Not Too Late to

Save the Polar Bear

A Rapid Action Plan to Address the Arctic Meltdown

1979 2007

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

 Not Too Late to Save the Polar Bear:
A Rapid Action Plan to Address the Arctic Meltdown

A report by the Climate, Air, and Energy Program,

Center for Biological Diversity
October 17, 2007

Contributing authors:
Kassie Siegel
Brendan Cummings
Anna “Mickey” Moritz
Brian Nowicki

Layout & Design:

Julie Miller
Anna Mirocha

Front Cover:
Polar bear image by Thomas D. Mangelsen/[Link]
1979 and 2007 Arctic sea ice images courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Scientific Visualization Studio

Center for Biological Diversity

P.O. Box 710
Tucson, AZ 85702
520.623.5252
[Link]

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national nonprofit

conservation organization with more than 35,000 members
dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

I. The Polar Bear, Global Warming, and the Endangered Species Act ...............................................2

II. Reducing Greenhouse Pollutants Rapidly Enough to Address Arctic Melting .........................6
A. Carbon Dioxide ...................................................................................................................................7
B. Methane .................................................................................................................................................9
C. Black Carbon or Soot .............................................................................................................................9
D. Other Non-CO2 Pollutants .................................................................................................................10
E. Reduced CO2 and Non-CO2 Pollutants and the Future Arctic ..............................................11

III. A New Management Paradigm for a Warming Arctic ......................................................................12

A. Incorporate Global Warming into Federal Agency Decisions ..................................................13
B. Reduce Other Stressors on Polar Bears and the Arctic .............................................................14
C. Towards an International Arctic Protection Regime ..................................................................16

IV. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................18

V. Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................19

Appendix A: Mitigation Strategies for Non-CO2 Pollutants

Introduction

I
n early 2008, the polar bear will likely be formally declared “threatened” or “endangered”
under the Endangered Species Act. But listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species
Act, while hugely significant both legally and politically, will not in and of itself save the polar
bear or its Arctic sea-ice habitat. In September 2007, the same month that Arctic sea ice reached a
new record minimum extent, government scientists predicted the polar bear would be extinct in
Alaska by 2050 if current greenhouse gas emission trends continue.

Predictions of polar bear

extinction by 2050 may be
optimistic. Recent reports
from scientists indicate that
global warming impacts are
occurring earlier and more
intensely than previously
projected. Nowhere is this
more apparent than in the
Arctic where, in 2007, sea-ice
extent shrank to a record one
million square miles below
the average summer sea-ice
extent of the past several
decades, reaching levels
not predicted to occur until
mid-century. Not only does
the impending loss of Arctic Photo (c) Thomas D. Mangelsen/[Link]
sea ice mean the loss of an
entire ecosystem, it will also greatly amplify warming impacts on a global level due to the greater
absorption of the sun’s energy by open water compared to reflective ice.

The rapid melting of the Arctic should be seen as an early warning of the broader climate crises
to come if the United States and the world do not respond to global warming with the necessary
urgency. Instead, like beachgoers chasing receding ocean waters to gather exposed shellfish just
before a tsunami, nations and industry are racing to the newly ice-free areas to stake claims for
fossil fuels and shipping routes that would lead us further down the path to climate catastrophe.

The situation in the Arctic has reached a critical threshold. But with immediate action it is still
possible to slow the melting of the Arctic. In addition to broader local, national, and international
efforts to reduce U.S. and global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, saving the Arctic requires
prompt reductions of other greenhouse gases, along with specific efforts to address direct threats
to the region from industrial activities such as oil development and shipping. Reducing emissions
of methane and black carbon, which both have short atmospheric lifetimes and a large warming
impact on the Arctic, is a critical component of any effective action plan. Immediate methane
and black carbon emissions reductions can buy the world a li�le more time to achieve the deep
reductions in CO2 emissions that are necessary to protect the Far North. But the window of
opportunity to act, like the ice, is shrinking rapidly.

Page 1 �
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

I. The Polar Bear, Global Warming, and the

Endangered Species Act

P
olar bears are completely dependent
upon Arctic sea-ice habitat for survival.
Polar bears need sea ice as a platform
from which to hunt ringed seals and other
prey, to make seasonal migrations between the
sea ice and their terrestrial denning areas, and
for other essential behaviors such as mating.
Unfortunately, the polar bear’s sea-ice habitat is
literally melting away.

Global warming is impacting the Arctic

earlier and more intensely than any other area
of the planet. In parts of Alaska and western
Canada, winter temperatures have increased Figure 1: Arctic Sea Ice Extent on September 21, 1979
Image source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific
by as much as 3.5° C in the past 30 years Visualization Studio
(Rozenzweig et al. 2007). Over the next 100
years, under a moderate emissions scenario,
annual average temperatures in the Arctic are
projected to rise an additional 3-5°C over land
and up to 7° C over the oceans (Meehl et al.
2007).

This rapid observed and projected warming

is reflected in the devastating melt of the Arctic
sea ice, which is highly sensitive to temperature
changes. Summer sea-ice extent reached an
unpredicted and u�erly stunning new record
minimum in 2007 (NSIDC 2007a,b; Figures 1,
2). At 1.63 million square miles, the minimum
sea-ice extent on September 16, 2007 was about Figure 2: Arctic Sea Ice Extent on September 14, 2007
one million square miles1 below the average Image source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific
Visualization Studio
minimum sea ice extent between 1979 and 2000
(NSIDC 2007a). The 2007 minimum was lower
than the sea-ice extent most climate models complete disappearance of sea ice, projected
predict would not be reached until 2050 or impacts to polar bears from global warming
later. Leading sea ice researchers now believe will affect virtually every aspect of the species’
that the Arctic could be completely ice free in existence. These impacts include a shortening
the summer as early as 2030 (NSIDC 2007b). of the hunting season caused by delayed ice
formation and earlier ice break-up, resulting
Climate change in the Arctic has reached in reduced fat stores, deteriorated body
a critical threshold, and the future of the ice- condition, and subsequent reduced survival
dependent polar bear is grim. Even short of and reproduction; increased distances between
1 One million square miles is equal to about the area of Alaska and Texas combined.

Center for Biological Diversity Page 2

the ice’s edge and land,
making it more difficult for
bears to reach preferred
denning areas; increased
energetic costs of traveling
farther between ice and land
and through fragmented
sea ice; and reduction in
ice-dependant prey such as
ringed seals and bearded
seals (Derocher et al. 2004).
Global warming will also
increase the frequency of
human-bear interactions, as
greater portions of the Arctic
become more accessible to
people and as polar bears
are forced to spend more
time on land waiting for ice
formation (Derocher et al.
2004). More human-bear
interactions will almost
certainly lead to increased
polar bear mortality.
Figure 3: Polar Bear in the Final Stages of Starvation
Five of the world’s polar bear populations photo © Heiko Wi�enborn
are now classified as declining, with a 22%
decline—from 1,194 bears in 1987 to 935 to limit the number of polar bears that starve,
bears in 2004—in Canada’s Western Hudson drown, and resort to cannibalism, and to save
Bay polar bear population (Aars et al. 2006). the species from extinction by immediately
Recently, reports of polar bear drownings, reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
cannibalism, and starvation have increased
(Amstrup et al. 2006; Regehr et al. 2006; Aars The Center for Biological Diversity
et al. 2006). With the amount of, location of, submi�ed a petition to the Secretary of the
and access to their ice-dependent seal prey Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
changing rapidly, polar bears are increasingly to list the polar bear under the Endangered
vulnerable to starvation. Species Act due to global warming on February
16, 2005, motivated by the urgent need to
Figure 3 shows a polar bear in the final reduce greenhouse gas pollution and otherwise
stages of starvation. This photo was taken on protect the species. The Endangered Species
September 4, 2007 on the Caniapiscau River Act is our nation’s safety net for plants and
in Canada, 160 km inland from Ungava Bay. animals on the brink of extinction, and our
While we cannot say for sure that this bear strongest and best law for the protection of
starved to death as a direct result of global imperiled wildlife. The Endangered Species
warming, as we do not know the bear’s history Act listing process has already benefited the
or origin, we do know that global warming will polar bear, will provide additional protections
increase the number of bears that suffer this once the species is formally listed, and is a key
fate. We also know that we have the power component of saving the species.

Page 3 �
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

Critically important for the polar bear proposed listing rule. The proposal to list the
and any other species threatened by global polar bear was greeted by worldwide media
warming, the Endangered Species Act a�ention, resulting in over 250 television
requires that all listing decisions be made stories, more than 1000 print stories and over
“solely” on the basis of the “best scientific… 240 editorials. Over 600,000 comments were
data available.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). submi�ed during the public comment periods
A decision not to list a petitioned species on the proposal. The final listing determination
is subject to judicial review. It is this “best is due on January 9, 2008.
available science” standard that provides a
vehicle through the petitioning process to Once the polar bear is listed, the
force federal agencies to squarely address the Endangered Species Act requires the Fish
science of global warming. Moreover, once and Wildlife Service to identify and designate
the Endangered Species Act listing process is critical habitat, convene a recovery team and
initiated, strict timelines apply, with an initial develop and implement a recovery plan.
finding due within 90 days of the petition, a Additionally, the requirement for federal
proposed rule within 12 months of the petition agencies to avoid jeopardizing the species,
if the Fish and Wildlife Service finds that the and a prohibition against unpermi�ed take
species meets the criteria for listing, and a (harm and harassment), will take effect.
final listing determination within a year from These regulatory protections should provide
the proposed rule. Species do not receive substantial benefit to the polar bear (Cummings
any regulatory protection under the Act until and Siegel 2007). While the polar bear has yet
they are officially listed as threatened or to receive any actual legal protection as a result
endangered. of the Endangered Species Act listing process,
the process has already played an important
A series of administrative and legal events role by being a catalyst to focus significant new
in the listing process have greatly increased scientific, public, and political a�ention on
public awareness of the polar bear’s plight. In the problem of the melting Arctic and global
December 2005, ten months a�er the petition warming.
was filed, the Center for Biological Diversity,
joined by NRDC and Greenpeace, sued the The listing process has prompted research
Department of Interior for failing to issue an and analysis on the future of the polar bear, its
initial finding on the petition. In response, a sea-ice habitat, and the Arctic more generally.
positive initial finding was issued in February Most important among these research
2006, initiating both a public comment period efforts are the recent reports released by the
and full status review for the species. The Department of Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey
deadline for the second required finding on the (USGS). The Fish and Wildlife Service asked
petition, due within 12 months of receipt of the the USGS to do the following in support of
petition, was only one week away at the time the listing process: (1) develop population
the first finding was made. The lawsuit was projections for the Southern Beaufort Sea
ultimately se�led with a court-ordered consent polar bear population and analyze existing
decree se�ing a deadline of December 27, 2006 data on two polar bear populations in Canada;
for the Fish and Wildlife Service to make the (2) evaluate northern hemisphere sea-ice
second determination. projections, as they relate to polar bear sea-
ice habitats and potential future distribution
On December 27, 2006, Secretary of Interior of polar bears; and (3) model future range-
Dirk Kempthorne announced that listing of wide polar bear populations by developing a
the polar bear is warranted and that the Fish synthesis of the range of likely numerical and
and Wildlife Service would be publishing a spatial responses to sea-ice projections. The

Center for Biological Diversity Page 4

USGS produced nine administrative reports 2100 (Nakićenović 2000). If future emissions
addressing these questions and in doing so meet or exceed the A1B scenario, the
significantly advanced the understanding of eventual extinction of polar bears is virtually
sea-ice loss and its implications for polar bears. guaranteed, as extinction risk will exceed 40%
even in the high Canadian Archipelago in 2100,
The USGS conducted polar bear population and warming will continue a�er 2100. The
modeling based on 10 climate models that USGS reports, however, do not address the
most accurately simulate future ice conditions. question of how much polar bear extinction
The USGS used the Intergovernmental Panel risk can be reduced if greenhouse gas emissions
on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B “business as are curtailed significantly below those assumed
usual” scenario of future emissions to run in the A1B scenario. Decreasing greenhouse
the climate models. In the A1B scenario, gas emissions substantially can limit the Arctic
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations sea-ice melt and therefore lower extinction risk
reach 717 parts per million by 2100. These for the polar bear.
sea-ice projections were used in a number of
applications, including in a Bayesian Network While not explicitly making an Endangered
model developed by the USGS to most Species Act listing recommendation, the
accurately project the future range-wide status information contained in the USGS reports
of the polar bear. The results are disturbing. definitively answers the question of whether
the polar bear is in fact in danger of extinction
The USGS (Amstrup et al. 2007) projects that and therefore warrants the protections of the
two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including Act with an emphatic and distressing “yes.”
all of the bears in Alaska, will be extinct by Any decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service
2050. The “good news” is that polar bears may to deny or delay listing would be patently
survive in the high Canadian Archipelago and unlawful. The point of the Endangered Species
portions of northwest Greenland through the Act, however, is not simply to add species to
end of this century. However, their extinction the list, but to actually save them. If “business
risk is still extremely high, at over 40% in as usual” emissions trends continue, the polar
the Archipelago and over 70% in northwest bear will be driven extinct irrespective of
Greenland (Amstrup et al. 2007: Table 8). Endangered Species Act listing or any other
management actions. Business as usual is
Moreover, the USGS emphasizes repeatedly simply no longer an option. If the polar bear
that because all of the available climate is to have a future, we as a nation and as a
models have to date underestimated the actual global community must immediately begin
observed sea-ice loss, the assessment of risk to implementing deep greenhouse gas emissions
the polar bear may be conservative. Perhaps reductions as well as change our management
most worrisome is the observation that part of paradigms to reflect the new realities presented
an area in the Canadian Archipelago expected by a warming Arctic. The remainder of this
to provide an icy refuge for the polar bear in paper sets forth an action plan to do so.
2100 lost its ice in the summer of 2007.

The USGS projections of polar bear

extinction risk are based on the IPCC A1B
“business as usual” scenario, near the center
of the distribution of all IPCC scenarios,
in which atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations reach 717 parts per million by

Page 5
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

II. Reducing Greenhouse Pollutants Rapidly

Enough to Address Arctic Melting

T
he essential first component of an reductions on the table, including many
action plan to save the polar bear is a that could be undertaken at a net economic
mandatory reduction in CO2 pollution. benefit (Tables 1-4, Figure 5). According to
Beginning CO2 reductions immediately and conservative projections by the U.S. EPA, about
eventually reducing them to a small fraction 500 MtCO2eq of global methane emissions
of current levels so that atmospheric CO2 reductions could be achieved globally by
concentrations never rise above about 450 2020 at a cost benefit or no cost (EPA 2006;
ppm is essential to saving polar bears. But the Table 4, Figure 7). Nearly 70 MtCO2eq of
Arctic has reached such a critical threshold these available reductions are in the United
that CO2 reductions alone, even if undertaken States (EPA 2006; Table 2, Figure 6). The EPA
immediately and with determination, will estimates total technically feasible methane
almost certainly not be enough to slow and reductions for 2020 at over 2400 MtCO2eq
reverse the warming and melting trend. This is globally and nearly 280 MtCO2eq in the United
because CO2, once emi�ed, tends to remain in States, many of which can be achieved at low
the atmosphere for centuries (Archer 2005), and cost (EPA 2006; Tables 2 and 4; Figures 6,7).
therefore the benefits of reductions today will
not be fully felt for some time. Reductions in CO2, methane, and black
carbon will have major public health benefits
Our window of opportunity to save polar as well. Many of the measures necessary to
bears relates to the fact that the warming reduce global warming pollution, including
impact of “non-CO2” pollutants including increasing energy efficiency, increasing the use
methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon of renewable energy and phasing out fossil
(soot) is larger in the Arctic than it is globally. fuels, and ultimately changing our land use,
The non-CO2 pollutants are responsible for transportation, and consumption pa�erns,
at least half of the warming in the Arctic will improve our quality of life, improve our
(Hansen et al. 2007), as opposed to about 30% economy, and make the world a healthier, safer,
globally (Forster and Ramaswamy 2007; Figure and more equitable place. Congress should act
4). Black carbon has a disproportionately immediately to explicitly cap and then rapidly
large warming impact in the Arctic, and both reduce not only CO2, but also the non-CO2
black carbon and methane have much shorter pollutants.
atmospheric lifetimes than CO2. This means
that immediately reducing these pollutants Below we review necessary reductions in
can buy some desperately needed time and greenhouse gas pollutants and opportunities
presents our best opportunity for slowing and for targeted actions to protect the Arctic.
reversing the Arctic melting before it is too Further detail on mitigation strategies for
late.2 methane, black carbon, nitrous oxide, and the
high global warming potential gases is found in
Fortunately, there are many feasible Appendix A.
reduction measures available today for
these pollutants, with literally hundreds of
millions of metric tons of CO2eq “no-cost”
2 For ease of comparison, the volume of each pollutant is expressed as its “carbon dioxide equivalent” in millions of metric tons. Thus, 1 million
metric tons of methane is equivalent to 21 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2eq).

Center for Biological Diversity Page 6

A. Carbon Dioxide

Because CO2 is the most important

greenhouse gas, the rapid and mandatory
reduction of CO2 emissions is the backbone of
any plan to slow the Arctic melt (Quinn et al.
2007) and thus save the polar bear. If carbon
dioxide concentrations are not controlled
soon, polar bears will have li�le chance of
future survival regardless of what else is
done. Leading scientists warn that CO2
concentrations must be kept below about 450
ppm in order to keep the climate system within
the range of variability of the past 650,000 years
and minimize the chance of triggering major
Figure 4: Radiative Forcing Contribution of Greenhouse
climate feedbacks, such as a large-scale release
Gases (chart does not include forcing from black
of methane from the Arctic permafrost, that
carbon, which is a solid particle, not a gas)
would greatly amplify anthropogenic warming Data from Forster and Ramaswamy 2007: Table 2.1
(Hansen et al. 2006; Hansen et al. 2007).
Scientists further warn that the 450 ppm limit
may need to be reduced further in the future
(Hansen and Sato in prep.). Keeping global
CO2 concentrations below 450 parts per million
would require the United States to begin
reducing its emissions quickly, and to reduce
them to 80% or more below 1990 levels by the
middle of this century.

It is essential that the United States rejoin

the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change negotiating process and participate
in global solutions. The Bush administration
has been blocking progress at the international
level for over six years, and the United States
and Australia are the only developed countries
that have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Figure 5: Non-CO2 Emissions in the United States in
the first mandatory greenhouse gas reduction 2010 by Sector
agreement under the Framework Convention Data from EPA 2006
process. The United States should commit
to meeting its Kyoto target of reducing its
emissions to 7% below 1990 levels between enacted, and fully enforced, would result in
2008 and 2012, and join negotiations for much emissions dropping to approximately 80%
deeper emissions reductions a�er 2012. below 1990 levels by 2050, including the Safe
Climate Act (H.R. 1590, Waxman) and the
Congress must pass legislation that caps Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S.
and rapidly reduces greenhouse gas pollution 309, Sanders). The survival of the Arctic sea ice
with mandatory measures. Fortunately, there and the polar bear depends upon one of these
are several bills introduced that if passed, bills or something similar becoming law soon.

Page 7
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

Figure 6: Methane Emissions and Potential Reductions for the United States in 2020
Data from EPA 2006 and Table 2

Figure 7: Global Methane Emissions and Potential Reductions in 2020

Data from EPA 2006 and Table 4

Center for Biological Diversity Page 8

 However, the Arctic melt has advanced so total technically feasible methane reductions
far towards a tipping point that while CO2 for 2020 at over 2400 MtCO2eq globally and
reductions are necessary, they are not sufficient nearly 280 MtCO2eq in the United States, many
to save polar bears. In addition to current of which can be achieved at low cost (EPA 2006;
legislative proposals, Congress must target Tables 2 and 4; Figures 6,7).
other pollutants, including methane and black
carbon, to provide the necessary short-term The EPA’s cost projections are conservative
climate benefit to the Arctic. for a number of reasons, including the use of
a 10% discount rate. Using a lower discount
B. Methane rate would result in additional cost benefit or
no-cost reductions. Moreover, the EPA analysis
Methane is the most important of the does not account for the value of significant
non-CO2 pollutants, with a global warming air quality and health benefits that would
potential 21 times greater than carbon accompany methane reductions. West et al.
dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of (2006) found that reducing global methane
12 years (Forster and Ramaswamy 2007). emissions by 20% would save 370,000 lives
Methane constitutes approximately 20% of the between 2010 and 2030, due to the reduction
anthropogenic greenhouse effect globally, the in ozone-related cardiovascular, respiratory,
largest contribution of the non-CO2 gases. As and other health impacts. Methane reductions
a precursor to tropospheric ozone, methane would also decrease ozone-related damage
emissions have an even more powerful to ecosystems and agricultural crops (West et
impact on climate. In the Arctic this impact al. 2006). Methane is the primary component
is strongest in winter months, when it can of natural gas, and many abatement options
result in an acceleration of the onset of spring include the use of captured methane to
melt (Shindell 2007). Tropospheric ozone, generate energy. The benefits of displacing
unlike other greenhouse gases, absorbs both other fossil fuel energy sources with captured
infrared radiation and shortwave radiation methane are also not captured in the EPA (2006)
(visible light). Thus, tropospheric ozone is a analysis.
particularly powerful greenhouse gas over
highly reflective surfaces like the Arctic, While the EPA (2006) may underestimate
because it traps shortwave radiation both as available no-cost and low-cost methane (and
it enters the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun other non-CO2 gas) mitigation options, even
and when it is reflected back out again by snow this conservative analysis shows the enormous
and ice. Reducing global methane emissions opportunities available to us today (Tables
will reduce ozone concentrations in the Arctic, 1-4; Figures 6-7). These reductions can be
providing a double benefit to the region. achieved with currently available technology,
as described in Appendix A. Moreover,
According to conservative projections by mandatory greenhouse gas regulation will
the U.S. EPA, about 500 MtCO2eq of methane speed the development and deployment of new
emissions reductions could be achieved technology and mitigation options, making
globally by 2020 at a cost benefit or at no much deeper reductions feasible in the very
cost (EPA 2006; Table 4, Figure 7). That is the near future.
equivalent of taking almost 90 million cars and
light trucks off the road. Nearly 70 MtCO2eq C. Black Carbon or Soot
of these available reductions are in the United
States (EPA 2006; Table 2, Figure 6). That is the Black carbon, or soot, consists of
equivalent of taking over 12 million cars and particles or aerosols released through the
light trucks off the road. The EPA estimates inefficient burning of fossil fuels, biofuels,

Page 9
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

and biomass (Quinn et al. 2007). Black carbon sources that are transported by air currents
warms the atmosphere, but it is a solid, not a most efficiently to the Arctic. Black carbon
gas. Unlike greenhouse gases, which warm the reductions will also provide air quality and
atmosphere by absorbing longwave infra-red human health benefits. Conversely, allowing
radiation, soot has a warming impact because black carbon emissions to increase in the Arctic
it absorbs shortwave radiation, or visible light as the result of increased shipping or industrial
(Chameides and Bergin 2002). Black carbon is activity will accelerate loss of the seasonal sea
an extremely powerful greenhouse pollutant. ice and extinction of the polar bear.
Scientists have described the average global
warming potential of black carbon as about 500 Despite its significance to global climate
times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year change and to the Arctic in particular, black
period (Hansen et al. 2007; see also Reddy and carbon has not been addressed by the major
Boucher 2007). This powerful warming impact reports on non-CO2 gas mitigation, nor is it
is remarkable given that black carbon remains addressed in current global warming bills in
in the atmosphere for only about four to seven the 110th Congress. Black carbon reductions
days, with a mean residence time of 5.3 days are an essential part of saving the Arctic sea ice
(Reddy and Boucher 2007). and the polar bear, and should be addressed
by Congress in this session. Abatement
Black carbon contributes to Arctic warming opportunities are discussed further in
through the formation of “Arctic haze” and Appendix A.
through deposition on snow and ice, which
increases heat absorption (Quinn et al. 2007; D. Other Non-CO2 Pollutants
Reddy and Boucher 2007). Arctic haze results
from a number of aerosols in addition to black Nitrous oxide and the high global
carbon, including sulfate and nitrate (Quinn warming potential gases do not have the same
et al. 2007). The effects of Arctic haze may be heightened impacts in the Arctic as methane
to either increase or decrease warming, but and black carbon. Nevertheless, because these
when the haze contains high amounts of soot, gases have high global warming potentials and
it absorbs incoming solar radiation and leads to long atmospheric lifetimes, and because there
heating (Quinn et al. 2007). are many readily available mitigation measures
to reduce them, they present important
Soot also contributes to heating when opportunities for reducing global warming
it is deposited on snow because it reduces overall and are therefore an important part of
reflectivity of the white snow and instead tends saving the Arctic and the polar bear.
to absorb radiation. A recent study indicates
that the direct warming effect of black carbon Nitrous oxide has a global warming
on snow can be three times as strong as that potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide
due to carbon dioxide during springtime in the and an atmospheric lifetime of approximately
Arctic (Flanner 2007). Black carbon emissions 114 years (Forster and Ramaswamy 2007). It
that occur in or near the Arctic contribute the constitutes the second-largest proportion of
most to the melting of the far north (Reddy and anthropogenic non-CO2 gases at 7%. The
Boucher 2007; Quinn et al. 2007). main sources of nitrous oxide emissions are
agriculture, wastewater, fossil fuel combustion,
Reductions in black carbon therefore and industrial adipic and nitric acid
provide an extremely important opportunity production.
to slow Arctic warming in the short term, and
mitigation strategies should focus on within- High global warming potential (High-
Arctic sources and northern hemisphere GWP) gases fall into three broad categories:

Center for Biological Diversity Page 10

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorcarbons still undergo significant additional warming
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). with the concomitant additional loss of sea ice.
Hydrofluorocarbons were developed to Approximately 0.6° C of additional warming
replace ozone-depleting substances used in is already in the pipeline due to the excess
refrigeration and air conditioning systems, energy in the Earth’s climate system from past
solvents, aerosols, foam production, and fire greenhouse gas emissions (Hansen et al. 2005;
extinguishing. HFCs have global warming Alley et al. 2007). Additional warming will
potentials between 140 and 11,700 times that of follow rising CO2 levels even if we keep such
carbon dioxide, and their atmospheric lifetimes levels below 450ppm. As with the warming
range from one year to 260 years (EPA 2006). observed to date, the Arctic will continue to
warm more rapidly than the global average.
Perfluorocarbons are emi�ed during Substantial additional reduction of Arctic sea
aluminum production and semiconductor ice over the course of this century is therefore
manufacture (EPA 2006). Their global warming likely unavoidable. For the polar bear, things
potential ranges from 6,500 to 9,200 times are going to get much worse before they begin
that of carbon dioxide. In addition, they have to get be�er.
extremely long atmospheric lifetimes (e.g.
10,000 and 50,000 years for two common PFCs). As grim as the outlook for the polar bear
is, it is not hopeless. Unlike the terrestrial
The highest global warming potential ice sheets of Greenland, the melting of which
exists in sulfur hexafluoride at 23,900 times may become irreversible on human-relevant
that of carbon dioxide. Sulfur hexafluoride timeframes, the Arctic sea ice, portions of
remains in the atmosphere for 3,200 years. which melt and reform every year, may be
Sulfur hexafluoride is used: (1) for insulation capable of relatively rapid recovery following
and current interruption in electrical power climate stabilization. Assuming greenhouse
transmission and distribution; (2) during gas emission targets can be met, the climate can
semiconductor manufacture; and (3) to protect be stabilized, and with subsequent reductions
against burning in the magnesium industry. in atmospheric CO2 levels, the Arctic sea ice
can recover to levels supporting long-term
Further information on abatement options viable populations of polar bears and other
for these pollutants is found in Appendix A. ice-dependant species. The key to polar bear
persistence, then, is weathering the very
E. Reduced CO2 and Non-CO2 Pollutants and bumpy ride through the next half-century. To
the Future Arctic shepherd the polar bear through the ensuing
decades, we must reduce all other stressors on
As discussed above, keeping CO2 levels the species and its habitat and tailor national
below 450 ppm and substantially reducing all and international management of the sensitive
non-CO2 forcings is essential if we are to keep Arctic ecosystem to the new reality of a rapidly
global temperatures from rising more than changing Arctic.
1° C above 2000 levels and thereby minimize
the risk of triggering major climate feedbacks
which would lead to significantly elevated
warming (Hansen et al. 2006). Achieving
such greenhouse gas reductions is therefore
critical if we are to not only prevent the
extinction of the polar bear, but avoid the most
catastrophic impacts of global warming. But
even under such a scenario, the Arctic will

Page 11
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

III. A New Management Paradigm for a Warming

Arctic
As the September 2007 sea-ice minimum recedes, the rest of the world has been quick to
starkly illustrates, global warming in the claim the spoils of a warming Arctic. Russia,
Arctic is not a future problem that can be Norway, and Denmark have all recently staked
shunted off to the next generation of decision- competing territorial claims to portions of
makers. It has arrived and is already leaving the oil-rich Arctic seabed, while Canada has
starving and drowning polar bears, melting asserted sovereignty over the increasingly ice-
permafrost, and coastal erosion in its wake. free Northwest Passage. Similarly, the specter
While implementing the
rapid reductions in emissions
of both CO2 and non-CO2
pollutants described above
is essential to avoid runaway
future warming in the Arctic
and elsewhere, if polar bears
are to survive we also have
to adapt policy measures to
the warming that has already
occurred, that is unavoidably
in the pipeline, and that
will inevitably come with
projected rising atmospheric
CO2 levels. The Arctic of
2007 is very different from
the Arctic of just a decade
ago; the Arctic of 2050 will be
Photo (c) Thomas D. Mangelsen/[Link]
virtually unrecognizable.

While the ongoing changes in the Arctic of a seasonally ice-free Arctic carries with it the
are now readily apparent, for the most part, likelihood of greatly increased shipping in the
U.S. federal agencies have u�erly failed to region.
incorporate this new reality into their decision-
making affecting the Arctic. With the possible Many of these elements of a changing
exception of the Department of Defense (see, Arctic carry a double threat to the polar bear.
e.g. ONR 2001), federal agencies are making Increased oil and gas development in the Arctic
planning decisions and issuing permits, threatens not just to degrade important polar
authorizations, and leases in and affecting bear habitat, but will also lead to further fossil
the Arctic with a near-total disregard for the fuel commitments, making emissions reduction
rapidly changing conditions in the region. This targets all the more difficult to reach. Increased
is leading to uninformed and unwise decision- shipping in the Arctic carries increased risks
making negatively affecting the polar bear and of oil spills and further disruptions of the
the entire Arctic ecosystem. polar bear’s habitat, but also, perhaps more
importantly, it would lead to a substantial
If U.S. agencies have been slow to recognize injection of additional black carbon directly
and respond to new conditions as the sea ice where it would do the most damage to the

Center for Biological Diversity Page 12

Arctic climate. Finally, territorial disputes in will benefit all imperiled species, including
the Arctic will lead to an increased military the polar bear. Unfortunately, such statutory
presence in the Arctic leading to disruption mandates have largely been underutilized,
and pollution from vessels and aircra� as well ignored, or explicitly rejected by the current
as increasingly frequent polar bear-human administration.
interactions — encounters that the polar bears
almost always lose. Existing laws governing federal agencies
that relate to global warming and the Arctic
If we are to respond to the warming Arctic fall into three broad categories: laws requiring
in a manner compatible with the long-term the compilation and analysis of information
survival of the polar bear, we must directly relevant to decision makers; laws requiring
confront the changes taking place in the region. analysis and in some cases mitigation of the
Federal agencies must incorporate the best contribution of a given agency decision or
available information about global warming action to greenhouse gas emissions and global
and its impacts on the Arctic into all decisions warming; and laws requiring the changing
directly or indirectly affecting the Arctic. We status of species and resources in a warming
must also reduce direct impacts on polar climate be properly considered in decision-
bears and their habitat from shipping and making. Several laws address more than one
industrial activities through such measures as a of these categories. Examples of each, relevant
moratorium on the expansion of such activities to the polar bear, and which the administration
in areas subject to U.S. control. Finally, because has ignored or underutilized, are briefly
protecting the polar bear and the Arctic is only discussed below.
possible with the cooperation of not only all
Arctic nations, but with the global community Information-generating statutes:
more broadly, we should initiate and engage
in proactive multilateral efforts to protect the The Global Change Research Act (GCRA)
Arctic and its resources so they remain largely requires the administration to provide to
unspoiled for future generations in a manner Congress and agencies an assessment of the
similar to what has been accomplished under trends and effects of global climate change on
the Antarctic Treaty. Each of these measures the United States, to be updated every four
is described in more detail below. All are years. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2936(2)-(3). The last
necessary if polar bears are to survive in the such assessment was prepared in 2000. The
very different Arctic we have given them. administration is under court order to prepare
a new assessment by May 2008, as the result of
A. Incorporate Global Warming into Federal a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological
Agency Decisions Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace.

Congressional action and new laws The Marine Mammal Protection Act
explicitly capping and reducing CO2 and non- (MMPA) requires regularly updated stock
CO2 pollutants are clearly necessary if we are assessment reports that summarize the current
to slow and ultimately reverse global warming status of all marine mammals subject to U.S.
and save the Arctic and the polar bear. jurisdiction. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. Updated
Nevertheless, existing law allows, and in some stock assessments for polar bears and walrus
cases requires, the executive branch to take are two years overdue. Stock assessments
significant action to address the current and for ice-dependant seals relied upon by polar
future impacts of global warming on vulnerable bears for food, while regularly updated, do
human landscapes, natural ecosystems, not incorporate recent information on global
plants, and wildlife. Use of this authority warming and sea-ice declines.

Page 13
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from federal of the best available science. Nevertheless,
actions: few if any agency decisions directly affecting
the polar bear’s Arctic habitat have properly
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act taken into account the changing status of the
(OCSLA) governs the leasing of tracts for species in a melting Arctic. For example, in
offshore oil development in federal waters, August 2006, the Fish and Wildlife Service
including those areas of the Beaufort and issued regulations under the MMPA allowing
Chukchi seas utilized by polar bears. In unlimited take of polar bears from all oil-
approving the 2007-2012 Program covering and gas-related activities in the Beaufort Sea
all offshore leasing in the United States, the region for a period of five years. Despite a
Secretary of Interior refused to quantify the request from the Marine Mammal Commission
greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas to consider the impacts of global warming
expected to be produced under the program in making the required determination of
and failed to monetize CO2 and non-CO2 “negligible impact” under the statute, the
pollutants in calculating the economic costs and Service issued the authorization, assuming that
benefits of the program. impacts would be similar to those documented
when similar authorizations were issued more
The National Environmental Policy than a decade previously and prior to the
Act (NEPA) requires the preparation of an substantial changes of sea ice and polar bear
environmental impact statement analyzing population size and distribution evidenced by
all significant impacts of proposed federal recent scientific observations. See 71 Fed. Reg.
actions. Few NEPA documents for significant 43926 (Aug. 2, 2006).
greenhouse gas-generating projects prepared
to date analyze the impacts of such emissions. As the above examples demonstrate,
None that we are aware of analyze the impacts management decisions directly affecting the
of greenhouse gas or black carbon emissions on polar bear have not caught up with the science
Arctic warming or the polar bear. demonstrating significant changes in the status
of the species and its Arctic ecosystem. As
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) uninformed decision-making is o�en unwise
requires each federal agency to ensure through decision-making, the polar bear will continue to
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service be harmed by federal agency actions until and
that any federal action does not jeopardize the unless all relevant agencies start incorporating
continued existence of any listed species or the most recent information regarding global
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. warming and its impacts on the Arctic into their
16 U.S.C. § 1536. To date, despite the fact decision-making. Climate-informed decision-
that existing regulations require consultation making is already the law; now it needs to be
on any action “directly or indirectly causing translated into action.
modifications to the land, water, or air,” 50
C.F.R. § 402.02, no federal agency has ever B. Reduce Other Stressors on Polar Bears and
engaged in consultation regarding the impacts the Arctic
of greenhouse gas emissions flowing from a
given agency action. While a business-as-usual warming scenario
would doom the polar bear to extinction
Analysis of the changing Arctic in federal decision- and render any other conservation efforts
making: irrelevant, saving the polar bear will require
not just dramatically changing greenhouse
Each of the statutes mentioned above gas emission trajectories but also addressing
require informed decision-making and the use other cumulative threats to the species. While

Center for Biological Diversity Page 14

climate-informed decision-making will activities have greatly accelerated. With the
probably be be�er decision-making and will lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas
reduce cumulative impacts to the polar bear, scheduled under the 2007-2012 Program and
certain activities, no ma�er how thoroughly the ongoing rapid leasing and development
ve�ed, should simply no longer be allowed in of the NPR-A, the vast majority of polar bear
polar bear habitat. Among these are activities habitat subject to U.S. jurisdiction, whether
that directly add black carbon to the Arctic (e.g. at sea or on land, is now open for oil and gas
shipping) and activities that directly disturb leasing and development. See Figure 8 (Map
polar bears and degrade their essential habitats of existing and proposed leases in the Beaufort
(e.g. oil and gas development). and Chukchi seas).

In 2003 the National Research Council noted Polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and
that “[c]limate warming at predicted rates in elsewhere are already undergoing food stress,
the Beaufort Sea region is likely to have serious and as a consequence resorting to cannibalism
consequences for ringed seals and polar bears, or simply starving (Amstrup et al. 2006; Regehr
and those effects will accumulate with the et al. 2006; Aars et al. 2006). Cub survival is
effects of oil and gas activities in the region.” down (Regehr et al. 2006; Aars et al. 2006).
(NRC 2003). Since the NRC report, both the Denning has shi�ed from occurring mostly on
impacts of global warming on the polar bear ice to mostly on land and numerous bears now
and the cumulative impacts of oil and gas congregate on land pending the fall freeze-up

Figure 8: Current and Proposed Oil & Gas Prices on Alaska’s North Slope

Page 15
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

of the sea-ice (Regehr et al. 2006; Aars et al. which brings with it black carbon emissions,
2006). At the same time, the Beaufort Sea coast the risk of oil spills, and direct disruption and
is becoming increasingly industrialized. This disturbance of polar bears and their prey. The
combination is potentially devastating for the United States should work in appropriate
species. Denning bears with reduced fat stores international fora such as the International
from a shorter hunting season are both more Maritime Organization and the Arctic Council
vulnerable to disturbance from oil industry to prevent the establishment of new shipping
activities and increasingly dependant upon routes in the Arctic. Simultaneously, the United
areas subject to such industrial development. States. should require that any vessel transiting
Similarly, hungry bears, trapped on land, are Arctic waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction utilize
more likely to wander into oil camps and fuels and engine technologies that minimize
facilities looking for food, where their odds black carbon emissions (see, e.g. Ballo and
of being directly killed by humans acting in Burt 2007), and apply for take authorizations
self-defense or being exposed to oil and other to ensure operations are consistent with the
chemicals increases dramatically. MMPA and ESA so as to minimize direct
impacts to polar bears and their prey.
In addition to direct impacts on polar
bears, oil industry activity also impacts their Finally, persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
prey, such as ice seals, which may be exposed represent a significant threat to polar bears and
to seismic surveys, icebreakers, and other other Arctic species. As polar bears operate
disturbances that could either harm these in an increasingly food-stressed state, they
animals or render them less available for bears are likely to metabolize body fat containing
to hunt. Oil industry activity also results in unhealthy concentrations of POPs. The impact
methane and black carbon emissions in the of POPs on individual polar bears can have
Arctic from production activities, and of course both lethal and sub-lethal effects. As polar
substantial CO2 emissions from the ultimate bear populations decline and individual
combustion of the recovered oil and gas. bears become more vulnerable, the disruptive
cumulative effects of POPs on the species are
Given the rapidly changing Arctic, the likely to grow. Reduction or elimination of
precarious status of polar bears, and the these compounds, both through application
numerous adverse impacts of oil and gas of U.S. law and international effort, will likely
industry activities on the species, we believe provide substantial benefits to polar bears.
that there should be a moratorium on new
oil and gas leasing and development in the While many of the cumulative threats to the
range of the polar bear. Such a moratorium polar bear are subject to direct regulation by the
should be implemented immediately and United States and can and must be addressed
remain in effect until and unless such activity immediately, the ultimate survival and recovery
can be demonstrated to not have adverse of the polar bear will require international
impacts on the polar bear, and any greenhouse efforts, not just to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions directly or indirectly associated with emissions and stabilize the climate system, but
such activities are shown to be consistent with to protect the fragile Arctic habitat upon which
a comprehensive national plan to reduce CO2 the polar bear depends.
and non-CO2 pollutants to levels determined
necessary to avoid the continued loss of sea ice. C. Towards an International Arctic Protection
Regime
In addition to oil and gas activities, a
growing cumulative threat to the polar bear is Ultimately, the protection of the polar
likely to be increased shipping in the Arctic, bear and its Arctic habitat is the shared

Center for Biological Diversity Page 16

responsibility of not
only the United States,
or even the five Arctic
nations with polar
bear populations, but
of the broader global
community. As global
warming transforms
and increases human
access to the Arctic, we
must be as proactive as
possible in protecting
this area. Since much of
the Arctic is beyond any
country’s control, and
many portions are now
contested by competing
national claims, a key
component of an Arctic
protection strategy rests
in the international arena
(See Figure 9). Just as the
Antarctic Treaty arose Figure 9: Arctic Territorial Claims
in the context of competing national claims to
that continent, the territorial disputes that are
shaping up in the Arctic as the sea ice recedes
— and as commercial exploitation of the
region becomes foreseeable — present not just
a threat, but an opportunity. Given that we
are entering the International Polar Year, the
time is ripe to push for international action to
permanently protect the shared treasure of the
Arctic. The United States. should proactively
promote the large-scale protection of the Arctic
through all existing international mechanisms,
including the International Agreement for the
Conservation of Polar Bears, the Arctic Council,
and the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea. The United States cannot remain a
spectator as other nations compete to divide
up the resources of a newly accessible Arctic.
We need to become participant, not to stake
our own claims, but to lead efforts to render
any such claims irrelevant, and to shepherd
the Arctic and the polar bear through the rapid
changes of the coming decades.

Page 17
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

IV. Conclusion

W
e are commi�ed to
saving the polar
bear from the
ravages of global warming
for its own sake, as well as
ours. Because the Arctic is
the Earth’s early warning
system, what is happening
to the polar bear now is
a harbinger of what will
happen to the rest of the
world if business-as-usual
politics and emissions
continue. We cannot allow
this to happen. It is not too
late to save the Arctic — if we
take action today. Immediate
reductions in both CO2 and Photo (c) Thomas D. Mangelsen/[Link]
non-CO2 pollutants, along with
protection of the Arctic from direct physical incursions, offer a true window of opportunity and
hope. Acting to reduce greenhouse emissions in a timeframe rapid enough to save the polar bear
will also provide us with the necessary urgency to tackle the challenge of global warming before its
impacts drown not only polar bears but entire cities. We must begin immediately.

Center for Biological Diversity Page 18

V. Literature Cited
Aars, J., N.J. Lunn, and A.E. Derocher. 2006. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 14th Working
Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, Sea�le, Washington, USA,
at 44. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Alley et al. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers. In Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Available at h�p://[Link].

Amstrup, S.C., B.G. Marcot, and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the Range-wide Status of
Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham, and G.W. Thiemann. 2006. Recent observations
of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar
Biology DOI 10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5.

Archer, D. 2005. Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time, J. Geophys. Res., 110, C09S05,
doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.

Ballo, T., and S. Burt. 2007. Petition for Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to Reduce the
Emission of Air Pollutants from Marine Shipping Vessels that Contribute to Global Climate
Change. Submi�ed to the Hon. Stephen L. Johnson on October 3, 2007.

Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A.
Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek. 2007. New Assessment Methods and the Characterization of Future
Conditions. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171.

Chameides, W.L., and M. Bergin. 2002. Soot takes center stage. Science 297:2214-2215.

Cummings, B., and K. Siegel. 2007. Ursus maritimus: Polar Bears on Thin Ice. Natural
Resources and Environment 22, Number 2, Fall 2007: 3-7.

Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrated
Comparative Biology 44:163-176.

Flanner, M. G., C. S. Zender, J. T. Randerson, and P. J. Rasch. 2007. Present-day Climate forcing
and response from black carbon in snow. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D11202, doi:10.1029/2006JD008003.

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Be�s, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J.

Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007.
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.

Page 19
 NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEAR: A RAPID ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ARCTIC MELTDOWN

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, [Link] and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK and New York, USA.

Hansen, J, M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D. W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade. 2006. Global

temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(39):14288-14293.

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall. 2007. Climate Change
and Trace Gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925–1954 doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.

Hansen, J., and M. Sato. In prep. Global Warming: East-West Connections. Available at www.
[Link]/~jeh1/East-West_070925.pdf.

Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo,
S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth’s Energy
Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science 308: 1431-1435.

Holland, M.M., C. M. Bitz, and B. Tremblay. 2006. Future abrupt reductions in the summer
Arctic sea ice. Geophysical Research Le�ers 33, L23503, doi:10.1029/2006GL028024.

Jacobson, M. Z. 2002. Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic ma�er, possibly
the most effective method of slowing global warming. J. Geophys. Res. 107(D19), 4410, doi:10.1029/
2001JD001376.

Kleiner, K. 2007. The Shipping Forecast. Nature 449:272-273.

Meehl, G.A., T.S. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R.
Knu�i, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda , S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Wa�erson, A.J. Weaver, Z. Zhao. 2007. Global
Climate Projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, [Link]
and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA.

Nakićenović, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, J. Fenham, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, A. Grübler,

T.Y. Jung, T. Kram, E.L. La Rovere, [Link], S. Mori, T. Morita, W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, L. Price,
K. Raihi, A. Roehrl, H-H. Rogner, A. Sankovski, M. Schlesigner, P. Shukla, S. Smith, R. Swart, S. van
Rooijen, N. Victor, and Z. Dadi. 2000. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA. 599 pp. Available at h�p://[Link]/.

National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). 2003. Cumulative

Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC. 288 pp.

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2007a. Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007. h�p://
[Link]/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html (last visited October 14,
2007).

Center for Biological Diversity Page 20

 National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2007b. Arctic Sea Ice Sha�ers All Previous
Record Lows. h�p://[Link]/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.
html (last visited October 14, 2007).

Office of Naval Research (ONR). 2001. Naval Operations in an Ice-free Arctic. Symposium17-18
April 2001. Final Report.

Reddy, M.S., and O. Boucher. 2007. Climate impact of black carbon emi�ed from energy
consumption in the world’s regions. Geophysical Research Le�ers 34, L11802, doi:10.1029/
2006GLO28904.

Regehr et al. 2006. Polar bear populations status in the Southern Beaufort Sea. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2006-1337, 20 pp.

Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, D.J. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, B.
Seguin, and P. Tryjanowski, 2007: Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and
managed systems. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 79-131.

Quinn, P.K., T.S. Bates, E. Baum, N. Doubleday, A. Fiore, M. Flanner, A. Fridlind, T. Garre�, D.
Koch, S. Menon, D. Shendell, A. Stohl, and S.G. Warren. 2007. Short-lived pollutants in the Arctic:
Their climate impact and possible mitigation strategies. Available at h�p://nifl[Link]/spac/
QuinnEtAl_EOSsubmi�[Link].

Shindell, D., 2007: Local and remote contributions to Arctic warming. Geophys. Res. Le�., 34,
L14704, doi:10.1029/2007GL030221.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse

Gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 430-R-06-005, Washington, DC.

West, J., A.M. Fiore, L.W. Horowitz, and D.L. Mauzerall. 2006. Global health benefits of
mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103:3988-3993.

Page 21
Appendix A: Mitigation Strategies for Non‐CO2 
Pollutants 
   
The primary non‐CO2 pollutants are methane, black carbon (soot), nitrous oxide, and 
the high global warming potential gases (Figure 4).  The global warming potential of each of 
these pollutants is more powerful than carbon dioxide—21 (methane) to 23,000 (sulfur 
hexafluoride) times as powerful over a 100 year period (Forster and Ramaswamy 2007).  The 
duration over which each of the gases is present in the atmosphere and contributing to the 
greenhouse effect varies from 12 years (methane) to centuries (fluorinated gases).  For ease of 
comparison, the volume of each pollutant is expressed throughout this report as its “carbon 
dioxide equivalent” in millions of metric tons.  Thus, 1 million metric tons of methane is 
equivalent to 21 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2eq). 
 
A.  Methane 
 
Methane is the most important of the non‐CO2 pollutants, with a global warming 
potential 21 times greater than carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 12 years (Forster 
and Ramaswamy 2007).  Methane constitutes approximately 20% of the anthropogenic 
greenhouse gas effect globally, the largest contribution of the non‐CO2 gases.  However, 
methane emissions anywhere in the world will have a disproportionate warming impact in the 
Arctic, due to the fact that methane is also an ozone precursor.  Tropospheric ozone, unlike 
other greenhouse gases, absorbs both infrared radiation and shortwave radiation (visible 
light).  Thus, tropospheric ozone is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas over highly 
reflective surfaces like the Arctic, because it traps shortwave radiation both as it enters the 
Earth’s atmosphere from the sun and when it is reflected back out again by snow and ice.  
Reducing global methane emissions will reduce ozone concentrations in the Arctic, providing 
a double benefit to the region.   
 
According to conservative projections by the U.S. EPA, about 500 MtCO2eq of global 
methane emissions reductions could be achieved globally by 2020 at a cost benefit or no cost 
(EPA 2006; Table 4, Figure 7).  Nearly 70 MtCO2eq of these available reductions are in the 
United States (EPA 2006; Table 2, Figure 6).  The EPA estimates total technically feasible 
methane reductions for 2020 at over 2400 MtCO2eq globally and nearly 280 MtCO2eq  in the 
US, many of which can be achieved at low cost (EPA 2006; Tables 2 and 4; Figures 6,7).   
 
The EPA’s cost projections are conservative for a number of reasons, including the use 
of a 10% discount rate.  Using a lower discount rate would result in additional cost benefit or 
no‐cost reductions.  Moreover, the EPA analysis does not account for the value of significant 
air quality and health benefits that would accompany methane reductions.  West et al. (2006) 
found that reducing global methane emissions by 20% would save 370,000 lives between 2010 

Appendix A - 1
and 2030, due to the reduction in ozone related cardiovascular, respiratory, and other health 
impacts.   Methane reductions would also decrease ozone‐related damage to ecosystems and 
agricultural crops (West et al. 2006).  Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and 
many abatement options include the use of captured methane to generate energy.  The benefits 
of displacing other fossil fuel energy sources with captured methane are also not captured in 
the EPA (2006) analysis. 
 
While EPA (2006) may underestimate available no‐cost and low cost methane (and 
other non‐CO2 gas) mitigation options, even this conservative analysis shows the enormous 
opportunities available to us today (Tables 1‐4; Figures 6‐7).  These reductions can be achieved 
with technology available today.  Moreover, mandatory greenhouse gas regulation will speed 
the development and deployment of new technology and mitigation options, making much 
deeper reductions feasible in the very near future. 
 
1.  The Waste Sector 
 
Methane produced in the waste sector comes from two main sources: landfills and 
wastewater.  Landfills produced approximately 12% of all global methane emissions in 2000.  
Landfills provide one of the largest single sources of available emissions reductions, as the 
EPA (2006) estimates that 88% of landfill methane emissions could be abated with existing 
technology.  Methane is produced in managed (sanitary) landfills due to the anaerobic 
decomposition of organic waste.  Approximately 50% of landfill gas is methane and the other 
50% is largely made up of carbon dioxide.  Sanitary landfills are found predominately in 
developed countries.  Open dumps that do not promote anaerobic conditions are more 
common in developing nations, but these countries are rapidly adopting landfill management 
techniques because of the many advantages of sanitary waste disposal.  In the US, large 
landfills with capacity exceeding 2.5 megagrams (2.8 million short tons) are regulated under 
the Clean Air Act.1  Despite the current programs in place, the US is the largest source of 
landfill methane in the world, producing in 2000 nearly 3 times as much landfill emissions as 
the next largest producer, China (EPA 2006: III‐5). 
 

1
In March of 1996, EPA promulgated guidelines (61 Fed. Reg. 9905) for controlling the emissions from existing Municipal
Solid Waste landfills and the New Source Performance Standards for new or modified Municipal Solid Waste landfills under
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Although there are some differences in requirements for landfills constructed
or expanded under different stages of the development of the regulations, in general the guidelines required the following:
1) Installation of gas collection and control systems for new and modified landfills designed to hold 2.755 million tons or
more of waste over their lifetime, and that could be expected to emit more than 50 megagrams per year of non-methane
organic compounds (NMOC).
2) When any landfill reaches the above thresholds, it must within 30 months install a gas collection and control system that
covers all portions of the landfill. The collected landfill gas must be combusted at a high enough temperature to destroy 98
percent of the toxics.
3) Three conditions be met prior to capping or removal of the collection and control system: (1) The landfill must be
permanently closed; (2) the collection and control system must have been in continuous operation a minimum of 15 years;
and (3) the annual NMOC emission rate routed to the control device must be less than 50 megagrams per year.
Appendix A - 2
 Landfill methane can be abated either through capture and flaring or use for energy 
generation, or by diverting organic material from landfills and into composting and recycling‐
reuse programs.  Landfill gases are already captured and flared at a number of U.S. landfills.  
A preferable option is to use the methane directly for electricity or heat generation, or to sell it 
to industrial users for energy use (EPA 2006).  Using methane for energy generation, as 
opposed to simply flaring it, has the additional benefit of displacing the emissions that would 
have resulted from otherwise supplying the energy created.   
 
The second source of waste emissions is wastewater.  Wastewater contributes 
approximately nine percent of global methane emissions (EPA 2006).  Domestic wastewater 
processing involves removing organic matter, solids, pathogens, and chemicals.  These 
produce a biomass “sludge” that is digested either anaerobically to produce methane, or 
aerobically to produce carbon dioxide.  Approximately 45% of the sludge is usually digested, 
and the remainder is sent to landfills.  The amount of methane produced is proportional to the 
organic content of the sludge.  
 
Industrial sources with especially high organic content include meat and poultry 
processing, pulp and paper processing, and produce processing industries.  The EPA estimates 
that 77% of meat and poultry wastewater degrades anaerobically due to use of lagoons. 
Similarly, lagoons are used for pulp and paper processing. 
 
The abatement options for wastewater include: (1) reduced anaerobic digestion and (2) 
collection and subsequent flaring or utilization.  Reductions in anaerobic digestion can be 
accomplished through aeration and reduced usage of settling lagoons.  Collection is used in 
series with an anaerobic digester.  The collected methane can be flared, or preferably used for 
energy generation.  EPA (2006) states that because most centralized wastewater treatment 
facilities already either flare or use captured methane for safety reasons, the “add‐on” 
abatement options to existing systems are limited.  Large abatement opportunities depend 
primarily on the creation of managed wastewater treatment systems in developing countries, 
which will require large‐scale structural changes in wastewater management practices (EPA 
2006).  Because the primary motivation for the installation of improved wastewater treatment 
has historically been the direct public health benefits from disease prevention, EPA (2006) did 
not calculate cost estimates.  The increasing use of centralized wastewater treatment facilities 
worldwide is clearly necessary and will bring enormous benefits both for public health and 
climate change mitigation.    
 
    2.  The Energy Sector 
 
  Enormous methane mitigation potential exists in the energy sector.  The three main 
sources globally are natural gas systems (16 % of total methane emissions), coal mining (6 %) 
and oil (0.95%).  Abatement opportunities from natural gas systems are particularly promising 
as natural gas is a rational transition fuel as the global economy is decarbonized.  Oil is more 
Appendix A - 3
carbon‐intensive than natural gas, and coal the most carbon‐intensive of all.  Coal‐fired power 
plants, and therefore coal mining, must be reduced and then eliminated.  Nevertheless, 
methane abatement opportunities currently exist and should be implemented wherever 
mining continues.  Mitigation opportunities are also available for abandoned coal mines.  
 
  The United States is the top consumer of natural gas and is second only to the Russian 
Federation in methane emissions from natural gas systems.  Methane emissions occur during 
production, processing, transmission and storage, and distribution of natural gas.  There are a 
variety of mitigation options that address each of these stages. 
 
  During extraction, the gas is passed through dehydrators to remove water and other 
liquids.  It is then transported through lines to a processing facility for further refinement.  The 
processed gas, which is 95% methane, is then compressed and transmitted to storage and 
distribution facilities.  Finally, the gas is decompressed to be distributed for home or 
commercial use. 
 
  Leakage from lines and equipment is the main source of methane emissions.  These 
emissions can be abated through a variety of methods, which can be broadly categorized as 
changes in operational practice, equipment upgrade and replacement, and though direct 
inspection and maintenance.  A number of these measures will actually save the operator 
money, on the order of 20‐25$/tCO2eq (EPA 2006:II‐27).   
 
  The second largest source of energy sector methane emissions is coal mining.  Methane 
is produced as organic matter turns to coal.  It accumulates in pockets near a coal seam, and is 
eventually released during the mining process.  More methane is produced by deeper seams.  
Because methane is dangerous, it is extracted and usually vented to the atmosphere.  Some 
methane is also produced during coal processing and from abandoned mines.   
 
  Abatement of mining‐related emissions may be through one of three broad methods: (1) 
degasification, where methane is captured but not vented prior to operations; (2) enhanced 
degasification, which involves special drilling techniques and capture and use of methane; and 
(3) oxidation of ventilation air methane (VAM) to produce energy (EPA 2006).  Approximately 
57% of the methane obtained through degasification—the drilling of wells or boreholes prior 
to mining—can be piped out and sold for energy.  If additional enrichment techniques are 
used to further refine the methane obtained during degasification, called enhanced 
degasification, approximately 77% of the methane may be sold for energy.  Finally, 
approximately 97% of ventilation air methane, which is a much lower concentration, can be 
mitigated through oxidation and use for local energy.  Due to its low concentration of 
methane, this gas is not suitable for distribution.   
 
Because the captured methane can be used or sold for energy, approximately 17% of 
emissions can be abated at no cost or positive economic benefit.  At a cost of less than 15$ per 
Appendix A - 4
tCO2eq, approximately 80% of emissions from coal mining could be eliminated.  Profitable 
options have been addressed in EPA’s Coalbed Methane Outreach Program started in 2001 to 
reduce and use coal mine methane ([Link]
 
The third major energy‐sector source of methane is oil production.  Fugitive emissions 
are released during crude oil production, transportation, and refining (EPA 2006).  Oil 
production accounts for approximately 97% of these methane emissions. Methane emissions 
from onshore oil production are more easily captured and transported than those from 
offshore production. 
 
The major sources of production emissions are: volatilization of high pressure crude oil 
as it enters the holding tank, equipment leaks and vessel blowdowns (removal of liquids 
through pressurization), and fugitive leaks and combustion during flares (EPA 2006).   
 
There are three abatement options: (1) flaring instead of venting; (2) direct use for 
energy; and (3) reinjection of the methane to the oilfield to enhance later oil recovery.  Safety 
considerations make flaring more feasible at onshore facilities.  This measure has the potential 
to reduce methane emissions by 98% over 15 years.  Flaring is the least preferred mitigation 
option as it does not produce energy, thereby displacing other emissions, yet results in 
additional CO2 emissions.  The second option is the direct use of the methane for energy at 
offshore platforms, and has the potential to reduce 90% of methane emissions.  The third 
option is to re‐inject the methane into the oilfield.  This can reduce methane emissions by 95% 
over 15 years.   
 
3.  The Agricultural Sector 
 
  Agriculture accounts for approximately 52% of global methane emissions, and these are 
expected to increase by 30% in 2020 (over 2000 levels).  The main agricultural sources of 
methane are rice fields and livestock.  Methane emissions from rice fields occur due to 
anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in flooded rice fields.  The majority (90% of 
emissions) of rice production occurs in Asia.  Management practices that include variation in 
the timing of field flooding, tilling practices, and fertilization can reduce the amount of 
methane production.2   
 
  The second major source of agricultural methane is livestock.  This includes both 
methane gas emitted by ruminants as a result of digestion (enteric fermentation) and methane 
emitted by manure.  While all ruminants produce some methane, the majority of global 
methane emitted due to enteric fermentation comes from cows used for beef and dairy 
production.  Switching to higher quality feed and lower volumes of feed can reduce methane 

2
Some agricultural practices which reduce methane emissions lead to an increase in nitrous oxide production, and thus
mitigation options must be carefully tailored so that only measures resulting in a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions
are implemented.
Appendix A - 5
from enteric fermentation because high quality feed increases the proportion of energy that is 
available for use by the animal and consequently reduces the amount that is wasted as 
methane.3  As a result, these mitigation options actually have a net economic benefit for the 
producer.   
 
  Methane is also produced by manure during anaerobic decomposition.  These 
conditions occur when liquid manure is stored in lagoons, ponds, tanks, and pits.  The trend in 
the U.S. is to increasingly store manure under these conditions.  Furthermore, duration of time 
stored in this manner and temperature affect the amount of methane that is produced.   
 
The mitigation options for manure methane involve different types of methane 
digesters that can capture the methane and produce energy. A manure digester is a system of 
containers to collect and biologically treat manure with naturally occurring microorganisms.  
The anaerobic environment facilitates the generation and capture of methane.  The methane 
can then be burned to convert to CO2, and to produce heat and/or electricity.  Digesters may 
also include systems to collect and separate solids. Large‐scale digesters can be used for 
capture and off‐site energy use while temperature digesters can be used at smaller facilities 
where the energy is used on‐site. 
 
C.  Black Carbon or Soot 
 
  Black carbon, or soot, consists of particles or aerosols released through the burning of 
fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass (Quinn et al. 2007).  Black carbon warms the atmosphere, but 
it is a solid, not a gas.  Unlike most greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere by absorbing 
longwave infra‐red radiation, soot warms the atmosphere by absorbing visible light 
(Chameides and Bergin 2002).  Black carbon is an extremely powerful greenhouse pollutant.  
Scientists have described the average global warming potential of black carbon as about 500 
times that of carbon dioxide over a 100 year period (Hansen et al. 2007; see also Reddy and 
Boucher 2007; Bond and Sun 2005).  This powerful warming impact is remarkable given that 
black carbon remains in the atmosphere for only about four to seven days, with a mean 
residence time of 5.3 days (Reddy and Boucher 2007). 
 
Black carbon contributes to Arctic warming through the formation of “Arctic haze” and 
through deposition on snow and ice, which increases heat absorption (Quinn et al. 2007; 
Reddy and Boucher 2007).  Arctic haze results from a number of aerosols in addition to black 
carbon, including sulfate and nitrate (Quinn et al. 2007).  Arctic haze may either increase or 
decrease warming, but when the haze contains high amounts of soot, it absorbs incoming solar 
radiation and leads to heating.  In addition, aerosols may interact with clouds changing 
droplet number and size, which in turn can alter albedo, or reflectivity.   

3
High-energy feed, such as grain, can also increase the methane produced by the manure. However, the need for a trade-off
between lower enteric fermentation emissions and manure emissions will be eliminated if manure emissions are mitigated
through the use of digesters.
Appendix A - 6
 Soot also contributes to heating when it is deposited on snow because it reduces 
reflectivity of the white snow and instead tends to absorb radiation.  A recent study indicates 
that the direct warming effect of black carbon on snow can be three times as strong as that due 
to carbon dioxide during springtime in the Arctic (Flanner 2007).  Black carbon emissions that 
occur in or near the Arctic contribute the most to the melting of the far north (Reddy and 
Boucher 2007; Quinn et al. 2007). 
 
Reductions in black carbon therefore provide an extremely important opportunity to 
slow Arctic warming in the short term, and mitigation strategies should focus on within‐Arctic 
sources and northern hemisphere sources that are transported by air currents most efficiently 
to the Arctic..  Conversely, allowing black carbon emissions to increase in the Arctic as the 
result of increased shipping or industrial activity, will accelerate loss of the seasonal sea ice 
and extinction of the polar bear.  Black carbon reductions will also provide air quality and 
human health benefits. 
 
Despite its significance to global climate change and to the Arctic in particular, black 
carbon has not been addressed by the major reports on non‐CO2 gas mitigation, nor is it 
explicitly addressed in current global warming bills in the 110th Congress.  Black carbon 
reductions are an essential part of saving the Arctic sea ice and the polar bear, and should be 
addressed by Congress in this session.   
 
The highest priority sources for regulation include the following: diesel generators and 
residential stoves within the Arctic, ships operating in or near Arctic waters, diesel truck and 
automobile engines, and biomass burning.   
 
Specific measures that should be implemented include replacing diesel generators with 
alternative energy sources, improving the efficiency and/or particulate matter traps on 
residential stoves, or fuel switching in residential stoves.   
 
Ships operating in or near Arctic waters can introduce black carbon directly into the 
region and should therefore be stringently regulated.  One of the simplest ways to reduce 
black carbon emissions from ships is simply to slow them down (Ballo and Burt 2007:26).  A 
ten percent reduction in speed can result in a 23.3 percent reduction in emissions (Ballo and 
Burt 2007:27).  Requiring ships to switch to cleaner, lower sulphur content fuels will also 
reduce black carbon emissions (Ballo and Burt 2007:29).  There are a variety of design changes 
available to increase the efficiency of ships and therefore decrease their emissions (Kleiner 
2007).  Finally, shipping should be stringently limited in the Arctic, as discussed above.   
 
All diesel engines are a significant contributor to black carbon emissions.  Emissions 
from diesel cars and trucks should be more stringently regulated (Jacobson 2002).  Abatement 
options include upgrading vehicles, installing end of the pipe filters, better vehicle 
maintenance, and buy out/buy back programs for super emitters. 
Appendix A - 7
 Emissions reductions from biomass burning and other sources are most important 
when the Arctic ice extent is relatively large (Quinn et al. 2007), and therefore regulating both 
the amount and timing of anthropogenic biomass burning can also reduce black carbon levels 
in the Arctic.  
 
  Much more attention needs to be focused on identifying and implementing black 
carbon emissions from all sources.   
 
D.  Nitrous Oxide 
   
Unlike methane and black carbon, nitrous oxide and the high global warming potential 
gases discussed below do not have a disproportionate impact on the Arctic.  Nevertheless, 
because these gases have high global warming potential, long atmospheric lifetimes, and 
because there are many readily available mitigation measures to reduce them, they present 
important opportunities for reducing global warming overall and are therefore an important 
part of saving the Arctic and the polar bear. 
 
Nitrous oxide has a global warming potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide and an 
atmospheric lifetime of approximately 120 years.  It constitutes the second largest proportion 
of anthropogenic non‐CO2 gases at 7%.  The main sources of nitrous oxide emissions are: 
agriculture, fossil fuel combustion, and industrial adipic and nitric acid production. 
 
    1. Agriculture 
   
Agriculture is the largest source of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (84%) (EPA 2006).  
These emissions are projected to increase by 37% in 2020 (over 2000 levels).  Agricultural 
nitrous oxide is produced primarily (1) through the processes of nitrification and 
denitrification of soil, (2) by livestock manure, and (3) from rice farming. 
 
  Nitrous oxide emissions occur as a result of addition of nitrogen to the soil through 
fertilization, nitrogen‐fixing crops, retention of crop residues, and cultivation of high organic 
content soil (peat or histosol) (EPA 2006).  Nitrous oxide emissions can also result from 
volatilization of applied nitrogen and runoff.   
 
  In 2000, the United States’ soil nitrous oxide emissions were second only to the former 
Soviet Union, and are predicted to surpass the FSU by 2010.  Practices such as irrigation, 
drainage, tillage, and fallowing all influence nitrous oxide emissions.   
 
  An important consideration when selecting abatement options is that a number of 
practices may reduce nitrous oxide emissions while increasing carbon dioxide emissions, 
resulting in a net increase in greenhouse gases.  The abatement options presented below are 
those that do not result in increased carbon dioxide emissions.   
Appendix A - 8
  The options include reduced fertilization or more efficient fertilization, and no‐till 
management to maintain at least 30% of the ground covered by crop residue after planting.  
The most effective fertilization option is the use of a fertilizer that includes a nitrification 
inhibitor.  No‐till, or conservation tillage, is effective primarily because it reduces carbon loss.  
The net reductions potential for croplands is approximately 24%, with 15% possible at zero net 
cost. 
 
  Rice fields produce both methane and nitrous oxide.  The cycle, however, is different for 
each of the gases so that some methods that reduce one gas may increase the other.  Thus, 
management practices must be considered carefully to balance the effects.  Shallow flooding, 
off‐season straw, and ammonium sulfate are the management practices that can reduce nitrous 
oxide emissions as well as methane emissions.  The practice of mid‐season drainage reduces 
methane substantially while increasing nitrous oxide.  Yet, due to the magnitude of methane 
reduction, this practice results in a net reduction of equivalent greenhouse gases.   
 
  The final major agricultural source of nitrous oxide is livestock manure.  The practices 
outlined above for reductions in methane emissions from livestock manure also apply to 
reductions in nitrous oxide.   
 
    2.  Industrial production 
   
The production of nitric and adipic acid account for approximately 5% of nitrous oxide 
emissions.  Nitric acid accounts for approximately 67% and adipic acid accounts for 
approximately 33% of emissions.  Nitric acid is used in fertilizers as well as explosives, metal 
processing, and etching.  Adipic acid is a component of nylon, synthetic lubricants and 
plastics, polyurethane resins, and plasticizers.  It is also used in some artificial foods to impart 
a “tangy” flavor. 
 
  Plants that produce nitric acid and do not employ nonselective catalytic reduction may 
generate up to 19 kilograms of nitrous oxide per ton of nitric acid.  The majority of plants in 
the US do not use this technology, and approximately 80% of plants worldwide do not use it.  
Nitric acid plants can reduce their emissions by 90 to 95% through high‐temperature or low‐
temperature catalytic reduction.  The costs are minor: approximately $2‐$6/tCO2eq.  The high‐
temperature option is less expensive and reduces nitrous oxide by 90%.  The low‐temperature 
option costs slightly more and reduces emissions by 95%. 
 
  The abatement option for adipic acid plants is thermal destruction.  This option costs 
only $0.50/tCO2eq and can reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 98 to 99%.  
 
 
 
 
Appendix A - 9
 E. High Global Warming Potential Gases 
   
High global warming potential (High‐GWP) gases fall into three broad categories: 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorcarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride. 
Hydrofluorocarbons were developed to replace ozone‐depleting substances used in 
refrigeration and air conditioning systems, solvents, aerosols, foam production, and fire 
extinguishing.  HFCs have global warming potentials between 140 and 11,700 times that of 
carbon dioxide, and their atmospheric lifetimes range from one year to 260 years, respectively.   
 
  Perfluorocarbons are emitted during aluminum production and semiconductor 
manufacture (EPA 2006).  Their global warming potential ranges from 6,500 to 9,200 times that 
of carbon dioxide.  In addition, they have extremely long atmospheric lifetimes, e.g. 10,000 and 
50,000 years for two common PFCs.   
 
  The highest global warming potential exists in sulfur hexafluoride at 23,900 times that 
of carbon dioxide.  Sulfur hexafluoride remains in the atmosphere for 3,200 years.  Sulfur 
hexafluoride is used: (1) for insulation and current interruption in electrical power 
transmission and distribution; (2) during semiconductor manufacture; (3) to protect against 
burning in the magnesium industry. 
   
    1. Hydrofluorcarbons 
 
      a.  Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 
     
  Hydrofluorocarbons are used for refrigeration and air conditioning, solvents, foam 
manufacture, aerosols, and in fire extinguishers.  The emission of hydrofluorocarbons related 
to refrigeration occurs during manufacturing and servicing, leaks during operation, and 
disposal.  An indirect effect of using these systems is the use of energy and resulting emission 
of carbon dioxide.  Thus, mitigation measures should be evaluated both for direct HFC 
emissions as well as carbon dioxide emissions.   
 
  There are a variety of uses for refrigeration systems: household refrigeration, car air‐
conditioning, chillers for large spaces such as shopping malls as well as submarines and 
nuclear reactors, retail food refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, refrigerated transport, 
industrial refrigeration during manufacture, and residential and commercial air conditioning 
and heat pumps.  Because a number of these systems currently use ozone‐depleting substances 
that are being phased out as equipment ages, the impact of switching systems has been 
incorporated into the mitigation analysis (EPA 2006). 
 
  The abatement options fall into three categories: practice options, alternative refrigerant 
options, and technology options.  Practice includes actions such as leak repair, refrigerant 

Appendix A - 10
recovery/recycling, and sales restrictions on HFCs.  The alternative refrigerants include 
ammonia, hydrocarbons such as isobutene, and carbon dioxide.   
 
  Many of the abatement options carry a net economic benefit, such that the U.S. alone 
could reduce over 20 metric tons CO2eq emissions by the year 2020 at no cost or at a net 
economic benefit. 
 
      b.  Solvents 
   
Solvents used in precision and electronic cleaning, and to a much lesser extent metal 
cleaning, have replaced ozone‐depleting substances in a variety of ways, including 
substitution of HFCs and PFCs.  There are three main mitigation options: (1) improved solvent 
containment and use of carbon absorption; (2) use of aqueous or semi‐aqueous cleaning 
processes; and (3) conversion to different low‐global warming potential compounds or organic 
compounds.   
 
  The conversion to alternative compounds is a no‐cost abatement option that could 
reduce baseline emissions by approximately 25% by the year 2020.  Similarly, conversion to 
semi‐aqueous cleaning processes would only cost approximately $0.67/tCO2eq.   
 
      c.  Foam manufacture 
   
HFCs are used during the blowing process to produce foam.  These emissions are 
expected to rise dramatically in coming years.  Another ozone ‐depleting substance, 
hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs), is still in use in developing countries, but will be phased 
out with time.  The US currently allows the use of HCFC‐22, but not HCFC‐141b. 
 
  Emissions occur during the manufacture process, during foam application, while foams 
are in use, and when they are discarded.  Abatement can be achieved through replacement of 
the blowing agent used in the manufacture process and proper disposal of appliance foam at 
end‐of‐life.  Several of the replacement options would bring a net economic benefit.  The total 
possible reduction from the predicted 2020 baseline emissions is approximately 31%. 
 
      d.  Aerosols 
   
Aerosols are used to propel a variety of products.  After CFCs were banned in the US, 
some products began using HFCs as propellants.  Medical applications, such as inhalers, 
currently still use CFCs, but these companies are developing HFC alternatives.   
 
  Abatement of non‐medical HFC emissions involves replacing current HFCs with other 
HFCs that have a lower global warming potential, hydrocarbon propellants, and other 
application methods such as hand pumps, roll‐on applicators, and powders.  All of these non‐
Appendix A - 11
medical options can be achieved at no cost and would reduce current HFC emissions by at 
least 57% in the year 2020. 
 
  Transitioning away from CFCs has proven to be a challenge with medical inhalers. One 
alternative for some patients, however, is the use of dry powdered inhalers.  The use of this 
application method has the capability of reducing medical propellant HFC emissions by half. 
 
      e. Fire Extinguishing 
   
Halon was traditionally used in fire extinguishing systems—both portable fire 
extinguishers and “total flooding” systems that protect large spaces.  Due to its ozone 
depleting characteristics, halon is being replaced in some instances with HFCs.   
 
  Depending on the application, HFC systems can be replaced by inert gas systems, water 
mist systems, or fluorinated ketone systems.  In addition, abatement can be achieved through 
recovery and reuse of HFCs and through improved detection mechanisms to prevent 
erroneous release in total flooding systems. 
 
      f.  HCFC‐22 
   
As mentioned above, HCFC‐22 is an ozone depleting substances that is used in 
refrigeration, some solvents, and synthetic polymer production.  One of the byproducts is 
HFC‐23, which has a global warming potential of 11,700 times that of carbon and an 
atmospheric lifetime of 260 years.  The US is close behind China as the second largest producer 
of HFC‐23 emissions resulting from production of HCFC‐22.   
 
  There are several options for mitigating HFC emissions.  Manufacturing optimization 
can maximize HCFC‐22 production and minimize HFC‐23 production at very lost cost.  
Thermal oxidation of HFC‐23 by product can reduce 95% of HFC emissions.  Oxidation costs 
only about $0.23/tCO2eq and can reduce HFC emissions at existing plants by 88%, even 
assuming that current plans to minimize HCFC‐22 are implemented.   
 
At the commemoration meeting of the Montreal Protocol on September 21, 2007, the 
U.S. and other developed nations agreed to a schedule of reductions that includes ceasing to 
use HCFCs by 2020, which is 10 years sooner than previously agreed.  Thus, the assumptions 
upon which the EPA 2006 report were based may be inapplicable. 
 
     
 
 
 
 
Appendix A - 12
 2.  Perfluorocarbons 
 
      a.  Aluminum production 
   
The aluminum industry is the largest source of PFC emissions.  PFCs are emitted when 
so‐called anode effects occur during the smelting process.  The amount of PFCs emitted 
depends directly on the number and duration of such events. 
 
  Although the aluminum industry has taken voluntary reductions and has pledged 
further reductions, there are still mitigation options that should be implemented to further 
reduce emissions.  The two main methods are: installation of computer control systems and 
installation of alumina point‐feed systems.  The computer control system is considered a 
minor retrofit and the alumina point‐feed system is considered a major retrofit.  The efficacy of 
these measures depends on the current technology used by the plant.  They may reduce PFC 
emissions by up to 97% when combined at some facilities.  The implementation of these 
options can also come at an economic benefit in some facilities. 
 
      b.  Semiconductor manufacturing 
   
The manufacture of semiconductors releases PFCs, sulfur hexafluoride, and HFC‐23 
primarily during plasma etching of thin films and cleaning chemical‐vapor‐deposition (CVD) 
chambers.   Etching is estimated to account for approximately 20% of emissions, while CVD 
chamber cleaning accounts for approximately 80%.  PFC emissions also occur as a by‐product 
of reactions between other gases.  The U.S. is the second largest emitter of PFCs, although it is 
a member of the World Semiconductor Council, which has committed to voluntary reductions 
in emissions.   
 
  The most effective abatement option is nitrogen trifluoride remote cleaning technology.  
This system can reduce emissions by approximately 95%.  This option has a net economic 
benefit and when implemented could reduce baseline emissions by 42%, even assuming the 
industry meets its voluntary emissions reduction goal.  The second most effective option is 
point‐of‐use plasma abatement during the etching process.   
 
    3.  Sulfur hexafluoride 
       
a.  Electrical industry 
 
Sulfur hexafluoride is primarily emitted by the electrical industry.  Sulfur hexafluoride 
is used as a dielectric insulator in transmission lines, sub‐stations, and transformers.  The 
United States is the largest emitter of sulfur hexafluoride.  The electric industry has recently 
begun reducing its sulfur hexafluoride emissions, however much more remains to be done. 
 
Appendix A - 13
  Sulfur hexafluoride emissions can be reduced through sulfur hexafluoride recycling, 
leak detection and repair, and equipment refurbishment.  Recycling presents the greatest 
opportunity for mitigation, with a net economic benefit and potential for emissions reduction 
of approximately 43% above and beyond currently planned reductions.  Many companies 
already recycle sulfur hexafluoride.  The average efficacy of their systems is 80%, but this 
could easily be increased to provide for 95% reductions in sulfur hexafluoride emissions.  Leak 
detection and repair can reduce emissions that occur during operation.  Finally, equipment 
refurbishment can also reduce emissions. 
 
      b.  Magnesium production 
   
Sulfur hexafluoride is currently used as a cover gas during magnesium production to 
prevent spontaneous combustion.  Essentially all of the sulfur hexafluoride is emitted into the 
atmosphere.  The International Magnesium Association, representing 80% of the industry, has 
pledged to eliminate sulfur hexafluoride by 2011.  They will do so by substituting different 
cover gases. 
 
  Emissions can be abated by replacing sulfur hexafluoride with either sulfur dioxide or 
fluorinated gases.  New technology has solved the toxicity, corrosion, and odor concerns 
associated with sulfur dioxide.  Thus, it is can fully eliminate emissions that contribute to 
global warming, and is relatively inexpensive.  The replacement of sulfur hexafluoride with 
fluorinated gases is also possible, although these gases still have global warming effects.    
 
 

Appendix A - 14
Table 1: United States Non‐CO2 Emissions and Potential Reductions for 2010 
Non-CO2 Sector Baseline No-Cost No-Cost < $15/ < $15/ Techno- Techno-
Gas emissions reduction reduction tCO2eq tCO2eq logically logically
(MtCO2eq) (%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction feasible feasible
(%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction
(%) (MtCO2eq)
Methane Livestock 173.0 6.4 11.1 9.4 16.3 21.4 37.0
(CH4) Landfill 125.4 10.0 12.5 42.1 52.8 87.3 109.5
Wastewater 36.1 N/A
Coal mining 51.1 49.2 25.2 86.0 43.9 86.0 43.9
Natural gas 138.6 14.5 20.1 19.2 26.7 54.8 75.9
Oil 3.7 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.7 21.8 0.8
CH4 Total 527.9 13.0 68.9 26.6 140.4 50.6 267.1

Nitrous Wastewater 15.9 N/A

Oxide Croplands 179.0 21.7 38.8 25.9 46.4 28.5 51.0
(N2O) (wheat, maize,
soy)
Nitric acid 15.5 0.0 0.0 88.9 13.8 88.9 13.8
Adipic acid 8.4 0.0 0.0 96.0 8.1 96.0 8.1
N2O Total 218.8 17.8 38.8 31.2 68.2 33.3 72.9

HFCs Refrigeration 148.6 3.8 5.7 7.7 11.4 7.7 11.4

Solvents 1.7 17.6 0.3 25.3 0.4 25.3 0.4
Foams 5.7 3.3 0.2 3.7 0.2 6.8 0.4
Aerosols 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.1
(medical)
Aerosols 12.1 38.6 4.7 38.6 4.7 38.6 4.7
(nonmed)
Fire 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.1
extinguishing
HCFC-22 9.3 0.0 0.0 86.7 8.1 86.7 8.1
production
HFC 181.7 6.0 10.8 13.7 24.8 13.9 25.2
Total

PFCs Aluminum 4.6 3.9 0.2 13.9 0.6 17.6 0.8

Semiconductor 5.5 58.2 3.2 58.2 3.2 69.1 3.8
PFC 10.1 33.5 3.4 38.0 3.8 45.6 4.6
Total

SF6 Electric power 12.8 35.0 4.5 41.0 5.3 41.0 5.3
Mg production 1.2 0.0 0.0 97.5 1.2 97.5 1.2
SF6 Total 14.0 32.0 4.5 45.9 6.4 45.9 6.4

All 952.5 13.3 126.4 25.6 243.6 39.5 376.3

Gases

All Tables: Emissions and potential reduction for global Non‐CO2 gases.  All values are taken from EPA report 430‐R‐06‐005, 
Global Mitigation of Non‐CO2 Greenhouse Gases (2006). As discussed in the text, EPA (2006) calculations are conservative, and 
thus underestimate the no‐cost and low cost mitigation opportunities.  The baselines reported here do not account for all 
emissions; they only account for emissions that EPA determined should be considered for mitigation measures.  Some sectors 
emit multiple types of greenhouse gas.  In these instances, the emissions for the sector were attributed to the Non‐CO2 gas that 
is present in the largest proportion.  For industries that have committed to some improvement in technology, the baseline and 
reductions are based on assumptions that these technologies will be adopted.    

Appendix A - 15
Table 2: United States Non‐CO2 Emissions and Potential Reductions for 2020 
Non-CO2 Sector Baseline No-Cost No-Cost < $15/ < $15/ Techno- Techno-
Gas emissions reduction reduction tCO2eq tCO2eq logically logically
(MtCO2eq) (%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction feasible feasible
(%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction
(%) (MtCO2eq)
Methane Livestock 171.0 6.3 10.8 11.8 20.2 23.0 39.3
(CH4) Landfill 123.5 10.0 12.4 42.1 52.0 87.3 107.8
Wastewater 37.8 N/A
Coal mining 46.4 49.2 22.8 86.0 39.9 86.0 39.9
Natural gas 164.8 14.5 23.9 19.2 31.7 54.8 90.2
Oil 4.5 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.8 21.8 1.0
CH4 Total 548.0 12.8 69.9 26.4 144.6 50.8 278.3

Nitrous Wastewater 16.3 N/A

Oxide Croplands 200.0 20.3 40.6 21.0 42.0 26.5 53.0
(N2O) (wheat, maize,
soy)
Nitric acid 17.4 0.0 0.0 88.9 15.5 88.9 15.5
Adipic acid 9.8 0.0 0.0 96.0 9.4 96.0 9.4
N2O Total 243.5 16.7 40.6 27.5 66.9 32.0 77.9

HFCs Refrigeration 264.6 11.4 30.3 29.5 78.1 29.5 78.1

Solvents 2.0 37.0 0.7 52.5 1.1 52.5 1.1
Foams 11.3 9.7 1.1 10.4 1.2 21.9 2.5
Aerosols 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.8 2.7
(medical)
Aerosols 14.8 57.0 8.4 57.0 8.4 57.0 8.4
(nonmed)
Fire 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.9 0.7
extinguishing
HCFC-22 8.5 0.0 0.0 86.6 7.4 86.6 7.4
production
HFC 308.6 13.1 40.5 31.1 96.1 32.7 100.8
Total

PFCs Aluminum 4.4 4.1 0.2 14.8 0.7 18.4 0.8

Semiconductor 4.1 29.3 1.2 29.3 1.2 31.7 1.3
PFC 8.5 16.2 1.4 21.8 1.9 24.8 2.1
Total

SF6 Electric power 11.8 0.0 0.0 31.3 3.7 31.3 3.7
Mg production 1.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 0.9 90.0 0.9
SF6 Total 12.8 0.0 0.0 35.9 4.6 35.9 4.6

All 1121.4 13.6 152.4 28.0 314.0 41.3 463.7

Gases

Appendix A - 16
Table 3: World Non‐CO2 Emissions and Potential Reductions for 2010 
Non-CO2 Sector Baseline No-Cost No-Cost < $15/ < $15/ Techno- Techno-
Gas emissions reduction reduction tCO2eq tCO2eq logically logically
(MtCO2eq) (%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction feasible feasible
(%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction
(%) (MtCO2eq)
Methane Rice 708 10.5 74.3 21.9 155.1 24.9 176.3
(CH4) Livestock 2548 3 76.4 4.4 112.1 6.8 173.3
Landfill 760.6 11.7 89.0 40.5 308.0 87.8 667.9
Wastewater 594 N/A
Coal mining 407.6 16.6 67.7 79.8 325.4 79.8 325.4
Natural gas 1271.5 10.1 128.5 25.0 317.6 53.4 678.5
Oil 82.9 0 0 28.1 23.3 34.7 28.8
CH4 Total 6372.6 6.8 436.0 19.5 1241.5 32.2 2050.1

Nitrous Rice 330 15.8 52.14 30.8 101.64 30 99

oxide Wastewater 99.1 N/A
(N2O) Croplands 830 15.4 127.82 17.6 146.1 24 199.2
(wheat, maize,
soy)
Nitric acid 107 0 0 88.9 95.2 88.9 95.2
Adipic acid 57.6 0 0 96 55.3 96 55.3
N2O Total 1423.7 12.6 180.0 28.0 398.2 31.5 448.7

HFCs Refrigeration 356.4 4.7 16.6 8.2 29.2 8.9 31.8

Solvents 7.7 10.4 0.8 23.8 1.8 23.8 1.8
Foams 15.4 13.5 2.1 15.8 2.4 22.3 3.4
Aerosols 11 0 0 0 0 5 0.6
(medical)
Aerosols 32.7 38.5 12.6 38.5 12.6 38.5 12.6
(nonmed)
Fire 7.4 0 0 0 0 5.3 0.4
extinguishing
HCFC-22 44.7 0 0 83.9 37.5 83.9 37.5
production
HFC 475.3 6.7 32.1 17.6 83.6 18.5 88.1
Total

PFCs Aluminum 39.1 2.9 1.1 13.6 5.3 15.7 6.1

Semiconductor 36.9 39 14.4 40.1 14.8 51.5 19
PFC 76 20.4 15.5 26.5 20.1 33.1 25.1
Total

SF6 Electric power 46.8 45.8 21.4 50.2 23.5 50.2 23.5
Mg production 3.6 0 0 94.4 3.4 94.4 3.4
SF6 50.4 42.5 21.44 53.4 26.9 53.4 26.9
Total

All Gases 8398 8.2 685 21.1 1770.30 31.4 2638.9

Appendix A - 17
Table 4: World Non‐CO2 Emissions and Potential Reductions for 2020 
Non-CO2 Sector Baseline No-Cost No-Cost < $15/ < $15/ Techno- Techno-
Gas emissions reduction reduction tCO2eq tCO2eq logically logically
(MtCO2eq) (%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction feasible feasible
(%) (MtCO2eq) reduction reduction
(%) (MtCO2eq)
Methane Rice 776.0 10.5 81.5 21.9 169.9 24.9 193.2
(CH4) Livestock 2867.0 2.9 83.1 4.4 126.1 6.7 192.1
Landfill 816.9 11.8 96.6 40.7 332.3 87.8 716.9
Wastewater 665.0 N/A
Coal mining 449.5 14.5 65.2 79.8 358.7 79.8 358.7
Natural gas 1695.8 10.2 172.8 25.3 428.2 53.8 912.5
Oil 131.8 0.0 0.0 29.0 38.2 35.8 47.2
CH4 Total 7402.0 6.7 499.2 19.6 1453.5 32.7 2420.6

Nitrous Rice 286.0 13.1 37.5 26.3 75.2 27.0 77.2

Oxide Wastewater 107.2 N/A
(N2O) Croplands 893.0 14.6 130.4 16.2 144.7 22.7 202.7
(wheat, maize,
soy)
Nitric acid 113.1 0.0 0.0 88.9 100.6 88.9 100.6
Adipic acid 63.5 0.0 0.0 96.0 61.0 96.0 61.0
N2O Total 1462.8 11.5 167.8 26.1 381.4 30.2 441.5

HFCs Refrigeration 627.3 11.7 73.2 25.8 161.7 31.2 195.8

Solvents 4.5 25.8 1.2 48.9 2.2 48.9 2.2
Foams 28.6 16.2 4.6 19.4 5.5 30.8 8.8
Aerosols 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 10.1
(medical)
Aerosols 39.5 57.1 22.5 57.1 22.5 57.1 22.5
(nonmed)
Fire 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 3.8
extinguishing
HCFC-22 66.2 0.0 0.0 87.9 58.2 87.9 58.2
production
HFC 799.9 12.7 101.5 31.3 250.2 37.7 301.4
Total

PFCs Aluminum 44.7 3.0 1.3 14.0 6.2 16.2 7.2

Semiconductor 28.3 44.2 12.5 44.2 12.5 51.2 14.5
PFC 73.0 19.0 13.8 25.7 18.7 29.8 21.7
Total

SF6 Electric power 57.5 40.9 23.5 50.2 28.9 50.2 28.9
Mg production 4.8 0.0 0.0 96.5 4.6 96.5 4.6
SF6 Total 62.3 37.7 23.5 53.8 33.5 53.8 33.5

All 9800.0 8.2 805.9 21.8 2137.4 32.8 3218.7

Gases

Appendix A - 18
Table 5: Global Mean Annual Budget of BC for Different Geographical Regions  
Emissions Contribution Contribution to
Tg/yr of Biofuels Global Dry Global Wet Burden x 100 Residence Surface Deposition
(regional (regional Deposition Deposition Tg (regional Time North to 60N,
Region contribution) contribution) (Tg/yr) (Tg/yr) contribution) (days) South to 60S
SAM 0.314 (6%) 5%c (25%) 0.049 0.265 0.452 (6.5)% 5.28 1%
NAM 0.522 (11%) 6% (20%) 0.092 0.430 0.697 4.80 11%
(10.0%)
AFR 0.483 (10%) 21% (72%) 0.088 0.395 0.947 7.16 1%
(13.6%)
EUR 0.602 (12%) 5% (13%) 0.128 0.474 0.823 5.01 63%
(11.8%)
WCA 0.157 (3%) 1% (11%) 0.040 0.117 0.312 (4.5%) 7.29 2%
SAS 0.602 (13%) 25% (68%) 0.120 0.483 1.086 6.59 2%
(15.6%)
EAS 2.038 (43%) 36% (29%) 0.333 1.708 2.565 4.60 17%
(36.8%)
AUP 0.036 (1%) <1% (14%) 0.006 0.030 4.062 (0.7%) 4.62 1%
OCE 0.036 (1%) – (– ) 0.007 0.029 0.042 (0.6%) 4.24 2%
Global 4.791 34% 0.860 3.931 6.970 5.32 –

Table 1 from Reddy, M.S. and Boucher, O (2007), Climate impact of black carbon emitted from energy 
consumption in the world’s regions, Geophysical Research Letters, 34: L11802.  Regional abbreviations: SAM, South 
America; NAM, North America; AFR, Africa; EUR, Europe; WCA, West and Central Asia; SAS, South Asia; EAS, 
East Asia; AUP, Australia and Pacific Islands; OCE, Oceanic Regions. 

Appendix A - 19