Making the global local: Responding to climate change concerns from the ground up

Environment

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 12-23

  Kates, Robert W ^a   Wilbanks, Thomas J ^a,b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ELECTRIC POWER PLANT; ENERGY; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; GREENHOUSE GAS; HUMAN; PHENOMENOLOGY; PRECIPITATION; RECYCLING; REVIEW; SOCIETY; SOLAR RADIATION; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0037382742     PISSN: 00139157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00139150309604534     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. 5 to 10 equatorial latitude and longitude degree grids are commonly used in global climate models.
2. Association of American Geographers Global Change and Local Places Research Group, Global Change in Local Places: Estimating, Understanding, and Reducing Greenhouse Gases (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). We are truly indebted to the NASA's Office of Earth Science for providing research support, to the book's lead editor, Ronald Abler, and to our fellow authors: David P. Angel, Clark University; Samuel A. Aryeetey-Attoh, University of Toledo; Susan L. Cutter, University of South Carolina; Jennifer DeHart, Allegheny College; Andrea S. Denny, Environmental Protection Agency; William E. Easterling, Pennsylvania State University; Douglas G. Goodin, Kansas State University; John Harrington Jr., Kansas State University; Lisa M. B. Harrington, Kansas State University; Arleen A. Hill, University of South Carolina; David G. Howard, University of Toledo; Sylvia-Linda Kaltins, Kansas State University; Robert W. Kates, independent scholar; C. Gregory Knight, Pennsylvania State University; David E. Kromm, Kansas State University; Peter S. Linquist, University of Toledo; Neal G. Lineback, Appalachian State University; Michael W. Mayfield, Appalachian State University; Jerry T. Mitchell, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania; William A. Muraco, University of Toledo; Colin Polsky, Harvard University; Neil Reid, University of Toledo; Audrey Reynolds, University of Texas, Austin; Robin Shudak, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Stephen E. White, Kansas State University; Thomas J. Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Brent Yarnal, Pennsylvania State University.
3. Excluded from the GCLP schema were local impacts of global climate change. At the time the project began, capabilities to produce reliable impact estimates for small areas did not exist. Were a similar project being designed today, of course, impact estimates would most likely be included as a fourth module.
4. These were: Kansas: the Department of Geography at Kansas State University; North Carolina: the Department of Geography and Planning at Appalachian State College; Ohio: the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of Toledo; and Pennsylvania: the Department of Geography and the Center for Integrated Regional Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.
5. Y. Kaya, "Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emission Control on GNP Growth: Interpretation of Proposed Scenarios" (paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Subgroup, Paris (mimeo), 1990).
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
7. M. A. Brown and M. Levine 1997. Scenarios of U. S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, ORNL/CON-444; National Laboratory Directors 2001, Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ORNL/FPO-01/2, accessible via http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change; and Interlaboratory Working Group 2000, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, ORNL/CON-476.
8. M. A. Brown and M. Levine 1997. Scenarios of U. S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, ORNL/CON-444; National Laboratory Directors 2001, Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ORNL/FPO-01/2, accessible via http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change; and Interlaboratory Working Group 2000, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, ORNL/CON-476.
9. M. A. Brown and M. Levine 1997. Scenarios of U. S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, ORNL/CON-444; National Laboratory Directors 2001, Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ORNL/FPO-01/2, accessible via http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change; and Interlaboratory Working Group 2000, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, ORNL/CON-476.
10. Regarding the international program, see http://www.iclei.org/co2/; for the U.S. program, see http://www.iclei.org/us/ccp/.
11. Regarding the international program, see http://www.iclei.org/co2/; for the U.S. program, see http://www.iclei.org/us/ccp/.
12. Association of American Geographers, note 2 above.
13. N. G. Lineback et al., "Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Does CO2 from Burning Biomass Really Matter?" Climate Research, 13, no. 3 (1999): 221-9.
14. Appalachian State University Department of Geography and Planning, North Carolina's Sensible Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies (Boone, N.C., 1999).
15. National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington, D.C., 2000).
16. The GCLP study groups are listed in note 4, above.
17. J. G. Speth, "A New Green Regime: Attacking the Root Causes of Global Environmental Deterioration," Environment, September 2002, 16-25.