[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1263-S1271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kerry, 
        and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 342. A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on 
abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system 
of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas 
emissions in the United States and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, 
and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined with 
Senator Lieberman in introducing the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005. 
This bill is nearly identical to a proposal we offered during the 108th 
Congress. It is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among 
the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's 
greatest environmental challenge--climate change.
  The National Academy of Sciences reported:

       Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere 
     as a result of human activities, causing surface air 
     temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. 
     Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over 
     the last several decades are likely mostly due to human 
     activities.

  Again, ``temperatures are, in fact, rising.'' Those are the words of 
the National Academy of Sciences, a body created by the Congress in 
1863 to provide advice to the Federal Government on scientific and 
technical matters. These comments were written after much thoughtful 
deliberation and should not be taken lightly. The Academy has a 140-
year history and a strong reputation of service to the people of this 
great country.
  In October 2003, in response to the alarming changes in the climate 
that are being reported worldwide, we were joined by a number of other 
Senators in the first offering of our proposal for addressing climate 
change for Senate consideration. We had a hard-fought debate and found 
ourselves eight votes short of achieving a majority in passage. Today, 
we resume what we finally can consider a worthy and necessary cause.
  I state at the outset that this issue is not going away. This issue 
is one of transcendent importance outside the boundaries of the United 
States of America. If you travel to Europe today and visit with our 
European friends, you will find that climate change/Kyoto treaty are 
major sources of dissatisfaction on that side of the Atlantic with the 
United States of America and its policies. But far more important than 
that, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate 
change is real, that it is happening as we speak. The Arctic and 
Antarctic are the ``miner's canary'' of climate change, and profound 
and terrible things are happening at the poles, not to mention other 
parts of the world.
  Democracies usually respond to crises when they are faced with them 
and, at least in the case of this Nation, we address problems and 
crises that confront us and we move on. We are not very good at long-
term planning and long-term addressing of issues that face us in the 
future. The divisions concerning the issue of Social Security are 
clearly an example of what I just said.

  If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are 
going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us, 
only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity.
  Prime Minister Tony Blair, assuming the stewardship of the G-8, has 
made it his highest priority. He has very aptly pointed out: Suppose 
that all of the scientific opinion is wrong; suppose that the ice that 
is breaking up in the Antarctic in huge chunks is just something which 
is temporary; suppose that the glaciers receding in the Arctic at a 
higher rate than at any time in history is something that is a one-time 
deal; suppose that the melting of the permafrost in Alaska and the 
Inuit villages collapsing into the ocean is a one-time thing; suppose 
these increases in violent climate occurrences are all something that 
are just temporary aberrations; suppose that happens to be true and we 
have acted. Then the world and the Nation will be better off because we 
would have developed technologies which are cleaner. We would have 
taken actions to reduce what everybody agrees is harmful, and that is 
excess greenhouse gases. And the Nation and the world would be better 
off.
  But suppose the scientists are right. Suppose that the National 
Academy of Sciences report that says, ``Greenhouse gases are 
accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. 
Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last 
several decades are likely mostly due to human activities[ . . . ]'' is 
right; suppose that Dr. Robert Corell, chair of the Arctic Climate 
Impact Assessment, assessing the economic impacts and consequences of 
the changing Arctic, and the Arctic Council, composed of the senior 
officials from the eight Arctic countries that reached the conclusion 
that the Arctic climate is changing rapidly; that over the past 50 
years, temperatures across Alaska, Canada, and much of Russia have 
increased 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures in these 
areas increasing by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit; that in the past 30 
years, the Arctic has lost an area of annual average sea ice larger 
than all of Arizona and Texas combined, with even stronger declines 
observed in summer sea ice; that mountain glaciers have also receded 
dramatically, and the snow cover season

[[Page S1264]]

has been shrinking; that greenhouse gas concentration continues to 
rise; and even larger changes in climate are projected for the next 100 
years; suppose they are right.
  The observed warming is already having significant impacts on Arctic 
people and ecosystems. Much larger projected climate changes will 
result in even greater impacts on the people in the Arctic and beyond. 
Increasing coastal erosion threatens many Alaskan villages. Warming is 
also affecting the oil industry. The number of days in which oil 
exploration and extraction activities on the tundra are allowed under 
Alaska Department of Natural Resources standards has been halved over 
the past 30 years.
  The projected changes in Arctic climate will also have global 
implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels, and 
potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns that can have 
large-scale climatic effects are among the global concerns. Melting 
Arctic snow and ice cause additional absorption of solar energy by the 
darker land surface, amplifying the warming trend at the global scale.

  Recently, the Australians have predicted that the Great Barrier Reef 
will be dead by 2050. What is the impact of coral reefs around the 
world being bleached and dying on the food chain?
  Dr. William Fraser, president of Polar Oceans Research Group, 
testified that mountain ranges flanking the southeastern boundary of 
the glacier, not visible 30 years ago, are emerging into full view. The 
amount of ice-free land along the entire southwest coast of Anver 
Island has been redefined by glacier retreat. Populations of the ice-
avoiding Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins have increased by 55 to 90 
percent.
  The coral reefs are the most biologically diverse ecosystem of the 
ocean, as we all know. Almost 1,000 coral species currently exist. With 
the majority of human populations living in coastal regions, many 
people depend on living coral reef for food and protection from storm 
surges.
  Dr. Lara Hansen stated:

       While the Great Barrier Reef is widely considered to be one 
     of the best managed reef systems in the world, local 
     conservation actions will not be sufficient to protect coral 
     reefs from the effects of climate change. To date, studies 
     indicate that the best chance for successful conservation in 
     the face of climate change is to limit the temperature 
     increase. . . .

  ADM James Watkins, who was chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean 
Policy, testified that climate change impacts every topic in the report 
from the health and safety of humans, the health of environment and 
fisheries to the distribution of marine organisms, including pathogens. 
Admiral Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Secretary 
of Energy, not a renowned environmentalist, went on to say climate 
change is a serious problem, and it could affect all of the 
recommendations from the report.
  There will be people who will come to this floor and say that climate 
change is a myth; it is not serious. They will find a scientist, they 
will find some study group, some of them funded by people with special 
interests here, but I hope that we will pay attention to Prime Minister 
Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the two issues he hopes 
to address during his presidency of the G-8. This issue I believe is 
very well understood by a majority of scientists in America.
  I have a couple of pictures I will show. I see my colleague from 
Connecticut is in the Chamber.
  Recently, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that he personally 
believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous 
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.''
  He went on to say:

       Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of 
     opportunity, and it is closing rapidly. There is not a moment 
     to lose.

  The International Climate Change Task Force, chaired by Senator Snowe 
and the Right Honorable Stephen Byers, Member of Parliament of the 
United Kingdom, stated in 1 of its 10 recommendations concerning 
climate change that ``all developed countries introduce mandatory cap-
and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow 
for future integration into a single global market.'' That is already 
being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of Senator 
Lieberman's and my legislation.

  States are acting. Nine States in the East have signed on as full 
participants in this initiative to elevate climate mitigation 
strategies from voluntary initiatives to a regulatory program. The 
State of California has approved a new State regulation aimed at 
decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The States are way 
ahead of us. I believe one of the reasons for that is because special 
interests are less active in the States.
  This is a chart that shows that the CO2 data has gone up from, as we 
can see, 1860 to 2001.
  This is a picture of the Arctic sea ice loss. The red outline is 
1979. This was the Arctic sea ice, which is outlined in red. We can see 
the size of the Arctic sea ice today. I made a visit with some of my 
colleagues to the Arctic. We took a ship and stopped at where this 
glacier was 5 years ago, traveling a number of miles and saw where that 
glacier is today.
  I want to emphasize again, the Arctic and the Antarctic are the 
miner's canary of global warming because of the thinness of the 
atmosphere there.
  This chart is sea level changes in areas of Florida that would be 
inundated with a sea level rise.
  I usually have--it is probably not here--I usually have a picture of 
Mount Kilimanjaro, which is known to many of us.
  This is a chart of coral bleaching which is taking place as we speak.
  If I can add a little parochialism, if I can show a picture of Lake 
Powell in Arizona, it has been drying up since 1999, draining Lake 
Powell to well below its high watermark. It is at an alltime low in its 
seventh year. The lake has shrunk to 10 percent of its capacity.
  The signs of climate change are all around us. We need to act. We 
need to develop technologies and make it economically attractive for 
industry to find it in their interest to develop technology which will 
reduce and bring into check the greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
  We need to do a lot of things, but a cap and trade, which would put 
an end to the increase of greenhouse gases and a gradual reduction, is 
an integral part.
  Finally, I would like to return to my other argument in closing.
  Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I are deluded, that all of 
this scientific evidence, all these opinions, people such as Admiral 
Watkins in the oceans report, the National Academy of Sciences, the 
literally hundreds of people in the scientific community with whom 
Senator Lieberman and I have met and talked are wrong.
  Here is the picture of Kilimanjaro in 1912, 1970, and 2000.
  Suppose we are deluded, that we are tree-hugging environmentalists 
who have taken leave of our senses and are sounding a false alarm to 
the world, and we go ahead and put in a cap and trade, we encourage 
technologies to be developed and funded, some by the Federal Government 
in the form of pure research, and we do put a cap on the greenhouse 
gases, we negotiate an alternate Kyoto Treaty with our friends 
throughout the world--140 nations are signatories to the Kyoto Treaty--
and we join on the provision India and China have to be included and 
other provisions which we have every right to demand, and we start 
moving forward on this issue and we are wrong, that the year after 
next, everything is fine in the world? Then we will have made probably 
a significant contribution to the betterment of the world and the Earth 
by reducing greenhouse gases, by developing cleaner technologies, by 
doing good things, and then Senator Lieberman and I will come to the 
floor and apologize for sounding this alarm.
  But suppose, Mr. President, that we are right. Suppose the National 
Academy of Sciences is right. Suppose the eight-nation research council 
that is deeply alarmed at these effects in both the Arctic and 
Antarctic is wrong; suppose Admiral Watkins is wrong; suppose the 
Australian Government is wrong when it says the Great Barrier Reef is 
going to be dead by 2050, and we have done nothing? We have done 
relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports. 
That is what the U.S. national policy is today: gather information and 
make reports. I

[[Page S1265]]

would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations 
of Americans.
  I welcome the participation, friendship, and commitment of my friend 
from Connecticut.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an 
article entitled ``Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit,'' 
and a response to Senator Inhofe's floor statement on January 4, 2005.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2005]

            Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit

                          (By Juliet Eilperin)

       Tucson.--Reese Woodling remembers the mornings when he 
     would walk the grounds of his ranch and come back with his 
     clothes soaked with dew, moisture that fostered enough grass 
     to feed 500 cows and their calves.
       But by 1993, he says, the dew was disappearing around 
     Cascabel--his 2,700-acre ranch in the Malpai borderlands 
     straddling New Mexico and Arizona--and shrubs were taking 
     over the grassland. Five years later Woodling had sold off 
     half his cows, and by 2004 he abandoned the ranch.
       Reese Woodling, in white, used to own a 2,700-acre ranch, 
     but lack of rain reduced the grassland--his main source of 
     cattle feed.
       ``How do you respond when the grass is dying? You hope to 
     hell it starts to rain next year,'' he says.
       When the rain stopped coming in the 1990s, he and other 
     Southwest ranchers began to suspect there was a larger 
     weather pattern afoot. ``People started talking about how 
     we've got some major problems out here,'' he said in an 
     interview. ``Do I believe in global warming? Absolutely.''
       Dramatic weather changes in the West--whether it is 
     Arizona's decade-long drought or this winter's torrential 
     rains in Southern California--have pushed some former 
     skeptics to reevaluate their views on climate change. A 
     number of scientists, and some Westerners, are now convinced 
     that global warming is the best explanation for the higher 
     temperatures, rapid precipitation shifts, and accelerated 
     blooming and breeding patterns that are changing the 
     Southwest, one of the nation's most vulnerable ecosystems.
       In the face of shrinking water reservoirs, massive forest 
     fires and temperature-related disease outbreaks, several said 
     they now believe that warming is transforming their daily 
     lives. Although it has rained some during the past three 
     months, the state is still struggling with a persistent 
     drought that has hurt its economy, costing cattle-related 
     industries $2.8 billion in 2002.
       ``Everyone's from Missouri: When they see it, they believe 
     it,'' said Gregg Garfin, who has assessed the Southwest's 
     climate for the federal government since 1998. ``When we used 
     to talk about climate, eyes would glaze over. . . . Then the 
     drought came. The phone started ringing off the hook.''
       Jonathan Overpeck, who directs the university- and 
     government-funded Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at 
     the University of Arizona, said current drought and weather 
     disruptions signal what is to come over the next century. 
     Twenty-five years ago, he said, scientists produced computer 
     models of the drought that Arizona is now experiencing.
       ``It's going to get warmer, we're going to have more 
     people, and we're going to have more droughts more frequently 
     and in harsher terms,'' Overpeck said. ``We should be at the 
     forefront of demanding action on global warming because we're 
     at the forefront of the impacts of global warming. . . . In 
     the West we're seeing what's happening now.''
       There are dissenters who say it is impossible to attribute 
     the recent drought and higher temperatures to global warming. 
     Sherwood Idso, president of the Tempe, Ariz.-based Center for 
     the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, said he does 
     not believe the state's drought ``has anything to do with 
     CO2 or global warming,'' because the region 
     experienced more-severe droughts between 1600 and 1800. 
     Idso, who also said he did not believe there is a link 
     between human-generated carbon dioxide emissions and 
     climate change, declined to say who funds his center.
       The stakes are enormous for Arizona, which is growing six 
     times faster than the national average and must meet mounting 
     demands for water and space with scarce resources. Gov. Janet 
     Napolitano (D) is urging Arizonans to embrace ``a culture of 
     conservation'' with water, but some conservationists and 
     scientists wonder whether that will be enough.
       Dale Turner of the Nature Conservancy tracks changes in the 
     state's mountaintop ``sky islands''--a region east and south 
     of Tucson that hosts a bevy of rare plants and animals. Human 
     activities over the past century have degraded local 
     habitats, Turner said, and now climate change threatens to 
     push these populations ``over the edge.''
       The Mount Graham red squirrel, on the federal endangered 
     species list since 1987, has been at the center of a long-
     running fight between environmentalists and development-
     minded Arizonans. Forest fires and rising temperatures have 
     worsened the animals' plight as they depend on Douglas firs 
     at the top of a 10,720-foot mountain for food and nest-
     building materials. The population has dipped from about 562 
     animals in spring 1999 to 264 last fall.
       ``They are so on the downhill slide,'' said Thetis Gamberg, 
     a U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist who has an image of the 
     endangered squirrel on her business card. Atop Mount Graham, 
     the squirrels' predicament is readily visible. Mixed conifers 
     are replacing Douglas firs at higher altitudes, and recent 
     fires have destroyed other parts of the forest, depriving the 
     animals of the cones they need.
       Environmentalists such as Turner worry about the 
     disappearance of the Mount Graham squirrel, the long-tailed, 
     mouselike vole and native wet meadows known as cienegas, but 
     many lawmakers and state officials are more focused on the 
     practical question of water supply.
       Reese Woodling, in white, used to own a 2,700-acre ranch, 
     but lack of rain reduced the grassland--his main source of 
     cattle feed.
       Arizona gets its water from groundwater and rivers such as 
     the massive Colorado, a 1,450-mile waterway that supplies 
     water to seven states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, 
     New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
       The recent drought and changing weather patterns have 
     shrunk the western snowpack and drained the region's two 
     biggest reservoirs, lakes Mead and Powell, to half their 
     capacity. More precipitation is falling as rain instead of 
     snow, and it is coming earlier in the year, which leads to 
     rapid runoff that disappears quickly.
       Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography predict 
     that by 2090 global warming will reduce the Sierra Nevada 
     snowpack, which accounts for half of California's water 
     reserves, by 30 percent to 90 percent. ``It makes water 
     management more challenging,'' said Kathy Jacobs, who spent 
     two decades managing state water resources before joining the 
     University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Center. 
     ``You can either reduce demand or increase supply.''
       Water managers have just begun to consider climate change 
     in their long-term planning. Forest managers have also 
     started asking for climate briefings, now that scientists 
     have documented that short, wet periods followed by drought 
     lead to the kind of giant forest fires that have been 
     devastating the West.
       This month, scientists at the National Center for 
     Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., published a study 
     showing that worldwide, regions suffering from serious 
     drought more than doubled in area from the early 1970s to the 
     early 2000s, with much of the change attributed to global 
     warming. A separate recent report in the journal Science 
     concluded that higher temperatures could cause serious long-
     term drought over western North America.
       C. Mark Eakin, a paleoclimatologist at the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration who co-wrote the study in 
     Science, said historical climate records suggest the current 
     drought could just be the beginning.
       ``When you've got an increased tendency toward drought in a 
     region that's already stressed, then you're just looking for 
     trouble,'' Eakin said. ``Weather is like rolling the dice, 
     and climate change is like loading the dice.''
       Still, Arizona politicians remain divided on how to address 
     global warming. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has led the 
     national fight to impose mandatory limits on industrial 
     carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to warming, though 
     his bill remains stalled.
       ``We'll win on this issue because the evidence continues to 
     accumulate,'' McCain said in an interview. ``The question is 
     how much damage will be done until we do prevail.''
       But other Arizona Republicans are resistant. State Sen. 
     Robert Blendu, who opposed a bill last year to establish a 
     climate change study committee, said he wants to make sure 
     politicians ``avoid the public knee-jerk reaction before we 
     get sound science.''
       That mind-set frustrates ranchers such as Woodling, who is 
     raising 10 grass-fed cows on a leased pasture. At age 69, he 
     will never be able to rebuild his herd, he said, but he 
     believes politicians have an obligation to help restore the 
     environment.
       ``Man has been a great cause of this, and man needs to 
     address it,'' he said.
                                  ____


   USCAN Rebuttal to Key Points in Senator Inhofe's Floor Statement, 
                            January 4, 2005

       The following individuals contributed to this response: 
     U.S. Delegation at COP10, Debbie Reed, National Environmental 
     Trust; EU Targets: Jeff Fiedler, Natural Resources Defense 
     Council; Scientific Consensus: Brenda Ekwurzel, Julie 
     Anderson Union of Concerned Scientists; and Costs: Ansje 
     Miller, Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative.
       For more information or with any questions, contact: Lee 
     Hayes Byron, U.S. Climate Action Network, 
     I[email protected], 202-513-6240.


                        U.S. Delegation at COP10

       Senator Inhofe's characterization of Under Secretary Paula 
     Dobriansky's rebuff at attempts to ``drag the U.S. into 
     discussions concerning post-Kyoto climate change 
     commitments'' at the recent UNFCCC conference in Buenos Aires 
     is only partially accurate. Ms. Dobriansky did, indeed make 
     clear the fact that the Bush administration believes that 
     post-2012 talks are ``premature.'' Some countries, including 
     the E.U., were indeed hopeful that the U.S., the world's 
     largest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, would join post-
     2012 discussions, having previously

[[Page S1266]]

     withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, and having proclaimed 
     domestic action to reduce GHG emissions, despite the fact 
     that U.S. emissions continue to increase unabated. Senator 
     Inhofe's material omission from this statement, however, is 
     illustrative of his and the Bush administration's true goals: 
     to prevent the rest of the world from making progress on 
     reducing global GHG emissions. What Senator Inhofe failed to 
     mention in his diatribe was that the Bush administration in 
     Buenos Aires not only demurred from participating in these 
     discussions, but also acted to prevent the rest of the 
     world's countries from beginning those discussions even in 
     the absence of U.S. participation. Without objections from 
     the United States, the post-20l2 discussions could have 
     begun, and would have allowed some ideas and suggestions for 
     the post-20l2 period to be presented to the next meeting of 
     the UNFCCC in November, 2005. But Under Secretary Dobriansky 
     and the Bush administration objected and threw up every 
     possible obstacle to allowing other countries to have those 
     discussions, with or without the U.S. The result is that one 
     multiple-day meeting, with a narrowly defined agenda to 
     discuss post-2012 strategies was agreed to--but the exact 
     nature of the discussions, and the ability of the meeting's 
     participants to report to the UNFCCC in November 2005 was a 
     matter of disagreement even as the agreement was made. It is 
     highly likely that the meeting itself will be contentious, 
     for these reasons. But the real question is why the U.S. 
     insists on blocking the rest of the world from moving on, 
     even if it chooses not to? Senator Inhofe would better serve 
     his constituents and his colleagues to accurately and 
     completely report the Administration's actions at the 
     meeting.
       Similarly, the Senator reported that there was discussion 
     but no resolution at the meeting on how to address emissions 
     from developing countries. He claimed that developing 
     countries, ``most notably China, remained adamant in Buenos 
     Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, 
     now or in the future.'' Again, his material omission is 
     significant. The United States remained adamant in Buenos 
     Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, 
     now or in the future. And the United States urged China and 
     India to do the same. The Bush administration's duplicity--
     claiming that they will not act until China and India do, and 
     then visibly and vocally urging China and India not to act--
     is unconscionable, as is Senator Inhofe's. And the Senator 
     perhaps should acknowledge the fact that, since the Senate 
     passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution in 1997, it has passed three 
     additional resolutions on climate change--all of which 
     clearly state that climate change is happening and that the 
     United States should take a credible, leadership role in 
     combating global warming--including by re-engaging in the 
     international climate change negotiations. Paula Dobriansky, 
     when asked whether the Bush administration knew of these 
     resolutions, and if so, whether they intended to comply, said 
     ``yes,'' they were fully aware of resolutions, but ``no'', 
     they had no intention of complying. If that is the case, so 
     be it--but let's be honest and open about it, Senator Inhofe.


                               EU Targets

       In contrast to Senator Inhofe's contention that ``most EU 
     member states will not meet their Kyoto targets and have no 
     real intentions of doing so,'' a recent analysis by the 
     European Environment Agency (EEA) concluded that the EU is in 
     fact on track to meet its Kyoto targets. This analysis 
     examined existing and planned policies, as well as the use of 
     the Kyoto emissions trading measures.
       Looking only at policies that were being implemented at the 
     time of the analysis, EEA projected that the EU would indeed 
     fall short of its targets (with emissions 1% below 1990 
     instead of 8%). However, looking at planned policies, the EU 
     is on track to exceed its -8% target. Domestic EU policies 
     alone are projected to achieve a 7.7% reduction. The small 
     remaining gap is covered by international emission reduction 
     projects for which funds have already been budgeted.
       The effect of ``planned policies'' cannot be dismissed as 
     wishful thinking. Included in the list of ``planned 
     policies'' is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, a mandatory 
     cap-and-trade policy for large stationary sources, which 
     started operation this year. Many other EU-wide policies have 
     been adopted by the EU Council and Parliament, and are now 
     being incorporated into law by EU member states. These 
     policies include measures to promote renewable electricity 
     production, increase building efficiency, and restructure 
     energy taxes. A complete list of future policies that are in 
     advanced stages is available in EEA 2004, at page 21.
       The EEA projections cited above exclude two additional 
     means of meeting the targets. First, activities in the forest 
     and agriculture sectors are projected to contribute an 
     additional 0.7% emission reduction. Second, the EU can make 
     up any shortfall in existing and planned policies by using 
     the Kyoto Protocol's International Emissions Trading system, 
     ironically an element of the protocol designed by the US. 
     Under this system EU countries will be able to purchase 
     emissions allowances from other Kyoto countries. This 
     includes Russia, which by most projections will have 
     significant excess allowances. Therefore, although it is 
     environmentally preferable for the EU to meet its Kyoto 
     targets solely through domestic policies, it is almost 
     inconceivable that the EU would not be able to achieve 
     compliance through the purchase of Russian allowances.


                              Hockey Stick

       Senator Inhofe made the following statements regarding 
     research that reconstructs northern hemisphere temperature 
     over the past millennium. ``The conclusion inferred from the 
     hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned 
     widespread use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to 
     warm. I spent considerable time examining this work in my 
     2003 speech. Because Mann effectively erased the well-known 
     phenomena of the Medieval Warming Period--when, by the way, 
     it was warmer than it is today--and the Little Ice Age, I 
     didn't find it very credible. I find it even less credible 
     now.'' Senator Inhofe went on to state, ``In other words, in 
     obliterating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice 
     Age, Mann's hockey stick just doesn't pass muster.''
       Recent warming trends are confirmed by many independent and 
     reinforcing . indicators. Direct temperature measurements 
     from the past 140 years, combined with past temperature 
     measurements inferred from tree rings, ice cores, and annual 
     sediment layers, show that average northern hemisphere 
     temperatures in the late 20th century are higher than they 
     have been in the last 1,000 years. More recent publications 
     push the temperature reconstruction back to 1,800 years. 
     Indeed, the last 10 years (1995-2004), excluding 1996, are 
     the warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the 
     present. This unprecedented recent warming trend is one of 
     many pieces of evidence that ties global warming to human-
     caused emissions of heat-trapping gases from land-use change 
     and fossil fuel burning.
       Heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) 
     absorb energy emitted from the earth's surface and radiate it 
     back downward to warm the lower atmosphere and the surface. 
     The general correlation between temperature and atmospheric 
     CO2 concentration is apparent in ice core records 
     at many locations at the poles and in the temperate and 
     tropical regions throughout the world. The Antarctic ice core 
     records vividly illustrate that current atmospheric carbon 
     dioxide levels are unmatched during the past 420,000 years. 
     Furthermore, CO2 concentration has risen a 
     dramatic 30 percent in the last 150 years. When scientists 
     compare the timing of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon 
     dioxide concentrations with the magnitude of other factors 
     that influence climate--solar variation, volcanic eruptions, 
     and pollutant emissions such as sulfur dioxide--the link 
     between recent warming and human activities is 
     unmistakable.
       (2) Debate over the ``hockey stick'' temperature 
     reconstruction is largely irrelevant to our current policy 
     choices. The shape of the sharp rise in northern hemisphere 
     average temperature, at the end of the last millennium, led 
     to the common practice of referring to the plot as the 
     ``hockey stick'' figure. Projections of future climate 
     changes, however, are based on the well-known physics linking 
     increasing heat-trapping gas concentrations to conditions at 
     the earth's surface, and these projections do not depend on 
     details of the earth's temperature hundreds of years ago. 
     Thus, debate over the ``hockey stick'' temperature 
     reconstruction is largely irrelevant to our current policy 
     choices. Nevertheless, because the scientific debate on this 
     issue has been misinterpreted, most recently in Senator 
     Inhofe's January 4, 2005 speech, it is worth clarifying a few 
     points.
       The hockey stick analysis is one of many independent 
     reinforcing indicators of the recent warming. For example, 
     glacier melting is increasing, sea level is rising, and many 
     species' ranges are shifting.
       The hockey stick reconstruction represents the average 
     temperature across the entire northern hemisphere--an average 
     of many measurements taken from locations north of the 
     equator. This averaging is important because local 
     temperatures can vary considerably for many climatological 
     reasons, and so a hemispheric average gives a truer picture 
     of a warming climate. Therefore, looking at regional data in 
     isolation, such as temperatures from the ``Medieval Warm 
     Period'' in the North Atlantic area, and to therefore claim 
     that the hockey stick temperature reconstruction is invalid, 
     is inaccurate.
     Additional Remarks
       In criticizing the ``hockey stick'' temperature record, 
     Senator Inhofe charges that the Mann analysis has been 
     criticized in the pages of Geophysical Research Letters 
     (GRL), a respected, peer-reviewed journal, as ``just bad 
     science.'' This quote does actually appear in GRL in a 
     commentary by Chapman et al. (2004), but Inhofe's citation is 
     quite misleading.
       The criticism leveled by Chapman et al did not apply to the 
     ``hockey stick''-that is, the 1OOO-year temperature 
     reconstruction by Mann and others. Rather, the Chapman et al. 
     criticism was leveled at a totally different, much more 
     narrow and technical modeling study by Mann and Schmidt in 
     2003 about borehole reconstructions.


                                 Arctic

       Senator Inhofe asserted, using the words of Dr. George 
     Taylor from Oregon, that the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 
     ``appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the 
     trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s. 
     . . . Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 
     1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably 
     higher than) those observed today.''

[[Page S1267]]

       (1) Temperature trends and sea ice trends shown in the 
     Arctic report are century long trends, from 1900-2000. 
     Therefore, Senator Inhofe's attack on the scientific 
     integrity of the Arctic impact assessment is inappropriate.
       (2) Arctic researchers concluded that the recent warming, 
     in contrast to the earlier warming during the 1930s and 
     1940s, is in response to human activities. No one disputes 
     that Arctic temperatures were almost as high in the 1930s and 
     1940s as they are now, least of all the scientists involved 
     in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The conclusion that 
     the Arctic is now experiencing a stronger, longer, and more 
     widespread warming trend is based on a robust combination of 
     temperature measurements, sea ice retreat, glacial melting, 
     and increasing permafrost temperatures. For example, the 
     century-long sea ice record clearly shows a strong retreat in 
     sea ice extent in recent decades, whereas no such trend is 
     evident during the earlier warm period.
       Scientists have employed observations and models to analyze 
     these two pronounced twentieth-century warming events, both 
     amplified in the Arctic, and found that the earlier warming 
     was due to natural internal climate-system variability and 
     was not as widespread as today's, whereas the recent warming 
     is in response to human activities.
       Furthermore, earlier periods of warming either this century 
     or in past centuries do not preclude a human influence on the 
     current warming trend. By way of analogy, just because 
     wildfires are often caused by lightning does not mean that 
     they cannot also be caused by a careless camper. The same can 
     be said for carbon dioxide--just because it has natural 
     sources does not mean that humans do not also contribute to 
     atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and thereby contribute to 
     the resulting warming.


                             Sea Level Rise

     Sea level talking points
       Senator Inhofe stated: ``But in a study published this year 
     in Global and Planetary Change, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of 
     Sweden found that sea level rise hysteria is overblown. In 
     his study, which relied not only on observational records, 
     but also on satellites, he concluded: `There is a total 
     absence of any recent `acceleration in sea level rise' as 
     often claimed by IPCC and related groups.' Yet we still hear 
     of a future world overwhelmed by floods due to global 
     warming. Such claims are completely out of touch with 
     science. As Sweden's Morner puts it, `there is no fear of 
     massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming 
     scenarios.' ''
       (1) Research and observation has solidly established that 
     sea level is rising. Our longest historical records come from 
     tide gauge measurements taken along the world's coastlines. 
     These measurements indicate that the globally averaged 
     coastal sea level rose at a rate of about 3.5 inches over 50 
     years (or 0.7 inch per decade since 1950). Since 1993, 
     satellites have continuously measured sea level over the 
     entire ocean, not just along the shoreline as do tide gauges. 
     Satellite measurements can monitor global sea level with a 
     greater accuracy, and they record a higher global sea-level 
     rise rate of about 1 inch per decade. Given the short record 
     of these satellite measurements, scientists cannot yet 
     conclude if the last decade was unusually high or if it 
     represents an acceleration of sea level rise.
       (2) Global sea-level rise is primarily the result of 
     expansion of seawater as it warms plus meltwater from land-
     based ice sheets and land-based mountain glaciers. Many 
     factors contribute to sea level rise, and scientific efforts 
     continue to refine our understanding of the relative 
     contribution of each to the observed sea-level rise. As the 
     climate warms, we expect to see two different effects in the 
     ocean. First, sea level rises as the ocean temperature 
     increases. Just as a gas expands when it is heated, water 
     also expands as its temperature rises. Second, the amount of 
     water entering the ocean increases as land-based ice sheets 
     and glaciers melt. Increased meltwater adds more freshwater 
     to the ocean and increases sea level, just like adding water 
     to a bathtub. This influx of freshwater also lowers the 
     oceans' salinity. Recent research suggests that all 
     continental sources added the equivalent of about 2.7 inches 
     of fresh water over 50 years to the ocean.
       (3) Rising sea levels increase the impacts from coastal 
     hazards. Because of the steadily rising seas we can expect 
     increased damage to coastal communities around the world. 
     Sea-level rise increases coastal erosion, further inundates 
     coastal wetlands, increases the salinity in estuaries and 
     pushes saltwater further landward in coastal rivers, 
     contaminates coastal freshwater aquifers with saltwater, and 
     increases the risks from flooding. Coastal storms of the same 
     intensity as in the past will create greater damage in the 
     future simply because the baseline sea level is higher. 
     Low-lying coastlands such as Louisiana, Florida, 
     Bangladesh, and the Maldives will be impacted most 
     acutely.

                                 costs

       Senator Inhofe claimed that Kyoto-like policies harm 
     Americans, especially the poor and minorities. This statement 
     is a false scare tactic directed at our most vulnerable 
     communities. The well-documented truth is that not taking 
     action to slow global warning harms Americans, especially the 
     poor and minorities.
       Global warming is already hurting Americans, especially the 
     poor, its Indigenous Peoples, and people of color, and is 
     projected to get worse if we don't act now.
       People of color communities--already burdened with poor air 
     quality and twice as likely to be uninsured as whites will 
     become even more vulnerable to climate change related 
     respiratory ailments, heat-related illness and death, and 
     illness from insect-carried diseases.
       Scientists have determined that the ice in Alaska and the 
     Arctic region is melting so rapidly that much of it could be 
     gone by the end of the century. The results could be 
     catastrophic for polar-region Indigenous peoples and animals, 
     while low-lying lands as far away as Florida could be 
     inundated by rising sea levels.
       ``We found that scientific observations and those of 
     Indigenous people over many generations are meshing . . . Sea 
     ice is retreating, glaciers are reducing in size, permafrost 
     is thawing, all [these indicators] provide strong evidence 
     that it has been warming rapidly in the Arctic in recent 
     decades.''--Susan Joy Hassol, global warming analyst and 
     author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) 
     synthesis report Impacts of a Warming Arctic.
       Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, 
     of Alaska Native Villages to some extent. While many of the 
     problems are long-standing, various studies indicate that 
     coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding 
     and erosion caused in part by rising temperatures. Four 
     villages--Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shismaref--are 
     in imminent danger and are planning to relocate. Costs for 
     relocation could be high--from $100-$400 million per 
     village.
       ``Everything is under threat. Our homes are threatened by 
     storms and melting permafrost, our livelihoods are threatened 
     by changes to the plants and animals we harvest. Even our 
     lives are threatened, as traditional travel routes become 
     dangerous.''--Alaska Chickaloon Village Chief Gary Harrison 
     of the Arctic Athabaskan Council
       A recent study in Los Angeles found that if we don't act 
     now to slow global warming, L.A. residents will face 
     significant heat-related mortality increases. Under a high 
     emissions scenario, heat-related mortality rates could 
     increase sixteen-fold for Blacks, fourteen-fold for Asians, 
     twelve-fold for Hispanics, and eight-fold for Whites, by 
     2090.
       Climate change will likely raise food and energy prices, 
     which already represent a large proportion of a low-income 
     family's budget. Integrated Assessment models indicate that 
     the annual cost of gradual climate change with no adaptation 
     may be as high as 1.0 to 1.5 percent of GDP (roughly $80 to 
     $120 billion per year). People of color and the poor may be 
     disproportionately impacted by these changes, due to the 
     higher fraction of incomes spent on food and energy.
       ``We are long past the point where global warming is 
     considered a myth. We are seeing its effects all around us--
     especially in my hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana, which is 
     expected to experience an increased incidence of flooding 
     that could potentially destabilize its economy and endangers 
     its populace. We must be realistic about longterm solutions 
     to global warming.''--Rep. William Jefferson, (D-LA)
       ``African Americans and other vulnerable populations live 
     disproportionately in areas that are exposed to toxic waste, 
     air pollution and other environmental hazards. Now we learn, 
     through this report, that global warming will expose these 
     communities to further environmental hazards that will 
     continue to have a devastating impact on their health and 
     economic conditions. We must involve all of the various 
     stakeholders and continue to use forward-thinking, 
     comprehensive principals when developing transportation, 
     energy and environmental policies because of their enormous 
     effect on vulnerable populations.''--Rep. James E. Clyburn, 
     (D-TX)
       Taking action to slow global warming protects low-income, 
     people of color, and Indigenous communities, and is good for 
     all Americans by boosting job growth, saving money for 
     consumers, and strengthening national security.
       Studies have found that the benefits of reducing carbon 
     emissions, such as lower air pollution, new jobs, and reduced 
     oil imports, would prove helpful to all Americans. The best 
     policies for the health of people of color and the poor 
     involve a substantial decrease in emissions of carbon dioxide 
     and associated pollutants, and encourage international 
     cooperation in mitigating climate change.
       Policies to reduce global warming can boost job growth, 
     save money for consumers, and strengthen national security 
     (Hoerner and Barrett). How America benefits:
       1.4 million additional new jobs created;
       Average household saving on energy bills of $1,275 per 
     year; and
       Reduced dependence on foreign oil, strengthening national 
     and economic security for all Americans.
       ``It is a travesty that we live in a country where African 
     Americans expend more of their income on energy costs yet are 
     the most negatively impacted by energy byproducts such as 
     carbon emissions. In the current scenario, African Americans 
     are paying a premium for poor health resulting from air 
     pollution and climate change. We must mobilize and energize 
     our policymakers to enact legislation that will mitigate the 
     unjust effects of global warming.''--Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, 
     Sr., Rainbow Push Coalition

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S1268]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to rise with my friend and 
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the Climate 
Stewardship Act. It is an urgent matter. I was thinking of one clause 
that I could remove from Senator McCain's comments. He said: Suppose 
Senator Lieberman and I are deluded.
  It struck me that probably many times in the battles that we have 
fought together or individually, people have thought we were deluded. 
If I was going to be deluded, I would rather be deluded in the company 
of John McCain than anybody else I can think of. But let me say this: 
We are not deluded in our battle to get the U.S. Government to assume a 
leadership role in stopping this planet of ours from warming, with 
disastrous consequences for the way we and certainly our children and 
grandchildren will be forced to live if we do not do something.
  When Senator McCain and I first started to work with people in the 
field, the scientists, the businesspeople, the environmentalists, we 
had a pretty clear picture of what was coming, but very often we had to 
rely on scientific models and assume their accuracy in terms of the 
worst consequences. That is over.
  As Senator McCain's charts and pictures show, we can see with our 
eyes the effects of global warming already. The planet is warming. The 
polar ice caps are melting. One can see that with their own eyes. The 
sea level is rising in coastal areas already, and in other areas the 
water is diminishing, declining, as in the great State of my cosponsor, 
Arizona, and the State of the distinguished occupant of the Chair, 
Nevada. Forest fires are increasing. The evidence is clear that the 
problem is here, and that is why we have to do something about it.
  Doing nothing is no longer an option. We have reached a point where 
the intractable must yield to the inevitable. The evidence that climate 
change is real and dangerous keeps pouring in and piling up. What this 
legislation is all about is pushing, cajoling, and convincing the 
politics to catch up with the science.
  I will give real market-based evidence to back up what Senator McCain 
and I are saying about how compelling the science is. The leading 
insurance companies in the world--we are not talking about 
environmentalists--are now predicting that climate-driven disasters 
will cost global financial centers an additional $150 billion a year 
within the next 10 years. That is $150 billion of additional costs for 
the world as a result of climate-driven disasters.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, at an international conference, the head 
of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R. 
K. Pachauri, said that we are already at ``a dangerous point'' when it 
comes to global warming, and ``immediate and very deep cuts in 
greenhouse gases are needed if humanity is to survive.'' Let me repeat 
those last words: ``If humanity is to survive.''
  It should be noted that Dr. Pachauri is no wild-eyed environmental 
radical. In fact, the administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's 
appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more 
cautious and pragmatic scientist than the other leading candidate.
  To call global warming simply an environmental challenge is almost to 
diminish it or demean it with a kind of simplicity that puts it 
alongside a host of other environmental challenges that we face. Global 
warming is both a moral and an economic security challenge, as well as 
an environmental challenge.

  I start with what I mean by calling it a moral challenge. Greenhouse 
gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so failure to take 
the prudent actions that our bill calls for--market-based, moderate, 
with caps--will force children still unborn to take far more drastic 
action to save their world as they know it and want to live in it. 
There is just no excuse for this.
  We know it is real. I cited the melting glaciers, the coastal 
communities damage, the increased rate of forest fires. Previously, on 
this floor I have talked about the fact that a robin appeared in the 
north of Alaska and Canada among the Inuits native tribe, and they had 
no word in their 10,000-year-old civilization and vocabulary for robin.
  Robins now linger longer into the winter in Connecticut, my State. 
Why? Because it is getting warmer.
  Polar bears may soon be listed as an endangered species. Let me put 
it another way. We know that a petition will be filed soon to ask that 
polar bears be listed as an endangered species. Why? Because global 
warming is removing their habitat. It is wreaking havoc in the arctic 
climates where they live and grow. So to spoil the Earth for 
generations to come when we knew what we were doing and could have 
stopped it would be a moral failing of enormous and, I might add, 
Biblical proportions.
  This time, it would be mankind that condemned itself, if I may put it 
again this way, to no longer living in the garden.
  The challenge of solving global warming also presents our Nation with 
untold opportunities to reshape our world and assert our moral, 
economic, and environmental leadership. There is always opportunity in 
change. The world will transition to a world with limited greenhouse 
gas emissions, and the United States needs a program like the one we 
offer today to seize the new markets, as well as the environmental 
challenge.
  In particular, Senator McCain and I are seeking now to develop 
additional provisions to this legislation that will provide American 
innovators and businesspeople with the technological incentives they 
need to make our bill work for them.
  Looking at the recommendations of the International Climate Change 
Task Force, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Pew 
Center Workshop on Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future, 
there are a number of consensus provisions that could help the U.S. 
transition to these technologies of the future.
  These technologies are here. A recent paper in Science magazine 
showed that the scientific, technological, and industrial know-how 
already exists to limit carbon dioxide emissions substantially in the 
next 50 years. So we do not have to invent them. We just need the 
incentives and the motivation for industry, innovators, and individuals 
to deploy this knowledge and start us on the path toward a healthier, 
more sustainable future.
  That is what the Climate Stewardship Act that Senator McCain and I 
are introducing today will do. It will provide the incentives. It will 
create a cap and let the market do the rest of the work, a real 
opportunity for change.

  I am very pleased that one study being released today by the NRDC 
applying a method of evaluating which is advocated by the Energy 
Information Administration of our own Government says the Climate 
Stewardship Act will add 800,000 jobs to our economy by the year 2025. 
So it will not cost jobs, it will add them.
  Over the last few years, we have seen our colleagues grappling with 
the challenge of global warming. So many of them seem to be of the same 
mind, feeling that something needs to be done but still unsure what 
should be done and how. Senator McCain and I want our legislation to 
work for them so they can come forward and join us in this effort. This 
is an opportunity to invest in our future to face this challenge, an 
opportunity to enhance our energy security, and therefore our national 
security, by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which is what 
our legislation will do.
  Our Nation's best energy options will become more cost competitive 
with foreign oil. It will make economic sense for dramatic growth in 
clean coal, alternative energy, and energy efficiency. It will be an 
opportunity for economic development in rural communities. By placing a 
price on carbon, it will create new value for range lands, farms, and 
forests by compensating landowners for the carbon they can store. It is 
an opportunity to innovate clean energy technologies for a growing 
global market. By placing this price that the cap and market will do on 
greenhouse gases, we will push demand for clean technologies, promoting 
innovation through both public and private enterprise and making that 
innovation profitable. It is an opportunity for our country to control 
the development of our own carbon market that will inevitably become 
part of a

[[Page S1269]]

global market someday soon. It is an opportunity, as Senator McCain 
said, to improve our relations with our allies and the rest of the 
world and gain a stronger voice and ability to bring in developing 
nations.
  Without a price for carbon, these opportunities disappear. Our bill 
provides that price for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. We 
know it is not the entire answer. A lot of people think it is too 
moderate and holds greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels.
  By the end of the decade, it is less demanding than the Kyoto 
Protocol, which goes into effect as a result of Russia's ratification 
next week, but it is a cap that major utilities have told us they could 
meet. It may not be strong enough to reduce U.S. emissions as much as 
some would like, but it will be strong enough to start turning America 
around in the direction of dealing with global warming, reasserting our 
world environmental leadership, and moving our economy in the right 
direction. We cannot afford to be as shortsighted as we have been up 
until now. We cannot afford anymore to allow the special interests, who 
will also resist change because change is unnerving and sometimes more 
costly, to prevail.
  We have to assert the public interest of ourselves and all those who 
will follow us on this Earth and in this great country to do something 
about global warming while we still can, before its consequences are 
disastrous. This is an enormous political challenge.
  I go back to where I began. When we started, we had just models, so 
we were trying to portray what might happen over the horizon and ask 
our colleagues to join us in doing something now. It is not easy to do 
that because the crisis always seems further away than the immediacy of 
the changes a solution requires, but now we can see it. Shame on us if 
we do not do something about it.
  I begin this battle today with Senator McCain and other cosponsors 
with not only a sense of commitment but a sense of encouragement and 
optimism that people ultimately are too reasonable and responsible to 
ignore the facts and do nothing about this looming disaster for 
humankind.
  Senator McCain and I begin this battle again, and we are not going to 
stop until it is won.
  I ask unanimous consent that several articles on climate be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Brookings Institution, Jan. 28, 2005.]

                  Michael Crichton and Global Warming

                         (By David B. Sandalow)

       How do people learn about global warming?
       That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is 
     the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's 
     State of Fear.
       The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its 
     nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a well-funded network of 
     eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating 
     spectacular ``natural'' disasters. But Crichton uses his book 
     as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light 
     of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media 
     attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.
       First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global 
     warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions 
     reached by the National Academy of Sciences and 
     Intergovernmental Panel Change--for example, he does not 
     believe that global temperature increases in recent decades 
     are most likely the result of human activities. In 
     challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes 
     points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points 
     are unpersuasive, as explained below.
       Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming 
     is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that 
     many people concerned about global warming follow a herd 
     mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton 
     is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the 
     Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to 
     the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This 
     argument is more interesting and provocative, though 
     ultimately unpersuasive as well.
     1. Climate Science
       Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific 
     evidence regarding global warming. First, he highlights the 
     ``urban heat island effect.'' Crichton explains that cities 
     are often warmer than the surrounding countryside and implies 
     that observed temperature increases during the past century 
     are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas 
     concentrations.
       This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-
     reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast 
     majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of 
     observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed 
     steadily during the past century, for example--yet this data 
     is not affected by ``urban heat islands.'' Most land glaciers 
     around the world are melting, far away from urban centers. 
     The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only 
     peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused 
     ``at most'' 0.05 deg.C of the increase in global average 
     temperatures during the period 1900-1990--roughtly one-tenth 
     of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one 
     source reports, ``there are no known scientific peer-reviewed 
     papers'' to support the view that ``the heat island effect 
     accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-
     based thermometers.''
       Second, Crichton argues that global temperatures declines 
     from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast doubt on, 
     scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since 
     concentrations of greenhouse gases were rising during this 
     period, says Crichton, the fact that global temperatures were 
     falling calls into question the link between greenhouse gas 
     concentrations and temperatures.
       Crichton is correct that average temperatures declined, at 
     least in the Northern Hemisphere, from 1940-1970. Temperature 
     is the result of many factors, including the warming effects 
     of greenhouse gases, the cooling effects of volcanic 
     eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a 
     game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each 
     team changes frequently.) The fall in Northern Hempishere 
     temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of 
     cooling factors during that period, not the absence of a 
     warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases.
       Should we at least be encouraged, recalling the decades 
     from 1940-1970 in the hope that cooling factors will outweigh 
     greenhouse warming in the decades ahead? Hardly. Greenhouse 
     gas concentrations are now well outside levels previously 
     experienced in human history and climbing sharply. Unless we 
     change course, the relatively minor warming caused by man-
     made greenhouse gases in the last century will be dwarfed by 
     much greater warming from such gases in the next century. 
     There is no basis for believing that cooling factors such as 
     those that dominated the temperature record from 1940-1970 
     will be sufficient to counteract greenhouse warming in the 
     decades ahead.
       Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing 
     temperature declines during the past century in places such 
     as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann 
     Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse (New York) and Navacerrada 
     (Spain). But global warming is an increase in global average 
     temperatures. Nothing about specific local temperature 
     declines is inconsistent with the conclusion that the planet 
     as a whole has warmed during the past century, or that it 
     will warm more in the next century if greenhouse gas 
     concentrations continue to climb.
       Crichton makes other arguments but a point-by-point 
     rebuttal is beyond the scope of this paper. (A thoughtful 
     rebuttal of that kind can be found at www.realclimate.org.) 
     Climate change science is a complex topic, not easily reduced 
     to short summaries. But a useful contrast with Crichton's 
     science-argument-within-an-action-novel is the sober prose of 
     the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The opening paragraph 
     of a 2001 National Academy report responding to a request 
     from the Bush White House read:
       ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere 
     as a result of human activities, causing surface air 
     temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. 
     Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over 
     the last several decades are likely mostly due to human 
     activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part 
     of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. 
     Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are 
     expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary 
     effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic 
     physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates 
     and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. 
     The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on 
     the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it 
     occurs.''
       Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, 
     National Academies Press (2001).
       Time will tell whether this report or Crichton's novel will 
     have a greater impact on public understanding of global 
     warming.
     2. Climate Fad
       This raises the second, more interesting argument in 
     Crichton's novel. Crichton argues that concern about global 
     warming has become a fad embraced by media elites, 
     entertainment moguls, the scientific establishment and 
     general public. In Crichton's view, many assertions are 
     accepted as fact without critical analysis by the vast 
     majority of those who have views on this issue.
       On the last point, fair enough. There are indeed fewer 
     people who have sorted through the minutiae of climate change 
     science than have opinions on the topic. In this regard, 
     global warming is like Social Security reform, health care 
     finance, the military budget and many other complex public 
     policy issues. As Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky once 
     wrote, ``Most people don't think about most issues most of 
     the time.'' When forming opinions on such matters, we all 
     apply certain predispositions or instincts

[[Page S1270]]

     and rely on others whose judgment or expertise we trust.
       Of course this observation applies as well to the economics 
     of climate change. The perception is widespread in many 
     circles that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be 
     ruinously expensive. How many of those who hold this view 
     have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? Crichton 
     never musters outrage on this topic.
       Crichton's complaints are particularly striking in light of 
     the highly successful efforts to provide policymakers and the 
     public with analytically rigorous, non-political advice on 
     climate science. Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change has convened thousands of scientists, 
     economists, engineers and other experts to review and distill 
     the peer-reviewed literature on the science on global 
     warming. The IPCC has produced three reports and is now at 
     work on the fourth. In addition, the National Academy of 
     Sciences has provided advice to the U.S. government on this 
     topic, including the report cited above.
       Crichton's view that the American media provides a steady 
     drumbeat of scary news on global warming is especially hard 
     to fathom. Solid data are scarce, but one 1996 analysis found 
     that the rock star Madonna was mentioned roughly 80 times 
     more often than global warming in the Lexis-Nexis database. 
     Certainly one could watch the evening news for weeks on end 
     without ever seeing a global warming story.
       Furthermore, the print media's ``on the one hand, on the 
     other hand'' convention tilts many global warming stories 
     strongly toward Crichton's point of view. As Crichton would 
     concede, the vast majority of the world's scientists believe 
     that global warming is happening as a result of human 
     activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas 
     emissions could be very serious. Still, many news stories on 
     global warming include not just this mainstream view but also 
     the ``contrarian'' views of a very small minority of climate 
     change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a 
     result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding 
     these issues may be greatly exaggerated.
       Crichton's most serious charge is that ``open and frank 
     discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being 
     suppressed'' in the scientific community. As ``proof,'' he 
     offers the assertion that many critics of global warming are 
     retired professors no longer seeking grants. Whether there is 
     any basis for these assertions is unclear, but if so Crichton 
     should back up his claims with more than mere assertions in 
     the appendix to an action novel.
       Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard 
     with regard to all the arguments in his book. He is plainly a 
     very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School 
     graduate. A millionaire many times over, he doesn't need to 
     be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say on the 
     science of climate change, he should say so in a work of 
     nonfiction and submit his work for peer review. The result 
     could be instructive--for him and us all.
                                  ____


           Arctic Temperature Change--Over the Past 100 Years

       This note has been prepared in response to questions and 
     comments that have arisen since the publication of the Arctic 
     Climate Impact Assessment overview document--``Impacts of a 
     Warming Arctic''. It is intended to provide clarity regarding 
     some aspects relative to the material from Chapter 2 Arctic 
     Climate--Past and Present that will appear in full with the 
     publication of the ACIA scientific report in 2005 and has now 
     been posted on the ACIA website.
       There are several possible definitions of the Arctic 
     depending on, for example, tree line, continuous permafrost, 
     and other factors. It was decided for purposes of this 
     analysis that the latitude 60 deg. N would be defined as the 
     southern boundary. Although somewhat arbitrary, this is no 
     more arbitrary than choosing 62 deg. N, 67 deg. N or any 
     other latitude. Since the marine data in the Arctic are very 
     limited in geographical and temporal coverage, it was 
     decided, for consistency, to only use data from land 
     stations. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) 
     database (updated from Peterson and Vose, 1997) and the 
     Climatic Research Unit (CRU) database (Jones and Moberg, 
     2003) were selected for this analysis.
       The analysis showed that the annual land-surface air 
     temperature variations in the Arctic (north of 60 deg. N) 
     from 1900 to 2002 using the GHCN and the CRU datasets led to 
     virtually identical time series, and both documented a 
     statistically significant warming trend of 0.09 C/decade 
     during that period. In view of the high correlation between 
     the GHCN and CRU datasets, it was decided to focus the 
     presentation in Chapter 2 on analyses of the GHCN dataset.
       It needs to be stressed that the spatial coverage of the 
     region north of 60 deg. N is quite varied. During the period 
     (1900-1945), there were few observing stations in the Alaska/
     Canadian Arctic/West Greenland sector and more in the North 
     Atlantic (East Greenland/Iceland/Scandinavia) and Russian 
     sectors. The coverage for periods since 1945 is more uniform. 
     Based on the analyses of the GHCN and CRU datasets, the 
     annual land-surface air temperature from 60-90 deg. N, 
     smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter giving near decadal 
     averages, was warmer in the most recent decade (1990s) than 
     it was in the 1930-1940s period. It should be noted that 
     other analyses (e.g., Przybylak 2000; Polyakov et al. 2002; 
     and Lugina et al. 2004) give comparable estimates of Arctic 
     warming for these two decades that, however, lay wit/hin the 
     error margins of possible accuracy of the zonal 
     mean estimates (Vinnikov et al. 1990; Vinnikov et 
     al.,1987). The major source of this uncertainty is the 
     data deficiency in the North American sector prior to 
     1950s in all databases.
       Least-squares linear trends in annual anomalies of Arctic 
     (60 deg. to 90 deg. N) land-surface air temperature from the 
     GHCN (updated from Peterson and Vose, 1997) and CRU (Jones 
     and Moberg, 2003) datasets for the period 1966-2003 both gave 
     warming rates of 0.38 ( deg.C/decade). This is consistent 
     with the analysis of Polyakov et al. (2002) and confirmed 
     with satellite observations over the whole Arctic, for the 
     past 2 decades (Comiso, 2003).
       Chapter 3 of the ACIA report, entitled ``The Changing 
     Arctic: Indigenous Perspectives'' documents the traditional 
     knowledge of Arctic residents and indicates that substantial 
     changes have already occurred in the Arctic and supports the 
     evidence that the most recent decade is different from those 
     of earlier in the 20th century.
       The modeling studies of Johannessen et al. (2004) showed 
     the importance of anthropogenic forcing over the past half 
     century for modeling the arctic climate. ``It is suggested 
     strongly that whereas the earlier warming was natural 
     internal climate-system variability, the recent SAT (surface 
     air temperature) changes are a response to anthropogenic 
     forcing''.
       In the context of this report, the authors agreed on the 
     following terminology. A conclusion termed as ``very 
     probable'' is to be interpreted that the authors were 90-99% 
     confident in the conclusion. The term ``probable'' conveys a 
     66-90% confidence.
       The conclusions of Chapter 2 were that: ``Based on the 
     analysis of the climate of the 20th century, it is very 
     probable that the Arctic has warmed over the past century, 
     although the warming has not been uniform. Land stations 
     north of 60 deg. N indicate that the average surface 
     temperature increased by approximately 0.09  deg.C/decade 
     during the past century, which is greater than the 0.06 
     deg.C/decade increase averaged over the Northern Hemisphere. 
     It is not possible to be certain of the variation in mean 
     landstation temperature over the first half of the 20th 
     century because of a scarcity of observations across the 
     Arctic before about 1950. However, it is probable that the 
     past decade was warmer than any other in the period of the 
     instrumental record.''
       Polar amplification refers to the relative rates of warming 
     in the Arctic versus other latitude bands. The conclusions of 
     Chapter 2 were that: ``Evidence of polar amplification 
     depends on the timescale of examination. Over the past 100 
     years, it is possible that there has been polar 
     amplification, however, over the past 50 years it is probable 
     that polar amplification has occurred.''


                               References

       Comiso, J., 2003. Warming trends in the Arctic from clear 
     sky satellite observations. J. Climate, 16:3498-3510.
       Johannessen, O.M., L. Bengtsson, M.W. Miles, S.I. Kuzmina, 
     V.A Semenov, G.V. Alekseev, A.P. Nagurnyi, V.F. Zakharov, 
     L.P. Bobylev, L.H. Pettersson, K. Hasselmann and H.P. Cattle, 
     2004. Arctic climate change: observed and modelled 
     temperature and sea-ice variability. Tellus A, 56:328-341.
       Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg, 2003. Hemispheric and large-
     scale surface air temperature variations: an extensive 
     revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate, 16:206-223.
       Lugina, K.M., P.Ya. Groisman, K.Ya. Vinnikov, V.V. 
     Koknaeva, and N.A Speranskaya, 2004. Monthly surface air 
     temperature time series area-averaged over the 30-degree 
     latitudinal belts of the globe, 1881-2003. In Trends Online: 
     A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide 
     Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
     U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.
       Peterson, T.C. and R.S. Vose, 1997. An overview of the 
     Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database. 
     Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78:2837-
     2849.
       Peterson, T.C., K.P. Gallo, J. Livermore, T.W. Owen, A. 
     Huang and D.A. McKittrick, 1999. Global rural temperature 
     trends. Geophysical Research Letters, 26:329-332.
       Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, 
     R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. 
     Walsh and A.V. Yulin, 2002. Observationally based assessment 
     of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical 
     Research Letters, 29(18):1878.
       Przybylak, R., 2000: Temporal and spatial variation of 
     surface air temperature over the period of instrumental 
     observations in the Arctic. Int. J. Climatol., 20, 587-614.
       Serreze, M.C., J.E. Walsh, F.S. Chapin III, T. Osterkamp, 
     M. Dyurgerov, V. Romanovsky, W.C. Oechel, J. Morison, T. 
     Zhang and R.G. Barry, 2000. Observational evidence of recent 
     change in the northern high latitude environment. Climatic 
     Change, 46: 159-207.
       Vinnikov, K.Ya., P.Ya. Groisman, K.M. Lugina, and A.A. 
     Golubev. 1987. Mean air temperature variations of the 
     Northern Hemisphere for 1841-1985. Soviet Meteorology and 
     Hydrology 1:37-45.
       Vinnikov, K.Ya., P.Ya. Groisman, and K.M. Lugina. 1990. 
     Empirical data on contemporary global climate changes 
     (temperature and precipitation). Journal of Climate 3:662-77.

[[Page S1271]]

     
                                  ____
                             Distort Reform


 A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear

                           (By Gavin Schmidt)

       Michael Crichton's new novel State of Fear is about global-
     warming hysteria ginned up by a self-important NGO on behalf 
     of evil eco-terrorists . . . or by evil eco-terrorists on 
     behalf of a self-important NGO. It's not quite clear. 
     Regardless, the message of the book is that global warming is 
     a non-problem. A lesson for our times? Sadly, no.
       In between car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites, and 
     other assorted derring-doo-doo, the novel addresses 
     scientific issues, but is selective (and occasionally 
     mistaken) about the basic science involved. Some of the 
     issues Crichton raises are real and already well-appreciated, 
     while others are red herrings used to confuse rather than 
     enlighten.
       The fictional champion of Crichton's climate skepticism is 
     John Kenner, an MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who 
     runs intellectual rings around two other characters--the 
     actor (a rather dim-witted chap) and the lawyer (a duped 
     innocent), neither of whom know much about science.
       So, for the benefit of actors and lawyers everywhere, I 
     will try to help out.


                            forcings majeure

       Early in State of Fear, a skeptical character points out 
     that while carbon dioxide was rising between 1940 and 1970, 
     the globe was cooling. What, then, makes us so certain rising 
     CO2 is behind recent warming?
       Good question. Northern-hemisphere mean temperatures do 
     appear to have fallen over that 30-year period, despite a 
     rise in CO2, which if all else had been equal 
     should have led to warming. But were all things equal? 
     Actually, no.
       In the real world, climate is affected both by internal 
     variability (natural internal processes within the climate 
     system) and forcings (external forces, either natural or 
     human-induced, acting on the climate system). Some forcings--
     sulfate and nitrate aerosols, land-use changes, solar 
     irradiance, and volcanic aerosols, for instance--can cause 
     cooling.
       Matching up what really happened with what we might have 
     expected to happen requires taking into consideration all the 
     forcings, as best as we can. Even then, any discrepancy might 
     be due to internal variability (related principally to the 
     ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current ``best 
     guess'' is that the global mean changes in temperature, 
     including the 1940-1970 cooling, are quite closely related to 
     the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked 
     more closely to internal variability, particularly during the 
     1930s.
       No model that does not include a sharp rise in greenhouse 
     gases (GHGs), principally CO2, is able to match up 
     with recent warming. Thus the conclusion that GHGs are 
     driving warming.
       The book also shows, through the selective use of weather-
     station data, a number of single-station records with long-
     term cooling trends. In particular, characters visit Punta 
     Arenas, at the tip of South America, where the station record 
     posted on the wall shows a long-term cooling trend (though 
     slight warming since the 1970s). ``There's your global 
     warming,'' one of Crichton's good guys declares dismissively.
       Well, not exactly. Global warming is defined by the global 
     mean surface temperature. No one has or would claim that the 
     whole globe is warming uniformly. Had the characters visited 
     the nearby station of Santa Cruz Aeropuerto, the poster on 
     the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have 
     been proof of global warning? No. Only by amalgamating all 
     available records can we have an idea what the regional, 
     hemispheric, or global means are doing. That's way they call 
     it global warming.


                         Tall, Dark, and Hansen

       Even more troubling is some misleading commentary regarding 
     climate-science pioneer (and my boss) James Hansen's 
     testimony to Congress in 1988. ``Dr. Hansen overestimated 
     [global warming] by 300 percent,'' says our hero Kenner.
       Hansen's testimony did indeed spread awareness of global 
     warming, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300 
     percent. In a paper published soon after that testimony, 
     Hansen and colleagues presented three model simulations, each 
     following a different scenario for the growth in 
     CO2 and other trace gases and forcings. Scenario A 
     had exponentially increasing CO2, scenario B had a 
     more modest business-as-usual assumption, and scenario C had 
     no further increase in CO2 after the year 2000. 
     Both B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995.
       Rightly, the authors did not assume they knew what path 
     CO2 emissions would take, and presented a spectrum 
     of possibilities. The scenario that turned out to be closest 
     to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the 
     difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The 
     temperature change for the '90s predicted under this scenario 
     was very close to the actual 0.11 degree-Celsius change 
     observed.
       So, given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a 
     reasonable job. In fact, in his congressional testimony 
     Hansen only showed results from scenario B, and stated 
     clearly that it was the most probable scenario.
       The claim of a ``300 percent'' error comes from noted 
     climate skeptic Patrick Michaels, who in testimony before 
     Congress in 1998 deleted scenarios B and C from the chart he 
     used in order to give the impression that the models were 
     unreliable. Thus a significant success for climate modeling 
     was presented as a complete failure--a willful distortion 
     that Crichton adopts uncritically.
       The well-known and exhaustively studied ``urban heat island 
     effect''--the tendency for cities to be warmer than the 
     surrounding countryside due to the built-up surroundings and 
     intensive energy use--is also raised several times in the 
     book. Most recently, a study by David Parker published last 
     year in the journal Nature found no residual effect in the 
     surface temperature record once corrections were made for 
     this undisputed phenomenon. Though Crichton makes much of it, 
     there's no there there.


                         Authorial Inattention

       At the end of the book, Crichton offers a somber author's 
     note. In it, he reiterates the main points of his thesis: 
     that there are some who push claims beyond what is 
     scientifically supported in order to drum up support (and I 
     have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know 
     everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ).
       He gives us his back-of-a-napkin estimate for the global 
     warming that will occur over the next century--an increase of 
     approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius--and claims that his guess 
     is as good as any model's. He suggests that most of the 
     warming will be due to land-use changes--extremely unlikely, 
     as globally speaking, land-use change has a cooling effect. 
     As his faulty assumptions painfully demonstrate, simulations 
     based on physics are better than just guessing.
       Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious 
     train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th century 
     eugenics movement. Eugenics, he notes, was studied in 
     prestigious universities and supported by charitable 
     foundations. Today, global warming is studied in prestigious 
     universities and supported by charitable foundations. Aha!
       Presumably Crichton doesn't actually believe that 
     foundation-supported academic research is ipso facto 
     misguided, even evil, but that is certainly the impression 
     left by this peculiar linkage.
       In summary, I am disappointed, not least because while 
     researching his book, Crichton visited our lab at the NASA 
     Goddard Institute and discussed some of these issues with me 
     and a few of my colleagues. I suppose we didn't do a very 
     good job of explaining matters. Judging from his 
     bibliography, the rather dry prose of reports by the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not stir his 
     senses quite like some of the racier contrarian texts. 
     Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Crichton picked fiction over fact.
       Scientifically curious readers can find a more detailed 
     version of this review on RealClimate.org.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be 
added as cosponsors: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, 
Lautenberg, Murray, Nelson, Corzine, Dayton, Cantwell, and Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Lieberman, 
again, and I would like to quote again from Prime Minister Blair, who 
announced that action on global warming will be his first priority as 
Chair of the G-8. He has taken a leadership role, choosing to take 
action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science 
community will soon resolve.
  The Prime Minister made it clear in a recent speech at the World 
Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:

     . . . if America wants the rest of the world to be part of 
     the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda too. . 
     . .

  It is past time for our country to show leadership in addressing the 
world's greatest environmental challenge, climate change.
                                 ______