I thought this evening is subtitled the case for limited action because I believed a strong case. I would argue a compelling one. Can be made for taking action in response to the CO2 problem but action of a limited type and I'm not sure all the action I have in mind is it co to be made a promise of consideration and energy and other appropriate policy deliberations and not simply a subject of scientific investigation. The CO2 problem should not put example be isolated from the current debate on energy strategy, but that isolation effectively exist today, the ultimate implications of this new Focus or not clear. However, and the policy recommendations one does feel justified in making at this stage while quite significant are limited in the sense that they are not dramatic or drastic they are in fact quite reasonable in light of other considerations. Holy apart from the CEO tuition, and I might add that we should be very thankful for that. Before beginning an artist. I like to acknowledge the great and dead in this that I have to the staff of the Council on Environmental Quality who worked on the CO2 report the report itself into the numerous scientist many of whom were here to help the weather report and eat. I'm so indebted will Kellogg and George would well and they burn to Jim McKenzie. I hardly think I could be held responsible for what I'm about to say. Another pulmonary observation. There's so little it is certain provable about the CO2 issue that this station more than most seems to engage our personal instincts and we were thinking at least our philosophies. The cautious government official or scientist who was inclined to hold his tongue until sure of his ground will find in the CO2 issue enough uncertainties to fuel a thousand anxieties on the other hand those who see the Natural Earth is something to be preserved and protected who won the sometimes if mankind is not a planetary infestation. These conservative Souls will see you in the CO2 build-up and example of their worst fears unfolding your speak, of course falls into neither of these two camps. The situation underscores however, the need for open discussion and deliberation on the public policy implications of the CO2 build-up particularly sold at implicit attitudes and values can be made explicit. I'll begin tonight by presenting in scenario fashion one set of possible consequences for from the significant buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. This scenario will not be the worst case but it can't really be described as more pessimistic. I'm on the pessimistic side than on the optimistic side. I'll argue that this scenario and it's close relatives are sufficiently plausible that they cannot be ignored and sufficiently adverse in the broadest sense that they Justified opting a policy of preventing such as CO2 build-up, even if we could say nothing meaningful about the possible consequences of a global climate modification brought on by the buildup of CO2 are very uncertainty on so vital and Global and ultimately important a matter as climate in its implications. Itself require I think adopting a policy of prevention. I will then examine what preventing a large CO2 buildup in plastic. We in terms of global fossil fuel use here. I'll argue that given what we know regarding the seat CO2 build-up and what we know regarding future fossil fuel use the only prudent policy. It's began to implement the first steps of preventive strategy without delay in effect. This decision represents the rejection on the ground of prudence not as a matter of proof. Are the argument that we can safely wait a decade or so and to address the CO2 issue and to decide how to handle it as a policy matter. And also of the argument that economic and other forces will take care of the CO2 problem so that we need not worry. I then look briefly at what might constitute are responsible series of first steps in a preventive strategy focusing particularly on us actions My Hope Is that we can shift the burden to those two would continue the status quo intellectually. And morally I think that burden has shifted. It should be up to those who would oppose the limited action advocated here represent convincing reasons why these steps should be taken by a MOX conclude with a brief discussion of the main such arguments against taking action and some responses to those arguments. Let us turn to the possible consequences of a large increase in atmospheric CO2. The following scenario is offered not it's something that necessarily will happen, but it's something that could quite possibly happen given the current state of our knowledge of the consequences of the CO2 buildup. In this scenario CO2 concentration increases steadily until it's double the pre-industrial concentration because of the ocean thermal inertia and other compensatory factors. The own set of climate changes is delayed once detected. However, the world's climate begins to change of the rate which is unprecedented in recorded history and a short span of little more than a decade. The Earth's average temperature increases several degrees Celsius laundry increases occur in the polar regions. These temperature rises take the World's temperature outside the range that has prevailed the thousands of years precipitation patterns shift dramatically. The side isn't developed in part in response to prevailing climatic conditions. But Minnie Mouse face markedly different climates, as a result severe stress has replaced on on the underlying structures of societies the very uncertainty. This is a point that's frequently overlooked the very uncertainty and unpredictability surrounding regional and local climate changes has severely restricted efforts to achieve that mansplaining. and for that patient in this scenario And the agricultural sector the climate change leads to Major and disruptive changes gains and losses are distributed unevenly, both within and between nations. The most serious effects on agriculture has not from changes in average global conditions, but from shifts in the locations of climate regions and effects on water supply and pass and other variables that climate can affect. In areas where a rainfall decreases significantly the impacts on crop production of serious in the United States, for example, the fertile Farm regions of the Midwest and South become less productive regionally more arid conditions limit agricultural Production Tool parts of North Africa and Asia and North America, whereas regions further north become subject to flooding simile the agent moves on shift significantly affecting Nations that have really depend on them altered water levels in lakes and streams change patterns of rainfall and water availability and shifts and Sons of agricultural productivity affect the lives of much of the world's population and the economies of most Nations the change climate Alters wheat exports from the United States and other exporting countries with consequent changes in GNP and I'll trade balances in parts of the world where agricultural production is already marginal even relatively small changes in climate produce major changes in total agriculture. productivity no serious Some of the most serious effects of Ceylon to induce climate change may occur in the Arid and semi-arid regions are both hemispheres many of these areas where precipitation is sparse and highly variable or already burdened by serious population pressures and adequate Food Supplies and the spread of deserts and desert-like conditions. Even where the climatic changes resulting from increased atmospheric CO2. Do not leave it in the long-term than that decreases in the potential for food production. The immediate effects are often severe overall agricultural viability depends on cultural and social institutions and an extensive physical infrastructures, including patterns of transportation and settlement and land use and land ownership as well as the availability of water and other resources to agriculture. Much of the socio-economic structure is unable to make a successful transition to a change climate or does so only with great difficulty and a great expense. Climate changes with particular stresses on the less-developed world largely because of limited resources environmental abilities and the prominence of traditional cultures a report issued in 1980 by the National Academy of Sciences is born out report said the climate changes might tend to make the already poor still poorer and increase the differences between North and South Richmond for developed and developing. Agricultural disruption causes widespread food shortages and hunger migration out of climatically impoverished areas is restricted by political boundaries and cultural differences inflation increases the prices of declining quantities of basic crops. A second change a range of impacts of cars near the end of the 21st Century. I haven't occurring near the end of the twenty-first century because it was our few David that are based on something that we had encountered at SECU that they were estimates that put the ice sheet impact occurring within a. Of 50 years. You indicated that no one thought it could occur within a. Of 100 years are but so maybe maybe we ought to go back or somebody ought to go back and check that but regardless coastal flooding results from a break off of the protective Western Arctic Ice shelves in a surging of the ice sheet into the ocean this increase in sea level for 5:30 a.m. As enormous implications for coastal cities and areas throughout the world. For example of a 5-meter rise floods areas in the United States now occupied by 11 million people about 5% of the population. They're also serious impacts Witcher often-overlooked on the less manage biosphere in the far north much of the snow cover melts at does. The permafrost does changing the habitat and Ecology of the high latitudes increasing atmospheric CO2 changes, the relative growth rates of various species and US changes the species composition of the ecosystems affected lodging for rapid changes in climate extend beyond the Adaptive limits of some species leading to their eventual Extinction the geographical locations of ecosystems are shifted significantly and their composition altered. An eventual warming of the upper layer of the ocean a company is a warming of the atmosphere the temperature change Alters the productivity of marine organisms by for example, changing the rate of upwelling of nutrients warming of the atmosphere has substantial effects on the extent location of important commercial Fisheries because of different responses to temperature changes by various marine organisms serious disruption in marine organisms in marine ecosystems occur in some climate changes have far-reaching adverse consequences in this scenario affecting our ability to feed a hungry and increasingly crowded world the habitability of coastal regions and the preservation of natural areas as we know them today. Based on what we know today something like these events could occur they and other events different in specifics, but perhaps humble and impacts represent a plausible though by no means certain outcome my own reaction and I think that you and most other people would agree. Is it this the risk that such events unfold is simply too big a risk to run. It's a future too unattractive to accept at least until we vigorously pursued of preventive strategy and concluded that it's fault with even greater problems. The conclusion that this future should be prevented if it all possible stems in part, I think from our ethical commitment to the planet into his habits and habitats both those of us here today and future generations with limited knowledge of the Earth's workings experimenting with his great systems in a way that imposes unknown and potentially large wrists on future generations. Simply cannot be accepted Motorola, whatever the consequences of the CO2 experiment for Humanity over the long run our duty to exercise of conserving and protecting restraint extends as well to the entire community of Life plant and animal that evolve to your weapons there limits Beyond which we shouldn't go and disrupting or changing this community of Life, which after all we didn't create If we decide then that we want to avoid these risks by avoiding the CO2 buildup that could cause them. What does such a decision mean for Public Policy here in abroad? In recent decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing in a matter that corresponds with the retention in the atmosphere of about half of the CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion the permanent clearing of forest and the decay of soil hummus may also be next sources of CO2 a subject which I will return briefly and I'm sure that charge Whitwell will return to elaborate and eloquently tomorrow. The analysis that follows assumes that fossil fuels will be the dominant source of additions to of CO2 to the atmosphere and the 1/2 of the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is retained in the app. If mobile fossil fuels were to remain constant at about today's level Global use of fossil fuels with States about where it is today, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would not be expected to reach twice the pre-industrial level until about the year 2175 that is almost two hundred years from now on the other hand with a 4% annual growth rate in the use of fossil fuels which car spawns by the way to the global fossil-fuel growth rate over the 1940 to 1973. A doubling and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere should occur around the year 2025. Eliminari data indicates that Global fossil-fuel uses growing only had about a rate of 2.5% per year since the 1973 embargo not to 4% right which I just gave you at this rate of 2.5% per year. The CO2 concentration is projected to double about the year 2042 conclusions. I think are suggested by this information. When is it the CO2 problem seems to be a problem Associated more with the growth of fossil fuels then with the use of fossil fuels at least in the decades immediately. I hear ahead we're consuming very large quantities of fossil fuels today and can apparently continue at current rates for decades without break wrists. But the second second conclusion, is it a fossil fuel use grows and continues to grow at the rate? It has in recent decades a Dublin could occur between the years 2025 and 2040 and this is really isn't a distant Prospect but it is an event that could happen within the lives of most people living today. Are a lot of people living today? The model and Analysis presented in the CO2 report. In fact underscore the importance of the. From the year 2000 to the year 2027 the risks involved in increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations one possibility is that an international goal should be established to prevent a doubling of CO2 by holding atmospheric levels to not much more than about a 50% increase over the pre-industrial level Global fossil fuel use grows at an average of 2.5% per year in the 1980s achieving such an international goal of not exceeding 50% over the pre-industrial level would require that Global fossil-fuel use peak in the first decade of the next Century at 11 about a third higher than current use. Achieving War rates in the growth of fossil fuels in the 1980s that is moving below the 2.5 rate down to about 1 to 1.5% in the 1980s would buy us another decade. That's if the nation's choose to avoid a CEO to Dublin by holding the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations to not much more than 50% the. From the year 2050 year 2020 will Maca historic turning point after which the global use of fossil fuels would have to begin a steady decline. I should note on this point at this point that my former colleague at the Council on Environmental Quality. Dr. James Mackenzie who's here with us has made some rough estimates of the effect of significant netbios Spirit contributions of CO2 such as deforestation and loss of song humans that I mentioned earlier his analysis indicates that if the CO2 contribution from bios forces remains constant the estimated constraints on fossil fuel use and their timing presented above the Destin that I just gave you will not be greatly affected. Also, the lead times involved in moving the CO2 question from its current status as a research topic to an effective influence on energy policy and subjective any energy policy deliberation at Lee time is necessarily long developing an international consensus would be aided by clear evidence of a CO2 and do swarming with such evidence May and all probably probability will come too late to provide timely warning. Although it appears that Global CO2 induced temperature changes may be detectable within the channel 10 to 20 year. There is no guarantee that scientist will be able to detect it within such a. Transitory natural compensating cooling effects might occur during this time. They're buy masking with global warming. If an international response is delayed until the CO2 cause global warming is identified. The world will already have made significant in commitments to fossil fuel use economic and institutional factors would make it difficult to reverse this trend and significant long-lasting climate changes might then the inevitable I need to begin now to take CO2 into account and Global energy planning is reinforced by the fact that the analysis I've just presented may not have been sufficiently conservative for several reasons a series of all, the trace gases are released to the atmosphere as a result of human activity nitrous oxide methane ozone for fluorocarbons, and they can contribute to the warming affect their role is not reflected in the above analysis nor is the possibility that the fossil fuel mix the relative roles of gas and oil and coal and synthetic fuels my shift from the present next to a greater role for colon synthetic fuels based on Colin Shale. Of course, I should add that the shift could be in the opposite direction for Trader use of natural gas. And I should also stress that the increase in CO2 level 50% above the pre-industrial limit concentration to limit used in the preceding analysis. May itself. Bring climate changes of sufficient magnitude that 50% should not be considered the fruit upper bound. Ensure we should begin without delay. I think to make the CO2 build-up a consideration and energy planning here and abroad our overall goal in this regard should be to ensure the nation's are not foolish to choose between the rest of energy shortages and the risks of CO2. The first thing that's called for and I hope that this conference is sophisticated energy policy analysis at both the national and international levels several issues need particular attention first. We need to understand better on a global and a country bases what real energy needs are likely to be over. The long run recent Studies have indicated the dramatic advances that are possible Energy Efficiency and Natalie should not assume that I rented you passed. It's going to be our Energy Future. Careful attention should be paid to developing alternative Global Regional and National energy strategies that meet these real energy needs without allowing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to exceed approved upper bound. Keeping a better understanding of what does prune an upper bound should be is a fundamental importance without an understanding of whether such a prudent up abound should be 25% or 50% or 100% over the pre-industrial level for example is difficult to impossible to estimate the urgency with which we should address the CO2 issue the seriousness of the CO2 constraint or our progress or lack thereof in addressing the issue and I might add that having a clearer idea of what does prude and upper bound should be will greatly facilitate presenting the CO2 issue understandably to a wider public. I hope that this conference will come to represent the beginning of a joint effort among scientists energy policy experts and others to address this fruit and upper bound issue. Other important questions for early policy analysis includes first the sensitivity of the various CO2 buildup and other models the different assumptions and uncertainties of particular concern here are the role of bile sources of CO2 and the impacts of using different mixes of fossil fuels. Secondly, we should address intensively the special case of the developing countries here. We must avoid the impression much less the reality that the CO2 concern stands in the way of meeting third world energy needs. I personally don't believe that that's the case but it's important to demonstrate why and to do so convincingly. And third we should examine alternative International approaches and mechanisms for addressing the CO2 problem as part of her preventive strategy. It is perhaps useful even at this early stage to speculate about full-blown International Regulatory and bargaining approaches to containing the CO2 build-up, but it's far more pertinent. Now the focus on ways to achieve a substantial International consensus that the CO2 build-up is indeed a problem deserving policy attention from both scientists and policymakers and all countries and to describe how that consensus might be reflected in international understandings and general conduct much from the community of Nations. It might be useful in this regard to examine the agreement recently signed by European nations regarding acid rain. Beyond the need for energy policy analysis. I believe we can identify several directions in which substances energy policy should move as a result of CO2 risks high priority for example should be given to increasing Energy Efficiency and of the use of solar and other renewable sources of energy both in the United States and abroad increasing energy productivity is the single most important and promising means of limiting CO2 emissions by providing the energy needed for economic progress. Nation should also strive to maintain flexibility and diversity and energy Supply options and to avoid energy policies that commit the world to a large-scale and long-term use of coal and oil shale call. I think has an important role to play and US Energy Future in the energy future of all the countries, but it's used should proceed consistent with a need to hold a CO2 build-up to tolerable levels. To Fossil energy policies Scooby-Doo fossil energy policy decisions that the US now faces should be examined in light of CO2 risks first should the u.s. Drive to Summit suggested to boost our coal exports tenfold up to about 350 million tons a year and second should the u.s. Drive to build by the early 1990s or 2 million barrels-a-day synthetic fuels industry-based principally on Cole and Shale the direct and indirect impacts of these proposals on the CO2 problem deserve intensive scrutiny. I fly these issues for your attention and obviously won't attempt to answer them here, but I will say that I'm skeptical for a variety of environmental and economic reasons and not simply because of CO2 more modest efforts in both of these positions exports and synthetic fuels would have more to command them. I'll also, don't we brief only briefly on the nuclear power issue? Although some nuclear proponents see the CO2 problem as one of their best responses to the critics. My concern is that nuclear power is the reactor accident problem the flip racing problem the nuclear waste problem that these rest together rival those posed by the atmospheric buildup of CO2 and the other problem stemming from the large-scale burning of fossil fuels Finally, I think that steps should be taken to stem the tragic Global deforestation and I are on the way but tickling the tropics and to promote a global reforestation. These prescriptions for energy analysis and prescriptions for energy policy. As I said at the outset are limited First Steps designed to give a better understanding of the situation we face and buy time while we are developing that understanding and wide agreement be reached at such steps together with the continuation of the scientific research programs. Now on the way or essential I pray that it can but so much depends on it. Needless to say those of you who are in this room tonight and have a large say in the outcome to that question. I've encountered basically three main arguments against taking the limited action described here. They're not very convincing and they're not mutually consistent. Although they're sometimes offered by the same person in the spirit of exercising our demons. I want the clothes by commenting briefly on each of these arguments. First there's the argument that the risks of the CO2 build-up are uncertain and so do not justify even limited action. This argument would have more false before us if the uncertainties we're going to be removed in time for Effective action, but that doesn't seem to be the case frankly. This position stands the case for uncertainty on its head in a situation such as this where the possible implications are. So far-reaching and are reversible and involve the interest of future Generations. So significantly responsive action certainly of the type discussed here should be assumed given the stakes uncertainty should be the reason for Action not an excuse for inaction. And Associated argument is that there may be net benefits for future Generations in a large, but not too large CO2 buildup. The first point to be made in response. Is that often those who see benefits and a CO2 buildup. Look only at one type of economy or region or at 1 factors such as precipitation and really consider all of the direct and indirect and induced consequences such as the political and social and cultural barriers to adjustment and adaptation and international and economic and political destabilization consequences that could mean that they are only losers not winners and losers. Based on what I've read. It seems to me that the argument for large benefits much less net benefits is to say the least week. It assumes by the way that we know what a large but not too large increase in CO2 is and then whoever is in control can get us there and stop. More over the entire idea of neatly calculating the cost and benefits in this context seems wrongheaded. We must be very skeptical of our ability to determine long-term positive and negative consequences of large changes and global climate and even more reluctant to try to balance and way these consequences one against another in circumstances where the uncertainties are significant where the stakes are high and the welfare of future Generations who cannot participate in the decision is involved cost-benefit analysis is simply inappropriate. The net benefit proponents are actually proposing a great experiment with the planet's future with unknown outcome. As I indicated earlier the idea of such an experiment flies in the face of both our ethical responsibility to Future generations and Our obligation to the entire community of Life plant and animal that would be affected. The final argument is that of the fatalist those who believe the CO2 build-up while serious is inevitable. It's Unstoppable. They say so that action of the type discussed here tonight is either impossible or it's futile when we start to lay the groundwork now to adapt to the inevitable C to induce climate change. Well, the palest is certainly right about two things first the precious here and abroad to expand energy production in the shift to Greater Alliance on Cole and synthetic fuels are great and second. That there is a need to make our Agricultural and other systems more resilient to climate change for some of these will occur with or without CO2. The fatalist shortcoming of fatal shortcoming is it he is giving up without trying conceded defeat on a matter of vital importance to the future of humanity to the future of this planet before the issues even been joined. The fail is probably has an exaggerated notion of the ease of implementing adaptive measures and their overall success encountering the change climate conditions. The phelous may also fail to appreciate if they're real quality of the high-energy growth projections of the past and the existence of precious apart from the CO2 concerned including market prices that are helping to push in the right direction even today. I want to stress that I don't think the CO2 problem has to carry the full burden of energy reform. And some of the CO2 problem is simply too important and too close to punish to be safely neglected and making energy policy once in the policy Arena. It will inevitably be but one fact to be weighed, but it should be a damn important. Thank you.