Global Climate Change Digest: Main Page | Introduction | Archives | Calendar | Copy Policy | Abbreviations | Guide to Publishers

GCRIO Home ->arrow Library ->arrow Archives of the Global Climate Change Digest ->arrow July 1998 ->arrow PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS... CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY Search

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office logo and link to home

Last Updated:
February 28, 2007

GCRIO Program Overview



Our extensive collection of documents.


Get Acrobat Reader

Privacy Policy

Global Climate Change DigestArchives of the
Global Climate Change Digest

A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999



Item #d98jul8

"The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications," T.M.L. Wigley (NCAR, POB 3000, Boulder CO 80307; e-mail:, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(13), 2285-2288, July 1, 1998.

Examines three scenarios for post-Kyoto emissions reductions, and their implications for CO2, temperature, and sea level. In all cases, the long-term consequences are small. Interprets the limitations of the Protocol as both CO2 and methane emissions reductions, and introduces a new Forcing Equivalence Index for comparing the relative radiative impacts of CO2 and methane.

Item #d98jul9

"Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy," R.A. Pielke Jr. (Environ. & Societal Impacts Group, NCAR, POB 3000, Boulder CO 80307; e-mail:,Global Environ. Change, 8(2), 159-170, July 1998.

Adaptation refers to adjustments in individual, group, and institutional behavior in order to reduce society's vulnerabilities to climate, and thus reduce its impacts. The IPCC has concluded that adaptation offers a powerful option for responding to climate change, yet most attention has been devoted to mitigation (attempts to limit climate change). This paper discusses the limits of mitigation responses, and the need for greater emphasis on adaptation in climate policy.

Item #d98jul10

"Developing Country's Perspective on COP3 Development (Kyoto Protocol)," S. Shin (Korea Energy Econ. Inst., Kyunggi-do, Euiwang-si, Nacson-dong 665-1, 437-080 Korea),Energy Policy, 26(7), 519-526, June 1998.

Discusses possible solutions for burden sharing involving developing countries. Reviews the Protocol, considering major driving forces and indicators of negotiation. Proposes three candidate solutions for burden sharing and developing country involvement.

Item #d98jul11

"Kyoto and Beyond: A Climate Protection Strategy for the 21st Century: What Are the Options for Germany and China?" W. Bach (Clim. & Energy Res. Unit, Univ. Muenster, R.-Koch-Str. 26, 48149 Muenster, Ger.),World Resource Review, 10(2), 242-263, June 1998.

Discusses the strengths and strategic deficits of the Kyoto Protocol, and proposes a more tractable climate protection strategy consisting of seven elements. These include an equitable grouping of the world's nations for achieving fair burden sharing, and legally binding emissions targets by groups of countries. The strategy is demonstrated for Germany and China. Concludes by outlining a strategy based on ecological innovation as a guide toward a sustainable future.

Item #d98jul12

"Kyoto Protocol: The Unfinished Agenda," S.H. Schneider (Dept. Biol. Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford CA 94304; e-mail:,Clim. Change, 39(1), 1-21, May 1998.

The author, one of the relatively few scientists who participated at the December 1997 Kyoto meeting, offers his personal views of the political and social dynamics of the gathering, and discusses mechanisms needed to address global warming in the long term.

Item #d98jul13

Special issue: "Climate Strategy for the United States: "Bottom-Up" Analyses of CO2 reductions, Costs and Benefits," S. Bernow, M. Duckworth, J. DeCicco, Guest Eds., Energy Policy, 26(5), Apr. 1998 (Elsevier Science Ltd.). Consists of an introduction and seven papers.

"Editors' Introduction," S. Bernow (Tellus Inst., 11 Arlington St., Boston, Mass.), M. Duckworth, J. De Cicco, 355-356. The following papers carefully consider the interaction among market conditions, technological innovation and diffusion, and public policy. They arrive at three main conclusions: (1) there exist policy mechanisms that can overcome market, institutional, and other barriers; (2) these policies would result in significant reductions of carbon emissions in the U.S. in the near term, with net economic benefits; (3) such policies would induce further technological diffusion and innovation over the longer term, with further reductions in emissions along a path broadly consistent with climate protection and sustainable development.

"An Evaluation of Integrated Climate Protection Policies for the US," S. Bernow (address above), M. Duckworth, 357-374.

"An Integrated Approach to Climate Policy in the US Electric Power Sector" S. Bernow (address above), W. Dougherty et al., 375-393.

"Meeting the Energy and Climate Challenge for Transportation in the United States," J. DeCicco (Amer. Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1001 Conn. Ave. NW (S. 801), Washington DC 20036), J. Mark, 395-412.

"Investing in Industrial Innovation: A Response to Climate Change," R. N. Elliott (address immed. above), M. Pye, 413-423.

"Employment and Other Macroeconomic Benefits of an Innovation-Led Climate Strategy for the United States," S. Laitner (U.S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, Washington DC 20460), S. Bernow, J. DeCicco, 425-432.

"Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: US Building Sector Scenarios," J.G. Koomey (Energy Analysis Prog., Lawrence Berkeley Lab., Berkeley CA 94720), N.C. Martin et al., 433-440.

"The Efficiency Paradox: Bureaucratic and Organizational Barriers to Profitable Energy-Saving Investments," S.J. DeCanio (Dept. Econ., Univ. California, Santa Barbara CA 93106), 441-454.

Item #d98jul14

"Operationalizing 'Joint Implementation': Organizational and Institutional Aspects of a New Instrument in International Climate Policy," H.E. Ott (Clim. Policy Div., Wuppertal Inst. for Climate, Environ. & Energy, Postfach 100 480, Doppersberg 19, D-42103 Wuppertal, Ger.),Global Environ. Change, 8(1), 11-47, Apr. 1998.

Explores the possible design of a future international mechanism for JI and makes recommendations on institutional and procedural requirements. Because JI has a "perverse incentive" to overstate results achieved by individual projects, careful reporting, monitoring and verification procedures are essential.

Item #d98jul15

"Joint Implementation—The Baseline Issue: Economic and Political Aspects," A. Michaelowa (177 Bd. de la République, 92210 St.-Cloud, France;,Global Environ. Change, 8(1), 81-92, Apr. 1998.

Discusses the importance of defining for JI projects an appropriate baseline—the emission that would have occurred without the project. Surveys some baselines of current JI projects and finds serious flaws.

Item #d98jul16

"An Equity- and Sustainability-Based Policy Response to Global Climate Change," J. Byrne (Ctr. Energy & Environ. Policy, Univ. Delaware), Y.-D. Wang et al.,Energy Policy, 26(4), 335-343, Mar. 1998.

The two major precautionary energy approaches that have been advocated—"no regrets" and "insurance"—each have difficulties that argue against their adoption as an international policy framework. This article proposes an alternative approach to the definition and distribution of the costs of changing the energy sector to avert climate change.

Item #d98jul17

"The Emperor Needs New Clothes: Long-Range Energy-Use Scenarios by IIASA-WEC and IPCC," J.K. Parikh (Indira Gandhi Inst., Gen. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Bombay 400 065, India),Energy, 23(1), 69-70, Jan. 1998.

Evaluates IIASA-World Energy Council energy scenarios up to 2100, and shows that they satisfy economic and environmental criteria and take into account resource and market penetration constraints. They are contrasted with the IPCC scenarios of 1992, which are too simplistic.

Item #d98jul18

"A Framework for Reaching Agreement on Climate Change: Morals, Self-Interest, and Strategy," F.T. Tschang (Inst. Advanced Studies, U.N. Univ., Tokyo, Japan; e-mail:, N.S. Murthy, K.S.K. Kumar,Global Environ. Change, 7(4), 381-389, Dec. 1997. Also see this Web site:

Discusses the stalled negotiations on climate change and makes suggestions for circumventing obstacles. Examines elements of a conceptual framework for assessing the feasibility of an agreement.

Item #d98jul19

"Uncertainty, Short-Term Hedging and the Tolerable Window Approach," G.W. Yohe (Dept. Econ., Wesleyan Univ., Middletown CT 06459),Global Environ. Change, 7(4), 303-315, Dec. 1997.

Uses a simple integrated assessment model, designed to accommodate uncertainty in investigating the potential role of hedging, in a new context: setting global policy so that future conditions stay within a "window" that places tolerable limits on the pace and level of temperature change over the very long term. Results suggest that near-term emissions might need to be held close to 1990 levels at least through the year 2020. This is perhaps the first time that a cost-based analysis has offered any support for such extreme mitigation.

Item #d98jul20

"Climate Change and Energy Policy: The Impacts and Implications of Aerosols," see Clouds, Aerosols and Climate, this Global Climate Change Digest issue--July 1998.

Item #d98jul21

"Global Warming Potentials: Ambiguity or Precision as an Aid to Policy?" S. Shackley, B. Wynne, Clim. Res., 8(2), 89-106, May 8, 1997.

It is widely assumed that the more certain and precise the scientific knowledge base for predicting climate change, the better will be response policies. This paper argues to the contrary that in the case of global warming potentials, ambiguity in their precise meaning is a major reason why they have been developed and continue to be useful as scientific policy tools. Discusses several implications for the construction and use of scientific policy tools.

  • Guide to Publishers
  • Index of Abbreviations

  • Hosted by U.S. Global Change Research Information Office. Copyright by Center for Environmental Information, Inc. For more information contact U.S. Global Change Research Information Office, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: +1 202 223 6262. Fax: +1 202 223 3065. Email: Web: Webmaster:
    U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Intranet Logo and link to Home