Difference between revisions of "Politics of global warming"

Revision as of 00:35, November 10, 2008

Template:Pp-semi-protected Template:Portal The politics of global warming have involved policy decisions, legislation, and political debate over the science of and response to global warming. The political struggle over global warming has involved various governmental bodies, special-interest groups, and scientific organizations.

Political sphere

UNFCCC
European Union's European Climate Change Programme
Developing countries
31st G8 summit

No middle ground

Many moderates suggest the solution to global warming is "akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging." ^[1]

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric....I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory."^[2]

The moderate political viewpoint has been largely abandoned in the US due to Congress' inability to pass any significant CO2 regulation despite the overwhelming popular support for such measures. Also there is substantial evidence showing that the oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production.^[3] Given the US government's intransigence despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities, the political rhetoric has become more extreme if only to get government to move even slightly in the direction of CO2 control.^[4]

Political alignment and global warming

In most English-speaking countries, support for action to mitigate global warming, such as ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is strong on the political left.

In Australia, the Labor party ratified Kyoto ^[5]
In Canada, the Liberal Party government ratified Kyoto
In New Zealand, the Labour government of Helen Clark ratified Kyoto
In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party ratified Kyoto
In the United States, Bill Clinton's Democratic Administration signed Kyoto and Democrats have proposed and supported a number of bills to mitigate emissions. Although Kyoto is signed, the Democratic Congress refuses to take a vote on it and thus the United States is not bound to the treaty.

In some countries the political right are fighting on a platform of taking tough action against global warming^[6], while in others the political right either dispute the scientific consensus on global warming or oppose action to mitigate global warming, instead favoring adaption.^{[Citation Needed]} All European countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and all have supported strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

In the United States, a February 2007 survey found that 95% of the 41 Congressional Democrats surveyed agreed "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems" while only 13% of the 31 Republicans surveyed agreed.^[7]

Global warming skepticism has been promoted by newspapers associated with the right such as The Australian, the Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom and the National Post in Canada. [1]

United States

For a more detailed treatment, see Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States.

Specific actions of the Bush administration

Template:Seealso In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor. [2]

The Bush administration has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters," according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine which reviews hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.^[8]."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . .

"The CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites. "two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command. ^[9]

Also, the White House removed key portions of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report given to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers to human health of global warming.^[10] According to one CDC official familiar with both the CDC version and the version given to the Senate, the version given to the Senate was "eviscerated." The White House prevented the Senate and thus the public from receiving key CDC estimates in the report about diseases likely to flourish in a warmer climate, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes, more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution, an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus, mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress, and how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming.

Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the White House has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming^[11]^[12]

"High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.^[13] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.^[11]

Federal government

Template:Seealso The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol — though their one-time representative, Condoleezza Rice, remarked that the Protocol was "unacceptable" at the time it was presented to her.^{[Citation Needed]} The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue. [3]

In October 2003, the Pentagon published a report titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. The authors conclude by stating that "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."^[14]

From 1989 to 2005, oil and gas industries gave $179.5 million to U.S. federal candidates and parties. ^[15] In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate. [4]. In the 2005 vote, Republicans opposed the Bill 49-6, while Democrats supported it 37-10. ^[16].

In January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming.^[17] The US government announced that it was withdrawing funding from the lobby groups it had been supporting that aimed to discount the evidence for global warming.^{[Citation Needed]}

Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus." [5]

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 was introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on January 15, 2007. The measure would provide funding for R&D on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, set emissions standards for new vehicles and a renewable fuels requirement for gasoline beginning in 2016, establish energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards beginning in 2008 and low-carbon electric generation standards beginning in 2016 for electric utilities, and require periodic evaluations by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether emissions targets are adequate.^[18]

There is a Report about federal climate change legislation as if the states matter.^[19]

Political pressure on scientists

US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, ^[20] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.^[21]^[22]^[23]

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article ^[24] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;^[25] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."^[26]

According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."^[27]

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey ^[28] was itself unscientific.^[29]

Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.

Allegations of U.S. government attempts to mislead the public

The book Hell and High Water asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research. The book claims that, to delay action, industry and government spokesmen suggest falsely that "technology breakthroughs" will eventually save us with hydrogen cars and other fixes. It calls on voters to demand immediate government action to curb emissions. Tyler Hamilton, in his review of the book for The Toronto Star, wrote that the book offers "alarming detail on how the U.S. public is being misled by a federal government (backed by conservative political forces) that is intent on inaction, and that's also on a mission to derail international efforts to curb emissions."^[30]

Global warming litigation

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forced the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.^[31]

State and local governments

However, 195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, California (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production. The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally. [6]

On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act. When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. ^[7] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Gov. Schwarzenegger also announced he would seek to work with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and various other international efforts to address global warming, independently of the federal government. ^[32]

On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.^[8]

RGGI

Seven Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.

Participating states^[9]:

Beginning in 2009, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will be capped by state:

Connecticut: 10.7 million tons
Delaware: 7.56 million tons
Maine: 5.95 million tons
New Hampshire: 8.6 million tons
New Jersey: 22.9 million tons
New York: 64.3 million tons
Vermont: 1.2 million tons

Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces.

Federal government attempts to undermine state efforts

The US government has worked to undermine state efforts to mitigate global warming. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, personally directed US efforts to urge governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California’s first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.^[33]

Vatican

Pope Benedict XVI told up to half a million people, over a hillside near the Adriatic city of Loreto on the day Catholic Church marks its annual Save Creation Day, that world leaders must make courageous decisions to save the planet "before it is too late" ^[34].

Canada

Canada's Liberal Government during the 1990s had agreed to Kyoto but oversaw the increase of greenhouse gas emissions during their terms in office and did little to meet Kyoto's targets. Canada's current Conservative Government has claimed that, due to increased emissions since 1990, it is realistically impossible to meet their Kyoto targets and attempting to do so would be disastrous for the Canadian economy. Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under fire for being adamant in leaving Kyoto and working on a different climate plan. Consequently, this issue has become something of an Achilles Heel for the Government in recent months. The current Liberal Party has been quick in their condemnation of the Government but has also been accused of using Global Warming for political purposes as seen in the naming of leader Stéphane Dion's dog 'Kyoto'. Recent polls have indicated that, if there were to be an election soon, the environment would be the top issue for Canadians.

Asia and Oceania

Australia has now officially signed the Kyoto ratification, after the new Labor government came into power on December 3, 2007. The previous Coalition government had long objected to ratifying the treaty, arguing it would unduly impact on Australian jobs, especially when countries such as China, India and the U.S. were not party to it.
Japan is preparing to force industry to make big cuts in greenhouse gases, taking the lead in a country struggling to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations. ^[35]

Europe

For a more detailed treatment, see European Climate Change Programme.

Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004, after a deal with the European Union over WTO membership. Russia's ratification completed the requirements of the treaty to come into force, based on nations totaling 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions.
The UK government-commissioned Stern Review into the economic effects of climate change was published in October 2006. Tony Blair's assessment was that it showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". He added, "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto — we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."^[36]
Britain's government launched an official calculator in the week of June 18 2007 that enables every person in the country to work out how much carbon dioxide he produces and how to cut it.^[37]. Tory group sets out plans for Green Revolution. ^[38]

Positions of the Energy Industries

See also: climate change denial

One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. [10] After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations. MSNBC Reuters.

In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming. In recent years, other companies have increasingly come to accept the existence and consequences of global warming; for example, the Chairman of BP, John Browne, declared a need for action in 2002. Lord Oxburgh, non-executive chairman of Shell, said in a speech at the 2005 Hay-on-Wye Festival: "We have 45 years, and if we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no time to lose." [11]

One sector of the energy industry that has no problem with the greenhouse gas arguments is the nuclear industry. Margret Thatcher was one of the first major political figures to suggest that the nuclear power was a "green" solution. This was largely regarded with derision at the time but it is the ultimate goal of Tony Blair's solution to tomorrow's energy needs and probably explains his enthusiasm for CO2 emission controls.

Indeed as many countries move towards legally binding engagements to Kyoto targets, including fines for failing to achieve them, many governments may find this a convenient excuse for otherwise unpopular expansions of their nuclear programs.

This would be an ironic outcome for many who see highlighting the possible dangers of global warming as protecting the environment.

As pointed out on Counter Punch [12] the nuclear power industry is not slow to present itself as the "green" solution :

only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years", the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts.

Nuclear power produces fewer CO2 emissions than fossil fuel plants; the exact level remains somewhat controversial; Greenpeace assert that nuclear power produces about one third of the CO2 emissions as equivalent fossil fuels energy over the lifetime of an installation. [13]

Environmental groups

Thousands of protesters marched on the international day of action on December 3, 2005, which coincided with the first meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the World Social Forum.

Christian environmental groups are also increasingly active on climate change, such as The Evangelical Climate Initiative.

US Catholic Bishops also have recognized the urgency of addressing global warming in a 2001 statement from the US Congress of Catholic Bishops Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good

In New Zealand, the Climaction Coalition has blockaded the main thoroughfares of Auckland City on two occasions, calling for Free and Frequent Public Transport to reduce the city's dependency on cars. They argue that such a measure would also help reduce global warming if repeated in other cities throughout the world. [14]

Academia

There are a large number of academic contributions specifically to the politics of global warming. The following are a small subset of these works:

G8 science academies' statements [15]
Monograph by Dessler and Parson entitled The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: a Guide to the Debate, emphasizing the complexity of the issue.

Global Warming Celebrities

To help communicate the perils of climate change to the public many celebrities have become involved with green campaigning. They include Charlize Theron, Morgan Freeman, Natalie Portman, Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon Salma Hayek. Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Alanis Morissette, Leonardo DiCaprio, Joanne Woodward. Others who have become better known to the public because of their environmental statements include Al Gore, Prince Albert of Monaco

Media

The debate over global warming was raised to a considerably higher profile when former Vice President Al Gore was given an Academy Award for his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore has made a considerable number of public appearances to promote the film and the subject-matter within it.

Other major media treatments of the controversy:

Timeline

Template:Prose

1979: First World Climate Conference [16]
1987: Montreal Protocol on restricting ozone layer-damaging CFCs demonstrates the possibility of coordinated international action on global environmental issues
1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up to coordinate scientific research, by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change".
1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, entering into force 21 March 1994
1996: European Union adopts target of a maximum 2°C rise in average global temperature
25 June 1997: U.S. Senate passes Byrd-Hagel Resolution rejecting Kyoto without more commitments from developing countries [17]
1997: Kyoto Protocol agreed
2001: George W. Bush withdraws from the Kyoto negotiations
16 February 2005: Kyoto Protocol comes into force (not including the US or Australia)
2005: first carbon emissions trading scheme (EU) implemented
July 2005: 31st G8 summit has climate change on the agenda, but makes relatively little concrete progress
November/December 2005: United Nations Climate Change Conference; the first meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, alongside the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), to plan further measures for 2008-2012 and beyond.
July 19, 2006: In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed forming the Climate Action Board, a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation's most far-reaching initiatives to curb global warming. California ranks 12th in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, however its regulatory actions tend to have far-reaching effects throughout the U.S.^[39]
30 October 2006: The Stern Review is published. It is the first comprehensive contribution to the global warming debate by an economist and its conclusions lead to the promise of urgent action by the UK government to further curb Europe's CO2 emissions and engage other countries to do so. It discusses the consequences of climate change, mitigation measures to prevent it, possible adaptation measures to deal with its consequences, and prospects for international cooperation.

References

↑ Montopoli, Brian (January 2, 2007). Middle Ground on Global Warming?. CBS News. Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
↑ Hulme, Mike (November 4, 2006). Chaotic world of climate truth. BBC News. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
↑ Nesmith, Jeff (June 2, 2003). Foes of global warming have energy ties. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
↑ Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2008). After Verbal Fire, Senate Effectively Kills Climate Change Bill. NY Times. Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
↑ Rudd ratifies Kyoto - National - theage.com.au
↑ Climate change concerns championed by Cameron's Conservatives
↑ Base page
↑ Rolling Stone, June 13, 2007, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global
↑ The Washington Post, June 21, 2007 "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/21/BL2007062101075_2.html?nav=hcmodule , citing the Rolling Stone invetigative report published 2007/6/13
↑ Associated Press, Oct. 24, 2007, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING_HEALTH?SITE=NVREN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT; also archived at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/24/4772/
↑ ^11.0 ^11.1 Reuters, January 30, 2007, free archived version at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm, last visited Jan. 30, '07
↑ Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf
↑ written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf last visited Jan. 30, 07
↑ Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall (October 2003). An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-09-08.
↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=122610581&oldid=122607192
↑ A breakdown of the Senate vote on the Climate Stewardship Act | Grist | Muckraker | 05 Nov 2003
↑ Pelosi creates global warming committee, Associated Press, 1/18/07.
↑ Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress Environmental Defense, May 29, 2007.
↑ McKinstry, Robert B., Dernbach, John C. and Peterson, Thomas D., "Federal Climate Change Legislation as if the States Matter" . Section of Natural Resources Law, Forthcoming Available at SSRN
↑ Campbell, D. (June 20, 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
↑ Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)
↑ Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, July 27. Obtained via FOIA request on July 31, 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, September 29. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, October 4. Accessed December 22, 2006
↑ Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
↑ Revkin, Andrew C. (January 29, 2006). Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
↑ Eilperin, J. (April 6, 2006) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House"] Washington Post
↑ Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear. BBC Panorama (June 1, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
↑ Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming. CBS News and Associated Press (January 30, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
↑ Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)", Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (PDF), Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
↑ Taranto, James (February 1, 2007). They Call This Science?. OpinionJournal.com. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
↑ From Toronto Star review
↑ Pidot, Justin R. (2006). Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues (PDF). Georgetown University Law Center. Retrieved on 2007-04-13.
↑ Blair, Schwarzenegger announce global warming research pact, Associated Press, 7/31/06.
↑ "How the White House Worked to Scuttle California’s Climate Law", San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007 http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/25/4099/
↑ Planet Ark : Save The Planet Before It's Too Late, Pope Urges
↑ World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
↑ BBC News: Climate change fight 'can't wait'
↑ calculator to help save the planet
↑ Planet Ark : Tory Group Sets Out Plans for Green Revolution
↑ Cut CO2 - You Can Help Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2003), "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy", Social Problems 50(3)
New York Times, 10 March 2005, "Evangelicals Put Climate Change High on Their Agenda: Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming"

External links

Tarek Maassarani, Government Accountability Project, March 2007, Redacting the Science of Climate Change: An Investigative and Synthesis Report
Timeline of events related to the politics of global warming
U. Colorado : Politics and Science [18]
UNFCCC
History of global warming
Global warming and media
Frontline: Hot Politics
Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming
George Monbiot, The Guardian, July 12, 2005, "Faced with this crisis: Instead of denying climate change is happening, the US now denies that we need proper regulation to stop it"
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 20 September 2005, "It would seem that I was wrong about big business: Corporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by ministers who resist regulation in the name of the market"
John D. Sterman and Linda Booth Sweeney (undated) "Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter"
OpenDemocracy.net the politics of climate change
Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Magazine, July 20, 2005, "The Revolution Will Be Localized"
Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, Free Market Foundation, April 4, 2006, Weatherproofing African economies against climate change
Senators sound alarm on climate - Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times - January 31, 2007
Robert Tracinski, RealClearPolitics, June 29, 2007: The Seeds of the Global Warming Police State. [19]

Environmental groups

http://www.panda.org/climate/ — the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/topics/energy/climate/ — Worldwatch Institute
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change — Greenpeace
Stop Climate Chaos - Coalition of UK charities
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com — Environmental Defense
CutCO2.org - Independent information source

Business

Carbon Disclosure Project [20], supported by over 150 institutional investors, aims for transparency on companies' greenhouse gas emissions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{uncited}}
+{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}
+{{portal|Energy}}
+The '''politics of global warming''' have involved policy decisions, legislation, and political debate over the science of and response to [[global warming]].  The political struggle over global warming has involved various governmental bodies, special-interest groups, and scientific organizations.
-The '''politics of global warming''' is dominated by advocates who urge action to "prevent" [[global warming]], generally on the grounds that the [[Modern Warming]] period is headed for ecological catastrophe. These advocates are predominantly [[liberal]]s and [[environmentalist]]s and are opposed by [[conservative]]s.
+== Political sphere ==
+* [[UNFCCC]]
+* [[European Union]]'s [[European Climate Change Programme]]
+* Developing countries
+* [[31st G8 summit]]
-* the [[global warming]] agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create [[global governance]] [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2145]
+== No middle ground ==
+Many moderates suggest the solution to global warming is "akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging." <ref>{{cite web | title=Middle Ground on Global Warming? | first=Brian | last=Montopoli | publisher=CBS News | date=January 2, 2007 | accessdate=2008-07-07 | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/01/02/publiceye/entry2321267.shtml}}</ref>
-==US politics==
+Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric....I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory."<ref>{{cite web | title=Chaotic world of climate truth | first=Mike | last=Hulme | publisher=[[BBC]] News | date=November 4, 2006 | accessdate=2007-04-14 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm }}</ref>
-Registered voters are evenly divided on the issue, with 75% of Democrats believing the science supports AGW theory but only 23% of Republicans believing this.
+The moderate political viewpoint has been largely abandoned in the US due to Congress' inability to pass any significant CO2 regulation despite the overwhelming popular support for such measures.  Also there is substantial evidence showing that the oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production.<ref>{{cite web | title=Foes of global warming have energy ties | first=Jeff | last=Nesmith | publisher=Seattle Post-Intelligencer | date=June 2, 2003 | url=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html | accessdate=2008-07-07 }}</ref>  Given the US government's intransigence despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities, the political rhetoric has become more extreme if only to get government to move even slightly in the direction of CO2 control.<ref>{{cite web | title=After Verbal Fire, Senate Effectively Kills Climate Change Bill | first=David | last=Herszenhorn | publisher=NY Times | date=June 7, 2008 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/washington/07climate.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin | accessdate=2008-07-07 }}</ref>
-Since the issue came to the fore in 1989, neither president - [[Bill Clinton]] or [[George W. Bush]] - has sent the [[Kyoto Protocol]] treaty to the Senate for ratification. A bipartisan Senate resolution disapproved the notion of joining the treaty 93-0.
+== Political alignment and global warming ==
+In most English-speaking countries, support for action to mitigate global warming, such as ratification and implementation of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] is strong on the political left.
-Some sources date the flip-flop from [[global cooling]] hype to [[global warming]] hysteria to 1989, when the [[Berlin Wall]] fell. With the [[Cold War]] won by the forces of democracy and freedom, supporters of totalitarian socialism had to find a new issue. <ref>"The global warming circus was in full swing.  Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah.  Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting.  I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science.  Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming.  A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate." [http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I_2.html] </ref>
+* In [[Australia]], the [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] party ratified Kyoto <ref>[http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-ratifies-kyoto/2007/12/03/1196530553722.html Rudd ratifies Kyoto - National - theage.com.au<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
+* In [[Canada]], the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] government ratified Kyoto
+* In [[New Zealand]], the [[New Zealand Labour Party|Labour]] government of Helen Clark ratified Kyoto
+* In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[United Kingdom Labour Party|Labour Party]] ratified Kyoto
+* In the [[United States]], [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] Administration signed Kyoto and Democrats have proposed and supported a number of bills to mitigate emissions. Although Kyoto is signed, the Democratic Congress refuses to take a vote on it and thus the United States is not bound to the treaty.
-==EU politics==
+In some countries the political right are fighting on a platform of taking tough action against global warming<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=136989 Climate change concerns championed by Cameron's Conservatives]</ref>, while in others the political right either dispute the [[scientific consensus on global warming]] or oppose action to mitigate global warming, instead favoring adaption.{{Fact|date=May 2007}} All European countries have ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], and all have supported strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
-All 27 member states of the [[European Union]] have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, as has the EU itself. In 2000 the European Climate Change Programme was launched to provide a strategy to implement Kyoto: the targets assigned for each member state vary, with western states cutting emissions more than eastern ones &ndash; to make an average cut of 8% by 2012, 20% to 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2050.<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/01_energy_policy_for_europe_en.pdf An Energy Policy for Europe</ref> Some member states have agreed to further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; [[Germany]] had already cut emissions by 17.2% in 2004, so is pressing for tougher targets in future, and the [[United Kingdom]] parliament has proposed a Climate Change Bill to cut GHGs by 60% by 2050 (several parties including the [[Liberal Democrats]] have pushed for 80% or 100% reduction targets).<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6444145.stm 'Binding' carbon targets proposed</ref> All vehicles produced in the EU from 2012 will have to emit less than 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (equivalent to at least 47 miles per gallon for diesel, 55 mpg for petrol): the most stringent law in the world.<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/efe/24/article_4119_en.htm European strategy targets car emissions</ref>
-==International politics==
+* In the United States, a February 2007 survey found that 95% of the 41 Congressional Democrats surveyed agreed "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems" while only 13% of the 31 Republicans surveyed agreed.<ref>[http://syndication.nationaljournal.com/images/203Insiderspoll_NJlogo.pdf Base page<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
-The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ([[IPCC]]) has issued a series of reports endorsing the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Supporters of this theory call the IPCC assessments authoritative, and use this as the basis to justify ratification of the global warming treaty (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).
+* Global warming skepticism has been promoted by newspapers associated with the right such as ''[[The Australian]]'', the ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' in the United Kingdom and the ''[[National Post]]'' in Canada. [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0]
-==Loss of objectivity among scientists==
+===United States===
-[[Hans von Storch]] and [[Nico Stehr]] wrote:
+{{Main|Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States}}
-:In an article we published in the professional journal ''Science'' in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this [[hockey stick curve]] is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed. [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html]
-==Distortion of the facts==
+==== Specific actions of the Bush administration ====
+{{ seealso | Presidency of George W. Bush }}
+In June 2005, [[US State Department]] papers showed the administration thanking [[Exxon]] executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group [[Global Climate Coalition]] was also a factor. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html]
-Supporters of Kyoto have famously asserted that temperatures in 1998-2007 are the highest in 1,000 years. However, peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals challenges this claim.
+The Bush administration has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters," according to a report in ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' magazine which reviews hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.<ref>Rolling Stone, June 13, 2007, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global</ref>."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'
-In 2003, the "[[hockey stick graph]]" of [[Michael Mann]] was examined by McIntyre and McKitrick in ''Energy & Environment''. They found that:
+"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . .
-:the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. [http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf]
-==Contradictory Claims==
+"The [[Council on Environmental Quality|CEQ]] became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites.
+"two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command. <ref>The Washington Post, June 21, 2007 "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/21/BL2007062101075_2.html?nav=hcmodule , citing the Rolling Stone invetigative report published 2007/6/13</ref>
-On 7/2/08, an article reported that the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute says there will be “blistering” future heat waves because of the “drying-out effect of a warming world”. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_sc/sci_extreme_heat]
+Also, the White House removed key portions of a [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) report given to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers to human health of global warming.<ref>Associated Press, Oct. 24, 2007, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING_HEALTH?SITE=NVREN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT; also archived at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/24/4772/ </ref>  According to one CDC official familiar with both the CDC version and the version given to the Senate, the version given to the Senate was "eviscerated."  The White House prevented the Senate and thus the public from receiving key CDC estimates in the report about diseases likely to flourish in a warmer climate, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes, more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution, an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus, mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress, and how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming.
-The previous day, another article said the National Wildlife Federation claims “Midwest floods show impact of global warming
-”. [http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0130458420080701]
-“Drying” and “flooding” are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t stop claims that “global warming” will cause both of them.
-==Notes==
+Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the White House has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming<ref name=autogenerated1>Reuters, January 30, 2007, free archived version at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm, last visited Jan. 30, '07</ref><ref>Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf</ref>
-<references/>
+"High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."
+Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the [[Government Accountability Project]], the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.<ref>written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf last visited Jan. 30, 07</ref> Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.<ref name=autogenerated1 />
+==== Federal government ====
+{{seealso|Energy policy of the United States|Environmental policy of the United States|U.S. Climate Change Science Program}}
+The [[United States]], although a [[signatory]] to the [[Kyoto Protocol]], has neither [[ratified]] nor [[wikt:withdrawn|withdrawn]] from the protocol — though their one-time representative, [[Condoleezza Rice]], remarked that the Protocol was "unacceptable" at the time it was presented to her.{{Fact|date=May 2007}} The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The current President, [[George W. Bush]], has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue. [http://www.alternet.org/story/11054/]
+In October 2003, [[the Pentagon]] published a report titled [[An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security]] by [[Peter Schwartz (futurist)|Peter Schwartz]] and [[Doug Randall]].  The authors conclude by stating that "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3566_AbruptClimateChange.pdf | title=An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security | author=Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall | month=October | year=2003 | accessdate=2007-09-08|format=PDF}}</ref>
+From 1989 to 2005, oil and gas industries gave $179.5 million to U.S. federal candidates and parties. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=122610581&oldid=122607192</ref>  In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the [[McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act]] failed a vote in the US Senate. [http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/senateVoteJune05.cfm]. In the 2005 vote, Republicans opposed the Bill 49-6, while Democrats supported it 37-10. <ref>[http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2003/11/05/griscom-climatevote/ A breakdown of the Senate vote on the Climate Stewardship Act | Grist | Muckraker | 05 Nov 2003<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>.
+In January 2007, Democratic [[Speaker of the House|House Speaker]] [[Nancy Pelosi]] announced she would form a [[United States Congress]] subcommittee to examine global warming.<ref> [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_co/congress_global_warming_6 Pelosi creates global warming committee], Associated Press, 1/18/07. </ref>  The US government announced that it was withdrawing funding from the lobby groups it had been supporting that aimed to discount the evidence for global warming.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
+Sen. [[Joe Lieberman]] said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus." [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070131-121250-1632r_page2.htm]
+See also [[Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate]].
+The [[Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007]] was introduced by [[United States Senate|Senators]] [[Bernie Sanders]] (I-VT) and [[Barbara Boxer]] (D-CA) on January 15, 2007. The measure would provide funding for R&D on geologic [[CO2 sequestration|sequestration of carbon dioxide]], set emissions standards for new vehicles and a renewable fuels requirement for gasoline beginning in 2016, establish energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards beginning in 2008 and low-carbon electric generation standards beginning in 2016 for electric utilities, and require periodic evaluations by the [[Emissions trading|National Academy of Sciences]] to determine whether emissions targets are adequate.<ref>[http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1075 Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress] ''Environmental Defense'', May 29, 2007.</ref>
+There is a Report about federal climate change legislation as if the states matter.<ref>[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031552 McKinstry, Robert B., Dernbach, John C. and Peterson, Thomas D., "Federal Climate Change Legislation as if the States Matter" . Section of Natural Resources Law, Forthcoming Available at SSRN]</ref>
+=====Political pressure on scientists=====
+US officials, such as [[Philip Cooney]], have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,
+<ref>Campbell, D. (June 20, 2003) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,981127,00.html "White House cuts global warming from report"] ''Guardian Unlimited''</ref> many of whom, such as [[Thomas Knutson]], have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.<ref>Donaghy, T., ''et al.'' (2007) [http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf "Atmosphere of Pressure:"] a report of the [[Government Accountability Project]] (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)</ref><ref>Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, July 27. [http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/media-interviews.html Obtained via FOIA request on July 31, 2006.] and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, September 29. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Commerce_Department_tells_Nationa_1004.html "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved"] ''The Raw Story,'' October 4. Accessed December 22, 2006</ref><ref>Zabarenko, D. (2007) [http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-03-08T222736Z_01_N08259521_RTRUKOC_0_US-POLARBEARS-SCIENTISTS.xml  "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists"] ''Reuters''</ref>
+Climate scientist [[James Hansen]], director of NASA's [[Goddard Institute for Space Studies]], claimed in a widely cited ''New York Times'' article
+<ref>{{cite web | first=Andrew C. | last=Revkin | title=Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him | publisher=[[The New York Times]] | date=January 29, 2006 | accessdate=2007-04-14 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all }}</ref>
+in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." [[NASA]] denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] have made similar complaints;<ref>Eilperin, J. (April 6, 2006) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html
+"Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House"] ''Washington Post''</ref> once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
+The [[BBC]]'s long-running current affairs series ''[[Panorama (TV series)|Panorama]]'' recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."<ref>{{cite web | title=Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear | publisher=[[BBC]] Panorama | date=June 1, 2006 | accessdate=2007-04-14 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm}}</ref>
+According to an Associated Press release on [[January 30]], [[2007]],
+:"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
+:"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."<ref>{{cite web | title=Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming | publisher=[[CBS News]] and [[Associated Press]] | date=January 30, 2007 | accessdate=2007-04-14 | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/politics/main2413400.shtml }}</ref>
+Critics writing in the ''Wall Street Journal'' editorial page claim that the survey
+<ref>{{cite book | first=Timothy | last=Donaghy | coauthors=Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz | chapter=Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal) | title=Atmosphere of Pressure &ndash; Political Interference in Federal Climate Science | publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] & [[Government Accountability Project]] | month=February | year=2007 | accessdate=2007-04-14 | url=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf | chapterurl=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Full-survey-instrument-with-responses.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref>
+was itself unscientific.<ref>{{cite web | first=James | last=Taranto | authorlink=James Taranto | title=They Call This Science? | publisher=[[OpinionJournal.com]] | date=February 1, 2007 | accessdate=2007-04-14 | url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009609 }}</ref>
+Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by [[Chris Mooney]] as constituting a [[The Republican War on Science|Republican War on Science]].
+=====Allegations of U.S. government attempts to mislead the public=====
+The book ''[[Hell and High Water (book)|Hell and High Water]]'' asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research.  The book claims that, to delay action, industry and government spokesmen suggest falsely that "technology breakthroughs" will eventually save us with [[hydrogen cars]] and other fixes.  It calls on voters to demand immediate government action to curb emissions.  [[Tyler Hamilton (reporter)|Tyler Hamilton]], in his review of the book for [[The Toronto Star]], wrote that the book offers "alarming detail on how the U.S. public is being misled by a federal government (backed by conservative political forces) that is intent on inaction, and that's also on a mission to derail international efforts to curb emissions."<ref>[http://www.thestar.com/article/166819 From ''Toronto Star'' review]</ref>
+=====Global warming litigation=====
+Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, [[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency]] before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] forced the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the [[Clean Air Act]]. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General [[Bill Lockyer]] who filed a lawsuit [[California v. General Motors Corp.]] to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, [[Comer v. Murphy Oil]], was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.<ref>{{cite web
+  | first=Justin R. | last=Pidot
+  | publisher=[[Georgetown University Law Center]]
+  | year=2006
+  | url=http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf
+  | title=Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues
+  | accessdate=2007-04-13 |format=PDF}}</ref>
+====State and local governments====
+However, 195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, [[California]] (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production. The [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally. [http://www.climatechoices.org/CA_Policies_Fact_Sheet.pdf]
+On [[August 31]], [[2006]], the [[California]] leaders of both political parties agreed to terms in the [[Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006|California Global Warming Solutions Act]]. When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. <sup>[http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=5422]</sup> The bill was signed into law on [[September 27]], [[2006]], by Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
+Gov. Schwarzenegger also announced he would seek to work with Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] of Great Britain, and various other international efforts to address global warming, independently of the federal government. <ref> [http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/07/31/uk-calif-global-warming.html?ref=rss Blair, Schwarzenegger announce global warming research pact], Associated Press, 7/31/06. </ref>
+On [[September 8]], [[2006]], [[Arizona]] Governor [[Janet Napolitano]] signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.<sup>[http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-09-11T184027Z_01_N11341321_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-EMISSIONS-ARIZONA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-3]</sup>
+=====RGGI=====
+Seven Northeastern US states are involved in the [http://www.rggi.org/ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative], a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.
+* '''Participating states'''<sup>[http://www.rggi.org/states.htm]</sup>:
+Beginning in 2009, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will be capped by state:
+*[[Connecticut]]: 10.7 million tons
+*[[Delaware]]: 7.56 million tons
+*[[Maine]]: 5.95 million tons
+*[[New Hampshire]]: 8.6 million tons
+*[[New Jersey]]: 22.9 million tons
+*[[New York]]: 64.3 million tons
+*[[Vermont]]: 1.2 million tons
+* '''Observer states and regions''': [[Pennsylvania]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Maryland]], [[District of Columbia]], [[Eastern Canadian Provinces]].
+=====Federal government attempts to undermine state efforts=====
+The US government has worked to undermine state efforts to mitigate global warming. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, personally directed US efforts to urge governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California’s first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.<ref>"How the White House Worked to Scuttle California’s Climate Law", San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007
+http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/25/4099/ </ref>
+=== Vatican ===
+[[Pope Benedict XVI]] told up to half a million people, over a hillside near the [[Adriatic]] city of [[Loreto]] on the day Catholic Church marks its annual [[Save Creation Day]], that world leaders must make courageous decisions to save the planet "before it is too late" <ref>[http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44080/story.htm Planet Ark : Save The Planet Before It's Too Late, Pope Urges<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>.
+=== Canada ===
+* [[Canada]]'s Liberal Government during the 1990s had agreed to Kyoto but oversaw the increase of greenhouse gas emissions during their terms in office and did little to meet Kyoto's targets.  Canada's current [[Conservative Party (Canada)|Conservative Government]] has claimed that, due to increased emissions since 1990, it is realistically impossible to meet their Kyoto targets and attempting to do so would be disastrous for the Canadian economy. Current Prime Minister [[Stephen Harper]] has come under fire for being adamant in leaving Kyoto and working on a different climate plan.  Consequently, this issue has become something of an [[Achilles Heel]] for the Government in recent months.  The current [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] has been quick in their condemnation of the Government but has also been accused of using Global Warming for political purposes as seen in the naming of leader [[Stéphane Dion]]'s dog 'Kyoto'.  Recent polls have indicated that, if there were to be an election soon, the environment would be the top issue for Canadians.
+=== Asia and Oceania ===
+* [[Australia]] has now officially signed the Kyoto ratification, after the new Labor government came into power on December 3, 2007.  The previous Coalition government had long objected to ratifying the treaty, arguing it would unduly impact on Australian jobs, especially when countries such as China, India and the U.S. were not party to it.
+* [[Japan]] is preparing to force industry to make big cuts in greenhouse gases, taking the lead in a country struggling to meet its [[Kyoto Protocol]] obligations. <ref>[http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzAyNzQ World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
+=== Europe ===
+{{Main|European Climate Change Programme}}
+* [[Russia]] signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004, after a deal with the [[European Union]] over [[WTO]] membership. Russia's ratification completed the requirements of the treaty to come into force, based on nations totaling 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions.
+*The [[United Kingdom|UK]] government-commissioned [[Stern Review]] into the economic effects of climate change was published in October 2006. [[Tony Blair]]'s assessment was that it showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". He added, "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto — we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm BBC News: Climate change fight 'can't wait']</ref>
+*[[United Kingdom|Britain]]'s government launched an official calculator in the week of [[June 18]] [[2007]] that enables every person in the country to work out how much carbon dioxide he produces and how to cut it.<ref>[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2104902,00.html  calculator to help save the planet]</ref>. [[Tory]] group sets out plans for Green Revolution. <ref>[http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44331/story.htm Planet Ark : Tory Group Sets Out Plans for Green Revolution<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
+==Positions of the Energy Industries==
+{{see also|climate change denial}}
+One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the '''fossil fuels''' energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as [[ExxonMobil]], which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]]. ExxonMobil also helped create the "[[Global Climate Science Team]]" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, [[ExxonMobil]] dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. [http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf] After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/| MSNBC] [http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-01-12T221510Z_01_N12276392_RTRIDST_0_EXXON-CLIMATE.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna Reuters].
+In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming. In recent years, other companies have increasingly come to accept the existence and consequences of global warming; for example, the Chairman of [[BP]], [[John Browne]], declared a need for action in 2002. Lord Oxburgh, non-executive chairman of [[Royal Dutch Shell|Shell]], said in a speech at the 2005 [[Hay-on-Wye Festival]]: ''"We have 45 years, and if we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no time to lose."'' [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1509742,00.html]
+One sector of the energy industry that has no problem with the greenhouse gas arguments is the''' nuclear industry'''. Margret Thatcher was one of the first major political figures to suggest that the nuclear power was a "green" solution. This was largely regarded with derision at the time but it is the ultimate goal of Tony Blair's solution to tomorrow's energy needs and probably explains his enthusiasm for CO2 emission controls.
+Indeed as many countries move towards legally binding engagements to Kyoto targets, including fines for failing to achieve them, many governments may find this a convenient excuse for otherwise unpopular expansions of their nuclear programs.
+This would be an ironic outcome for many who see highlighting the possible dangers of global warming as protecting the environment.
+As pointed out on Counter Punch [http://www.counterpunch.org/nukes.html] the nuclear power industry is not slow to present itself as the "green" solution : {{quotation|only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years", the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts.}}
+Nuclear power produces fewer CO2 emissions than fossil fuel plants; the exact level remains somewhat controversial; [[Greenpeace]] assert that nuclear power produces about one third of the CO2 emissions as equivalent fossil fuels energy over the lifetime of an installation. [http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?UCIDParam=20051111114227&]
+==Environmental groups==
+Thousands of protesters marched on the international day of action on [[December 3]], [[2005]], which coincided with the first meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the [[World Social Forum]].
+Christian environmental groups are also increasingly active on climate change, such as The Evangelical Climate Initiative.
+US Catholic Bishops also have recognized the urgency of addressing global warming in a 2001 statement from the US Congress of Catholic Bishops [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm/ Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good ]
+In New Zealand, the [[Climaction]] Coalition has blockaded the main thoroughfares of Auckland City on two occasions, calling for Free and Frequent Public Transport to reduce the city's dependency on cars. They argue that such a measure would also help reduce global warming if repeated in other cities throughout the world. [http://www.climaction.org.nz]
+==Academia==
+There are a large number of academic contributions specifically to the politics of global warming. The following are a small subset of these works:
+* [[G8]] science academies' statements [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222]
+* Monograph by [[Andrew Dessler|Dessler]] and Parson entitled ''The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: a Guide to the Debate'', emphasizing the complexity of the issue.
+== Global Warming Celebrities ==
+To help communicate the perils of climate change to the public many celebrities have become involved with green campaigning. They include [[Charlize Theron]], [[Morgan Freeman]], [[Natalie Portman]], [[Tom Hanks]], [[Susan Sarandon]] [[Salma Hayek]]. [[Brad Pitt]], [[Keanu Reeves]], [[Alanis Morissette]], [[Leonardo DiCaprio]], [[Joanne Woodward]]. Others who have become better known to the public because of their environmental statements include [[Al Gore]], [[Prince Albert of Monaco]]
+==Media==
+The debate over global warming was raised to a considerably higher profile when former Vice President [[Al Gore]] was given an [[Academy Award]] for his documentary film, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]''. Gore has made a considerable number of public appearances to promote the film and the subject-matter within it.
+Other major media treatments of the controversy:
+* ''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]''
+* ''[[Hell and High Water (book)|Hell and High Water]]''
+* [[Michael Crichton]]
+* ''[[The Day After Tomorrow]]''
+* ''[[Are We Changing Planet Earth?]]''
+==Timeline==
+{{Prose|date=March 2007}}
+<!-- to be expanded into paragraphs - this is just to get some initial data for the article -->
+* 1979: First [[World Climate Conference]] [http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/sid101/uncc/fs213.html]
+* 1987: [[Montreal Protocol]] on restricting [[ozone layer]]-damaging [[CFC]]s demonstrates the possibility of coordinated international action on global environmental issues
+* 1988: [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] set up to coordinate scientific research, by two United Nations organizations, the [[World Meteorological Organization]] and the [[United Nations Environment Programme]] (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change".
+* 1992: [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]] agreed at the [[Earth Summit]] in [[Rio de Janeiro]], entering into force [[21 March]] 1994
+* 1996: [[European Union]] adopts target of a maximum 2°C rise in average global temperature
+* [[25 June]] 1997: [[U.S. Senate]] passes Byrd-Hagel Resolution rejecting Kyoto without more commitments from developing countries [http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html]
+* 1997: [[Kyoto Protocol]] agreed
+* 2001: [[George W. Bush]] withdraws from the Kyoto negotiations
+* [[16 February]] 2005: Kyoto Protocol comes into force (not including the US or Australia)
+* 2005: first carbon emissions trading scheme (EU) implemented
+* July 2005: [[31st G8 summit]] has climate change on the agenda, but makes relatively little concrete progress
+* November/December 2005: [[United Nations Climate Change Conference]]; the first meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, alongside the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), to plan further measures for 2008-2012 and beyond.
+* [[July 19]], [[2006]]: In [[California]], [[Gov. Schwarzenegger]] proposed forming the Climate Action Board, a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation's most far-reaching initiatives to curb [[global warming]]. California ranks 12th in the world in terms of [[carbon dioxide emissions]], however its regulatory actions tend to have far-reaching effects throughout the U.S.<ref>[http://www.cutco2.org/2006/07/governator-gets-greener.html Cut CO2 - You Can Help Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
+*[[30 October]] 2006: The [[Stern Review]] is published. It is the first comprehensive contribution to the global warming debate by an economist and its conclusions lead to the promise of urgent action by the UK government to further curb Europe's CO2 emissions and engage other countries to do so. It discusses the consequences of climate change, mitigation measures to prevent it, possible adaptation measures to deal with its consequences, and prospects for international cooperation.
+== See also ==
+* [[:Category:Climate change law|Climate change legislation]]
+==References==
+{{reflist}}
+* Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2003), [http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCrightDunlap2003.pdf "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy"], ''Social Problems'' 50(3)
+* ''[[New York Times]]'', [[10 March]] 2005, [http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5136&method=full "Evangelicals Put Climate Change High on Their Agenda: Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming"]
 ==External links==
+* Tarek Maassarani, Government Accountability Project, March 2007, [http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/2007/Final%203.28%20Redacting%20Climate%20Science%20Report.pdf Redacting the Science of Climate Change: An Investigative and Synthesis Report]
+* [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=global_warming_tmln Timeline of events related to the politics of global warming]
+* U. Colorado : Politics and Science [http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/index.html#001078]
+* [http://unfccc.int UNFCCC]
+* [http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatechange.html History of global warming]
+* [http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatemediaint.html Global warming and media]
+* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics Frontline: Hot Politics]
+* Spencer Weart, [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ The Discovery of Global Warming]
+* [[George Monbiot]], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[July 12]], 2005, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1526525,00.html "Faced with this crisis: Instead of denying climate change is happening, the US now denies that we need proper regulation to stop it"]
+* George Monbiot, ''The Guardian'', [[20 September]] 2005, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1573772,00.html "It would seem that I was wrong about big business: Corporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by ministers who resist regulation in the name of the market"]
+* John D. Sterman and Linda Booth Sweeney (undated) [http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/StermanSweeney.pdf "Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter"]
+* OpenDemocracy.net [http://www.opendemocracy.net/climate_change/index.jsp the politics of climate change]
+* Amanda Griscom Little, ''Grist Magazine'', [[July 20]], 2005, [http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23608/ "The Revolution Will Be Localized"]
+* Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, ''Free Market Foundation'', [[April 4]], 2006, [http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleType=Publication&ArticleId=1169 Weatherproofing African economies against climate change]
+*[http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070131-121250-1632r_page2.htm Senators sound alarm on climate] - Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times - [[January 31]], [[2007]]
+*Robert Tracinski, [[RealClearPolitics]], June 29, 2007: The Seeds of the Global Warming Police State. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070629/cm_rcp/the_seeds_of_the_global_warmin]
+===Environmental groups===
+*http://www.panda.org/climate/ &mdash; the [[World Wide Fund for Nature]] (WWF)
+*http://www.worldwatch.org/topics/energy/climate/ &mdash; [[Worldwatch Institute]]
+*http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change &mdash; [[Greenpeace]]
+*[http://stopclimatechaos.org Stop Climate Chaos] - Coalition of UK charities
+*http://www.fightglobalwarming.com  &mdash; [[Environmental Defense]]
+*[http://www.cutco2.org/blog.php CutCO2.org] - Independent information source
+===Business===
+* [[Carbon Disclosure Project]] [http://www.cdproject.net/], supported by over 150 institutional investors, aims for transparency on companies' greenhouse gas emissions
+==See also==
+* [[Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change]]
+* [[Scorcher (book)]]
+<br>
+{{global warming}}
-*[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear] - By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr
+[[Category:Climate change policy]]
+[[Category:Global warming]]
-[[category:politics]]
+[[de:Klimaschutzpolitik]]
-[[category:climate change]]
+[[no:Klimapolitikk]]
+[[nn:Klimapolitikk]]
+[[fi:Ilmastopolitiikka]]

Difference between revisions of "Politics of global warming"

Revision as of 00:35, November 10, 2008

Contents

Political sphere

No middle ground

Political alignment and global warming

United States

Specific actions of the Bush administration

Federal government

Political pressure on scientists

Allegations of U.S. government attempts to mislead the public

Global warming litigation

State and local governments

RGGI

Federal government attempts to undermine state efforts

Vatican

Canada

Asia and Oceania

Europe

Positions of the Energy Industries

Environmental groups

Academia

Global Warming Celebrities

Media

Timeline

See also

References

External links

Environmental groups

Business

See also

Navigation menu

Search