Steps to Reduce U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Technical Options and the Policies to Implement Them

  • Robert M. Friedman
  • Rosina M. Bierbaum
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 45)


Among individual countries, the United States is the leading contributor of greenhouse gases. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s warming commitment. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important greenhouse gas; U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (also about 20 percent of the global total) originate almost exclusively from fossil fuel combustion.


Carbon Emission Gross National Product Marketable Permit Vehicle Mile Travel Solar Energy Research Institute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. “Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,” (OTA-O-482), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Solar Energy Research Institute, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories. “The Potential of Renewable Energy, An Interlaboratory White Paper,” prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis, SERI/TP-260-3674, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO (1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. “Buildings Energy Use Compilation and Analysis Project,” Berkeley, CA (1986).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.A. Goldman, Measured results of energy conservation retrofits in residential buildings,” paper presented at 1986 ASHRAE Winter Meeting (LBL-20950), San Francisco, CA, Jan. 19–22, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.S. Geller. “Commercial Building Equipment Efficiency: A State-of-the-Art Review,” contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.L. Ottinger et al. “Environmental Costs of Electricity,” Oceana Publications (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H.S. Geller. “Residential Equipment Efficiency: A State of the Art Review,” contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC (1988).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. DiFiglio, K.G. DuLeep, and D.L Greene, Cost effectiveness of future fuel economy improvements, submitted to Energy Journal (1989).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. DiFiglio, presentation at OTA workshop on transport and global warming, Apr. 6, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.R. Bohi and M.B. Zimmerman, An update on econometric studies of energy demand behavior, Annual Review of Energy 9:105–154 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C.A. Dahl, Gasoline demand survey, The Energy Journal 7(l):67–82 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.L. Greene, CAFE or price? An analysis of the effects of federal fuel economy regulations and gasoline prices on new car MPG, 1978–89, Energy Journal, 11(3):37–57 (1990).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. McNutt and P. Patterson. “CAFE Standards—Is a Change of Form Needed?” SAE Technical Paper Series #861424, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Plotkin, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Increasing the efficiency of automobile and light trucks—a component of a strategy to combat global warming and growing U.S. oil dependence, testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, May 2, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Downs, The real problem with suburban anti-growth policies,” Brookings Review, pp. 23–29 (Spring 1988).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.L. Bleviss. “The New Oil Crisis and Fuel Economy Technologies,” Quorum Books, New York, NY (1988).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Indicators of Energy Efficiency: An International Comparison,” EIA Service Report SR/EMEU/90–02, Washington, DC (July 1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Baldwin, Energy-efficient electric motor drive systems, in: “Efficient End Use and New Generation Technologies, and Their Planning Implications,” T.B. Johansson et al., eds., Lund University Press, Lund, Sweden (1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ; M. Ross, Improving the energy efficiency of electricity use in manufacturing,” Science 244:311–317 (Apr. 21, 1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F.W. Kirsch. “Energy Conserved and Costs Saved by Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers: 1987–88 EADC Program Period,” University City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA (March, 1988).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Fulkerson et al. “Energy Technology R& D: What Can Make A Difference? Volume 2, Supply Technology” (ORNL6541/V2/P2), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (1989).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Electric Power Research Institute. “Power Plant Performance Monitoring and Improvement,” EPRI report CS/EL-4415, volume 3, Palo Alto, CA (February 1986).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Association of State Foresters. “Global Warming and Forestry in the United States,” background paper, Washington, DC (April 1990).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.S. Department of Energy. “National Energy Strategy,” First Edition 1991/1992, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1991).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming — Synthesis Panel, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming,” National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Friedman
    • 1
  • Rosina M. Bierbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Oceans and Environment Program Office of Technology AssessmentU.S. CongressUSA

Personalised recommendations