Fourth National Climate Assessment

USGCRP

TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

The scope for this chapter was determined by the federal Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Steering Committee, which is made up of representatives from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) member agencies (see App. 1: Process for more information regarding the Steering Committee). The scope was also informed by research needs identified in the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3) and in subsequent gap analyses.¹⁵⁵ Prospective authors were nominated by their respective agency, university, organization, or peers. All prospective authors were interviewed with respect to their qualifications and expertise. Authors were selected to represent the diverse perspectives relevant to mitigation, with the final team providing perspectives from federal and state agencies, nonfederal climate research organizations, and the private sector. The author team sought public input on the chapter scope and outline through a webinar and during presentations at conferences and workshops.

The chapter was developed through technical discussions of relevant evidence and expert deliberation by the report authors during extensive teleconferences, workshops, and email exchanges. These discussions were informed by the results of a comprehensive literature review, including the research focused on estimating the avoided or reduced risks of climate change. The authors considered inputs submitted by the public, stakeholders, and federal agencies and improved the chapter based on rounds of review by the public, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and federal agencies. The author team also engaged in targeted consultations during multiple exchanges with contributing authors from other chapters of this assessment, as well as authors of the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR). For additional information on the overall report process, see Appendix 1: Process.

KEY MESSAGES

Key Message 1: Mitigation-Related Activities Within the United States

Mitigation-related activities are taking place across the United States at the federal, state, and local levels as well as in the private sector (very high confidence). Since the Third National Climate Assessment, a growing number of states, cities, and businesses have pursued or deepened initiatives aimed at reducing emissions (very high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Since NCA3, state, local, and tribal entities have announced new or enhanced efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While some policies with emissions co-benefits have been eliminated, on net there has been an increase in initiatives aimed at reducing emissions. Figure 29.1 includes several types of state-level efforts and is sourced from Figure ES-3 of the America’s Pledge Phase 1 report, the most comprehensive listing of efforts across sectors currently available. The underlying state information is sourced from the U.S. Department of Energy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Open Energy Information, Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data, World Resources Institute, State of New York, California Air Resources Board, University of Minnesota, Land Trust Alliance, and the U.S. Forest Service.

U.S. state and local carbon pricing programs have increased in number since NCA3.¹⁵⁶ The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has expanded the depth of emissions reductions activities and is considering adding transportation to their scope. California’s cap and trade program started in 2012 and expanded by linking to Quebec and Ontario in 2017. Emissions trading systems are scheduled in Massachusetts and under consideration in Virginia.¹⁵⁶

U.S. states have both mandatory and voluntary programs that vary in stringency and impact. For example, 29 states, Washington, DC, and 3 territories have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS; https://energy.gov/eere/slsc/renewable-portfolio-standards-resources), which require some portion of electricity to be sourced from renewable energy; while 8 states and 1 territory have voluntary renewable portfolio goals.⁴²^,⁴⁵ Likewise, 20 states have mandatory statewide Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS; https://energy.gov/eere/slsc/energy-efficiency-resource-standards-resources), and 8 states have energy efficiency goals.⁴² While the number of states with RPS and EERS policies remains similar to that during NCA3, emissions reductions associated with the impact of these policies have and are projected to increase.¹⁵⁷ In 2013, 8 states initiated an effort to coordinate implementation of their state zero-emission vehicle programs and have since taken a wide range of actions.¹⁵⁸

Federal budget levels for activities that have reduced GHG have remained steady over recent years. There is uncertainty around the implementation of federal initiatives, in part owing to the implementation of Executive Order 13783.⁴⁰^,¹⁵⁹ Federal energy-related research and development have several co-benefits, including reduced emissions.¹⁵

U.S. companies that report through the Carbon Disclosure Project increasingly (although not comprehensively) reported board-level oversight on climate issues, which rose from 50% in 2011 to 71% in 2017. Likewise, 59 U.S. companies recently committed to set science-based emissions reduction targets.⁴⁶ U.S. businesses are increasingly pricing carbon.⁴⁶^,¹⁶⁰ Corporate procurement of utility-scale solar has grown by an order of magnitude since 2014.⁴⁷

As indicated in the Education Institutions Reporting Database, a growing number of universities have made emissions reduction commitments or deepened existing commitments¹⁶¹ as well as publicized the progress on their efforts.¹⁶²

Major uncertainties

Figure 29.1 shows a count of each type of 30 measures across 6 categories, but it does not explore the relative stringency or emissions impact of the measures. The size, scope, time frame, and enforceability of the measures vary across states. Some state efforts and the majority of city efforts are voluntary, and therefore standards for reporting are heterogeneous. Efforts are underway to provide a rigorous accounting of the cumulative scale of these initiatives. Data collection through the America’s Pledge effort is an ongoing, iterative process and, by necessity, involves aggregating different measures into categories. Historically, state, local, and corporate policies change on different cycles.

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is very high confidence that state, local, and private entities are increasingly taking, or are committed to taking, GHG mitigation action. Public statements and collated indices show an upward trend in the number of commitments, as well as the breadth and depth of commitments over the past five years.

Key Message 2: The Risks of Inaction

In the absence of more significant global mitigation efforts, climate change is projected to impose substantial damages on the U.S. economy, human health, and the environment (very high confidence). Under scenarios with high emissions and limited or no adaptation, annual losses in some sectors are estimated to grow to hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century (high confidence). It is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent (very high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Recent scientific and economic advances are improving the ability to understand and quantify the physical and economic impacts of climate change in the United States, including how those risks can be avoided or reduced through large-scale GHG mitigation. While the projected impacts of climate change across sectors and regions are well documented throughout this assessment, several multisector modeling projects are enabling the comparison of effects through the use of consistent scenarios and assumptions.²^,³^,⁴^,⁵ A well-recognized conclusion from the literature produced by these projects is that climate change is projected to adversely affect the U.S. economy, human health, and the environment, each of which is further detailed below. These estimated damages increase over time, especially under a higher scenario (RCP8.5). For sectors where positive effects are observed in some regions or for specific time periods (for example, reduced mortality from extreme cold temperatures or beneficial effects on crop yields), the effects are typically dwarfed by changes happening overall within the sector or at broader scales (for example, comparatively larger increases in mortality from extreme heat or many more crops experiencing adverse effects).²^,³^,⁴^,⁵ In Figure 29.2, wildfire is the only sector showing positive effects, a result driven in this particular study by projected shifts to vegetation with longer fire return intervals.² However, it is important to note that the analysis underlying this result did not quantify the broader economic effects associated with these vegetative shifts, including ecosystem disruption and changes to ecosystem services. See Chapter 6: Forests for a discussion on the weight of evidence regarding projections of future wildfire activity, which generally show increases in annual area burned over time. See Chapter 25: Southwest for a discussion on aridification toward the end of this century under high emissions.

There is robust and consistent evidence that climate change is projected to adversely affect many components of the U.S. economy. Increasing temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are projected to affect the built environment, including roads, bridges, railways, and coastal development. For example, coastal high tide flooding is projected to significantly increase the hours of delay for vehicles.¹⁶³ Annual damages to coastal property from sea level rise and storm surge, assuming no adaptation, are projected to range in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century under RCP8.5 (Ch. 8: Coastal).²^,⁵ Projected annual repair costs in order for roads, bridges, and railways to maintain levels of service in light of climate change range in the billions to tens of billions of dollars under RCP8.5.²^,¹⁶⁴ Numerous studies suggest that regional economies can also be at risk, especially when they are tied to environmental resources or ecosystem services that are particularly vulnerable to climate change. For example, projected declines in coral reef-based recreation¹⁵²^,¹⁶⁵^,¹⁶⁶ would lead to decreases in tourism revenue; shorter seasons for winter recreation would likely lead to the closure of ski areas and resorts;¹⁶⁷^,¹⁶⁸^,¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁰ and increased risks of harmful algal blooms can limit reservoir recreation (Ch. 3: Water).¹⁷¹^,¹⁷²

An increasing body of literature indicates that impacts to human health are likely to have some of the largest effects on the economy. Studies consistently indicate that climate-driven changes to morbidity and mortality can be substantial.⁷²^,¹⁰⁰^,¹⁷³^,¹⁷⁴^,¹⁷⁵^,¹⁷⁶ In some sectors, the value of health damages is estimated to reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year under RCP8.5 by the end of the century. A large fraction of total health damages is due to mortality, quantified using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) approach based on standard VSL values used in federal government regulatory analysis.¹⁷⁷ For example, annual damages associated with extreme temperature-related deaths are estimated at $140 billion by the end of the century under RCP8.5, while lost wages from extreme temperatures, especially for outdoor industries, are projected at $160 billion per year by 2090.² Adaptive actions, including physiological adaptation and increased availability of air conditioning, are projected to reduce extreme temperature mortality by approximately half; however, the implementation costs of those adaptations were not estimated. Although less studied compared to the research on the direct effects of temperature on health, climate-driven impacts to air quality⁷²^,¹⁷⁸ and aeroallergens¹⁷³^,¹⁷⁹ are also projected to have large economic effects, due to increases in medical expenditures (such as emergency room visits) and premature mortality (Ch. 13: Air Quality).

Multiple lines of research have also shown that some climate change impacts will very likely be irreversible for thousands of years. For some species, the rate and magnitude of climate change projected for the 21st century is projected to increase the risk of extinction or extirpation (local-scale extinction) from the United States.¹⁸⁰^,¹⁸¹^,¹⁸²^,¹⁸³ Coral reefs, coldwater fish, and high-elevation species are particularly vulnerable (Ch. 9: Oceans; Ch. 7: Ecosystems). The rapid and widespread climate changes occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic are leading to the loss of mountain glaciers and shrinking continental ice sheets.⁶⁹^,¹⁸⁴ The contribution of this land ice volume to the rate of global sea level rise is projected to affect U.S. coastlines for centuries (Ch. 8: Coastal).¹⁹^,³⁰^,¹⁸⁵

Major uncertainties

This Key Message reflects consideration of the findings of several recent multisector modeling projects (e.g., Hsiang et al. 2017, O’Neill et al. 2017, EPA 2017, Houser et al. 2015)²^,³^,⁴^,⁵ released since NCA3. Despite these improvements to quantify the physical and economic impacts of climate change across sectors, uncertainty exists regarding the ultimate timing and magnitude of changes, particularly at local to regional scales. The sources of uncertainty vary by sector and the modeling approaches applied. Each approach also varies in its capacity to measure the ability of adaptation to reduce vulnerability, exposure, and risk. While the coverage of impacts has improved with recent advancements in the science, many important climate change effects remain unstudied, as do the interactions between sectors (Ch. 17: Complex Systems).⁸⁵ Finally, as climate conditions pass further outside the natural variability experienced over past several millennia, the odds of crossing thresholds or tipping points (such as the loss of Arctic summer sea ice) increase, though these thresholds are not well represented in current models.²²^,¹⁴²

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is very high confidence that climate change is projected to substantially affect American livelihoods and well-being in the future compared to a future without climate change. The evidence supporting this conclusion is based on agreement across a large number of studies analyzing impacts across a multitude of sectors, scenarios, and regions. The literature clearly indicates that the adverse impacts of climate change are projected to substantially outweigh the positive effects. Although important uncertainties exist that affect our understanding of the timing and magnitude of some impacts, there is very high confidence that some effects will very likely lead to changes that are irreversible on human timescales.

Key Message 3: Avoided or Reduced Impacts Due to Mitigation

Many climate change impacts and associated economic damages in the United States can be substantially reduced over the course of the 21st century through global-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, though the magnitude and timing of avoided risks vary by sector and region (very high confidence). The effect of near-term emissions mitigation on reducing risks is expected to become apparent by mid-century and grow substantially thereafter (very high confidence).

Description of evidence base

There are multiple lines of research and literature available to characterize the effect of large-scale GHG mitigation in avoiding or reducing the long-term risks of climate change in the United States. Recent multisector impacts modeling projects, all of which feature consistent sets of scenarios and assumptions across analyses, provide improved capabilities to compare impacts across sectors and regions, including the effect of global GHG mitigation in avoiding or reducing risks.²^,³^,⁴^,⁵ The results of these coordinated modeling projects consistently show reductions in impacts across sectors due to large-scale mitigation. For most sectors, this effect of mitigation typically becomes clear by mid-century and increases substantially in magnitude thereafter. In some sectors, mitigation can provide large benefits. For example, by the end of the century, reduced climate change under a lower scenario (RCP4.5) compared to a higher one (RCP8.5) avoids (on net, and absent additional risk reduction through adaptation) thousands to tens of thousands of deaths per year from extreme temperatures,²^,⁵ hundreds to thousands of deaths per year from poor air quality,^{²^,⁷²} and the loss of hundreds of millions of labor hours.²^,³^,⁵

Beyond these multisector modeling projects, an extensive literature of sector-specific studies compares impacts in the United States under alternative scenarios. A careful review of these studies, especially those published since the Third National Climate Assessment, finds strong and consistent support for the conclusion that global GHG mitigation can avoid or reduce the long-term risks of climate change in the United States. For example, mitigation is projected to reduce the risk of adverse impacts associated with extreme weather events,²⁹^,¹⁸⁶ temperature-related health effects,⁹⁹^,¹⁰⁰^,¹⁷⁵ agricultural yields,^{¹⁸⁷^,¹⁸⁸^,¹⁸⁹} and wildfires.⁷³^,¹⁹⁰^,¹⁹¹

The finding that the magnitude and timing of avoided risks vary by sector and region, as well as due to changes in socioeconomics and adaptive capacity, is consistently supported by the broad literature base of multisector analyses (e.g., Hsiang et al. 2017, O’Neill et al. 2017, EPA 2017, Houser et al. 2015²^,³^,⁴^,⁵) and focused sector studies (e.g., Melvin et al. 2016, Neumann et al. 2014⁷¹^,⁷⁷). Complex spatial patterns of avoided risks are commonly observed across sectors, including for human health effects (e.g., Fann et al. 2015, Sarofim et al. 2016¹⁰⁰^,¹⁷⁸), agriculture (e.g., Beach et al. 2015¹⁹²), and water resources (e.g., Chapra et al. 2017, Wobus et al. 2017, EPA 2013¹⁶⁷^,¹⁷¹^,¹⁹³).

The weight of evidence among studies in the literature indicates that the difference in climate impact outcomes between different scenarios is more modest through the first half of the century,²^,⁴^,⁵^,⁹ as the human-forced response may not yet have emerged from the noise of natural climate variability.⁶ In evaluating and quantifying multisector impacts across alternative scenarios, the literature generally shows that the effect of near-term mitigation in avoiding damages increases substantially in magnitude after 2050.²^,⁴^,⁵ For example, mitigation under RCP4.5 is projected to reduce the number of premature deaths and lost labor hours from extreme temperatures by 24% and 21% (respectively) by 2050, and 58% and 48% by 2090.² For coastal impacts, where inertia in the climate system leads to smaller differences in rates of sea level rise across scenarios, the effects of near-term mitigation only become evident toward the end of the century (Ch. 8: Coastal).²^,⁵^,¹⁹

Major uncertainties

Quantifying the multisector impacts of climate change involves a number of analytic steps, each of which has its own potential sources of uncertainty. The timing and magnitude of projected future climate change are uncertain due to the ambiguity introduced by human choices, natural variability, and scientific uncertainty, which includes uncertainty in both scientific modeling and climate sensitivity. One of the most prominent sources involves the projection of climate change at a regional level, which can vary based on assumptions about climate sensitivity, natural variability, and the use of any one particular climate model. Advancements in the ability of climate models to resolve key aspects of atmospheric circulation, improved statistical and dynamic downscaling procedures, and the use of multiple ensemble members in impact analyses have all increased the robustness of potential climate changes that drive impact estimates described in the recent literature. However, key uncertainties and challenges remain, including the structural differences between sectoral impact models, the ability to simulate future impacts at fine spatial and temporal resolutions, and insufficient approaches to quantify the economic value of changes in nonmarket goods and services.⁸⁵ In addition, the literature on economic damages of climate change in the United States is incomplete in coverage, and additional research is needed to better reflect future socioeconomic change, including the ability of adaptation to reduce risk.

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is very high confidence that large-scale reductions in GHG emissions throughout the 21st century are projected to reduce the level of climate change projected to occur in the United States, along with the adverse impacts affecting human health and the environment. Across the literature, there are limited instances where mitigation, compared to a higher emissions scenario, does not provide a net beneficial outcome for the United States. While the content of this chapter is primarily focused on the 21st century, confidence in the ability of mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts improves when considering impacts beyond 2100.

Key Message 4: Interactions Between Mitigation and Adaptation

Interactions between mitigation and adaptation are complex and can lead to benefits, but they also have the potential for adverse consequences (very high confidence). Adaptation can complement mitigation to substantially reduce exposure and vulnerability to climate change in some sectors (very high confidence). This complementarity is especially important given that a certain degree of climate change due to past and present emissions is unavoidable (very high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Global-scale reductions in GHG emissions are projected to reduce many of the risks posed by climate change. However, Americans are already experiencing, and will continue to experience, impacts that have already been committed to because of past and present emissions.⁵^,⁹ In addition, multisector modeling frameworks demonstrate that mitigation is unlikely to completely avoid the adverse impacts of climate change.^{²^,³^,⁴^,⁵^,²⁷} These factors will likely necessitate widespread adaptation to climate change (Ch. 28: Adaptation); an expanding literature consistently indicates potential for the reduction of long-term risks and economic damages of climate change.²^,⁴^,⁵^,¹⁹⁴ However, it is important to note that adaptation can require large up-front costs and long-term commitments for maintenance (Ch. 28: Adaptation), and uncertainty exists in some sectors regarding the applicability and effectiveness of adaptation in reducing risk.¹⁰¹

Because of adaptation’s ability to reduce risk in ways that mitigation cannot, and vice versa, the weight of the evidence shows that the two strategies can act as complements. Several recent studies jointly model the effects of mitigation and adaptation in reducing overall risk to the impacts of climate change in the United States, focusing on infrastructure (e.g., Larsen et al. 2017, Melvin et al. 2016, Neumann et al. 2014)^{⁷¹^,⁷⁷^,¹⁹⁵} and agriculture (e.g., Kaye and Quemada 2017, Challinor et al. 2014, Lobell et al. 2013).¹⁰⁸^,¹⁰⁹^,¹¹¹ Exploration of this mitigation and adaptation nexus is also advancing in the health sector, with both mitigation and adaptation (such as behavioral changes or physiological acclimatization) being projected to reduce deaths from extreme temperatures¹⁰⁰ in both the higher and lower emissions scenarios that are the focus of this chapter. Similarly, energy efficiency investments are reducing GHG emissions and operating costs and improving resilience to future power interruptions from extreme weather events (Ch. 14: Human Health). While more studies exploring the joint effects of mitigation and adaptation are needed, recent literature finds that combined mitigation and adaptation actions can substantially reduce the risks posed by climate change in several sectors.²^,¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴ However, several studies highlight that mitigation and adaptation can also interact negatively. While these studies are more limited in the literature, sectors exhibiting potential negative co-effects from mitigation and adaptation include the bioenergy–water resource nexus¹¹⁴ and changes in electricity demand and supply in response to increased use of air conditioning.²^,¹¹⁷

Major uncertainties

It is well understood that adaptation will likely reduce climate risks and that adaptation and mitigation interact. However, there are uncertainties regarding the magnitude, timing, and regional/sectoral distribution of these effects. Developing a full understanding of the interaction between mitigation and adaptation, with detailed accounting of potential positive and negative co-effects, is an important research objective that is only beginning to be explored in the detail necessary to inform effective implementation of these policies. Quantifying the effectiveness of adaptation requires detailed analyses regarding the timing and magnitude of how climate is projected to affect people living in the United States and their natural and built environments. As such, the uncertainties described under Key Messages 1 and 2 are also relevant here. Further, uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness of adaptation measures in improving resilience to climate impacts. For some sectors, such as coastal development, protection measures (for example, elevating structures) have been well studied and implemented to reduce risk. However, the effectiveness of adaptation in other sectors, such as the physiological response to more intense heat waves, is only beginning to be understood.

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is very high confidence that the dual strategies of mitigation and adaptation being taken at national, regional, and local levels provide complementary opportunities to reduce the risks posed by climate change. Studies consistently find that adaptation would be particularly important for impacts occurring over the next several decades, a time period in which the effects of large-scale mitigation would not yet be easily recognizable. However, further analysis is needed to help resolve uncertainties regarding the timing and magnitude of adaptation, including the potential positive and negative co-effects with mitigation.

REFERENCES

Ahluwalia, M. B., 2017: The business of pricing carbon: How companies are pricing carbon to mitigate risks and prepare for a Low-Carbon future. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), Arlington, VA, 39 pp. URL. ↩
Aldy, J. E., 2017: Real world headwinds for Trump climate change policy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73 (6), 376–381. doi:10.1080/00963402.2017.1388673. ↩
Al‐Mamoori, A., A. Krishnamurthy, A. A. Rownaghi, and F. Rezaei, 2017: Carbon capture and utilization update. Energy Technology, 5 (6), 834–849. doi:10.1002/ente.201600747. ↩
America's Pledge, 2017: America's Pledge Phase 1 Report: States, Cities, and Businesses in the United States Are Stepping Up on Climate Action. Bloomberg Philanthropies, New York, NY, 123 pp. URL. ↩
Anderson, G. B., K. W. Oleson, B. Jones, and R. D. Peng, 2016: Projected trends in high-mortality heatwaves under different scenarios of climate, population, and adaptation in 82 US communities. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1779-x. ↩
Anenberg, S. C., K. R. Weinberger, H. Roman, J. E. Neumann, A. Crimmins, N. Fann, J. Martinich, and P. L. Kinney, 2017: Impacts of oak pollen on allergic asthma in the United States and potential influence of future climate change. GeoHealth, 1 (3), 80–92. doi:10.1002/2017GH000055. ↩
Auffhammer, M., P. Baylis, and C. H. Hausman, 2017: Climate change is projected to have severe impacts on the frequency and intensity of peak electricity demand across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (8), 1886–1891. doi:10.1073/pnas.1613193114. ↩
Barbose, G. L., 2016: U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards 2016 Annual Status Report. LBNL-1005057. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, URL. ↩
Bartos, M., M. Chester, N. Johnson, B. Gorman, D. Eisenberg, I. Linkov, and M. Bates, 2016: Impacts of rising air temperatures on electric transmission ampacity and peak electricity load in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11 (11), 114008. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114008. ↩
Beach, R. H., Y. Cai, A. Thomson, X. Zhang, R. Jones, B. A. McCarl, A. Crimmins, J. Martinich, J. Cole, S. Ohrel, B. DeAngelo, J. McFarland, K. Strzepek, and B. Boehlert, 2015: Climate change impacts on US agriculture and forestry: Benefits of global climate stabilization. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (9), 095004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095004. ↩
Beard, C. B., R. J. Eisen, C. M. Barker, J. F. Garofalo, M. Hahn, M. Hayden, A. J. Monaghan, N. H. Ogden, and P. J. Schramm, 2016: Ch. 5: Vector-borne diseases . The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 129–156. doi:10.7930/J0765C7V. ↩
Beaudin, L., and J.-C. Huang, 2014: Weather conditions and outdoor recreation: A study of New England ski areas. Ecological Economics, 106, 56–68. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.011. ↩
Biehl, P. F., S. Crate, M. Gardezi, L. Hamilton, S. L. Harlan, C. Hritz, B. Hubbell, T. A. Kohler, N. Peterson, and J. Silva, 2018: Innovative Tools, Methods, and Analysis: Social Science Perspectives on Climate Change, Part 3. USGCRP, Washington, DC, 38 pp. URL. ↩
Blanc, E., K. Strzepek, A. Schlosser, H. Jacoby, A. Gueneau, C. Fant, S. Rausch, and J. Reilly, 2014: Modeling U.S. water resources under climate change. Earth's Future, 2 (4), 197–224. doi:10.1002/2013EF000214. ↩
Bosello, F., C. Carraro, and E. De Cian, 2013: Adaptation can help mitigation: An integrated approach to post-2012 climate policy. Environment and Development Economics, 18 (3), 270–290. doi:10.1017/S1355770X13000132. ↩
Bouttes, N., J. M. Gregory, and J. A. Lowe, 2013: The reversibility of sea level rise. Journal of Climate, 26 (8), 2502–2513. doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00285.1. ↩
Burakowski, E., and M. Magnusson, 2012: Climate impacts on the winter tourism economy in the United States. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, 33 pp. URL. ↩
Burke, L., L. Reytar, M. Spalding, and A. Perry, 2011: Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 130 pp. URL. ↩
CAFF, 2013: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Status and Trends in Arctic Biodiversity. Arctic Council, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Akureyri, Iceland, 674 pp. URL. ↩
California Assembly, 2016: URL. ↩
Capps, S. L., C. T. Driscoll, H. Fakhraei, P. H. Templer, K. J. Craig, J. B. Milford, and K. F. Lambert, 2016: Estimating potential productivity cobenefits for crops and trees from reduced ozone with U.S. coal power plant carbon standards. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 121 (24), 14,679-14,690. doi:10.1002/2016JD025141. ↩
Cayan, D. R., S. Moser, G. Franco, M. Hanemann, and M.-A. Jones, Eds., 2013: California Climate Scenarios Assessment. Springer, The Netherlands, 554 pp. ↩
Cayan, D., A. L. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Franco, and B. Croes, 2006: Scenarios of climate change in California: An overview. CEC-500-2005-186-SF. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, 47 pp. URL. ↩
Cayan, D., A. Luers, G. Franco, M. Hanemann, B. Croes, and Edward Vine, 2008: California at a crossroads: Climate change science informing policy. Climatic Change, 87 (1 Suppl.), 1–322. URL. ↩
CBO, 2016: Potential Increases in Hurricane Damage in the United States: Implications for the Federal Budget. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Washington, DC, 33 pp. URL. ↩
CDP, 2015: Putting a price on risk: Carbon pricing in the corporate world. CDP Report 2015 v.1.2. CDP North America, New York, 66 pp. URL. ↩
CDP, 2017: CDP web site. CDP, [worldwide]. URL. ↩
Chadburn, S. E., E. J. Burke, P. M. Cox, P. Friedlingstein, G. Hugelius, and S. Westermann, 2017: An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 7, 340–344. doi:10.1038/nclimate3262. ↩
Challinor, A. J., J. Watson, D. B. Lobell, S. M. Howden, D. R. Smith, and N. Chhetri, 2014: A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4 (4), 287–291. doi:10.1038/nclimate2153. ↩
Chambwera, M., G. Heal, C. Dubeux, S. Hallegatte, L. Leclerc, A. Markandya, B. A. McCarl, R. Mechler, and J. E. Neumann, 2014: Economics of adaptation. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 945–977. ↩
Chang, H. H., H. Hao, and S. E. Sarnat, 2014: A statistical modeling framework for projecting future ambient ozone and its health impact due to climate change. Atmospheric Environment, 89, 290–297. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.037. ↩
Chapra, S. C., B. Boehlert, C. Fant, V. J. Bierman, J. Henderson, D. Mills, D. M. L. Mas, L. Rennels, L. Jantarasami, J. Martinich, K. M. Strzepek, and H. W. Paerl, 2017: Climate change impacts on harmful algal blooms in U.S. freshwaters: A screening-level assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 51 (16), 8933–8943. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b01498. ↩
Childress, A., E. Gordon, T. Jedd, R. Klein, J. Lukas, and R. McKeown, 2015: Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study. University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 176 pp. URL. ↩
Cho, S. J., and B. A. McCarl, 2017: Climate change influences on crop mix shifts in the United States. Scientific Reports, 7, 40845. doi:10.1038/srep40845. ↩
Ciavarella, A., P. Stott, and J. Lowe, 2017: Early benefits of mitigation in risk of regional climate extremes. Nature Climate Change, 7, 326–330. doi:10.1038/nclimate3259. ↩
Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, and R. Richels, 2007: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations—US Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1a. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 . U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, D.C., 154 pp. URL. ↩
Clarke, L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B. van der Zwaan, and D. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing transformation pathways. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J. C. Minx, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 413–510. URL. ↩
Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W. J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A. J. Weaver, and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1029–1136. URL. ↩
Cooley, S. R., and S. C. Doney, 2009: Anticipating ocean acidification's economic consequences for commercial fisheries. Environmental Research Letters, 4 (024007), 8. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024007. ↩
Cooley, S. R., J. E. Rheuban, D. R. Hart, V. Luu, D. M. Glover, J. A. Hare, and S. C. Doney, 2015: An integrated assessment model for helping the United States sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) fishery plan ahead for ocean acidification and warming. PLOS ONE, 10 (5), e0124145. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124145. ↩
Corell, R. W., D. Liverman, K. Dow, K. L. Ebi, K. Kunkel, L. O. Mearns, and J. Melillo, 2014: Ch. 29: Research needs for climate and global change assessments. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Melillo, J. M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 707–718. doi:10.7930/J03R0QR3. ↩
Cornford, S. L., D. F. Martin, A. J. Payne, E. G. Ng, A. M. Le Brocq, R. M. Gladstone, T. L. Edwards, S. R. Shannon, C. Agosta, M. R. van den Broeke, H. H. Hellmer, G. Krinner, S. R. M. Ligtenberg, R. Timmermann, and D. G. Vaughan, 2015: Century-scale simulations of the response of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to a warming climate. The Cryosphere, 9 (4), 1579–1600. doi:10.5194/tc-9-1579-2015. ↩
Dawson, J., and D. Scott, 2013: Managing for climate change in the alpine ski sector. Tourism Management, 35, 244–254. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.009. ↩
DeAngelo, B., J. Edmonds, D. W. Fahey, and B. M. Sanderson, 2017: Perspectives on Climate Change Mitigation. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 393–410. doi:10.7930/J0M32SZG. ↩
DeConto, R. M., and D. Pollard, 2016: Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature, 531 (7596), 591–597. doi:10.1038/nature17145. ↩
Denton, F., T. J. Wilbanks, A. C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M. C. Lemos, T. Masui, K. L. O'Brien, and K. Warner, 2014: Climate-resilient pathways: Adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1101–1131. ↩
Diaz, D. B., 2016: Estimating global damages from sea level rise with the Coastal Impact and Adaptation Model (CIAM). Climatic Change, 137 (1), 143–156. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1675-4. ↩
Diaz, D., and F. Moore, 2017: Quantifying the economic risks of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 7, 774–782. doi:10.1038/nclimate3411. ↩
Diaz, D., and F. Moore, 2017: Valuing Potential Climate Impacts: A Review of Current Limitations and the Research Frontier. Report #3002011885. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 34 pp. URL. ↩
Diaz, D., and K. Keller, 2016: A potential disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet: Implications for economic analyses of climate policy. American Economic Review, 106 (5), 607–611. doi:10.1257/aer.p20161103. ↩
DOE, 2017: Transforming the Nation's Electricity System: The Second Installment of the QER. DOE/EPSA-0008. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC, URL. ↩
DOE-EPSA, 2017: Energy CO2 Emissions Impacts of Clean Energy Technology Innovation and Policy. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis (DOE-EPSA), Washington, DC, 43 pp. URL. ↩
DSIRE, 2017: Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE) [online tool]. NC State University, NC Clean Energy Technology Center, Raleigh, NC. URL. ↩
EASAC, 2018: Negative emissions technologies: What role in meeting Paris Agreement targets? EASAC policy report 35. European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC), Halle, Germany, 37 pp. URL. ↩
EIA, 2018: Annual Energy Outlook 2018. AEO2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 146 pp. URL. ↩
Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016: Technical update to Environment and Climate Change Canada's social cost of greenhouse gas estimates. En14-202/2016E-PDF. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, various pp. URL. ↩
EPA, 2000: Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, various pp. URL. ↩
EPA, 2013: Watershed Modeling to Assess the Sensitivity of Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Potential Climate Change and Urban Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds (Final Report). EPA/600/R-12/058F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, various pp. URL. ↩
EPA, 2015: Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action. EPA 430-R-15-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC, 93 pp. URL. ↩
EPA, 2017: Multi-model Framework for Quantitative Sectoral Impacts Analysis: A Technical Report for the Fourth National Climate Assessment. EPA 430‐R‐17‐001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, 271 pp. URL. ↩
EPA, 2018: Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2016. EPA 430-P-18-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, various pp. URL. ↩
EPRI, 2015: CO2 Mitigation for Climate Risk Management. 3002005831. EPRI, Palo Alto, 28 pp. URL. ↩
Executive Office of the President, 2016: Climate change: Fiscal risks facing the federal government. The White House, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 34 pp. URL. ↩
Executive Office of the President, 2016: United States Mid-century strategy for deep decarbonization. The White House, Washington, DC, 110 pp. URL. ↩
Executive Office of the President, 2017: Executive Order 13783: Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. The White House, Washington, DC. March 28. URL. ↩
Executive Office of the President, 2017: Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. The White House, Washington, DC. June 1. URL. ↩
Fann, N., C. G. Nolte, P. Dolwick, T. L. Spero, A. Curry Brown, S. Phillips, and S. Anenberg, 2015: The geographic distribution and economic value of climate change-related ozone health impacts in the United States in 2030. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65 (5), 570–580. doi:10.1080/10962247.2014.996270. ↩
Fann, N., T. Brennan, P. Dolwick, J. L. Gamble, V. Ilacqua, L. Kolb, C. G. Nolte, T. L. Spero, and L. Ziska, 2016: Ch. 3: Air quality impacts. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 69–98. doi:10.7930/J0GQ6VP6. ↩
Fawcett, A. A., G. C. Iyer, L. E. Clarke, J. A. Edmonds, N. E. Hultman, H. C. McJeon, J. Rogelj, R. Schuler, J. Alsalam, G. R. Asrar, J. Creason, M. Jeong, J. McFarland, A. Mundra, and W. Shi, 2015: Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science, 350 (6265), 1168–1169. doi:10.1126/science.aad5761. ↩
Felgenhauer, T., and M. Webster, 2013: Multiple adaptation types with mitigation: A framework for policy analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23 (6), 1556–1565. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.018. ↩
Fisher-Vanden, K., I. Sue Wing, E. Lanzi, and D. Popp, 2013: Modeling climate change feedbacks and adaptation responses: Recent approaches and shortcomings. Climatic Change, 117 (3), 481–495. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0644-9. ↩
Fiske, S., K. Hubacek, A. Jorgenson, J. Li, T. McGovern, T. Rick, J. Schor, W. Solecki, R. York, and A. Zycherman, 2018: Drivers and responses: Social science perspectives on climate change, Part 2. USGCRP, Washington, DC, 37 pp. URL. ↩
Foden, W. B., S. H. M. Butchart, S. N. Stuart, J.-C. Vié, H. R. Akçakaya, A. Angulo, L. M. DeVantier, A. Gutsche, E. Turak, L. Cao, S. D. Donner, V. Katariya, R. Bernard, R. A. Holland, A. F. Hughes, S. E. O'Hanlon, S. T. Garnett, Ç. H. Şekercioğlu, and G. M. Mace, 2013: Identifying the world's most climate change vulnerable species: A systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLOS ONE, 8 (6), e65427. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065427. ↩
Gamble, J. L., J. Balbus, M. Berger, K. Bouye, V. Campbell, K. Chief, K. Conlon, A. Crimmins, B. Flanagan, C. Gonzalez-Maddux, E. Hallisey, S. Hutchins, L. Jantarasami, S. Khoury, M. Kiefer, J. Kolling, K. Lynn, A. Manangan, M. McDonald, R. Morello-Frosch, M. H. Redsteer, P. Sheffield, K. Thigpen Tart, J. Watson, K. P. Whyte, and A. F. Wolkin, 2016: Ch. 9: Populations of concern. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 247–286. doi:10.7930/J0Q81B0T. ↩
Ganopolski, A., R. Winkelmann, and H. J. Schellnhuber, 2016: Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception. Nature, 529, 200–203. doi:10.1038/nature16494. ↩
Garcia-Menendez, F., R. K. Saari, E. Monier, and N. E. Selin, 2015: U.S. air quality and health benefits from avoided climate change under greenhouse gas mitigation. Environmental Science & Technology, 49 (13), 7580–7588. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01324. ↩
Gibon, T., E. G. Hertwich, A. Arvesen, B. Singh, and F. Verones, 2017: Health benefits, ecological threats of low-carbon electricity. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (3), 034023. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6047. ↩
Golub, A., R. Lubowski, and P. Piris-Cabezas, 2017: Balancing Risks from Climate Policy Uncertainties: The Role of Options and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Ecological Economics, 138, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.013. ↩
Hadka, D., J. Herman, P. Reed, and K. Keller, 2015: An open source framework for many-objective robust decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 74, 114–129. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.07.014. ↩
Hallegatte, S., 2009: Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19 (2), 240–247. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003. ↩
Hardy, D., H. Lazrus, M. Mendez, B. Orlove, I. Rivera-Collazo, J. T. Roberts, M. Rockman, K. Thomas, B. P. Warner, and R. Winthrop, 2018: Social vulnerability: Social science perspectives on climate change, part 1. USGCRP, Washington, DC, 38 pp. URL. ↩
Hayhoe, K., J. Edmonds, R. E. Kopp, A. N. LeGrande, B. M. Sanderson, M. F. Wehner, and D. J. Wuebbles, 2017: Climate Models, Scenarios, and Projections. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 133–160. doi:10.7930/J0WH2N54. ↩
Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change, 8 (2), 151–155. doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y. ↩
Heeter, J., J. J. Cook, and L. Bird, 2017: Charting the Emergence of Corporate Procurement of Utility-Scale PV. NREL/TP-6A20-69080. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 43 pp. URL. ↩
Hejazi, M. I., N. Voisin, L. Liu, L. M. Bramer, D. C. Fortin, J. E. Hathaway, M. Huang, P. Kyle, L. R. Leung, H.-Y. Li, Y. Liu, P. L. Patel, T. C. Pulsipher, J. S. Rice, T. K. Tesfa, C. R. Vernon, and Y. Zhou, 2015: 21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112 (34), 10635–10640. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421675112. ↩
Horton, R. H., D. A. Bader, C. Rosenzweig, A. T. DeGaetano, and W. Solecki, 2014: Climate Change in New York State. Updating the 2011 ClimAID Climate Risk Information, Supplement to NYSERDA Report 11-18. NYSERDA Report 14-26. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany, NY, 17 pp. URL. ↩
Houser, T., S. Hsiang, R. Kopp, K. Larsen, M. Delgado, A. Jina, M. Mastrandrea, S. Mohan, R. Muir-Wood, D. J. Rasmussen, J. Rising, and Paul Wilson, 2015: Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus. Columbia University Press, New York,. ↩
Hsiang, S., R. Kopp, A. Jina, J. Rising, M. Delgado, S. Mohan, D. J. Rasmussen, R. Muir-Wood, P. Wilson, M. Oppenheimer, K. Larsen, and T. Houser, 2017: Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science, 356 (6345), 1362–1369. doi:10.1126/science.aal4369. ↩
Huber, V., H. J. Schellnhuber, N. W. Arnell, K. Frieler, A. D. Friend, D. Gerten, I. Haddeland, P. Kabat, H. Lotze-Campen, W. Lucht, M. Parry, F. Piontek, C. Rosenzweig, J. Schewe, and L. Warszawski, 2014: Climate impact research: Beyond patchwork. Earth System Dynamics, 5 (2), 399–408. doi:10.5194/esd-5-399-2014. ↩
IPCC, 2014: Annex II: Glossary [Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow (eds.)]. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, and L. A. Meyer, Eds., IPCC, Geneva, 117–130. URL. ↩
IWGSCC, 2010: Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWGSCC), Washington, DC, 50 pp. URL. ↩
Jacobs, J. M., L. R. Cattaneo, W. Sweet, and T. Mansfield, 2018: Recent and future outlooks for nuisance flooding impacts on roadways on the US East Coast. Transportation Research Record, doi:10.1177/0361198118756366. ↩
Jacoby, H. D., A. C. Janetos, R. Birdsey, J. Buizer, K. Calvin, F. de la Chesnaye, D. Schimel, I. Sue Wing, R. Detchon, J. Edmonds, L. Russell, and J. West, 2014: Ch. 27: Mitigation. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Melillo, J. M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 648–669. doi:10.7930/J0C8276J. ↩
Jewell, J., A. Cherp, and K. Riahi, 2014: Energy security under de-carbonization scenarios: An assessment framework and evaluation under different technology and policy choices. Energy Policy, 65, 743–760. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.051. ↩
Joughin, I., B. E. Smith, and B. Medley, 2014: Marine ice sheet collapse potentially under way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica. Science, 344 (6185), 735–738. doi:10.1126/science.1249055. ↩
Kaye, J. P., and M. Quemada, 2017: Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37 (1), 4. doi:10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x. ↩
Kingsley, S. L., M. N. Eliot, J. Gold, R. R. Vanderslice, and G. A. Wellenius, 2016: Current and projected heat-related morbidity and mortality in Rhode Island. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124 (4), 460–467. doi:10.1289/ehp.1408826. ↩
Klein, R. J. T., G. F. Midgley, B. L. Preston, M. Alam, F. G. H. Berkhout, K. Dow, and M. R. Shaw, 2014: Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 899–943. ↩
Knutson, T., J. P. Kossin, C. Mears, J. Perlwitz, and M. F. Wehner, 2017: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 114–132. doi:10.7930/J01834ND. ↩
Kopp, R. E., D. R. Easterling, T. Hall, K. Hayhoe, R. Horton, K. E. Kunkel, and A. N. LeGrande, 2017: Potential Surprises: Compound Extremes and Tipping Elements. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 411–429. doi:10.7930/J0GB227J. ↩
Kopp, R. E., R. L. Shwom, G. Wagner, and J. Yuan, 2016: Tipping elements and climate–economic shocks: Pathways toward integrated assessment. Earth's Future, 4, 346–372. doi:10.1002/2016EF000362. ↩
Kopp, R. E., R. M. DeConto, D. A. Bader, C. C. Hay, R. M. Horton, S. Kulp, M. Oppenheimer, D. Pollard, and B. H. Strauss, 2017: Evolving understanding of Antarctic ice‐sheet physics and ambiguity in probabilistic sea‐level projections. Earth's Future, 5 (12), 1217–1233. doi:10.1002/2017EF000663. ↩
Kopp, R. E., R. M. Horton, C. M. Little, J. X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer, D. J. Rasmussen, B. H. Strauss, and C. Tebaldi, 2014: Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earth's Future, 2 (8), 383–406. doi:10.1002/2014EF000239. ↩
Kruger, J. A., 2017: Hedging an Uncertain Future: Internal Carbon Prices in the Electric Power Sector. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 14 pp. URL. ↩
Lane, D. R., R. C. Ready, R. W. Buddemeier, J. A. Martinich, K. C. Shouse, and C. W. Wobus, 2013: Quantifying and valuing potential climate change impacts on coral reefs in the United States: Comparison of two scenarios. PLOS ONE, 8 (12), e82579. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082579. ↩
Larkin, A., J. Kuriakose, M. Sharmina, and K. Anderson, 2018: What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations. Climate Policy, 18 (6), 690–714. doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1346498. ↩
Larsen, K., J. Larsen, W. Herndon, S. Mohan, and T. Houser, 2017: Taking Stock 2017: Adjusting Expectations for US Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Rhodium Group, New York, NY, 10 pp. URL. ↩
Larsen, P. H., B. Boehlert, J. H. Eto, K. Hamachi-LaCommare, J. Martinich, and L. Rennels, 2017: Projecting future costs to U.S. electric utility customers from power interruptions. LBNL- 1007027. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 45 pp. URL. ↩
Le Bars, D., S. Drijfhout, and H. de Vries, 2017: A high-end sea level rise probabilistic projection including rapid Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (4), 044013. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6512. ↩
Lempert, R. J., 2014: Embedding (some) benefit-cost concepts into decision support processes with deep uncertainty. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5 (3), 487–514. doi:10.1515/jbca-2014-9006. ↩
Liverman, D., 2016: U.S. national climate assessment gaps and research needs: Overview, the economy and the international context. Climatic Change, 135 (1), 173–186. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1464-5. ↩
Lobell, D. B., and S. Asseng, 2017: Comparing estimates of climate change impacts from process-based and statistical crop models. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (1), 015001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa518a. ↩
Lobell, D. B., U. L. C. Baldos, and T. W. Hertel, 2013: Climate adaptation as mitigation: The case of agricultural investments. Environmental Research Letters, 8 (1), 015012. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015012. ↩
Luderer, G., C. Bertram, K. Calvin, E. De Cian, and E. Kriegler, 2016: Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways. Climatic Change, 136 (1), 127–140. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0899-9. ↩
MacCracken, M. C., 2016: The rationale for accelerating regionally focused climate intervention research. Earth's Future, 4 (12), 649–657. doi:10.1002/2016EF000450. ↩
Macknick, J., R. Newmark, G. Heath, and K. C. Hallett, 2012: Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: A review of existing literature. Environmental Research Letters, 7 (4), 045802. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802. ↩
Marsha, A., S. R. Sain, M. J. Heaton, A. J. Monaghan, and O. V. Wilhelmi, 2016: Influences of climatic and population changes on heat-related mortality in Houston, Texas, USA. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1775-1. ↩
Marshall, E., M. Aillery, S. Malcolm, and R. Williams, 2015: Climate Change, Water Scarcity, and Adaptation in the U.S. Fieldcrop Sector. Economic Research Report No. (ERR-201). USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 119 pp. URL. ↩
Martinich, J., A. Crimmins, R. H. Beach, A. Thomson, and J. McFarland, 2017: Focus on agriculture and forestry benefits of reducing climate change impacts. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (6), 060301. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6f23. ↩
Martinich, J., J. Neumann, L. Ludwig, and L. Jantarasami, 2013: Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 169–185. doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0. ↩
McCollum, D. L., V. Krey, K. Riahi, P. Kolp, A. Grubler, M. Makowski, and N. Nakicenovic, 2013: Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges. Climatic Change, 119 (2), 479–494. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0710-y. ↩
McFarland, J., Y. Zhou, L. Clarke, P. Sullivan, J. Colman, W. S. Jaglom, M. Colley, P. Patel, J. Eom, S. H. Kim, G. P. Kyle, P. Schultz, B. Venkatesh, J. Haydel, C. Mack, and J. Creason, 2015: Impacts of rising air temperatures and emissions mitigation on electricity demand and supply in the United States: A multi-model comparison. Climatic Change, 131 (1), 111–125. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1380-8. ↩
McKenzie, D., and J. S. Littell, 2017: Climate change and the eco-hydrology of fire: Will area burned increase in a warming western USA? Ecological Applications, 27 (1), 26–36. doi:10.1002/eap.1420. ↩
Melillo, J. M., T. (T. C. . Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. ↩
Melvin, A. M., J. Murray, B. Boehlert, J. A. Martinich, L. Rennels, and T. S. Rupp, 2017: Estimating wildfire response costs in Alaska's changing climate. Climatic Change, 141 (4), 783–795. doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1923-2. ↩
Melvin, A. M., P. Larsen, B. Boehlert, J. E. Neumann, P. Chinowsky, X. Espinet, J. Martinich, M. S. Baumann, L. Rennels, A. Bothner, D. J. Nicolsky, and S. S. Marchenko, 2017: Climate change damages to Alaska public infrastructure and the economics of proactive adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (2), E122–E131. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611056113. ↩
Mengel, M., A. Levermann, K. Frieler, A. Robinson, B. Marzeion, and R. Winkelmann, 2016: Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (10), 2597–2602. doi:10.1073/pnas.1500515113. ↩
Mills, D., J. Schwartz, M. Lee, M. Sarofim, R. Jones, M. Lawson, M. Duckworth, and L. Deck, 2015: Climate change impacts on extreme temperature mortality in select metropolitan areas in the United States. Climatic Change, 131 (1), 83–95. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1154-8. ↩
Mills, D., R. Jones, C. Wobus, J. Ekstrom, L. Jantarasami, A. St. Juliana, and A. Crimmins, 2018: Projecting age-stratified risk of exposure to inland flooding and wildfire smoke in the United States under two climate scenarios. Environmental Health Perspectives, 126 (4), 047007. doi:10.1289/EHP2594. ↩
Monier, E., and X. Gao, 2015: Climate change impacts on extreme events in the United States: An uncertainty analysis. Climatic Change, 131 (1), 67–81. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1048-1. ↩
Morini, E., A. Touchaei, B. Castellani, F. Rossi, and F. Cotana, 2016: The impact of albedo increase to mitigate the urban heat island in Terni (Italy) using the WRF model. Sustainability, 8 (10), 999. doi:10.3390/su8100999. ↩
Moser, S. C., 2012: Adaptation, mitigation, and their disharmonious discontents: An essay. Climatic Change, 111 (2), 165–175. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0398-4. ↩
Moser, S. C., J. M. Melillo, K. L. Jacobs, R. H. Moss, and J. L. Buizer, 2016: Aspirations and common tensions: Larger lessons from the third US national climate assessment. Climatic Change, 135 (1), 187–201. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1530-z. ↩
Moss, R. H., J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard, M. R. Manning, S. K. Rose, D. P. van Vuuren, T. R. Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, S. J. Smith, R. J. Stouffer, A. M. Thomson, J. P. Weyant, and T. J. Wilbanks, 2010: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747–756. doi:10.1038/nature08823. ↩
Murray, B. C., and P. T. Maniloff, 2015: Why have greenhouse emissions in RGGI states declined? An econometric attribution to economic, energy market, and policy factors. Energy Economics, 51, 581–589. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.07.013. ↩
Müller, C., J. Elliott, J. Chryssanthacopoulos, A. Arneth, J. Balkovic, P. Ciais, D. Deryng, C. Folberth, M. Glotter, S. Hoek, T. Iizumi, R. C. Izaurralde, C. Jones, N. Khabarov, P. Lawrence, W. Liu, S. Olin, T. A. M. Pugh, D. K. Ray, A. Reddy, C. Rosenzweig, A. C. Ruane, G. Sakurai, E. Schmid, R. Skalsky, C. X. Song, X. Wang, A. de Wit, and H. Yang, 2017: Global gridded crop model evaluation: Benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications. Geoscientific Model Development, 10 (4), 1403–1422. doi:10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017. ↩
NACUBO, 2012: Higher Education: Leading the Nation to a Safe and Secure Energy Future. National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and Second Nature, Washington, DC and Boston, MA, 15 pp. URL. ↩
NAS, 2015: Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 154 pp. doi:10.17226/18805. ↩
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017: Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, doi:10.17226/24651. ↩
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2015: High water and high stakes: Cultural resources and climate change. Forum Journal, 29 (4), 1–66. URL. ↩
Neumann, J. E., K. Emanuel, S. Ravela, L. Ludwig, P. Kirshen, K. Bosma, and J. Martinich, 2015: Joint effects of storm surge and sea-level rise on US Coasts: New economic estimates of impacts, adaptation, and benefits of mitigation policy. Climatic Change, 129 (1), 337–349. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1304-z. ↩
New York State Department of Public Service, 2016: Staff's responsive proposal for preserving zero-emissions attributes. New York State Department of Public Service, Albany, NY, 11 pp. URL. ↩
Norton-Smith, K., K. Lynn, K. Chief, K. Cozzetto, J. Donatuto, M. H. Redsteer, L. E. Kruger, J. Maldonado, C. Viles, and K. P. Whyte, 2016: Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-944. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 136 pp. URL. ↩
O'Neill, B. C., J. M. Done, A. Gettelman, P. Lawrence, F. Lehner, J.-F. Lamarque, L. Lin, A. J. Monaghan, K. Oleson, X. Ren, B. M. Sanderson, C. Tebaldi, M. Weitzel, Y. Xu, B. Anderson, M. J. Fix, and S. Levis, 2017: The Benefits of Reduced Anthropogenic Climate changE (BRACE): A synthesis. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2009-x. ↩
OECD, 2015: The Economic Consequences of Climate Change. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Publishing, Paris, 140 pp. pp. doi:10.1787/9789264235410-en. ↩
Patiño, R., D. Dawson, and M. M. VanLandeghem, 2014: Retrospective analysis of associations between water quality and toxic blooms of golden alga (Prymnesium parvum) in Texas reservoirs: Implications for understanding dispersal mechanisms and impacts of climate change. Harmful Algae, 33, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.hal.2013.12.006. ↩
Pendleton, L. H., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, C. Langdon, and A. Comte, 2016: Multiple stressors and ecological complexity require a new approach to coral reef research. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, article 36. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00036. ↩
Pendleton, L., A. Comte, C. Langdon, J. A. Ekstrom, S. R. Cooley, L. Suatoni, M. W. Beck, L. M. Brander, L. Burke, J. E. Cinner, C. Doherty, P. E. T. Edwards, D. Gledhill, L.-Q. Jiang, R. J. van Hooidonk, L. Teh, G. G. Waldbusser, and J. Ritter, 2016: Coral reefs and people in a high-CO2 world: Where can science make a difference to people? PLOS ONE, 11 (11), e0164699. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164699. ↩
Pindyck, R. S., 2017: The use and misuse of models for climate policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11 (1), 100–114. doi:10.1093/reep/rew012. ↩
Revesz, R. L., P. H. Howard, K. Arrow, L. H. Goulder, R. E. Kopp, M. A. Livermore, M. Oppenheimer, and T. Sterner, 2014: Global warming: Improve economic models of climate change. Nature, 508, 173–175. doi:10.1038/508173a. ↩
Rockman, M., M. Morgan, S. Ziaja, G. Hambrecht, and A. Meadow, 2016: Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy. Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science and Climate Change Response Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, URL. ↩
Rose, S. K., D. B. Diaz, and G. J. Blanford, 2017: Understanding the social cost of carbon: A model diagnostic and inter-comparison study. Climate Change Economics, 08 (02), 1750009. doi:10.1142/s2010007817500099. ↩
Rosenzweig, C., J. Elliott, D. Deryng, A. C. Ruane, C. Müller, A. Arneth, K. J. Boote, C. Folberth, M. Glotter, N. Khabarov, K. Neumann, F. Piontek, T. A. M. Pugh, E. Schmid, E. Stehfest, H. Yang, and J. W. Jones, 2014: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (9), 3268–3273. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110. ↩
Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, A. DeGaetano, M. O'Grady, S. Hassol, and P. Grabhorn, Eds., 2011: Responding to climate change in New York state: The ClimAID integrated assessment for effective climate change adaptation. Technical report. NYSERDA Report 11-18. Albany, NY, 149 pp. URL. ↩
Saari, R. K., N. E. Selin, S. Rausch, and T. M. Thompson, 2015: A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65 (1), 74–89. doi:10.1080/10962247.2014.959139. ↩
Sarofim, M. C., S. Saha, M. D. Hawkins, D. M. Mills, J. Hess, R. Horton, P. Kinney, J. Schwartz, and A. St. Juliana, 2016: Ch. 2: Temperature-related death and illness. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 43–68. doi:10.7930/J0MG7MDX. ↩
Schuur, E. A. G., A. D. McGuire, C. Schadel, G. Grosse, J. W. Harden, D. J. Hayes, G. Hugelius, C. D. Koven, P. Kuhry, D. M. Lawrence, S. M. Natali, D. Olefeldt, V. E. Romanovsky, K. Schaefer, M. R. Turetsky, C. C. Treat, and J. E. Vonk, 2015: Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature, 520 (7546), 171–179. doi:10.1038/nature14338. ↩
Searchinger, T., R. Edwards, D. Mulligan, R. Heimlich, and R. Plevin, 2015: Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science, 347 (6229), 1420–1422. doi:10.1126/science.1261221. ↩
Second Nature, 2018: Second Nature Reporting Platform [web tool]. Second Nature Inc., Boston, MA, accessed March 30. URL. ↩
Shindell, D., G. Faluvegi, K. Seltzer, and C. Shindell, 2018: Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Nature Climate Change, 8 (4), 291–295. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0108-y. ↩
Shindell, D., J. C. I. Kuylenstierna, E. Vignati, R. van Dingenen, M. Amann, Z. Klimont, S. C. Anenberg, N. Muller, G. Janssens-Maenhout, F. Raes, J. Schwartz, G. Faluvegi, L. Pozzoli, K. Kupiainen, L. Hoglund-Isaksson, L. Emberson, D. Streets, V. Ramanathan, K. Hicks, N. T. K. Oanh, G. Milly, M. Williams, V. Demkine, and D. Fowler, 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science, 335 (6065), 183–189. doi:10.1126/science.1210026. ↩
Smith, P., S. J. Davis, F. Creutzig, S. Fuss, J. Minx, B. Gabrielle, E. Kato, R. B. Jackson, A. Cowie, E. Kriegler, D. P. van Vuuren, J. Rogelj, P. Ciais, J. Milne, J. G. Canadell, D. McCollum, G. Peters, R. Andrew, V. Krey, G. Shrestha, P. Friedlingstein, T. Gasser, A. Grubler, W. K. Heidug, M. Jonas, C. D. Jones, F. Kraxner, E. Littleton, J. Lowe, J. R. Moreira, N. Nakicenovic, M. Obersteiner, A. Patwardhan, M. Rogner, E. Rubin, A. Sharifi, A. Torvanger, Y. Yamagata, J. Edmonds, and C. Yongsung, 2016: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 42–50. doi:10.1038/nclimate2870. ↩
Stern, N., 2013: The structure of economic modeling of the potential impacts of climate change: Grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. Journal of Economic Literature, 51 (3), 838–859. doi:10.1257/jel.51.3.838. ↩
Stern, N., 2016: Economics: Current climate models are grossly misleading. Nature, 530, 407–409. doi:10.1038/530407a. ↩
Su, J. G., Y.-Y. Meng, M. Pickett, E. Seto, B. Ritz, and M. Jerrett, 2016: Identification of effects of regulatory actions on air quality in goods movement corridors in California. Environmental Science & Technology, 50 (16), 8687–8696. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b00926. ↩
Sweet, W. V., R. Horton, R. E. Kopp, A. N. LeGrande, and A. Romanou, 2017: Sea Level Rise. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 333–363. doi:10.7930/J0VM49F2. ↩
Taylor, L. L., J. Quirk, R. M. S. Thorley, P. A. Kharecha, J. Hansen, A. Ridgwell, M. R. Lomas, S. A. Banwart, and D. J. Beerling, 2016: Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nature Climate Change, 6, 402–406. doi:10.1038/nclimate2882. ↩
Taylor, P. C., W. Maslowski, J. Perlwitz, and D. J. Wuebbles, 2017: Arctic Changes and their Effects on Alaska and the Rest of the United States. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 303–332. doi:10.7930/J00863GK. ↩
The World Bank, 2018: Carbon pricing dashboard [web tool]. The World Bank, Washington, DC, accessed March 28. URL. ↩
Thompson, T. M., S. Rausch, R. K. Saari, and N. E. Selin, 2014: A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies. Nature Climate Change, 4, 917–923. doi:10.1038/nclimate2342. ↩
U.S. Climate Alliance, 2018: United States Climate Alliance: States United for Climate Action [web site]. U.S. Climate Alliance, . URL. ↩
U.S. Department of State, 2016: Second Biennial Report of the United States of America. U.S. State Department, Washington, DC, 75 pp. URL. ↩
Underwood, B. S., Z. Guido, P. Gudipudi, and Y. Feinberg, 2017: Increased costs to US pavement infrastructure from future temperature rise. Nature Climate Change, 7, 704. doi:10.1038/nclimate3390. ↩
UNFCCC, 2015: Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, [Bonn, Germany], 25 pp. URL. ↩
UNFCCC, 2018: Paris Agreement—Status of ratification. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany, URL. ↩
Urban, D. W., J. Sheffield, and D. B. Lobell, 2015: The impacts of future climate and carbon dioxide changes on the average and variability of US maize yields under two emission scenarios. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (4), 045003. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/045003. ↩
Urban, M. C., 2015: Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348 (6234), 571–573. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4984. ↩
Urban, N. M., P. B. Holden, N. R. Edwards, R. L. Sriver, and K. Keller, 2014: Historical and future learning about climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, 41 (7), 2543–2552. doi:10.1002/2014GL059484. ↩
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp. doi:10.7930/J0J964J6. ↩
USGCRP, 2018: Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 877 pp. URL. ↩
van Hooidonk, R., J. Maynard, J. Tamelander, J. Gove, G. Ahmadia, L. Raymundo, G. Williams, S. F. Heron, and S. Planes, 2016: Local-scale projections of coral reef futures and implications of the Paris Agreement. Scientific Reports, 6, 39666. doi:10.1038/srep39666. ↩
Warren, R., J. VanDerWal, J. Price, J. A. Welbergen, I. Atkinson, J. Ramirez-Villegas, T. J. Osborn, A. Jarvis, L. P. Shoo, S. E. Williams, and J. Lowe, 2013: Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nature Climate Change, 3, 678–682. doi:10.1038/nclimate1887. ↩
Watkiss, P., 2015: A review of the economics of adaptation and climate-resilient development. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 231 and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 205. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 41 pp. URL. ↩
West, J. J., S. J. Smith, R. A. Silva, V. Naik, Y. Zhang, Z. Adelman, M. M. Fry, S. Anenberg, L. W. Horowitz, and J.-F. Lamarque, 2013: Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nature Climate Change, 3 (10), 885–889. doi:10.1038/nclimate2009. ↩
Weyant, J., 2017: Some contributions of integrated assessment models of global climate change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11 (1), 115–137. doi:10.1093/reep/rew018. ↩
Wiens, J., J. Fargione, and J. Hill, 2011: Biofuels and biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 21 (4), 1085–1095. doi:10.1890/09-0673.1. ↩
Wiser, R., T. Mai, D. Millstein, G. Barbose, L. Bird, J. Heeter, D. Keyser, V. Krishnan, and J. Macknick, 2017: Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (9), 094023. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa87bd. ↩
Wobus, C., E. E. Small, H. Hosterman, D. Mills, J. Stein, M. Rissing, R. Jones, M. Duckworth, R. Hall, M. Kolian, J. Creason, and J. Martinich, 2017: Projected climate change impacts on skiing and snowmobiling: A case study of the United States. Global Environmental Change, 45, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.006. ↩
World Resources Institute, 2018: CAIT Climate Data Explorer [web tool]. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, accessed April 11. URL. ↩
Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, B. DeAngelo, S. Doherty, K. Hayhoe, R. Horton, J. P. Kossin, P. C. Taylor, A. M. Waple, and C. P. Weaver, 2017: Executive summary. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 12–34. doi:10.7930/J0DJ5CTG. ↩
Yang, J., Z.-H. Wang, and K. E. Kaloush, 2015: Environmental impacts of reflective materials: Is high albedo a “silver bullet” for mitigating urban heat island? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 830–843. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.092. ↩
Yuksel, T., M.-A. M. Tamayao, C. Hendrickson, I. M. L. Azevedo, and J. J. Michalek, 2016: Effect of regional grid mix, driving patterns and climate on the comparative carbon footprint of gasoline and plug-in electric vehicles in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11 (4), 044007. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044007. ↩
Zapata, C. B., C. Yang, S. Yeh, J. Ogden, and M. J. Kleeman, 2018: Low-carbon energy generates public health savings in California. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18 (7), 4817–4830. doi:10.5194/acp-18-4817-2018. ↩
ZEV, 2018: Multi-State ZEV Task Force [web site]. Multi-State ZEV (Zero-Emission Vehicle) Task Force, . URL. ↩
Zhang, Y., S. J. Smith, J. H. Bowden, Z. Adelman, and J. J. West, 2017: Co-benefits of global, domestic, and sectoral greenhouse gas mitigation for US air quality and human health in 2050. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (11), 114033. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8f76 . ↩
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., S. T. Herrero, N. K. Dubash, and F. Lecocq, 2014: Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39 (1), 549–582. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-031312-125456. ↩

Collaboration or Project Name	Host/Lead Organization and References	Sectors Covered	Coverage
Benefits of Reduced Anthropogenic Climate change (BRACE)	National Center for Atmospheric Research (O’Neill et al. 2017)⁴	Heat extremes and health, agriculture and land use, tropical cyclones, sea level rise, drought and conflict	Global
Costs of Inaction and Resource scarcity: Consequences for Long-term Economic growth (CIRCLE)	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2015)⁵⁵	Tourism, agriculture, coastal, energy, extreme precipitation events, health	Global
Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP)	Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Huber et al. 2014)⁵⁶	Water, agriculture, biomes, infrastructure, health/malaria, fishery, permafrost	Global
American Climate Prospectus (ACP)	Climate Impact Lab (Houser et al. 2015; Hsiang et al. 2017)³^,⁵	Agriculture, health, labor productivity, crime and conflict, coastal, energy	United States
Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA)	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2015, 2017)²^,⁵⁷	More than 20 specific impacts categorized into 6 broad sectors: health (including labor productivity), infrastructure, electricity, water resources, agriculture, ecosystems	United States
California Climate Change Assessments	State of California (Cayan et al. 2008, 2013; California Energy Commission 2006)⁵⁸^,⁵⁹^,⁶⁰	Public health, agriculture, energy, coastal, water resources, ecosystems, wildfire, recreation	State-Level
Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study	Colorado Energy Office (Gordon and Ojima 2015)⁶¹	Ecosystems, water, agriculture, energy, transportation, recreation and tourism, public health	State-Level
New York ClimAID Project	New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Rosenzweig et al. 2011; Horton et al. 2014)⁶²^,⁶³	Water resources, coastal zones, ecosystems, agriculture, energy, transportation, telecommunications, public health	State-Level

Front Matter

National Topics

National Topics (cont.)

Regions

Responses

Appendices

Key Message 1Mitigation-Related Activities Within the United States

Key Message 2The Risks of Inaction

Key Message 3Avoided or Reduced Impacts Due to Mitigation

Key Message 4Interactions Between Mitigation and Adaptation

Key Message 1

Key Message 2

Key Message 3

Key Message 4

Likelihood

Confidence Level

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Chapter 29: Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation

Projected Damages and Potential for Risk Reduction by Sector

CHAPTER 29 Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation

Introduction

Authors

Contributors

Recommended Citation

Related Links

Timing and Magnitude of Action

State of Emissions Mitigation Efforts

Long-Term Temperature Goals and the Paris Agreement

Mitigation-Related Activities Within the United States

Figure 29.1: Mitigation-Related Activities at State and Local Levels

Reducing Impacts Through Mitigation

Table 29.1: Multisector Modeling Frameworks since NCA3

The Risks of Inaction

Figure 29.2: Projected Damages and Potential for Risk Reduction by Sector

Avoided or Reduced Impacts Due to Mitigation

Figure 29.3: Estimates of Direct Economic Damage from Temperature Change

Interactions Between Mitigation and Adaptation

Direction for Future Research

Coordinated Impacts Modeling Analyses

Advancements to Address Research Needs from the Third National Climate Assessment

Remaining Knowledge Gaps

TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

KEY MESSAGES

Key Message 1: Mitigation-Related Activities Within the United States

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

Key Message 2: The Risks of Inaction

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

Key Message 3: Avoided or Reduced Impacts Due to Mitigation

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

Key Message 4: Interactions Between Mitigation and Adaptation

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

REFERENCES

Key Message 1
Mitigation-Related Activities Within the United States

Key Message 2
The Risks of Inaction

Key Message 3
Avoided or Reduced Impacts Due to Mitigation

Key Message 4
Interactions Between Mitigation and Adaptation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Chapter 29: Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation

CHAPTER 29
Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation