The International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce  www.hydrogencommerce.com

Climate Change
The Climate Change debate is over.
Now the question is "How bad will it be?"
CAN HUMANITY REVERSE THE DAMAGE
DONE BY OIL & COAL - OR IS IT TOO LATE?
WILL BAD POLITICIANS FIGHT FOR THE FOSSIL
FUEL CORPORATIONS UNTIL THE BITTER END?
Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed
Michael Le Page     New Scientist (UK)     May 16, 2007

Cost of Tackling Climate Change Has Doubled, Warns Stern
Juliette Jowit and Patrick Wintour    The Guardian (UK)    June 26, 2008

    Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP. But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Put Oil Firm Chiefs on Trial, Says Leading Climate Change Scientist
Ed Pinkington  The Guardian (UK)  June 23, 2008

"Democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
James Hanson, NASA Climate Scientist

    James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

June 23, 2008     U.S. House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

Global Warming Twenty Years Later:
Tipping Points Near
 James Hansen¹

My presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to Congress, which alerted the public that global warming was underway.  There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
    Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
    The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb.  The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for
the present dangerous situation.
    Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.
    Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear.  But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.
    I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible.  It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.

On 23 June 1988 I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible.  I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.
    My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism.  But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public.  As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence.  But from such broad openminded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.
    My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models.  The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to “stop waffling”.  I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.
    While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered.  The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.

What is at stake?  Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost
innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations.  But more warming is already “in-the-pipeline”, delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean.  And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points.  Elements of a “perfect storm”, a global cataclysm, are assembled.
    Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases,
the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
    More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if
emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
    Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years.

The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper² I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and
rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
    These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.
    Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.
    Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.
Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home for one-third of the species in the sea.
    Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.
    Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today’s carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is
still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely – time is running out.

Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
    Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.
    Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.
    Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
    Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species
would leave a more desolate planet.
    If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no
solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy source.

Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local
produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.
    A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend³ is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
    Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for
children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank account.
    Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.
    Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.

Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists’ clients provide “campaign” money.
    The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: “One hundred percent dividend or fight!”
    The next President must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in
less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.
    Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.
    The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
    We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
    Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.

1
Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, but he speaks as a private citizen today at the National Press Club and at a Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming.

2
Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, J.C. Zachos, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135

3
The proposed “tax and 100% dividend” is based largely on the cap and dividend approach described by Peter Barnes in “Who Owns the Sky: Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism”, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2001 (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=149&contentID=3867).

 
Dr. James Hansen on 60 Minutes
 
Dr. James Hansen on the melting of ice sheets
 
Censoring Science -Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen
Democracy Now!     Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4

Committee Examines Political Interference with Climate Science
Video of the March 19 2007 Hearing
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform  

---- JUNE 20, 2008 ----
BUSH INVOKES EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO SAVE BIG OIL FROM CO₂ RESPONSIBILITY

 
"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president; where the president of the United States may have been involved in acting contrary to law, and the evidence that would determine that question for Congress in exercising our oversight is being blocked by an assertion of executive privilege."
Henry Waxman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
White House Asserts Executive Privilege in EPA Investigation
Erica Werner     AP     June 20, 2008
Waxman contends the White House intervened with EPA to produce more industry-friendly outcomes in setting new smog standards and denying California and more than a dozen other states permission to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.  

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Business Meeting Regarding the Contempt Resolution June 20, 2008

    For months, the Committee has been investigating EPA's decision to prevent California and other states from reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and its decision to adopt new ozone air quality standards weaker than those recommended by the agency's scientific experts.
    These investigations have shown that the decisions in these important environmental matters were made not at EPA, but in the White House. In both cases, the scientists, the agency career staff, and EPA Administrator Johnson wanted to take stronger action to protect the environment. And in both cases, the White House rejected the agency's position.
    Today the President has asserted executive privilege to prevent the Committee from learning why he and his staff overruled EPA. There are thousands of internal White House documents that would show whether the President and his staff acted lawfully. But the President has said they must be kept from Congress and the public.
    In the case of the California motor vehicle standards, we learned that EPA's experts and career staff all supported granting the California petition. In a briefing prepared for Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's own lawyers said: "we don't believe there are any good arguments against granting the waiver. All of the arguments ... are likely to lose in court if we are sued."
    Administrator Johnson listened and was prepared to support a partial approval to California's request. But then the White House intervened. In December, after secret communications with White House officials, Administrator Johnson ignored the law and the evidence and denied California's petition.
    In the case of the ozone standards, the same pattern happened. We learned that EPA's expert advisory panel unanimously recommended a new standard for protecting the environment. After considering all of the alternatives, Administrator Johnson agreed with the new approach.
    He was opposed, however, by industry and Susan Dudley, the Administrator of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And once again, the White House intervened. On the evening before the final rule was released, President Bush rejected the unanimous recommendation of both EPA's experts and Administrator Johnson and instructed EPA to abandon the new standard.
    The Clean Air Act is clear about what can be considered and what cannot be considered when EPA makes decisions under its authority. In both cases, the EPA's methodical and scientific process pointed to specific outcomes. In both cases, the outcome dramatically changed when the White House became involved.
    This Committee has a fundamental obligation to learn the truth about what actually happened on these critical health and environmental decisions. That is why we have been seeking documents in both cases that would provide important details about the President's role in directing Administrator Johnson's actions.
    This morning I have been informed that the White House is asserting executive privilege over thousands of documents the Committee is seeking. This is an extraordinary step. Administrator Johnson has repeatedly insisted he reached his decisions on California's petition and the new ozone standard on his own, relying on his best judgment.
    Today's assertion of executive privilege raises serious questions about Administrator Johnson's credibility and the involvement of the President. Without the remaining documents, it will be nearly impossible to fully understand the President's role in overruling the unanimous recommendations of EPA's own experts.
    We had scheduled a vote on a contempt resolution for this morning for Mr. Johnson and Ms. Dudley. We will not have that vote in light of the executive privilege claim. I want to talk with my colleagues on both sides about this new development and consider all our options before deciding how we should proceed.

• RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND SUSAN DUDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WHITE HOUSE,
  IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DULY ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
  U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform   June 20, 2008

"SHAMEFUL, OUTRAGEOUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE!"
Governor O'Malley, Maryland
"A DERELICTION OF DUTY!"
Senator Frank Lautenberg
 
 STATE GOVERNORS EXPRESS EXTREME OUTRAGE AT EPA DENIAL OF CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS WAIVER
January 24, 2007
FED EPA DIRECTOR JOHNSON GRILLED
BY CALIFORNIA'S BOXER ON C-SPAN

• EPA Chief Sits and Takes His Punishment
  Zachary Cole     San Francisco Chronicle     January 25, 2008

Tom Friedman, Al Gore and Bono in Davos
Gore: Polar Ice Cap Gone in 5 Years
Bono: G8 Not Keeping Commitments to Poor
Davos World Economic Forum/World Television     January 24, 2008

Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Aftenpolten (NORWAY)     October 12, 2007
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 on Friday to former US Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations' climate panel, citing the importance of battling global warming.

Impact of Arctic Heat Wave
Stuns Climate Change Researchers
NASA Earth Observatory     September 26, 2007

• Remarkable Drop In Arctic Sea Ice Raises Questions
  Stephen Cole     SPX / Planet Earth     September 28, 2007

• International Climate Change Mitigation Seeks Leader
  Worldwatch Institute     September 25, 2007

Asia's Brown Clouds 'Warm Planet'
BBC     August 1, 2007
Clouds of pollution over the Indian Ocean appear to cause as much warming as greenhouse gases released by human activity, a study has suggested.

Warming Trends in Asia Amplified
by Brown Cloud Solar Absorption
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Muvva V. Ramana, Gregory Roberts, Dohyeong Kim, Craig Corrigan, Chul Chung & David Winker   Nature   August 2, 2007

• Asian Brown Cloud of Pollution Contributes to Gobal Warming
  Roger Highfield     Telegraph (UK)     August 8, 2007
      The Asian Brown Cloud, the thick haze caused by pollution that hangs over southern Asia, is rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers and could precipitate an environmental disaster that could affect billions of people, scientists have warned.

Global Warming 'Is Three Times Faster than Worst Predictions'
Geoffrey Lean     The Independent (UK)     June 3, 2007

Global and Regional Drivers
of Accelerating CO2 Emissions
Michael R. Raupach, Gregg Marland, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Que´ re´ ,
Josep G. Canadell, Gernot Klepper, and Christopher B. Field

Proceedings of the National Acedemy of Sciences
of the United States of America
May 22, 2007

Europe Furious at US Climate Call
Fiona Harvey     Financial Times (UK)     June 1, 2007
Attitudes within Europe hardened on Friday as some politicians and activists accused Mr. Bush of trying to wreck next week’s summit, and UN negotiations on climate change, set to take place this December.

"Bush's attempts to obstruct any meaningful agreement at the G-8 summit in June are as criminal as they are expected; Merkel must now make Bush's isolation crystal clear in Heiligendamm."
Greenpeace director John Sauven
USA Rejects German Climate Position as G-8 Summit Nears
Jeremy Lovell     USA Today     May 25, 2007

• G8 Riots Erupt in Germany  Financial Times (UK)  June 3, 2007
  The riots on Saturday in Rostock, north-eastern Germany, left almost a thousand people injured and overshadowed Germany's preparations for the summit.

• Action Plan or Stalling Tactic?  Guardian Unlimited (UK)  June 1, 2007
   Robin Oakley, of Greenpeace, said the president's plan was "designed to kick this issue into the long grass until he leaves office".  He said: "Bush should take his cue from an increasing number of states, such as California, and engage with the international community by committing to deep mandatory cuts in carbon emissions now, not voluntary cuts at some unspecified point in the future."

CALIFORNIA'S SCHWARZENEGGER TO TAKE ON BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL PETROLEUM AGENCY (EPA) IN HUGE GLOBAL WARMING LAWSUIT

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20460

RE: Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles; Request for Waiver of Preemption Under Clean Air Act Section 209(b),

DOCKET ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173

Dear Mr. Administrator,

Sincerely
Arnold Schwarzenegger

cc: Linda S. Adams, Secretary for California EPA
William L. Wehrum, U.S. EPA Acting Assistant Administrator
David Dickinson, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality
The Honorable Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts
The Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Governor of New York
The Honorable Christine Gregoire, Governor of Washington
The Honorable Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico
The Honorable Ted Kulongoski, Governor of Oregon
The Honorable Edward Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
The Honorable Jim Douglas, Governor of Vermont
The Honorable Jon Corzine, Governor of New Jersey
The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor of Connecticut
The Honorable John Baldacci, Governor of Maine
The Honorable Donald L. Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island
The Honorable Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland

GLOBAL WARMING: THE NEWS IS BAD
"It is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit."
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri
Worldwide Impact from Climate Change Predicted
News Blaze     April 7, 2007

RELEASED

Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report

Climate Change 2007:
Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Summary for Policymakers

Hurricanes and Global Warming: The NOAA Cover Up
U.S. Climate Emergency Council

Max Mayfield Joins Miami ABC Station
ABC WPBF-TV25     March 29, 2007

WILLIAM GRAY: Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
AP     April 7, 2007

WILLIAM GRAY: Mississippi TV Station Airs Piece on Global Warming
Paid for by an Organization Partially Funded by ExxonMobil
Center for Media and Democracy     November 14, 2006

LANDMARK CO2 POLLUTION RULING
WILL SPUR CLEAN ENERGY GROWTH

"Naughty boy! How dare you lie
to your Mommy Earth!"

BUSH AND
EXXONMOBIL  SPANKED!
U.S. SUPREME COURT SHIFTS BURDEN OF PROOF TO
DISPROVING
CLIMATE CHANGE

SUPREME COURT TELLS EPA IT CAN "avoid taking further action only if it
determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change."
Court Sides with Environmental Interests on Landmark Car Emissions Medill News    Northwestern University     April 2, 2007

"This case is exceptionally important because it is focused on an issue that most scientists say is the greatest scientific issue of our day.”
Barton Thompson, Jr., Director
Stanford Institute of the Environment at Stanford Law School
Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Rebecca Cho    Medill News    Northwestern University

Supreme Court Rebukes Bush Administration on CO2 Emissions
Mark Sherman     Delaware Online/AP     April 2, 2007

    The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

U. N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Calls on New Generation to Take Better Care of Planet Earth than His Own
UN News Service     March 1, 2007

"We have seen scientific evidence presented and then subverted by this administration. We paid for the scientific studies. And then when the studies come forward, they're dismissed.   We're not even getting what we're paying for! ...Scientists are confident that global warming is happening. The vast majority of experts on the issue agree that human activity is to blame. This is a call for leadership that unites the American people in taking a new direction for not just energy conservation but in the development of alternative energies. Green energies. But what happens is because scientific 'information' is brought forward that disputes climate change, the kind of massive unity that we need to take a new direction is slowed."
U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
House Hearing on Climate Change Research     C-SPAN.ORG
January 30, 2007

RELEASED

CLIMATE CHANGE 2007
THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
February 2007

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values...

• The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.

• Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.

• [L]osses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003.

• There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century. The total 20th century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m.

• At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.

• Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.

• The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, with a decrease in spring of up to 15%.

• The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour.

• Snow cover is projected to contract.

• Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic...

• It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.

• ...it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense...

• ...it is very likely that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century.

    "The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth's physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.
    "Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.
    "Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth's surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.
    "Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This "global dimming" is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis."
Al Gore
Gore Implores Congress to Save Planet
Nedra Pickler     AP     March 21, 2007

• THE END OF COAL?
  Gore Asks Congress to Address `Planetary Emergency'
  Lim Chipman     Bloomberg      March 21, 2007
   

• Gore Says Bush Administration Is Paying Scientists
  to Dispute Global Warming
  Al Goodman     CNN     February 6, 2007

"The AEI is more than just a think tank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
Ben Stewart, UK Media Officer, Greenpeace
Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study
Ian Sample     The Guardian (UK)      February 2, 2007

RELEASED!

"Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change."

DOWNLOAD REPORT

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Union of Concerned Scientists
January 3, 2006

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
•  funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
•  attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

    ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.
    Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.
    "When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of s