a waterfront park where a Navy shipyard once stood.

“When you increase [urban] density, it’s got to work for people,” Mann said. “It’s got to have amenities and public spaces and not just big Soviet-style housing towers that people don’t want.”

CARS VERSUS TRAINS

Elsewhere, reducing transportation emissions has been more difficult. The city and state are poised to begin construction on a multi-billion-dollar road tunnel beneath the downtown waterfront. The plan includes no room for rail lines, and sustainability advocates say investing so heavily in an auto-only project is short-sighted.

Nickels, after negotiating to trim the size of the tunnel, agreed to support it. Many believe that decision cost him the environmental vote in the 2009 election, leading to an unexpected victory by environmental organizer Mike McGinn.

But the progress of the campaign Nickels started has continued under the new mayor. The city is building out a 15-year light-rail plan that Nickels promoted and voters approved. Recycling and compost rates are among the highest in the nation. Cruise ships bound for Alaska now plug into the electric grid while at port, rather than idling their engines along the waterfront.

LEAKY BUILDINGS GET MAKEOVER

Perhaps most promising, the city has launched an innovative program to reduce energy waste from leaky buildings. In the United States, buildings account for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. Seattle’s Community Power Works program, backed by $20 million in federal economic stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds, aims to fix several of the barriers that keep owners from retrofitting their buildings.

First, it offers low-cost ($95) energy assessments to help home and business owners understand where their buildings are wasting heat and electricity. Second, it partners with the community investment institution Enterprise Cascadia to offer 20-year loans for energy-efficiency investments. This solves the finance dilemma for many homeowners — investments such as good insulation and duct-sealing pay for themselves over time but carry steep upfront costs.

Finally, Community Power Works is piloting a “carbon reduction incentive fund,” essentially a reward-based carbon market that pays building owners subsidies based on the amount of carbon dioxide emission savings they achieve. Community Power Works is modest in scope; it aims to retrofit 2,000 homes, along with businesses and hospitals. But by testing out new ideas, its full influence could be much greater.

“Cities are the location of a lot of emissions because they’re centers of industry and population,” Mann said. “But they’re also laboratories for solutions. They’re going to generate the ideas the federal government will come back to, at some point, out of necessity.”

Washington — Research published June 20 finds a steady rise in the sea level on the U.S. Atlantic coast, a faster rise now than at any time in the last 2,000 years.

The scientific team publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences included researchers from Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and others, and was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Their findings represent the first continuous sea-level reconstruction for the past 2,000 years, comparing variations in global temperature to changes in sea level over the millennia, according to an NSF press release.

“It’s especially valuable for anticipating the evolution of coastal systems,” said Paul Cutler, the program director in NSF’s Division of Earth Sciences, “in which more than half the world’s population now lives.

The researchers found that sea level was relatively stable from 200 B.C. to A.D. 1000. The water started creeping higher in the 11th century and rose a half millimeter each year for 400 years. That was followed by another stable period of a few hundred years. In the 19th century, sea level began rising again and has been rising about 2 millimeters per year, the fastest pace in 2,200 years.

The scientific team calculated these alternating epochs of rising and steady sea levels by examining sediment cores extracted from coastal salt marshes in the state of North Carolina. Those sediments and the fossilized microorganisms within them were analyzed through radiocarbon testing and other techniques that allowed estimates of the samples’ ages and changes in sea level over time.

“Sea-level rise is a potentially disastrous outcome of climate change,” said Benjamin Horton of the University of Pennsylvania, “as rising temperatures melt land-based ice and warm ocean waters.”

Another study released in June touches upon one of the key controversies surrounding global warming data: What’s causing it? Human activities pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Or is it part of a natural cycle that the Earth undergoes through the millennia? Research by a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey lessens the significance of one natural source cited by climate skeptics as a possible cause — volcanic emissions.

Human activities — anthropogenic causes, as scientists refer to them — are emitting much more greenhouse gases than volcanoes are. “Present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2,” writes Terrence Gerlach in an article in Eos, the publication of the American Geophysical Union.

The global output of volcanoes annually is estimated to range from 0.15 billion to 0.26 billion metric tons, or gigatons. Human-generated CO2 emissions amount to 35 gigatons, reports Gerlach, which “clearly dwarf all estimates of the annual present-day global volcanic CO2 emission rate.”

Analysis of human emissions has been subdivided to specific sources. Gerlach wrote that they can individually outpace what volcanoes may spew: Light-duty vehicles like cars and trucks spew 3 gigatons a year and cement production emits 1.4 gigatons per year.

U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern testified May 25 before a congressional subcommittee on the upcoming U.N.-sponsored climate talks

U.S. Helping Vulnerable Nations Fight Climate Change

By Charlene Porter

Staff Writer

May 26, 2011

Washington – U.S. interests in the world are best served by helping vulnerable countries prepare for adverse effects that climate change may bring, according to U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern.

The diplomat, who has a long history in international negotiations on this issue, appeared before a House of Representatives Foreign Affairs subcommittee May 25 to outline the administration’s current policy, with a major meeting of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) approaching at the end of this year.

Stern said a key element of the Obama administration’s policy is helping developing nations adopt sustainable energy and environmental policies that may help mitigate the effects of climate change.

“A great many countries around the world, particularly vulnerable ones facing real danger, see climate change as one of the fundamental challenges facing humanity,” Stern testified. “Whether you agree or disagree, it is vital to U.S. diplomatic leverage generally and to long-term U.S. interests in the world to be seen as meeting our responsibilities in this regard.”

The Obama administration has announced an intent to provide $1 billion through 2012 to help other nations adapt to climate change, an amount Stern said is only three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the annual budget.

Stern presented that argument to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. The representative expressed concern about the nation’s capability to provide significant long-range funding for other nations’ development plans when the United States faces its own budget deficits.

As the United States prepares for the UNFCCC meeting beginning in November, Stern said negotiators will work to design a structure for the so-called Green Fund to help developing nations make adaptations, and to set up a Climate Technology Center and Adaptation Committee that would provide assistance for vulnerable countries, such as island nations with low elevations that are most threatened by the prospect of rising seas.

Climate change science predicts that warmer global temperatures will cause reduced snowfall and melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, resulting in higher sea levels. Shrinking glaciers have already been documented in Greenland and the Arctic. Controversy continues about whether these signs of warming are a long-term trend or a short-term fluctuation in normal climate patterns.

Helping countries beset by disasters brought on by climate change is another goal of the Obama policy, Stern said. “The United States needs to – and always does – stand ready to help countries victimized by such events. It is who we are, and it is in our own interest to do these things.”