I hate reading these kinds of reports.
This one (pdf summary) has an impressive pedigree. It's put out by the National Research Council, an arm of the Congressionally chartered National Academy of Sciences. Several years ago Congress ordered the scientists to produce an action plan to deal with climate change, and this report is the last in a series of results.
And it uses by-now-familiar language of Cassandra, speaking of "crucial challenges," a "pressing need for substantial action," "more intense and frequent heat waves, risks to coastal communities from sea level rise, greater drying of the arid Southwest, and increased public health risks."
And most Democrats will ignore it.
And all Republicans will dismiss it.
And progressives on this site will rage against the nine rings of hell we're constructing on the planet.
And the larger population won't even notice.
And not a damn thing will change.
This report stands out by its near-advocacy of something sounding like Tarbon Snacks:
Most economists and policy analysts have concluded, however, that putting a price on CO2 emissions (that is, implementing a “carbon price”) that rises over time is the least costly path to significantly reduce emissions and the most efficient means to provide continuous incentives for innovation and for the long-term investments necessary to develop and deploy new low-carbon technologies and infrastructure. A carbon price designed to minimize costs could be imposed either as a comprehensive carbon tax with no loopholes or as a comprehensive cap-and-trade system that covers all major emissions sources.
Other than the Barbon Max, the recommendations are somewhat generic: state and local action is good, but federal action is needed; adaptation is needed along with mitigation; more research money is needed; international action is needed along with federal, state, and local action. Or, as Joe Romm observes: "the report is otherwise rather bland and conservative in that classic NAS style. If your house were on fire, the NAS would take three months to write a report that says you should put out the fire “as soon as possible” (and, of course, you should do some adaptation planning for the potential loss of your home). "
This report is likely to follow the same fate as its predecessors: a press release leading to a bit of coverage in blogs and, perhaps, print media; nothing on broadcast media; no action whatsoever.
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.