February 28, 2007
GCRIO Program Overview
Our extensive collection of documents.
Archives of the
Global Climate Change Digest
A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999
FROM VOLUME 12, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1999
Prices and page numbers may be approximate. Obtain reports or further
information from sources named in parentheses at the end of each citation;
addresses are listed at the end of this section.
Development of Biological Criteria for Coral Reef Ecosystem Assessment.
S. C. Jameson; M. V. Erdmann; G. R. Gibson, Jr.; and K. W. Potts, 1998,
USEPA, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Washington, D.C. Also available on the World Wide Web at
This report addresses the question: What research and/or projects are
needed to support the development of biological-criteria guidance for
coral-reef-ecosystem assessment? It recommends that the United States
should take the following steps:
- Develop a program action plan to implement the U.S. Coral Reef
Ecosystem Biocriteria Program.
- Draft a U.S. coral reef ecosystem biocriteria research strategy and
disseminate it on the Internet. This research strategy should build upon
promising areas of bioindicator research, conduct a workshop to suggest
potential new bioindicators, coordinate the activities of government
agencies to fund the research strategy, and select bioindicators by
developing a multimetric approach for coral-reef survey protocols and by
using multivariate analysis to refine the bioindicators.
- Establish interagency cooperation among EPA-EMAP, EPA - Ecological
Risk Assessment, NOAAs National Marine Sanctuaries Program, NOAAs
Coastal Assessment and Data Synthesis Framework Team, National Park
Service, CARICOMP: Puerto Rico and Florida Keys, and Florida Center For
- Begin a preliminary coral reef habitat classification.
- Begin selecting reference sites and developing associated databases
by evaluating the usefulness of short-term monitoring data and
designating reference sites as national marine sanctuaries.
- Develop the U.S. Coral Reef Ecosystem Biocriteria Program taxonomic
- Initiate and support national and international watershed-management
- Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting,
Verification, and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for
Climate Change Mitigation, LBNL-41543, Edward Vine and Jayant
Sathaye, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., March
1999, 146 pp. Also available on the World Wide Web at
The United States and other countries are implementing
climate-change-mitigation projects to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Monitoring, evaluating, reporting, verifying, and certifying guidelines
are needed to accurately determine these programs impacts, to
increase the reliability of data for estimating benefits, to provide
real-time planning data, to introduce consistency and transparency across
project types and reporters, to enhance the credibility of the projects
with stakeholders, to reduce costs, and to reduce financing costs. Such
guidelines are provided for evaluating energy savings calculated by
engineering methods, basic statistical models, multivariate statistical
models, end-use metering, short-term monitoring, and integrative methods;
for establishing a credible baseline (free riders) and calculating gross
energy savings (positive project spillover and market transformation); for
verifying and certifying project impacts; for including environmental and
socioeconomic impacts in the evaluation of energy-efficiency projects; for
reporting estimates of gross and net energy savings and emission
reductions to allow monitoring, evaluating, and verifying these savings;
and for assuring quality.
Concerns About Climate Change Mitigation Projects: Summary of Findings
from Case Studies in Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa,
LBNL-41403, J. A. Sathaye et al., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, Calif., November 1998, 24 pp.
Developing countries have expressed concern about joint implementations
equity, burden sharing, and technical effects. Brazil, India, Mexico, and
South Africa have large greenhouse-gas emissions and are heavily engaged
in the debate about the Kyoto Protocol. This report presents case studies
that examine eight technical concerns about joint implementation and
whether they can be adequately addressed. The study concludes that about
half the concerns are minor or well managed by project developers but that
concerns about additionality of funds, host-country institutions, and
guarantees of performance (including baselines and possible leakage) need
much more effort to be adequately addressed. It concludes that
institutional arrangements need to be developed for approving and
monitoring such projects in each country; and it finds that these projects
have the potential to bring new technology, investment, employment, and
ancillary benefits to the host countries. The authors recommend that Annex
I countries consider limits on the use of jointly implemented projects to
get credits against their national emissions and that industrialized
countries develop new technologies that will benefit all countries. They
also observe that, if all countries accepted emission caps, project-based
GHG mitigation would be significantly facilitated by the improved
Biofuels: A Solution for Climate Change, DOE/GO-10098-580, NREL,
U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, Colo., November 1998, 6 pp., free. Also
available on the World Wide Web at
The nations biomass resource base is extensive: about 200 million
dry tons of various waste feedstocks are available annually. Using a
fraction of this resource could supply the equivalent of 350,000 barrels
of oil in 2010, which would be 3.6% of the projected light-duty-vehicle
energy demand. The thesis of this report is that increasing biomass use
would accelerate the displacement of fossil fuels and the reduction of
transportation greenhouse-gas emissions.
Global Climate Change Policy: From No Regrets to S.Res. 98,
RL30024, L. B. Parker and J. E. Blodgett, Congressional Research Service,
Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 1999, 16 pp. Available online at
U.S. policy toward global climate change evolved from a study only
to a study and action orientation in 1992 with ratification of
the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under that convention,
developed countries were to adopt national plans and policies to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions, and the United States submitted such plans in
1992, 1994, and 1997. In the United States, the Energy Policy Act of 1992
has been the principal U.S. statutory response to the FCCC. In addition,
the Bush and Clinton administrations encouraged voluntary reductions by
industry through administrative initiatives, allowing implementation of a
climate-change policy without having to ask Congress for new authorities.
However, the subsequent inability of the United States to achieve its goal
and the binding nature of the subsequent Kyoto Protocol have raised
questions about this approach to climate-change policy, and the Senate
unanimously approved S.Res. 98, which (1) stated that the United States
should not approve any Kyoto agreement that did not impose binding
reduction requirements on all nations and (2) requested the Administration
to analyze the costs implied by any treaty submitted for its approval. As
a result, the Kyoto agreement will not be submitted to the Senate until
developing nations make at least some commitments. The House responded
primarily by vigorous oversight of greenhouse-gas reduction programs. The
focus on costs represents an attempt to determine whether action on
climate change is prudent, given the uncertainty of the risk.
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 101 Independence
Ave., SE, Washington, DC, 20540-7000; tel: 202-707-5000; WWW:
Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab., 1 Cyclotron Dr., Berkeley, CA, 94720.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden,
CO, 80401-3393; tel: 303-275-3000; WWW: http://www.nrel.gov.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 401 M. St., SW,
Washington, DC, 20460; WWW: http://www.epa.gov.
Guide to Publishers
Index of Abbreviations