Climate change in the United States

Climate change in the United States refers to historical changes in the climate of the United States, as well as the regional climactic, economic, and cultural responses to global warming.

This article is about the effects of global warming on the North American country and adaptation to it. For gases which contribute to global warming, and their mitigation, see Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States.

United States projected Köppen climate classification map for 2071 to 2100
U.S. temperature record from 1950 to 2009 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The current effects of global warming in the United States are widespread and varied. In 2012, the United States experienced its warmest year on record. As of 2012, the thirteen warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998, transcending those from 1880.[1][2] Different regions experience widely different climatic changes. Changes in climate in the regions of the United States appear significant. For example, drought conditions appear to be worsening in the southwest while improving in the northeast.[3] Some research has warned against possible problems due to American climate changes such as the spread of invasive species and possibilities of floods as well as droughts.[4] Climate change is seen as a national security threat to the United States.[5]

The United States is among the most significant emitters of greenhouse gasses in the world. In terms of both total and per capita emissions, it is among the largest contributors.[6]

As of April 2019, 69% of Americans think that climate change is happening and 55% think that it is mostly human caused.[7]

In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.[8][9] 2016 was a historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S.[10]

Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States
Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States

The United States emitted 5.4 billion metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas in 2018,[11] the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China. This is over 15 tonnes per person and, amongst the top ten emitters, is the second highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person after Canada.[12] Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation.[13]

Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States
See also: Tropical cyclones and climate change

The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) website provides information on climate change: EPA Climate Change. Climate change is a problem that is affecting people and the environment. Human-induced climate change has, e.g., the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extreme weathers such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.[14] A report released in March 2012 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that a strong body of evidence links global warming to an increase in heat waves, a rise in episodes of heavy rainfall and other precipitation, and more frequent coastal flooding.[15][16] The U.S. had its warmest March–May on record in 2012.[17] (See March 2012 North American heat wave)

According to the American government's Climate Change Science Program, "With continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights."[18]

National temperature, sea level, and precipitation
This graph shows average drought conditions in the contiguous 48 states, according to the EPA, with yearly data going from 1895 to 2011. The curve is a nine-year weighted average.

The general effect of climate changes has been found in the journal Nature Climate Change to have caused increased likelihood of heat waves and extensive downpours.[19] Concerns exist that, as stated by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study in 2003, increasing "heat and humidity, at least partially related to anthropogenic climate change, suggest that a long-term increase in heat-related mortality could occur." However, the report found that, in general, "over the past 35 years, the U.S. populace has become systematically less affected by hot and humid weather conditions" while "mortality during heat stress events has declined despite increasingly stressful weather conditions in many urban and suburban areas." Thus, as stated in the study, "there is no simple association between increased heat wave duration or intensity and higher mortality rates" with current death rates being largely preventable, the NIH deeply urging American public health officials and physicians to inform patients about mitigating heat-related weather and climate effects on their bodies.[20]

In terms of U.S. droughts, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2006 about the U.S. reported, "Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century." It also stated that the "main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West" where "drought duration and severity... have increased."[3] Sea level rise has taken place in the U.S. for decades, going back to the 19th century. As stated in research published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, west coast sea levels have increased by an average of 2.1 millimeters annually. In English notation, that equates to 0.083 inches per year and 0.83 inches per decade.[21]

As shown in the adjacent image, wet and rainy conditions versus moments of drought in the U.S. have varied significantly over the past several decades. Average conditions for the 48 contiguous states flashed into extreme drought in the mid-1930s 'dust bowl' era as well as during the turn of the 20th century. In comparison, the mid-2000s decade and mid-1890s experienced only slight drought and had mitigating rainy periods.[22] The National Drought Mitigation Center has reported that financial assistance from the government alone in the 1930s dry period may have been as high as $1 billion (in 1930s dollars) by the end of the drought.[23]

Climate scientists have hypothesized that the stratospheric polar vortex jet stream will gradually weaken as a result of global warming and thus influence U.S. conditions.[24][25][26] This trend could possibly cause changes in the future such as increasing frost in certain areas. The magazine Scientific American noted in December 2014 that ice cover on the Great Lakes had recently "reached its second-greatest extent on record", showing climate variability.[25]

In July 2012, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that the 12-month period July 2011 to June 2012 was the warmest 12-month period on record in the continental United States, with average temperature 3.23 °F above the average for the 20th century.[27] Earlier it was reported that exceptionally warm months between January and May 2012 had made the 12 month previous to June 2012 the warmest 12-month block since record keeping began,[28] but this record was exceeded by the July 2011 to June 2012 period. NOAA stated that the odds of the July 2011 to June 2012 high temperatures occurring randomly was 1 in 1,594,323.[27]

Other effects of both general climatic change and man-made climate change combine with the temperature precipitation effects of climate change to exacerbate conditions.

Locations in the US with low altitude above sealevel
  • Western United States
  • San Francisco
  • Southeastern United States
  • New Orleans
  • Northeastern United States
  • Washington D.C.
  • New York City
  • Boston

Extreme weather events
Warmer air can contain more water vapor than cooler air. Global analyses show that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has in fact increased due to human-caused warming. This extra moisture is available to storm systems, resulting in heavier rainfalls.

The number and severity of high-cost extreme weather events has increased in the 21st century in the United States. By August 2011 alone, the NOAA had registered nine distinct extreme weather disasters for that year, each totalling $1 billion or more in economic losses. Total losses for 2011 were evaluated as more than $35 billion before Hurricane Irene.[29]

Though the costs and frequency of cyclones have increased on the east coast, it remains unclear whether these effects have been driven primarily by climate change.[19][30] When correcting for this, a comprehensive 2006 article in Geophysical Research Letters found "no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity" during past decades, a period when considerable warming of ocean water temperatures occurred. However, the study found major regional shifts, including a general rise of activity in the North Atlantic area, including on the U.S. eastern coast.[31]

From 1898 through 1913, there have been 27 cold waves which totalled 58 days. Between 1970 and 1989, there were about 12 such events. From 1989 until January 6, 2014, there were none. The one on the latter date caused consternation because of decreased frequency of such experiences.[32]

Looking at the lack of certainty as to the causes of the 1995 to present increase in Atlantic extreme storm activity, a 2007 article in Nature used proxy records of vertical wind shear and sea surface temperature to create a long-term model. The authors found that "the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s." As well, they also found that "hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature." The researches stated that future evaluations of climate change effects should focus on the magnitude of vertical wind shear for answers.[33]

The frequency of tornadoes in the U.S. have increased, and some of this trend takes place due to climatological changes though other factors such as better detection technologies also play large roles. According to a 2003 study in Climate Research, the total tornado hazards resulting in injury, death, or economic loss "shows a steady decline since the 1980s". As well, the authors reported that tornado "deaths and injuries decreased over the past fifty years". They state that addition research must look into regional and temporal variability in the future.[34]

Human effects: health, economy and agriculture

The 2018 the Fourth National Climate Assessment notes that regional economies dominated by agriculture or tourism may have additional vulnerabilities from climate change.[35] Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize-winning economist, notes that climate-related disasters in 2017 cost the equivalent of 1.5% of GDP.[36]

Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Threats to human health will increase.[37]

A 2012 report in Nature Climate Change stated that there is reason to be concerned that American climate changes could increase food insecurity by reducing grain yields, with the authors noting as well that substantial other facts exist influencing food prices as such as government mandates turning food into fuel and fluctuating transport costs. The researchers concluded that U.S. corn price volatility would moderately increase with American warming with relatively modest rises in food prices assuming that market competition and integration partly mitigated climate affects. They warned that biofuels mandates would, if present, widely increase corn price sensitivity to U.S. warming.[38]

Environmental Racism

There is a growing Climate Gap and prevalence of Environmental Racismin the U.S. Climate change will change the United States' current systems/opportunities for low paying jobs typically held by BIPOC and low SES people, such as agriculture and tourism. Job opportunities in these fields are expected to decrease and become more taxing on workers due to harsher conditions. Based on a study done on Environmental inequities in California, people of color and people of low socioeconomic status populate the cities with the worst air quality in the state, putting these groups at increased risk for being exposed to harmful air pollutants. Additionally, many low SES individuals may not have adequate access to healthcare to rectify their disproportionate exposure, causing long term health issues. Racialized families spend higher percentages of their income on basic necessities, and will be disproportionately challenged by rising food prices and other basic necessities, further widening the wealth gap between social classes in the US.[39] One of the most prevalent contributors to health inequity in the food system is climate change.  (See also: Food Sovereignty). Higher food prices will continue to contribute to low SES individuals experiencing an increase in food insecurity, and diets that contribute to malnutrition and obesity. The food system will also see an increase in the spread of diseases such as cholera and filariasis.[40]

Based on a study done on California's population, low SES neighborhoods and neighborhoods occupied by people of color experience heatwaves more frequently, and they effects there are most harsh due to being situated in the middle of cities, a phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect. Additionally, racialized individuals are less likely to have access to air conditioning and transportation to relief stations, doubling the African American mortality rate caused by heat waves in Los Angeles.[39]

Policy

Main article: Climate change policy of the United States

Federal, state, and local governments have all debated climate change policies, but the resulting laws vary considerably. The U.S. Congress has not adopted a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction scheme, but long-standing environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act have been used by the executive branch and litigants in lawsuits to implement regulations and voluntary agreements.

The federal government has the exclusive power to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, but has granted the state of California a waiver to adopt more stringent regulations. Other states may choose to adopt either the federal or California rules. Individual states retain the power to regulate emissions from electrical generation and industrial sources, and some have done so. Building codes are controlled by state and local governments, and in some cases have been altered to require increased energy efficiency. Governments at all levels have the option of reducing emissions from their own operations such as through improvements to buildings, purchasing alternative fuel vehicles, and reducing waste; and some have done so.

Political opponents to emissions regulations argue that such measures reduce economic activity in the fossil fuel industry (which is a substantial extractive industry in the United States), and impose unwanted costs on drivers, electricity users, and building owners. Some also argue that stringent environmental regulations infringe on individual liberty, and that the environmental impact of economic activity should be driven by the informed choices of consumers. Regulatory proponents argue that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and that individual choices have proven insufficient to prevent damaging and costly levels of global warming. Some states have financed programs to boost employment in green energy industries, such as production of wind turbines. Areas heavily dependent on coal production have not taken such steps and are suffering economic recession due to both competition from now lower-priced natural gas and environmental rules that make generation of electricity from coal disadvantageous due to high emissions of CO2 and other pollutants compared to other fuels.

History of federal policy and international agreements

The United States, although a signatory to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under President Clinton, neither ratified nor withdrew from the protocol. In 1997, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously under the Byrd–Hagel Resolution that it was not the sense of the senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, and in March 2001, the Bush Administration announced that it would not implement the treaty, saying it would create economic setbacks in the U.S. and does not put enough pressure to limit emissions from developing nations.[41] In February 2002, Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.[42]

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that EPA regulation of carbon dioxide is required under the Clean Air Act.

President Barack Obama proposed a cap-and-trade program as part of the 2010 United States federal budget, but this was never adopted by Congress.[43]

President Obama committed in the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.[44] Data from an April 2013 report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), showed a 12% reduction in the 2005 to 2012 period. Just over half of this decrease has been attributed to the recession, and the rest to a variety of factors such as replacing coal-based power generation with natural gas and increasing energy efficiency of American vehicles (according to a Council of Economic Advisors analysis).[45] Executive Order 13514 set various requirements for energy efficiency in federal buildings and operations, including goals for 2015. That year, Executive Order 13693 set requirements for federal operations generally.

In an address to the U.S. Congress in June 2013, the President detailed a specific action plan to achieve the 17% carbon emissions cut from 2005 by 2020, including measures such as shifting from coal-based power generation to solar and natural gas production.[46] Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers expressed concern at the idea of imposing new fines and regulations on the coal industry while the U.S. still tries to recover from the world economic recession, with Speaker of the House John Boehner saying that the proposed rules "will put thousands and thousands of Americans out of work".[47] Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UN's climate secretariat, praised the plan as providing a vital benchmark that people concerned with climate change can use as a paragon both at home and abroad.[48]

After not participating in previous climate international treaties, the United States signed the Paris Agreement on April 22, 2016 during the Obama administration. Though this agreement does not mandate a specific reduction for any given country, it sets global goals, asks countries to set their own goals, and mandates reporting.

The U.S. submitted its action plan in March, 2015, ahead of the treaty signing.[49] Reaffirming the November 2014 announcement it made with China,[50] the United States declared it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. This is to be accomplished by several executive actions:[51]

  • Clean Power Plan - regulating sources of electricity (put on hold by the Supreme Court in February, 2016, pending the outcome of a lawsuit)
  • New emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, finalized by EPA in March, 2016[52]
  • Department of Energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings, appliances, and equipment
  • Various actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, including regulation and voluntary efforts related to methane from landfills, agriculture, coal mines; and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) reduction through domestic regulation and amendment of the Montreal Protocol

In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, although the exit process specified by the treaty (which Trump said the U.S. would follow) will last until at least November 4, 2020.[53] Trump states that dropping out the agreement will create more job opportunities in the United States, but it may actually have the opposite effect by stifling the renewable energy industries.[54] At the same time, Trump administration shut down the United States Environmental Protection Agency's climate change web pages and removed mentions of the topic elsewhere on the site.[55] In April 2018, the Trump administration cancelled NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) program, which helped with the monitoring of CO2 emissions and deforestation in the United States and in other countries.[56] The Trump administration has also moved to increase fossil fuel consumption and roll back environmental policies that are considered to be burdensome to businesses.[57]

For offsetting the dismantlement of the Clean Power Plan approximately 10 billion trees would need to be planted. Activists try to plant this number of trees.[58]

In January 2020 Trump announced that the USA would join the Trillion Tree Campaign. Climate activists critiqued the plan for ignoring the root causes of climate change.[59]. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva critiqued the plan as “a feel-good participatory gesture” without a broader portfolia of environmental actions surrounding it.[60]

In June 2020, Democrats proposed a plan for climate action in USA aiming to not sell greenhouse gas emitting cars by 2035, reach zero emissions from the energy sector by 2040 and reduce to zero all the greenhouse gas emission of the country by 2050. The plan includes some actions to improve environmental justice. In 2016, 38% of adults in United States thought that stopping climate change are a top priority, in 2020 52% think like that. Many Republicans share this opinion.[61]

Role of the US military

The US military is an unequivocal validator of climate science, and its current efforts to value true costs and benefits of energy conservation and increased use of renewables can serve as drivers of change, according to a 2014 study from the University of Pennsylvania Legal Studies Department.[62]

A 2014 report described the projected climate change as a “catalyst for conflict”.[63] The DOD had issued a Fiscal Year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, in which it outlined its vulnerabilities, yet the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, that installation officials rarely proposed projects with climate change adaptation, because the processes for approving and funding military construction do not include climate change adaptation in the ranking criteria for projects.[64]

State and regional policy

Across the country, regional organizations, states, and cities are achieving real emissions reductions and gaining valuable policy experience as they take action on climate change. According to the report of America's Pledge, 65% of the American population, 51% of the GHG emissions and 68% of the GDP, are now part of different coalitions that support climate action and want to fulfill the commitments of USA in the Paris Agreement. The coalitions include We Are Still In, US Climate Alliance, Climate Mayors and more.[65]

These actions include increasing renewable energy generation, selling agricultural carbon sequestration credits, and encouraging efficient energy use.[66] The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a joint program of over twenty U.S. cabinet departments and federal agencies, all working together to investigate climate change. In June 2008, a report issued by the program stated that weather would become more extreme, due to climate change.[67][68] States and municipalities often function as "policy laboratories", developing initiatives that serve as models for federal action. This has been especially true with environmental regulation—most federal environmental laws have been based on state models. In addition, state actions can significantly affect emissions, because many individual states emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Texas, for example, emits more than France, while California's emissions exceed those of Brazil.[69] State actions are also important because states have primary jurisdiction over many areas—such as electric generation, agriculture, and land use—that are critical to addressing climate change.

Many states are participating in Regional climate change initiatives, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeastern United States, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, and the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.

Inside the ten northeastern states implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, carbon dioxide emissions per capita decreased by about 25% from 2000 and 2010, as the state economies continued to grow while enacting various energy efficiency programs.[70]

Cost and consequences

In 2013 there were 11 weather and climate disaster events with losses over $1 billion each in the United States. In total these 11 events losses were over $110 billion. 2013 was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100-degree heat.

These increasingly common and severe weather events have put pressure on existing disaster-relief efforts. For instance, the increasing rate of wildfires, the increasing length of the fire season, and increasing severity have put pressure on national and international resources. In the US, federal firefighting efforts surpassed $2 billion a year for the first time in 2017, and this expense was repeated in 2018. At the same time, internationally shared capital, such as firefighting planes, has experienced increasing demand, requiring new investment. [71]

Impact on agriculture
Main article: Climate change and agriculture in the United States

Increasing floods (such as the 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods), heat waves, and droughts have brought economic problems to farmers business and increased product prices.[72]

USDA research indicates that "climate change is likely to drive down yields for some crops, harm milk production, and lead to a drop in nutrient density for key crops like rice and wheat."[73][74]

Public response

Public opinion about climate change

In April 2019, 69% of Americans thought that climate change is happening and 55% think that it is mostly human caused.[75] In September 2019 approximately 75% thought that climate change is real and man made.[76] In November 2016, 69% of registered voters said that USA should remain in Paris Agreement. 13% said that it should leave the agreement[77]

Education

At least three US high schools have objected to mention of climate change in 2019 graduation speeches by students.[78]

Political ideologies

Historical support for environmental protection has been relatively non-partisan. Republican Theodore Roosevelt established national parks whereas Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Soil Conservation Service. This non-partisanship began to change during the 1980s when the Reagan administration stated that environmental protection was an economic burden. Views over global warming began to seriously diverge among Democrats and Republicans when ratifying the Kyoto Protocol was being debated in 1998. Gaps in opinions among the general public are often amplified among the political elites, such as members of Congress, who tend to be more polarized.[79] A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans.[80][81]

Beyond politicians, there is a variety of views by each political party.[82] In March 2014, Gallup found that among Democrats, 45% say they worry a great deal about the quality of the environment while the number drops to 16% for Republicans.[83][84][85]

Political disagreement is also strongly rooted in our potential solutions to addressing climate change. Strategies such as a Cap and Trade system are still a heated argument.[86]

On January 20, 2017, within moments of Donald Trump's inauguration, all references to climate change were removed from the White House website. The U.S. has been considered the most authoritative researcher of this information, and there is concern amongst the scientific community as to how the Trump administration will prioritize the issue.[87]

In early indications to news media of the first federal budget process under Donald Trump's administration, there are signs that most efforts under the Obama administration to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would effectively be rolled back.[88]

In July 2018 the Trump Administration released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the NHTSA. In it was the prediction that on our current course the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees Fahrenheit (or about 3.9 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century.[89]

Many pages were created to examine and compare the views of the candidates in the presidential election 2020 on climate change. The League of Conservation Voters create a special site, entirely dedicated to the issue called: "Change the Climate 2020".[90] Similar pages were created in the site of NRDC[91], Ballotpedia[92], Boston CBS[93], the Skimm[94]

Business community
See also: Business action on climate change

In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.[8][9]

A review, published in 2016, of academic literature that explores the potential for greenhouse emissions related liability, calculated that climate change related liability could reach trillions of dollars based on lost revenue from nations that would forced to evacuate because of sea level rise.[95]

Climate change by state or territory

The impacts of climate change are different from state to state. Generally, states that emit more carbon dioxide per person and block climate action, are suffering more.[96] To learn more about the climate change by state, see the following articles:


gollark: Are you just substituting into the quadratic formula?
gollark: I'm pretty sure it is just modulo some prime for this. The Wikipedia article explains that this is done to avoid providing some information about the other points via the shape of the graph or something.
gollark: It's a polynomial in a finite field, for purposes.
gollark: Shamir's secret sharing <@336962240848855040>.
gollark: Consider Desmos.

See also

References
  1. There’s Still Hope for the Planet July 21, 2012 The New York Times by David Leonhardt
  2. By The Numbers: The U.S.'s Warmest Year Yet January 31, 2013 Popular Science
  3. Andreadis, K. M.; Lettenmaier, D. P. (2006). "Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States". Geophysical Research Letters. 33 (10): n/a. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3310403A. doi:10.1029/2006GL025711.
  4. "Heat Waves, Storms, Flooding: Climate Change to Profoundly Affect U.S. Midwest in Coming Decades". Science Daily. January 18, 2013. Retrieved August 26, 2013.
  5. "Climate Change and US National Security: Past, Present, Future". atlanticcouncil.org. Atlantic Council. March 29, 2016. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
  6. EPA, OA, US (2016-01-12). "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 2018-06-13.
  7. Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward; Rosenthal, Seth; Kotcher, John; Bergquist, Parrish; Ballew, Matthew; Goldberg, Matthew; Gustafson, Abel. "Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2019". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  8. Egan, Timothy (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". The New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
  9. Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
  10. Adam B. Smith (January 9, 2017). "2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S." Climate.gov. Retrieved March 20, 2017.
  11. Rattner, Emma Newburger,Nate (2019-12-15). "'Any growth is more than we can afford': Carbon dioxide pollution hits record high as planet warms". CNBC. Retrieved 2019-12-15.
  12. "4 Charts Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Countries and Sectors". World Resources Institute. 2020-02-06. Retrieved 2020-04-29.
  13. EPA,OA, US (2015-12-29). "Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  14. EPA Climate Change and "Help finding information | US EPA". Archived from the original on 2011-09-15. Retrieved 2011-09-14. about Extreme weather
  15. Gillis, Justin; Foster, Joanna M. (28 March 2012). "Arctic Sea Ice Eyed for Clues to Weather Extremes". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  16. Gillis, Justin (2012-03-13). "Rising Sea Levels a Growing Risk to Coastal U.S., Study Says". The New York Times.
  17. USA had warmest March-May on record, June 6, 2012
  18. Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate Archived September 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine US Climate Change Science Programme June 2008 Summary Archived October 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  19. Eilperin, Juliet; Vastag, Eiperin (2 April 2012). "Scientists cite global warming for more heat waves, heavier rainfall". The Seattle Times. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 6 April 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012.
  20. Davis et al, Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States, National Institutes of Health
  21. Raloff, Janet (16 July 2011). "Modern-day sea level rise skyrocketing: Increase began with the Industrial Revolution". Science News. No. 180. p. 13. Archived from the original on 27 April 2012. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  22. "Help finding information | US EPA".
  23. "Drought in the Dust Bowl Years". National Drought Mitigation Center. Archived from the original on 24 January 2016. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
  24. Baek-Min Kim, et al., Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss, Nature Communications 5, Article number: 4646 doi:10.1038/ncomms5646
  25. A Wacky Jet Stream Is Making Our Weather Severe; Extreme summers and winters of the past four years could become the norm Jeff Masters Scientific American December 2014 issue Volume 311, Issue 6
  26. Persistent Warming Drives Big Arctic Changes; The latest Arctic Report Card details the changes due to long-term climate change December 17, 2014 Scientific American
  27. "June 2012 National Overview Supplemental Material". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center.
  28. High U.S. Temperatures Shatter Records This Year by Tennile Tracy, The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2012
  29. Boykoff, Jules (9 September 2011). "Opinion: Hurricanes, floods and wildfires – but Washington won't talk global warming | Jules Boykoff". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  30. Knutson, Thomas; Vecchi, Gabriel. "Historical Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storm Records: How well do we know the historical cyclone record?". Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  31. Klotzbach, P.J. (2006). "Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986-2005)". Geophysical Research Letters. 33 (10): L010805. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3310805K. doi:10.1029/2006GL025881.
  32. Borenstein, Seth (January 10, 2014). "Winters aren't colder; we're just softer". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. pp. 8A. Archived from the original on January 13, 2014. Retrieved January 12, 2014.
  33. Nyberg, Johan; Malmgren, Björn A.; Winter, Amos; Jury, Mark R.; Kilbourne, K. Halimeda; Quinn, Terrence M. (2007). "Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years". Nature. 447 (7145): 698–702. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..698N. doi:10.1038/nature05895. PMID 17554304. S2CID 4373395.
  34. Boruff, B. J.; Easoz, J. A.; Jones, S. D.; Landry, H. R.; Mitchem, J. D.; Cutter, S. L. (2003). "Tornado hazards in the United States" (PDF). Climate Research. 24: 103–117. Bibcode:2003ClRes..24..103B. doi:10.3354/cr024103.
  35. USGCRP (2018). "Fourth National Climate Assessment".
  36. Stiglitz, Joseph (20 January 2020). "Donald Trump is a good president … but only for the top 1%". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  37. Global climate change impacts in the United States : a state of knowledge report (PDF). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2009. ISBN 9780521144070. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
  38. Diffenbaugh, Noah S.; Hertel, Thomas W.; Scherer, Martin; Verma, Monika (2012). "Response of corn markets to climate volatility under alternative energy futures". Nature Climate Change. 2 (7): 514–518. Bibcode:2012NatCC...2..514D. doi:10.1038/nclimate1491. PMC 3519383. PMID 23243468.
  39. "The Climate Gap" (PDF).
  40. Anelyse M. Weiler, Chris Hergesheimer, Ben Brisbois, Hannah Wittman, Annalee Yassi and Jerry M. Spiegel. "Food sovereignty, food security and health equity: a meta-narrative mapping exercise" (PDF).CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  41. Alex Kirby, US blow to Kyoto hopes, 2001-03-28, BBC News (online).
  42. Bush unveils voluntary plan to reduce global warming Archived 2008-12-12 at the Wayback Machine, CNN.com, 2002-02-14.
  43. "President's Budget Draws Clean Energy Funds from Climate Measure". Renewable Energy World. Retrieved 2009-04-03.
  44. NRDC: From Copenhagen Accord to Climate Action: Tracking National Commitments to Curb Global Warming
  45. Lashof, Dan (April 8, 2013). "Carbon-Dioxide Emissions Falling, But Is That Enough?". LiveScience. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
  46. Barack Obama pledges to bypass Congress to tackle climate change 25 June 2013
  47. Obama’s ‘war on coal’ carries risks in battleground states - FT.com
  48. Obama's climate speech: 'It is time for Congress to share his ambition' Was it enough? Experts give their verdict on the US president's long-awaited speech addressing climate change 25 The Guardian June 2013
  49. "UNFCCC". Archived from the original on 2016-07-01. Retrieved 2016-07-06.
  50. "U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change". 2014-11-12.
  51. "FACT SHEET: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC". 2015-03-31.
  52. "Transportation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change". 2015-08-19.
  53. DiChristopher, Tom (19 September 2017). "Trump is still pulling out of Paris Agreement, despite chatter of a reversal, experts say". CNBC.
  54. Taneja, Hemant (2 January 2017). "Why pulling out of Paris Accord damages America's economic future". TC News.
  55. Heikkinen, Niina (25 January 2017). "Trump Administration Orders EPA to Remove Its Climate Change Web Page". E&E News.
  56. "Trump White House axes Nasa research into greenhouse gas cuts". BBC News. 2018-05-10. Retrieved May 13, 2018.
  57. Popovich, Nadja; Albeck-Ripka, Livia (2017-10-05). "52 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump". New York Times. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  58. Arrieta-Kenna, Ruairí (29 August 2017). ""Trump Forest": why environmentalists are planting trees to thwart the president". Vox.
  59. Davidson, Jordan (22 January 2020). "Trump Says U.S. Will Join 1 Trillion Trees Initiative, While Ignoring the Root of the Problem and Attacking Climate Activists". Ecowatch. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  60. Wilner, Michael; Dumain, Emma (14 February 2020). "Courting young conservatives, Republicans speed up their 'evolution' on climate change". Retrieved 5 May 2020.
  61. Flavelle, Christopher (29 June 2020). "Democrats Detail a Climate Agenda Tying Environment to Racial Justice". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 July 2020.
  62. Light, Sarah E. (2014-06-27). "Valuing National Security: Climate Change, the Military, and Society". 61 UCLA Law Review 1772 (2014). Rochester, NY. SSRN 2460022.
  63. Military Advisory Board. "National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change". CNA Corporation. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
  64. "Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts" (GAO-14-446). U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 30 June 2014. Retrieved 8 July 2014.
  65. ACCELERATING AMERICA'S PLEDGE (PDF). New York: Bloomberg Philanthropies with University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability, Rocky Mountain Institute, and World Resources Institute. 2019. pp. 2, 50. Retrieved 3 February 2020.
  66. Engel, Kirsten and Barak Orbach (2008), Micro-Motives for State and Local Climate Change Initiatives, Harvard Law & Policy Review, Vol. 2, pp. 119-137, SSRN 1014749
  67. Schmid, Randolph E. (June 19, 2008). "Extreme weather to increase with climate change". Associated Press.
  68. "U.S. experts: Forecast is more extreme weather". NBC News. June 19, 2008.
  69. "Pew Center Climate change reports". Archived from the original on 2005-10-31. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  70. Report Urges NJ to Rejoin Regional Greenhouse-Gas Initiative - NJ Spotlight
  71. Cave, Damien (21 November 2019). "The World Burns All Year. Are There Enough Planes to Douse the Flames?". New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
  72. Obama to unveil historic climate change plan to cut US carbon pollution
  73. Evich, Helena Bottemiller (2019-09-19). "Senate Democrats release list of climate studies buried by Trump administration". POLITICO. Retrieved 2019-10-25.
  74. US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. "Peer-Reviewed Research on Climate Change by USDA Authors, January 2017-August 2019". Retrieved 2019-10-25.
  75. Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward; Rosenthal, Seth; Kotcher, John; Bergquist, Parrish; Ballew, Matthew; Goldberg, Matthew; Gustafson, Abel. "Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2019". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  76. JOHNSON, STEPHEN. "75% of Americans now believe humans fuel climate change". Big Think. Retrieved 3 February 2020.
  77. Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward; Roser-Renouf, Connie; Rosenthal, Seth; Cutler, Matthew. "By more than 5 to 1, voters say the U.S. should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 3 February 2020.
  78. Milman, Oliver (2019-06-07). "US schools accused of censoring climate crisis message in graduation speeches". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
  79. Dunlap, Riley E. (29 May 2009). "Climate-Change Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand". Gallup. Retrieved 22 Dec 2009.
  80. "RELEASE: CAP Action Releases 2017 Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus". Center for American Progress Action Fund. April 28, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
  81. Moser, Claire; Koronowski, Ryan (April 28, 2017). "The Climate Denier Caucus in Trump's Washington". ThinkProgress. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
  82. A Republican Meteorologist Tries to Remove Liberal Label from Climate Concern, March 30, 2012
  83. Riffkin, Rebecca (12 March 2014). "Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S." Gallup Politics. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  84. Warren, Michael (12 March 2014). "Gallup: Americans Not Very Concerned With Climate Change". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  85. Klimas, Jacqueline (12 March 2014). "Climate change not a top concern of Americans, poll shows". Retrieved 12 March 2014.
  86. Trade and climate change : a report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization. Tamiotti, Ludivine, 1973-, World Trade Organization., United Nations Environment Programme. Geneva: World Trade Organization. 2009. ISBN 9789287035226. OCLC 425120487.CS1 maint: others (link)
  87. Davenport, Coral (2017-01-20). "With Trump in Charge, Climate Change References Purged From Website". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
  88. Kahn, Brian (February 27, 2017). "Here's the Early Context for Trump's Budget". Climate Central. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
  89. Eilperin, Juliet; Dennis, Brady; Mooney, Chris (September 28, 2018). "Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
  90. "CHANGE THE CLIMATE 2020". Change the Climate 2020. League of Conservation Voters. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  91. "Climate Change and the 2020 Presidential Candidates: Where Do They Stand?". NRDC action fund. NRDC. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  92. "2020 presidential candidates on climate change". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  93. "Where They Stand: 2020 Presidential Candidates On Climate Change". Boston CBS. CBS boston. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  94. "2020 Election: Climate Change". The Skimm. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  95. Heidari, Negin; Pearce, Joshua M. (2016). "A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emission Liabilities as the Value of Renewable Energy for Mitigating Lawsuits for Climate Change Related Damages". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 55C: 899–908. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.025.
  96. "States Blocking Climate Action Hold Residents Who Suffer the Most From Climate Impacts". Climate Nexus, Ecowatch. October 29, 2019. Retrieved 31 October 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.