Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 39
CHAPTER FOUR
A Framework for Making
America’s Climate Choices
Iterative risk management is a flexible and powerful approach
for addressing the complex challenges of climate change.
C
hapter 2 reviewed what is known about the risks posed by climate change,
concluding that there is strong motivation for moving ahead with proactive
response efforts. Yet as discussed in Chapter 3, the many complexities inherent
to climate change make it difficult to define the specific actions that are needed in an
effective long-term response strategy. This chapter introduces iterative risk manage-
ment as an approach that lets decision makers begin to address climate change now,
in a systematic way, while allowing response strategies to be adjusted and improved
as new information and knowledge are gained. Iterative risk management is, in princi-
ple, a fairly simple and straightforward concept (see example in Box 4.1); however, the
details of how it is actually applied in various real-world situations depend strongly
on the context of that situation, including the specific problem being addressed,
the stakeholders involved, the values and priorities of those stakeholders, and the
decision-support tools and resources available. Thus, in this chapter we explore how
iterative risk management may be used to address climate change in a general sense,
but we do not attempt to offer a detailed formula for how to apply this framework in
specific situations.
AN ITERATIVE RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE
As noted in Chapter 2, the risks posed by climate change are diverse and in almost
all cases are imperfectly understood. Risk management involves deciding what to do
in light of this imperfect information. Of course, one option is always to do nothing.
Most everyone ignores some risks in daily life, and the United States might chose to
give little attention to the risks associated with climate change. In the committee’s
view, however, such a path would not be prudent. Uncertainty is, after all, usually a
two-edged sword: it is possible that future climate-related risks will be less serious
than currently thought, but it is also possible that they will be even more serious. Even
the most aggressive possible response could not remove all potential risks, since the
39
OCR for page 40
A M E R I C A’ S C L I M AT E C H O I C E S
BOX 4.1
A Problem of Risk Management
The problem of managing climate-related risks shares important features with the problem
faced by the captain of an ocean liner who had to pass through an iceberg-filled section of the ocean
at night in the days before radar. The captain may have information about the location of some
icebergs, but not all, and new ones can form at any time. The maneuverability and hull strength of
the ocean liner—that is, its ability to avoid or survive a collision with an iceberg—may likewise be
known in theory, but not tested in practice. Thus the risks are significant, but information is limited.
The captain could choose to go full-steam-ahead and hope that information becomes avail-
able in time to detect and avoid risks. Or the captain could consider alterative actions, such as
taking a longer course through iceberg-free waters or fortifying the ship’s hull—but there may be
substantial costs associated with such actions. In any of these cases, it would be prudent to post
lookouts to learn as much as possible about the risks ahead, to constantly evaluate the ship’s envi-
ronment and performance, and to be prepared to change course if needed, knowing that evasive
maneuvers take time. In addition, it is essential to prepare for adverse outcomes that may occur,
despite efforts to reduce their likelihood.The captain, in short, faces a problem of risk management.
America’s climate choices are not, of course, made by one “captain,” but by decision makers
at all levels of society—from the President and Congress, to state and local leaders, to individual
households and business owners. Nevertheless, the collective ship of state is best guided by coher-
ent national strategies for assessing options and taking advantage of opportunities to reduce risk.
world is already committed to some degree of climate change as a result of GHG emis-
sions to date.
Making America’s climate choices thus necessarily involves managing risks that may
be quite substantial and that cannot be eliminated, yet are often difficult to assess
precisely. Making choices under such conditions can seem very difficult in the abstract,
yet most people make such decisions every day. For instance, people decide how fast
to drive, knowing that driving faster saves time but also uses more gas, increases the
chances of a speeding ticket, makes an accident more likely, and makes the conse-
quences of an accident more severe. People invest in measures to prevent fires in their
homes and businesses, and they take out insurance to deal with the consequences
in case fires do occur. People who make financial investments usually diversify their
portfolios to hedge against uncertain future market changes. At the national level,
history contains countless examples of policy makers taking action to address serious
but poorly defined risks that could be neither eliminated nor responsibly ignored. For
instance, investments in deterrence during the Cold War were justified as reducing the
40
OCR for page 41
A Framework for Making America’s Climate Choices
risk of a nuclear war, and investments in civil defense were justified as reducing the
risks of catastrophic outcomes in case a war did occur.
In the case of climate change, appropriate strategies for reducing risks will change
over time in light of new information, and so too will investments in different types of
action. The committee suggests that some essential elements of a sound risk manage-
ment strategy for responding to climate change include:
• Enacting policies and programs that reduce risk by limiting the causes of cli-
mate change and reducing vulnerability to its impacts;
• Investing in research and development efforts that increase knowledge and
improve the number and effectiveness of response options;
• Developing institutions and processes that ensure pertinent information is
collected and that link scientific and technical analysis with public deliberation
and decision making; and
• Periodically evaluating how response efforts are progressing, and updating
response goals and strategies in light of new information and understanding.1
To some extent, it is possible to make substitutions or trade-offs among investments
in different elements of climate change response. For instance, substantially limiting
the magnitude of climate change could make it less important to invest in adaptation
efforts (recognizing that the outcomes of these different types of actions can occur
over widely differing temporal and spatial scales, thus complicating direct trade-off
relationships). In general, however, because the long-term benefits of investing in any
particular response (e.g., R&D investments, emissions mitigation efforts, adaptation
planning) are uncertain, a strategy of diversification across different types of responses
will reduce risk more and be more robust than pursuing a single approach at the
expense of all others.
Decision Frameworks for Addressing Climate Change
Historically, humans have responded to changing environments by a process of mud-
dling through; that is, by taking an ad hoc approach to decision making as choices
arise.2 In the modern era, techniques and approaches have been developed that
allow decision makers to think through complex issues systematically. One prominent
approach is the precautionary principle,3 which emphasizes avoidance of potentially
serious or irreversible environmental harm, even when scientific uncertainties may be
substantial. At the other extreme is what might be called “staying the course,” or not
taking any action until the need for action is fully established and the consequences
of any action are fully understood. Another common approach is cost-benefit analysis
41
OCR for page 42
A M E R I C A’ S C L I M AT E C H O I C E S
and other related instruments that attempt to weigh the potential outcomes of taking
(or not taking) action using a common metric, usually dollars discounted to present
values.
All of these approaches present serious drawbacks in the context of climate change.
In muddling through, for instance, decisions are generally driven by immediate
events and the lessons learned from one’s most recent experiences. Such an approach
makes it difficult to thoughtfully consider long-term consequences of climate-related
decisions. For instance, with regard to the prospect of irreversible or “tipping point”
impacts, it will be too late to change course if one waits until such impacts have begun
to unfold.
Analyses based on the precautionary principle or staying the course both reflect a
substantial aversion to risk. In the case of the precautionary principle, the goal is to
minimize risks of future adverse consequences of climate change with little regard
for present costs. In the case of staying the course, the goal is to minimize the risks of
incurring costs from responding to climate change with little regard for the risks of
climate change. These approaches do not provide a way to decide among compet-
ing goals (e.g., minimizing risks of climate change impacts versus minimizing risks to
economic growth) or to deal systematically with uncertainty.4
Cost-benefit analysis has been applied in many evaluations of climate change policy5
and can provide some useful insights in some contexts. But using cost-benefit analy-
ses as a primary basis for making climate choices is problematic for a number of
reasons. Many of the costs of climate change impacts are difficult or impossible to
quantify.6 The sheer diversity and extent of potential costs and benefits of climate
change make it very difficult to aggregate costs. Estimates can vary widely, depend-
ing on normative judgments about risk aversion and about how to account for equity
concerns across generations, social groups, and regions of the world.7 Estimating the
costs of actions to address climate change, while seemingly a more tractable task, is
also problematic—for instance, because the costs of emission reductions over the
coming decades depend critically on the pace of technological change.8
An iterative risk management approach9 for making climate change-related decisions
overcomes many of these limitations. This approach can draw upon multiple forms of
input—including analyses used under precautionary principle and cost-benefit frame-
works—but it is not limited to single criterion (such as risk avoidance or economic ef-
ficiency) for making choices. Iterative risk management is a system for assessing risks,
identifying options that are robust across a range of possible futures, and assessing
and revising those choices as new information emerges. In cases where uncertainties
are substantial or risks cannot be reliably quantified, one can pursue multiple, comple-
42
OCR for page 43
A Framework for Making America’s Climate Choices
mentary actions—sometimes called a “portfolio approach” or “hedging strategy.” And
ideally, this approach includes mechanisms for integrating scientific and technical
analysis with broad-based deliberations among the stakeholders most affected by any
given decision (see Box 4.2 on analytic deliberation processes).
NRC, Informing Effective Decisions emphasizes some key features of an iterative risk
management process:
• It is not a single set of judgments at some point in time, but rather a process of
ongoing assessment, action, reassessment, and response—which in the case
of many climate-related decisions may persist for decades or longer.
• Eliminating all potential risks is impossible, as even the best possible decision
will entail some residual risk. Determining which risks are acceptable or unac-
ceptable is an integral part of the process of risk management. Different stake-
holders will inevitably hold different views.
• For addressing a problem as complex as climate change, risk management
should be implemented through a process of “adaptive governance” that
involves assuring adequate coordination among the institutions and actors
involved in responding to climate change, sharing information with decision
makers across different levels and sectors, ensuring that decisions are regularly
reviewed and adjusted in light of new information, and designing policies that
can adapt but that are also durable over time. These concepts are illustrated in
Figure 4.1 and discussed further in Chapter 5.
Similar principles have been recommended and illustrated by other high-level advi-
sory groups worldwide, including, for instance, the IPCC, the United Nations Devel-
opment Programme, the World Bank, the Australian Greenhouse Office, and the UK
Climate Impacts Programme.10 Closer to home, a number of NRC and other reports
have pointed to the planning efforts being carried out by New York City as a good
example of a climate change response strategy that embodies many key elements of
iterative risk management.11
These efforts—which are set forth in PlaNYC, the city’s sustainability and growth man-
agement initiative—include for instance:
• ambitious goals for limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and a series of
policies and programs to accomplish those goals (for instance, by reducing
energy consumption by the city’s municipal buildings and operations);
• the creation of a New York City Panel of Climate Change—consisting of
climate change scientists and representatives from legal, insurance, and risk-
management firms—tasked with providing information about key climate
43
OCR for page 44
A M E R I C A’ S C L I M AT E C H O I C E S
BOX 4.2
Analytic Deliberation
The idea of linking science and decision making is explored in a growing body of research
literature.a One specific approach suggested in this literature is “analytic deliberation” an iterative
,
process in which interested parties initially define objectives and select options to consider, work
with experts to generate and interpret relevant new information, and use that information to
revise objectives and make choices.b
When addressing a problem such as climate change, analytic deliberation processes are par-
ticularly valuable because stakeholder discussions help to inform decision makers and the scientific
community about local conditions—which is critical because many actions to limit emissions or
adapt to climate change must be tailored to local conditions in order to be successful. It also helps
to ensure that the scientific community is aware of public concerns and can thus direct research
attention to those concerns. Finally, it helps ensure two-way dialogue between scientific experts
and the public, which is a more effective communications strategy than a one-way flow of informa-
tion from scientists to the public. To be successful, however, these deliberative processes require
recognizing and overcoming many common obstacles to effective communication. Several NRC
and other studies offer guidance on addressing such communication challenges.c
One example of this type of engagement process can be found in the NOAA Regional In-
tegrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program,d which supports teams at universities and
regional centers to conduct research related to climate impacts (e.g., on fisheries, water, wildfire
management, agriculture, tourism and recreation, public health, coastal management, infrastruc-
ture)—with the goal of helping to inform the decisions of regional-level planners and managers.
RISA projects typically involve an array of stakeholders in framing problems for research, and they
emphasize collaboration among scientists and decision makers. Although still a relatively new ef-
fort, the RISA programs are important test beds for learning how to apply principles of stakeholder
engagement for informing decisions about adapting to climate change.
a See, for instance, D. H. Guston, “Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction” (Sci-
ence, Technology, and Human Values 26:399-408, 2001); D. W. Cash, W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J.
Jäger, and. R. B. Mitchell, “Knowledge systems for sustainable development” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
100:8086-8091, 2003); NRC, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making ( Washington, D.C.: National
Academies Press, 2008); NRC, Informing Effective Decisions.
b See also NRC, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, eds. P. C. Stern and H. Fineberg (Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996); NRC, Public Participation; O. Renn, Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach
(Geneva, Switzerland: International Risk Governance Council, 2005).
c NRC, Understanding Risk, Public Participation, Informing Decisions, Advancing the Science, and Informing Effective
Decisions; EPA, Improved Science-Based Environmental Stakeholder Processes: A Commentary by the EPA Science Advisory Board,
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01-006 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).
d http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/risa/.
44
OCR for page 45
A Framework for Making America’s Climate Choices
FIGURE 4.1 Illustration of the steps in an iterative risk management approach for addressing climate
change. SOURCE: Adapted from R. I. Willows and R. K. Connell, Climate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty, and
Decision Making, UKCIP Technical Report (Oxford, UK: UK Climate Impacts Programme, 2003).
4-1 xed image
hazards for the city and the surrounding region, likelihoods of their occur-
rence, and potential implications for critical infrastructure;
• a Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, consisting of over 40 public and pri-
vate sector stakeholders, that developed a coordinated adaptation plan for the
city; and
• a Policy Working Group that identified codes, rules, and regulations govern-
ing city infrastructure that may need to be changed or created to help the city
cope with climate change.
These activities explicitly call for iterative processes in which goals and strategies are
regularly monitored and reassessed, to determine whether intended objectives are
being met, to discern any unforeseen consequences, and to allow for periodic cor-
rections. NRC, Adapting to the Impacts and Informing Effective Decisions contain more
details about these New York City activities, and other case studies illustrating how
iterative risk management principles are being implemented in both the public and
private sectors.
45
OCR for page 46
A M E R I C A’ S C L I M AT E C H O I C E S
DECISION CRITERIA IN AN ITERATIVE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
This section explores some of the criteria that would be most critical for climate-
related decision making in the context of an iterative risk management framework.
Risk reduction potential. A key benefit desired for any action taken to respond to
climate change is the potential to actually reduce climate-related risks, by either
reducing the likelihood of adverse events (i.e., limiting climate change) or reducing
vulnerability to such events (i.e., adapting to climate change) or ideally both. Although
risk reduction potential is often difficult to quantify, it can provide a basis for choosing
between different options under consideration. As an example, to respond to sea level
rise, a community may face a choice between building sea walls to protect buildings
and infrastructure or moving those assets to higher ground. The latter option would
be more expensive and disruptive in most situations, but it could protect against a
broader range of outcomes.
In certain cases, response options can reduce some risks while increasing others, thus
requiring trade-offs among risks. For example, promoting more widespread use of air-
conditioning to adapt to higher summer temperatures will undermine efforts to limit
climate change, to the extent that the additional electricity required is generated by
sources that emit GHGs. In other cases, an option may offer complementary risk reduc-
tion benefits. For example, improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings and
their cooling systems can both constrain the growth of GHG emissions and reduce the
threat that heat waves pose to vulnerable populations.
Some actions—such as those involving investment in new technologies, infrastruc-
ture, and workforce capacity—may offer little or no direct risk reduction potential
themselves but can open the door to future options that may significantly reduce risk.
For example, investing in development of a “smart grid” would provide flexibility for
integrating distributed renewable electricity generation, and investing in the training
of scientists and engineers can improve scientific understanding and the likelihood
of significant technological breakthroughs over time.12 Other options, in contrast,
may foreclose future risk-reducing possibilities. For example, continuing to build new
coal-fired power plants will lock in further dependence on GHG-intensive energy
sources (unless commercial-scale carbon capture and storage soon become widely
implemented).
The field of risk analysis, which has a large research literature,13 offers general guid-
ance on the process of estimating risk reduction potential. For the issue of climate
change in particular, the many uncertainties and personal judgments that are inevi-
46
OCR for page 47
A Framework for Making America’s Climate Choices
tably involved in weighing different types of risks have led some analysts to develop
methods that synthesize the judgments of many experts.14
Feasibility and effectiveness. The potential for any given climate change response
action to reduce risk must be measured against the feasibility (which may encompass
technical, economic, and political feasibility) and the likely effectiveness of that action.
A good deal is known, for example, about the feasibility and effectiveness of certain
renewable energy technologies (e.g., wind), while relatively little is known about the
feasibility of others (e.g., tidal).15 Where an option promises substantial risk reduction
but has high costs and is of unproven effectiveness, the best response may be invest-
ment in further study or pilot testing to reduce unknowns surrounding its application.
Questions about feasibility and effectiveness also apply to policy tools. Insights about
the effectiveness of different policy approaches can be gained from the research
literature and also from the diverse experience of state and local governments, efforts
in other nations, and U.S. federal programs in analogous contexts. For instance, to learn
about the effectiveness of cap-and-trade programs, one can look to the experiences
of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of the northeastern states, of the European
Union’s emission trading system, and of the acid rain cap-and-trade program under
Title IV of the Clean Air Act.16
Cost and cost-effectiveness. In a world of finite resources, cost and cost-effectiveness
are important criteria for helping policy makers decide among different response
options. Cost-effectiveness analysis assumes a similar level of risk reduction among
options—if two options have similar risk reduction potential and likely effectiveness,
a decision maker would choose the option with lower costs. In contrast, cost-benefit
analysis is typically used to determine an optimal risk reduction strategy that bal-
ances costs and social benefits. As discussed earlier, however, cost-benefit and cost-
effectiveness analysis have some important limitations when it comes to analyzing
climate choices.
The cost of some options may be so disproportionate to risk reduction potential as to
be clearly unreasonable: for instance, certain actions may threaten widespread busi-
ness closures or other economic impacts that render the option unwise or politically
impractical. (For this reason, cost considerations could be viewed as one aspect of the
“feasibility” criterion discussed above.) In contrast, some options may be warranted
by the positive economic returns or ancillary benefits they offer, even without consid-
eration of climate-related benefits—including, for example, programs to encourage
energy efficiency that yield a positive net economic benefit.17
47
OCR for page 48
A M E R I C A’ S C L I M AT E C H O I C E S
Ancillary costs and benefits. Some options designed to reduce climate-related risks
may have negative impacts on national interests in other areas, such as ecosystem
services, human health, and national security. Examples include nuclear proliferation
risks associated with increased reliance on nuclear power, and risks to ecological sys-
tems and food security stemming from increased assignment of agricultural land to
biofuels production.
Other policies designed to limit or adapt to climate change may have significant
ancillary benefits. For example, increasing energy efficiency to limit GHG emissions
can also reduce emissions of conventional pollutants,18 and reducing GHG emissions
from the transportation sector could potentially reduce petroleum consumption
and thus the nation’s vulnerability to high oil prices and oil-supply disruptions.19
Encouraging carbon sequestration through soil and forest management practices
(e.g., minimum tillage practices, reducing timber harvesting, improving manure
management, reducing livestock herd size) may also offer the benefits of helping to
control nutrient runoff, soil erosion, and habitat loss.20 It is wise to consider potential
co-benefits of this kind when choosing among alternative possible strategies for
reducing climate risks.
Equity and fairness. Equity and fairness concerns are important criteria for evaluating
any public policy option. International debates have focused on how to fairly allocate
the burdens of addressing climate change between developed and developing coun-
tries. Intergenerational justice debates center around defining the present genera-
tion’s obligations to help ensure the well-being of future generations. Domestic policy
debates have focused on how policies for reducing GHG emissions may alleviate or
exacerbate burdens among different parts of society (e.g., on low-income households
or on geographical regions that are heavily dependent on fossil fuel-based industries)
and on the socioeconomic distributional impacts of actions taken to adapt to climate
change.
Consider, for example, the case of lower-income households, which consume less
energy per capita and thus contribute proportionately less to GHG emissions relative
to more affluent households. Energy purchases are a larger fraction of their total con-
sumption, and therefore they are more affected by changes in energy prices.21 Limited
discretionary income may also preclude lower-income households from participating
in energy efficiency initiatives that would reduce their energy costs over the longer
term. At the same time, lower-income households may suffer disproportionately from
the impacts of climate change.22 Some ways in which policy design can help address
such concerns are discussed in Chapter 5.
48
OCR for page 49
A Framework for Making America’s Climate Choices
International considerations. America’s climate choices affect and are affected by the
global dimensions of climate change. U.S. emissions reductions alone will not be ad-
equate to avert dangerous climate change risks; rather, our emission reductions must
be accompanied by comparable actions from all other major emitters. U.S. climate
policies can potentially have a major effect on the actions other countries take, and
this potential represents another important criterion for evaluating domestic response
options. In general, domestic policies that help leverage broader international-scale
efforts (for example, cooperative research and development programs in clean energy
technology) can be expected to reduce overall climate risk more than policies that af-
fect U.S. emissions alone. Similarly, in comparing the advantages and disadvantages of
different policy options for reducing U.S. GHG emissions (e.g., cap-and-trade programs,
carbon taxes, regulatory approaches), each should be considered in the context of
how they link domestic policies to global efforts.
Robustness. Given the uncertainties inherent in predicting future climate change and
its impacts, as well as the difficulty of predicting technological, social, and economic
developments, there is a great strategic advantage in pursuing response options that
can perform well under a wide range of possible futures. For instance, sound risk man-
agement in the agricultural sector may include investing in the development of crop
varieties that are resilient to a wide range of temperature and precipitation conditions.
As another example, market-based regimes offer an advantage over industry-specific
performance standards because the former approach has a higher likelihood of con-
tinued effectiveness under varying future economic or technological conditions.23
When the likelihood of different future outcomes is not well known, pursuing multiple
options (i.e., a portfolio approach) and other “hedging” strategies can help ensure a
robust response. For example, it would be prudent to invest in multiple new energy
technologies to meet future needs because the ultimate success of any one new tech-
nology is always uncertain. As another example, it is prudent to design the infrastruc-
ture for transportation, water, and utilities to withstand a range of weather extremes
including intense rainfall, flooding, and drought scenarios. Ensuring robustness may
also include strengthening general adaptive capacity through early warning systems
and disaster response preparations.
The degree to which any particular policy option meets the different criteria listed
above depends not only on the type of policy but also its scope and stringency. For
example, an overly weak auto fuel efficiency standard may be cheap and politically
feasible but not very effective in reducing climate-related risks, whereas an overly
tough standard may promise high levels of risk reduction but be very expensive, pose
significant equity concerns, and be difficult to implement successfully.
49
OCR for page 50
A M E R I C A’ S C L I M AT E C H O I C E S
Ultimately, any choice involves weighing multiple criteria. Decision makers will dif-
fer in their judgments about which criteria are most important and in their methods
for dealing with uncertainties. Even when it is possible to characterize how different
response actions rank under the different criteria, this information may not neces-
sarily point to a preferred action or strategy. Rather, this information provides a basis
on which decision makers can make reasoned judgments and engage in informed
debates. The decision sciences offer a variety of methods for helping decision makers
evaluate and make trade-offs among options,24 but even these methods do not obvi-
ate the need for deliberation and judgment.
CHAPTER CONCLUSION
In the committee’s judgment, iterative risk management—which emphasizes
taking action now, but in doing so, being ready to learn from experience and
adjust these efforts later on—offers the most useful approach for guiding Amer-
ica’s climate choices. The successful application of this approach requires broad-
based continuous learning by the scientific community together with decision
makers in the government, the private sector, and the general public.
50
