Climatic Change

, Volume 99, Issue 1–2, pp 295–302 | Cite as

“Reasons for concern” (about climate change) in the United States

A letter
Letter

Abstract

Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commits its parties to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that “would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Authors of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001a, b) offered some insight into what negotiators might consider dangerous by highlighting five “reasons for concern” (RFC’s) and tracking concern against changes in global mean temperature; they illustrated their assessments in the now iconic “burning embers” diagram. The Fourth Assessment Report reaffirmed the value of plotting RFC’s against temperature change (IPCC 2007a, b), and Smith et al. (2009) produced an unpated embers visualization for the globe. This paper applies the same assessment and communication strategies to calibrate the comparable RFC’s for the United States. It adds “National Security Concern” as a sixth RFC because many now see changes in the intensity and/or frequency of extreme events around the world as “risk enhancers” that deserve attention at the highest levels of the US policy and research communities. The US embers portrayed here suggest that: (1) US policy-makers will not discover anything really “dangerous” over the near to medium term if they consider only economic impacts that are aggregated across the entire country but that (2) they could easily uncover “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” by focusing their attention on changes in the intensities, frequencies, and regional distributions of extreme weather events driven by climate change.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10584_2009_9797_MOESM1_ESM.doc (59 kb)
(Doc 59.0 kb).

References

  1. Ackerman F, Stanton EA, Hope C, Alberth S (2009) Did the Stern Review underestimate US and global climate damages? Energy Policy 37:2717–2721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett J (2009) The prize of peace (is eternal vigilance): a cautionary editorial essay on climate geopolitics. Clim Change 96:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke MB, Miquel E, Satyanath S, Dykema JA, Lobell DB (2009) Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:20670–20674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dalby S (2009) Security and environmental change. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001a) In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001b) Climate change 2001: synthesis report. A contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007a) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007b) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Kates RW, Colten CE, Laska S, Leatherman SP (2006) Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a research perspective. Proc National Academy of Sciences, Special Feature 103(40):14653–14660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kerr R (2009) Amid worrisome signs of warming, “climate fatigue” sets in. Science 326:926–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liverman D (2009) The geopolitics of climate change: avoiding determinism, fostering sustainable development. Clim Change 96:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Military Advisory Board (MAB) (2007) National security and the threat of climate change. The CNA Corporation, SecurityAndClimate.cna.org, 63 pp
  13. National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) (2008) Committee on the environment and natural resources, scientific assessment of the effects of global change on the United States. US Climate Change Science Program, Washington, 261 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Nordhaus W, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world—economic models of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 232Google Scholar
  15. Peters G (2009) Seeds of terror. St Martins Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenzweig C, Karoly D, Vicarelli M, Neofotis P, Wu Q, Casassa G, Menzel A, Root TL, Estrella N, Seguin B, Tryjanowski P, Liu C, Rawlins S, Imeson A (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453:353–357. doi: 10.1038/nature06937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schneider SH (2009) The worst case scenario. Nature 458:1104–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith J, Schellnhuber J, Mirza M, Fankhauser S, Leemans R, Erda L, Ogallo L, Pittock B, Richels R, Rosenzweig C, Safriel U, Tol RSJ, Weyant J, Yohe G (2001) Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: a synthesis. In: IPCC (2001a), pp 913–970Google Scholar
  19. Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe G, Hare W, Mastrandrea MD, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Corfee-Morlot J, Magadza CHD, Füssel H-M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Suarez A, van Ypersele J-P (2009) Dangerous climate change: an update of the IPCC reasons for concern. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:4133–4137 (March 17, 2009, available through open access at www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0812355106)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stern N, Peters S, Bakhshi V, Bowen A, Cameron C, Catovsky S, Crane D, Cruickshank S, Dietz S, Edmonson N, Garbett S-L, Hamid L, Hoffman G, Ingram D, Jones B, Patmore N, Radcliffe H, Sathiyarajah R, Stock M, Taylor C, Vernon T, Wanjie H, Zenghelis D (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Strzepek K, Boehlert B, Neumann J, Verly C, Yohe G (2009) Characterization of the risks of drought as altered by climate change in the U.S. Working paper prepared for US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Change Division, December 2009Google Scholar
  22. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Complete documentation at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php; entered into force on March 21, 1994
  23. United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (2009) Global climate change impacts in the United States, Washington, DC. Available in various forms at http://www.globalchange.gov
  24. Woolsey RJ (2009) Threats to National Security, Summit on America’s Climate Choices: developing the framework for a National Response to Climate Change, National Academies of Science, March 30, 2009. Available on line at http://americasclimatechoices.org/summit_agenda.shtml
  25. Yohe G (2009) Addressing climate change through a risk management lens. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Yohe G, Tirpak D (2008) Summary report: OECD global forum on sustainable development: the economic benefits of climate change policies (6–7 July 2006). ENV/EPOC/GSP(2006)11, OECD, Paris, 2006. Integr Assess J 8:1–17Google Scholar
  27. Zahran S, Brody S, Vedlitz A, Grover H, Miller C (2008) Vulnerability and capacity: explaining local commitment to climate change policy. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 26:544–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations