167454 (741117), страница 4
Текст из файла (страница 4)
However, the review has also made clear the significantly reduced impact to be expected from the programs as a result of the nearly 40 percent reduction of CCAP funding by Congress from the amount requested by the President, higher-than-expected electricity demand, and lower-than-expected energy prices. In addition, before the programs' implementation, CCAP program managers could not always anticipate the impacts of projected climate change emission reductions. Information available from the first tranche of activity was considered in developing the current projections.
A second product of the review was the identification of several measures that have since been added to the CCAP portfolio. The most significant of these is the Environmental Stewardship Initiative, which greatly expands activities already included in the CCAP, and focuses on reducing the emissions of extremely potent greenhouse gases from three industrial applications--semiconductor production, electrical transmission and distribution systems, and magnesium casting. The expanded initiative is anticipated to reduce emissions by an additional 6.5 MMTCE by 2000, and 10.0 MMTCE by 2010. Other programs include improving energy efficiency in the construction of and supply of energy to commercial and industrial buildings, expanding residential markets for energy-efficient lighting products, and providing information on renewable energy to reduce barriers to the adoption of clean technologies.
The analysis of individual actions is integrated with revised forecasts of economic growth, energy prices, program funding, and regulatory developments to provide an updated comprehensive perspective on current and projected greenhouse gas emission levels. This analysis involved an updating of the baseline calculation in light of new economic assumptions regarding energy prices, economic growth, and technology improvements, among other factors. In 1993, the first U.S. submission projected year 2000 baseline emissions to be 106 MMTCE above their 1990 levels; with current program funding, emissions are now projected to exceed 1990 levels by 188 MMTCE. Two principal factors are responsible:
-
The analysis used to develop CCAP significantly underestimated the reductions that would be needed by programs to return emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This was due to several factors, including lower-than-expected fuel prices, strong economic growth, regulatory limitations within and outside of CCAP, and improved information on emissions of some potent greenhouse gases.
-
In addition, diminished levels of funding by Congress have affected both CCAP programs and other federal programs that reduce emissions, limiting their effectiveness.
While neither the measures initiated in 1993 nor the additional actions developed since then and included in this report will be adequate to meet the emissions goal enunciated by the President, they have significantly reduced emissions below growth rates that otherwise would have occurred. Based on current funding levels, the revised action plan is expected to reduce emissions by 76 MMTCE in the year 2000--or 70 percent of the reductions projected in the CCAP. Annual energy cost savings to businesses and consumers from CCAP actions are anticipated to be $10 billion (1995 dollars) by the year 2000. Even greater reductions are estimated from these measures in the post-2000 period: reductions of 169 MMTCE are projected for 2010, and 230 MMTCE for 2020. Annual energy savings are projected to grow to $50 billion (1995 dollars) in the year 2010.
A separate component of this chapter addresses the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation. Projects undertaken through this initiative allow private-sector partners to offset emissions from domestic activities through reductions achieved in other countries. The Climate Convention established a pilot program for joint implementation at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Guidelines for reporting under the pilot program were established by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at its fifth session in February 1997. This report uses those guidelines to report on project activity.
| Table 1-2 Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions | ||||||||||||||||||
| Action | Action Title | 1993 Action | Revised Estimate* | |||||||||||||||
| 2000 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2020 | ||||||||||||||
| Residential & Commercial Sector Actions | 26.9 | 10.3 | 29.4 | 53.0 | 78.4 | |||||||||||||
| 1 | Rebuild America | 2.0 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 6.3 | 7.1 | ||||||||||||
| 1 & 2 | Expanded Green Lights and Energy Star Buildings | 3.6 | 3.4 | 8.5 | 16.3 | 30.2 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | State Revolving Fund for Public Buildings | 1.1 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| 4 | Cost-Shared Demonstrations of Emerging Technologies | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Operation and Maintenance Training for Commercial Building Facility | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | Energy Star® Products | 5.0 | 4.3 | 12.9 | 19.4 | 24.9 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | Residential Appliance Standards | 6.8 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 3.7 | 3.8 | ||||||||||||
| 8 and 11 | Energy Partnerships for Affordable Housing | |||||||||||||||||
| 9 | Cool Communities | 4.4 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 7.7 | ||||||||||||
| 10 | Update State Building Codes | |||||||||||||||||
| New | Construction of EnergyEfficient Commercial and Industrial Buildings | Not included | 0.1 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 2.6 | ||||||||||||
| New | Superwindow Collaborative | Not included | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||
| New | Expand Markets for NextGeneration Lighting Products | Not included | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||
| New | Fuel Cells Initiative | Not included | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | ||||||||||||
| Industrial Sector Actions | 19.0 | 4.8 | 8.2 | 11.5 | 16.7 | |||||||||||||
| 12 | Motor Challenge | 8.8 | 1.8 | 3.9 | 5.8 | 7.5 | ||||||||||||
| 13 | Industrial Golden Carrot Programs | 2.9 | Merged | into | Motor | Challenge (#12) | ||||||||||||
| 14 | Accelerate the Adoption of EnergyEfficient Process Technologies | Terminated | ||||||||||||||||
| 15 | Industrial Assessment Centers | 0.5 | CCAP | Component | Terminated | |||||||||||||
| 16 | Waste Minimization** | 4.2 | 2.1 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 8.4 | ||||||||||||
| 17 | Improve Efficiency of Fertilizer Nitrogen Use*** | 2.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||
| 18 | Reduce the Use of Pesticides | Terminated | ||||||||||||||||
| Transportation Sector Actions | 8.1 | 5.3 | 11.5 | 15.5 | 22.1 | |||||||||||||
| 19 | Cash Value of Parking | |||||||||||||||||
| 20 | Innovative Transportation Strategies | 6.6 | 4.6 | 8.4 | 10.9 | 17.0 | ||||||||||||
| 21 | Telecommuting Program | |||||||||||||||||
| 22 | Fuel Economy Labels for Tires | 1.5 | 0.7 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 5.3 | ||||||||||||
| Energy Supply Actions | 10.8 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 7.0 | 18.9 | |||||||||||||
| 23 | Increase Natural Gas Share of Energy Use Through Federal Regulatory Reform | 2.2 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| 24 | Promote Seasonal Gas Use for Control of Nitrogen Oxides | 2.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||
| 25 | HighEfficiency Gas Technologies | 0.6 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| 26 | RenewableEnergy Commercialization | 0.8 | 0.3 | 2.9 | 5.6 | 16.4 | ||||||||||||
| 27 | Expand Utility Integrated Resource Planning | 1.4 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| 28 | Profitable Hydroelectric Efficiency Upgrades | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||
| 29 | EnergyEfficient Distribution Transformer Standards | |||||||||||||||||
| 30 | Energy Star Distribution Transformers | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 2.8 | ||||||||||||
| 31 | Transmission Pricing Reform | 0.8 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| New | Green Power Network | Not Included | 0.0 | Not quantified | ||||||||||||||
| Land-Use Change & Forestry Actions+ | 10.0 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 4.2 | 5.1 | |||||||||||||
| 43 | Reduce Depletion of Nonindustrial | 4.0 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| Private Forests | ||||||||||||||||||
| 44 | Accelerate Tree Planting in | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 3.1 | ||||||||||||
| Nonindustrial Private Forests | ||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | Waste Minimization** | 4.2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | Expand Cool Communities | 0.5 | Not quantified | |||||||||||||||
| Methane Actions | 16.3 | 15.5 | 19.0 | 23.4 | 24.2 | |||||||||||||
| 32 | Expand Natural Gas STAR | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.3 | ||||||||||||
| 33 | Increase Stringency of Landfill Rule | 4.2 | 6.3 | 7.7 | 9.1 | 5.9 | ||||||||||||
| 34 | Landfill Methane Outreach Program | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 4.3 | ||||||||||||
| 35 | Coalbed Methane Outreach Program | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 4.0 | ||||||||||||
| 36 | RD&D for Coal Mine Methane | 1.5 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| 37 | RD&D for Landfill Methane | 1.0 | Terminated | |||||||||||||||
| 38 | AgSTAR Program | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 3.2 | ||||||||||||
| 39 | Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program | 1.8 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 2.5 | ||||||||||||
| Actions to Address Other Greenhouse Gases | 16.3 | 25.4 | 40.4 | 45.8 | 54.5 | |||||||||||||
| 17 | Improve Efficiency of Fertilizer Nitrogen Use*** | 4.5 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 5.3 | ||||||||||||
| 40 | Significant New Alternatives Program | 5.0 | 6.4 | 19.6 | 23.1 | 29.8 | ||||||||||||
| 41 | HFC23 Partnerships | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||||||||||
| 42 | Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | ||||||||||||
| New | Environmental Stewardship Initiative | Not included | 6.5 | 8.1 | 10.0 | 12.0 | ||||||||||||
| Foundation Actions++ | 11.3 | 10.7 | 9.5 | 12.3 | ||||||||||||||
| Climate Wise | Not estimated | 1.8 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 4.5 | |||||||||||||
| Climate Challenge+++ | Not estimated | 7.6 | 5.0 | 1.6 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||
| State and Local Outreach Programs | Not estimated | 1.9 | 3.0 | 4.2 | 6.3 | |||||||||||||
| Total GHG Emission Reductions | 108.6 | 76.0 | 128.3 | 169.3 | 229.5 | |||||||||||||
| From CCAP Programs | ||||||||||||||||||
| Notes: Several of the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) programs are part of larger federal efforts. These programs include Actions 2, 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 27, 32, and 33. Only the CCAP portions of these programs are included in this table. Also, numbers may not add precisely due to interactive effects and rounding. * There is uncertainty in any attempt to project future emission levels and program impacts, and this uncertainty becomes greater with longer forecast periods. The results of this evaluation of CCAP represent a best estimate. They are also based on the assumption that programs will continue to be funded at current funding levels. ** Includes Waste Wise, NICE3, and USDA's Expansion of Recycling Technology. Energy savings and sequestration are scored separately. *** Energy savings and N2O savings are scored separately. + Additional forestry initiatives by electric utilities are included in Climate Challenge, a Foundation Program. ++ Foundation action partners provide additional reductions in almost all sectors and gases. These values only represent incremental savings not accounted for in other actions or baseline activities. +++ For the Climate Challenge program, there is considerable uncertainty at this time in quantifying impacts beyond the year 2000, largely because partners' Climate Challenge plans do not currently extend beyond 2000.Given that participation levels are growing and that most utilities appear to be meeting or expanding upon their commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is reasonable to expect that the Climate Challenge program will deliver more significant reductions. | ||||||||||||||||||
Research and Systematic Observation
The U.S. government has dedicated significant resources to research on global climate change. U.S. research efforts (some of which include the private sector) are divided into several general categories, including prediction of climate change, impacts and adaptation, mitigation and new technologies, and socioeconomic analysis and assessment. In addition, U.S. scientists actively coordinate with research and capacity-building efforts in other countries.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
