U.S. Climate Action Report of 2002

  • DATE: Submitted May 28, 2002

With the U.S. Climate Action Report, 2002, the Bush administration acknowledged for the first time that global warming has anthropogenic causes and that if warming remains unchecked it will seriously harm the environment of the United States.

Background

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed by President George H. W. Bush in June 1992. Under the terms of the convention and of later agreements of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), signatory nations were to report their progress toward reducing global warming. The United States submitted its first two climate action reports in 1994 and 1997 under President Bill Clinton and its third and fourth reports in 2002 and 2007 under President George W. Bush.

From the time Bush took office, his administration denied the scientific validity of the theories that human action was causing global warming and that global warming posed a serious threat. Instead, the administration’s official position was that there was no scientific consensus on the subject and that more research was needed to determine whether or not global warming should be taken seriously. Although in 2000 the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a report commissioned by the US Congress, had warned of serious consequences if global warming was not addressed, the Bush administration rejected these findings.

Summary of Provisions

The findings of the U.S. Climate Action Report, 2002, which was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are strikingly similar to those of the 2000 National Assessment. The report states that the Earth’s air and ocean temperatures are increasing, primarily as a result of the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, although natural fluctuations in temperature are also mentioned. If GHG emissions continue to increase and temperatures continue to rise, the report says, serious damage will occur.

If global warming continues, according to the report, some of the Barrier Islands of the Atlantic Coast and alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains will likely disappear. Forests in the Southeast and the habitats of several migratory species will be disrupted, heat waves will become more severe and more common, and roads and other elements of infrastructure will suffer damage because of rising water levels or melting permafrost.

The report also describes potential environmental and economic benefits of global warming. Warmer temperatures will lead to longer growing seasons in parts of the country, increasing agricultural output and forest growth. In addition, the report states, increased rainfall will aid crops, as will higher concentrations of in the atmosphere.

The report emphasizes the idea that no matter what is done in the future to slow GHG emissions, there is no way to stop the damage from the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. Because environmental harm is irreversible, the report calls only for voluntary measures to reduce GHG emissions, but it encourages businesses and policymakers to begin to adapt to the inevitable changes. It notes that while total U.S. GHG emissions have continued to increase, the amount of emissions per capita—which the report refers to as “greenhouse gas intensity”—decreased between 1990 and 2002.

Significance for Climate Change

While the U.S. Climate Action Report, 2002 acknowledged the role that the burning of plays in causing global warming, it did not recommend any major changes in government policy to reduce GHG emissions. Rather, it called on the United States to make broad changes to accommodate or accept inevitable environmental destruction.

The report was sent quietly to the United Nations Secretariat without a press conference or press release from the White House. It nevertheless attracted a great deal of media attention. It put the Bush administration at odds with business and industry interests with which it was usually allied. Those interests disagreed with the position that theories about global warming were based in science. Environmental groups, meanwhile, complained that the report did not call for any substantive action. The administration itself acknowledged that the report was of little significance, as it represented no change in American policy or in American interpretation of international treaties.

Bibliography

“Bush’s Global Warming Flip-Flop.” The New American 18, no. 13 (July 1, 2002): 6.

"Climate Change." Britannica, 25 Nov. 2024, www.britannica.com/procon/climate-change-debate. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Hertsgaard, Mark. “The Truth on Warming.” The Nation 275, no. 2 (July 8, 2002): 6-7.

Mooney, Chris. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books, 2006

Schreurs, Miranda A. “The Climate Change Divide: The European Union, the United States, and the Future of the Kyoto Protocol.” In Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael G. Faure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004.