Our Research

Hold CTRL or CMD to make multiple selections
Falling Behind: New England Must Act Now to Reduce Global Warming Pollution

Recognizing the danger presented by global warming, in 2001 the New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers adopted a landmark commitment to reduce the region’s emissions of global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2010 and to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. An analysis of global warming emission data for 2005, the most recent year available, shows that New England is not on track to meet the targets for global warming pollution reductions set by the New England governors in 2001. However, the good news for New England is that global warming pollution fell slightly from 2004 to 2005—the first year-to-year decrease since 2001—and that several indicators suggest that the decrease in emissions continued and accelerated in 2006.

(March 2008)
Getting California on Track: Seven Strategies to Reduce Global Warming Pollution from Transportation

Transportation is California’s largest source of global warming pollution and any strategies to achieve the state’s aggressive emission reduction targets must reduce pollution from cars and trucks. Getting California on Track describes seven strategies – from investments in public transportation and high-speed rail to measures to curb emissions from heavy-duty trucks – that the state can use to reduce global warming pollution from transportation.

(April 2008)
Unprotected Shoreline: Failures in Limiting Development Along the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays

Pollution from a variety of sources, coupled with the rampant destruction of coastal wetlands, has degraded water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, harming wildlife and threatening Marylanders’ enjoyment of the bay. To protect water quality in the bay, Maryland adopted the Critical Area Act in 1984. Unfortunately, with weak enforcement mechanisms, broad loopholes, and 64 separate jurisdictions implementing their own standards, the Critical Area Act has failed to stop many irresponsible developments that continue to threaten the health of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries and Maryland’s Atlantic coastal bays. Addressing the shortcomings illustrated in this report could bolster Maryland’s ability to encourage development that protects the state’s natural resources.

(February 2008)
Energy Saved, Dollars Earned: Real-World Examples of How Energy Efficiency Can Benefit Maryland Consumers

Electricity and natural gas prices have jumped, millions of dollars are leaving the state to pay for fuel imports, and Maryland will likely face rolling electric blackouts as early as 2011. Energy Saved, Dollars Earned demonstrates that the fastest, cheapest and cleanest way to address this crisis is to increase energy efficiency, so that we can get more heat, light, and work from the energy we already use. For guidance, Maryland can look to states across the country that have adopted strategies to increase energy efficiency. These programs deliver dollar savings for the citizens, businesses and institutions that participate. Moreover, they reduce costs, improve the reliability of the energy system, delay the need to build new power plants, slow rising energy prices, create jobs, and strengthen the economy for society as a whole.

(February 2008)
A Blueprint for Action: Policy Options to Reduce Wisconsin's Contribution to Global Warming

Global warming poses a serious threat to Wisconsin’s future. The state has already begun to respond to the problem, but additional action is needed if Wisconsin is going to do its share to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. A Blueprint for Action describes 13 policy steps that, if taken, would reduce the state’s global warming emissions to 23 percent below 2006 levels by 2020.

(June 2008)