"We all know, we have no time to lose."
These are the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel today in an address to a joint session of the US Congress.
And she didn't stop there. She also said that dealing with climate change is one of the great tests of the 21st Century and that "in December the world will look to us, to the Americans and the Europeans," for leadership.
Most Republicans sat quietly during this while Democrats gave Chacellor Merkel a standing ovation.
I agree with Chancellor Merkel. Climate change is the test of our lifetimes. The Democratic majority and President Obama understand this and are taking a leadership role in guiding both the US and the world toward finding solutions.
Meanwhile, the Republicans dither. They whine that "EPA hasn't done an analysis of the impact," which, of course, is false. EPA has done an analysis. Republicans whine that they "don't have enough time to read the bill," though the major issues have been discussed for the last 9 months, the revised draft bill has been available for at least a week (and the original bill was available long before), and the process of discussion is ongoing. Perhaps if Republicans assigned their staffs to work on the bill rather than immediately find a microphone to whine about it they would actually be able to accomplish their jobs.
Merkel noted that "curbing greenhouse gas emissions would spur growth in innovative jobs" in the US, in Europe, and worldwide. Republicans seem intent on doing nothing but stand in the way of any meaningful legislation because they think it will help them keep their own jobs in next year's elections.
It's time for all of us to insist that Republicans start contributing to the solution rather than putting all their efforts into blocking any attempt by others to look out for the future of the United States.
For more information, read the articles in the Washington Post, BBC News, and CNN.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 108
The democrats are doing a little better but I believe they are trying to stall and get republican support they do not need. The president and congress need to stop looking for bipartisan support they will never see and get down to business or it will be to late to do anything that matters. We are not very far from the point of no return and need our legislators to stop playing politics and start working for the public good.
In the end, we need to act. And in that regard, if one party wants to abdicate their responsibilities to the United States, then the other party has to make it happen without them.
Europe was all for Kyoto and did squat all after signing on. Spain was the one nation that actually spent billions subsidizing "green" jobs and it has virtually nothing to show for it. Far be it right for the Euros to lecture us on this given their own actual record.
Do you have the NYT article or other source so we can look at it?
I read too much and seldom remember where I read things.
Sounds like a power grab to me. We absolutely do not need to centralize government power any further, regardless of global warming theories.
To either individual governments (Like our Federal government), the UN, or some other world government system that is formed.
And why?
Power! There's countless politicians that desire to control the entire globe.
Which individual freedoms do you think we have surrendered to our own government? Or to the UN? Or some future "world government" that might be formed?
Power! There's countless politicians that desire to control the entire globe.
I'm sorry, but that sounds like something out of an Austin Powers movie. Some evil Dr. Nutjob with a cat who has the power to make entire Congresses act in accordance with his will, not to mention the military, the agencies, and 300 million (perhaps hyponitized) Americans. Oh, and ditto that for the rest of the world.
Seriously, why are you so afraid that some B-movie script is somehow going to take place in the real world?
Does anyone think freedom will be increased in a bigger, world government?
Frankly, the idea is ludicrous. It would require every sovereign nation on this planet to relinquish its self-governance. Do you really think that is possible?
Of course, that doesn't mean that national governments won't cooperate with each other. We always have and always will. The US itself is in alliances such as NATO, OAS, and tons of binational and multinational agreements.
In fact, our history of failing to ratify international agreements is legendary. Which usually means we get to act only as an "observer" and not have any vote in the matter. Which of course means we abdicate international decision making to others rather than take the leadership role we should be taking. Our weakness is not in collaborating with other governments, but in not being a leader.
Does anyone think freedom will be increased in a bigger, world government?
Actually, while your question is pretty much moot, the answer would probably be yes. Governments that are now dictatorships and others that restrict freedoms would have to conform more with our more open society. The problem is that we don't take a leadership role. And I don't mean bullying people into submission, because that doesn't work (just think how amenable you are when someone tries to force you to do something you think is against your best interest). Leadership is hard. It's time we step up to the plate.
What communists are those? And what makes you think that the rest of the world would let it happen?
And finally, what evidence do you have that such a thing is occurring?
It’s clear that we are nowhere near having world government; there’s a long way to go still. Prior to any successful establishment of a world government, we’ll have to have a global currency, which that alone would be a huge mistake. I posted an article on the dangers of a one world currency on Associated Content here.
Yes, there have been suggestions from Russia and China this year that there needs to be a new world reserve currency.
In addition, foreign central banks are diversifying away from the dollar. Just yesterday India bought 200 tons of IMF gold even though gold is at an all time high; obviously they believe it is going to go a lot higher.
China is also thinking along the same lines; they have been increasing their gold reserves, and they came out and encouraged their citizens to buy gold and silver; and they are expected to scoop up some or all of the other 200 tons of IMF gold.
The whole point is- the dollar is not going to be the world's reserve currency much longer; what will take it's place? Whether or not a push is made for a global currency now or a little later, the stage is being set for some big changes.
As you said, leadership is hard, and our politicians are unwilling to lead, they are too busy following the votes. I posted this yesterday: Let the dollar prove itself If we want to remain a powerful nation we better move fast to catch the dollar.
We can start with the most delusional ones.
-R.
And guess what...300 million people (and 7 billion) create a lot more impact on the environment than do 2.5 million. Fancy that.
So we can either stick our heads in the sand and mime bumper sticker slogans with no meaning, or we can take responsibility for ourselves and make some decisions.
-R.
(note: I decided that my original attempt at humor in this note was demented, so it's gone)
Clearly we need to act.
It does seem that there is quite a bit of paranoia about world government from the libertarian far right. Why is that? Why the fear of others? Why the cowering in corners and lack of self-confidence? Why the delusions?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The climate change science is so widely disputed, it can NOT be argued as fact.
Absolutely!
Reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's quote "Delay is preferable to error"
Got their head caught in the sand?
Makes a nice bumper sticker, but it isn't particularly meaningful to misappropriate Jefferson in this totally out of context case.
In short, the quote is being used to advocate taking no action, ever. It has nothing to do with "delay" in the sense that there is more time needed to think it through. In fact, there is zero effort by the Republicans to think this through. They prefer denial, obfuscation, and obstruction to any meaningful exercise in governing. And that is sad.
If the minority party does not want to participate in doing what they were hired to do (which is NOT to get themselves reelected), then the majority party has the obligation to govern without them.
That's a non-sensical statement, Poliwonk. Firstly, GW Bush has been shown to have taken fuzzy intelligence and converted it in his mind and his speeches into solid information that he knew was false. That is called lying.
On the other hand, politicians aren't somehow subversively behind closed doors making up lies about climate change (well, except for Inhofe). In fact, scientists have been saying for decades that there is a problem. The scientific community is overwhelmingly in concurrence that there is a climate change problem and it is largely a result of human emissions of carbon dioxide and related phenomena. This science is based on tens of thousands of peer-reviewed (i.e., reliable) studies by thousands of scientists over more than three decades of research. Scientists presented their findings, and now the people we elect to deal with stuff like this are trying to find policy solutions.
The UN Climate bill has 1 mission: To redistribute Americas wealth to other nations, thus weakening it so that Europe can compete in the global market place. It is the first step toward 1 World Government. It seeks to control individuals, and destroys our sovereignty.
I'm sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous contentions I have ever heard. First off, it isn't a "UN climate bill," it is a US Senate and US House of Representatives bill(s). Secondly, your scenario requires the entire world to be in some sort of hypnotic semi-coma at the will of some all-powerful Austin Powers-type villian (see my comment elsewhere) who can somehow convince them to act against their best interests solely to the benefit of Europe. Thirdly, Europe is competing on the world market place in many ways much better than the US is, so perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to write them off. Fourthly, your last sentence is the kind of thing that gets people committed into lifetime confinement in the hospitals for th mentally insane. Seriously, "seeks to control individuals, and destroy our sovereignty?"
The climate change science is so widely disputed, it can NOT be argued as fact.
False. Embarrassingly false. Climate change science is almost universally accepted as the state of the art. The scientific consensus is supported by EVERY academy of science around the world and EVERY major science organization in the world. The few who say they disagree are largely associated with free market lobbying groups like the non-scientific Heartland Institute whose mission statement says they will fight anything that might lead to policy remedies they don't like.
False. Embarrassingly false. Climate change science is almost universally accepted as the state of the art. The scientific consensus is supported by EVERY academy of science around the world and EVERY major science organization in the world. The few who say they disagree are largely associated with free market lobbying groups like the non-scientific Heartland Institute whose mission statement says they will fight anything that might lead to policy remedies they don't like.
[Note: the above is so important that it had to be repeated]
This comment was left hanging since someone deleted their original comment, hence my copying it here.
Again, just curious as to who "they" are that want "us" to accept "world government." And why.
I for one don't want to give op our sovereignty for any reason.
Conservative sages have been afraid of "They" and "world government" since I was a kid 60 years ago. They can never pin anything down. Hell, we can't even control Afghanistan how in the hell are "they" going to install a "world government". It has something to do with their fervent belief in the auntie christ I supose.
Destroying the constitution is another buzz phrase that flunks the reality test and has flunked it for the last 60 years that I can remember. Anything the wackos don't agree with has the potential of "destroying the constitution". They never explain just exactly how the destruction is going to occur.
The conservatives fear the irrational and deny things which are real rational threats. It is a mental illness and is there is no cure. The only thing we can do is shine a bright light of their irrationality to reveal them as the poor deluded souls that they are.
We need to make any necessary changes on a more local level.
We aren't. Why do you think that every country on the planet will willingly give us its independent national sovereignty?
How? Do you expect your local township government to help your local coal-fired power plant to switch to solar energy when no one else is doing it? How do you think you would convince them to do that, given that the playing field would not be level and they would likely have to shut down rather than change?
Meanwhile, national standards will set a framework so that all of us are in the same boat. It will also likely provide technical and financial assistance to help us accomplish the goals which are in our own national self interest.
Destroying the constitution is another buzz phrase that flunks the reality test and has flunked it for the last 60 years that I can remember.
The conservatives fear the irrational and deny things which are real rational threats.
I've extracted the lead sentence in each of Robert's paragraphs in the comments above, but if you missed the details please go back and read them in their entirety.
Robert, while I agree with the general idea of what you are saying, I think it is important not to conflate "conservatives" with the loony fringe of the Republican party. Conservatism has at its roots strong financial principles, i.e., don't spend more than you make. To that I would concur. Unfortunately there are two things that seemed to have happened that have damaged the "conservative brand."
First, the fringe have taken over the Republican party. No one thinks we should waste money or spend more than we take in, but the fringe fears change so much that it cannot seem to think coherently. They scream "socialism" whenever someone (not their guy) is in the White House or Congress (though seem to scream less when their guy is in place, go figure). They latch onto ridiculous contentions like "death panels" and "socialism" and "world governments" that require vast delusions among the populace to come to fruition. It's the fear of anything that isn't comfortable.
Second, and most distrubing to me, is that there seems to be a complete disregard for honesty. Thousands of scientists toiling unknown for decades are somehow "pushing a liberal agenda" even though most aren't even liberals, or even Americans. The aforementioned "death panels" are quickly proven fallacious, and yet they pull them closer to their chests even though they know they are false. So called conservatives here on Gather will post doctored videos and then defend them as being true even after they admit that they are doctored. It's that disregard for what should be common sense of fact that has so characterized the fringe. Frankly, if you can't argue the point honestly, is the point worthy of argument?
Fact: The poles, North and South have decreased in size alarmingly so since 1979 yet faster since 2000.
Fact: A new ocean is forming in Africa (East side)
Fact: Iceland is loosing its permafrost as is Alaska, and parts of Russia
Fact: Methane is escaping where permafrost is being lost.
Fact: CO2 emissions have and are continuing to increase above the numbers that the 2007 readings were reporting projections for the same measure of time.
Fact: CO2 emissions from man have been a concern in nearly every European country long before anyone in the U.S. saw the issue and read the data...we are last and that is not good.
On the East African (Ethiopian) "new ocean," I'm not sure that is a climate change phenomena but more related to plate tectonics. In any case, here's a good article on it.
mooch
I'm sure the feeling would be mutual.
I'm sure she thinks that the government should spend more......
She's actually quite conservative, but she also realizes that ignoring reality isn't very good for the national interest of her country, or ours.
there may be no time to lose for her, especially IF, not the IF, she is gaining financially from it all.
Perhaps before you accuse the Chancellor of Germany of "gaining financially" from doing her job to govern intelligently, you might want to have some proof. [I'm pretty sure Germany no longer has Gestapo, but you never know, they might have kept them secret after all these years just ready to take over the world]
The most likely followers of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who has been giving speeches everywhere they could book him has been proved wrong. He is wrong about the Copenhagen summit and the stealthy conference to establish a "World Government" yet, he draws audiences in grand numbers! He has told audiences that POTUS 44 is selling the sovereignty of the U.S.to this "World Government" and his message is being gobbled up by the sheeple who turn to Fox for news.
This country WILL prosper under the negotiations and leadership of a young and pragmatic President.
The "world government" is a paranoid's dream. He's taken text out of the draft discussion documents from Copenhagen and spun a fantastical web akin to "death panels" and "Obama was born in Kenya."
As I've said above, "selling our sovereignty" would require 300 million Americans to be put in some sort of hypnotic trance. Frankly, I'm a sucker for a British accent too, but I prefer the more honest ones.
The time to act is now.
Sitting and do nothing is not the answer...
Such discussion sometimes get heated here on gather, among those who are reality based, of course, and therefore actually willing to see carbon emissions as a problem to solve. The topic rarely comes up with denial folk, because they do not see carbon as a problem at all and therefore love coal.
For nuclear power, the science says nuclear power does what it does, including the benefits and the risk. The debate is not about the science but about whether or how we should have a policy to use it or lose it. Climate change is the same...the science is defined and we need to determine what policies we need in place to deal with it.
But many think we can just vote on whether climate change exists in the first place. We can't. Science tells us it exists. Our choices are whether and how to deal with the science.
I vote NO. No global warming. I vote YES for a return to an age of superstition and lack of reason. ;-)
Microsoft's success came from a combination of networking, good luck, and business sense. Technical creativity had surprisingly little to do with it. Gates has done little or no programming since the early 80s.
My father was an industrial photographer until the place he worked for folded in the late 1970's. He knew a lot of Pittsburgh's movers and shakers in the late 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. He even ran into national figures like VP/President Nixon, Senator Barry Goldwater, Jack Dempsy, Igor Sikorsky and other figures/politicians. If he continued, maybe my life would be different now and I could be like a Bill Gates, maybe?
Horatio Alger can happen and yes, you need to work hard to get far but you also have other certain intangible factors that play into it like timing, God, luck, family background and so on.
If Bill Gates was born to a single Black mother in a Chicago ghetto or a poor White family in Arkansas farmland, its possible we never would hear of him, then again, who knows? How about if he was born in 1945 or 1965 instead of 1955? You cannot ignore the outside, random factors of life.
Of course. But you have to be ready to take advantage of opportunities. That is how innovation happens, and how business and individuals excel.
Most computers used Microsoft BASIC or a tweaked version of it. Apple had Applesoft which was almost the same thing. I mainly used TRS-80's Model I's and later Apples when I was a kid, the former had MS BASIC. My first computer was a TI-99/4A, TI had their own basic and handling strings was tough, you had to workaround a conversion from MS to TI BASIC, it was a pain, but a bit easier when you got TI Extended BASIC.
I still remember loading programs from cassette, it took anywhere from 3 to 5 to even 15 minutes. The TI wasn't too bad, it ran at 1300 baud but the old TRS-80 Model I was only 500 baud, that took forever.
The Senate majority leader has stated TODAY; that before the final vote comes to the floor of the U.S. SENATE, there will be a financial impact statement.
I saw this on a United Press story on AOL.
What good will this do if the rest of the world does not follow?? What if the GOP is right and thousands of jobs will be lost??
This may be Obama's one cause too many, after the bank bailout, the car bailouts, the wars, and the housing mess.
The CBO and others have done a financial review. Obviously the bill is still being negotiated, and any changes will have to be assessed. But this isn't just about costs, it's about protecting us all from the impact we've had on this planet.
What good will this do if the rest of the world does not follow??
Which is why the US must take a leadership role and not stymie any honest discussion of the problem.
What if the GOP is right and thousands of jobs will be lost??
What if everyone else is right and tens of thousands of jobs will be gained? Keep in mind the massive job losses started under the Republican watch and have slowed under the Obama administration.
This may be Obama's one cause too many, after the bank bailout, the car bailouts, the wars, and the housing mess.
Ironically, it is the habit of sticking our heads in the sand and not dealing with these major issues for decades that put us into this bind. Perhaps if we addressed the problems honestly we wouldn't be in this position. But the fact is we are in this position, and the goal of making changes is to right the ship.
making this retroactive, will force utility companies to raise rates, an average of $50 to $150 a month.
That I can not afford.
I would have to go without utilities; which means that within 2-3 winters at most, I will be dead..
In addition, why do you think rates will go up by so much? Analysis by independent groups have suggested the cost of the current climate change bills would be less than 30 cents per day. And that doesn't even take into consideration the cost savings to society from not having to deal with oil import factors, losses of crops due to excessive drying of the midwest, losses to our coastal habit (and moving our cities), etc.
I do have limited financial resources since my Veterans Disability pay is under $700.
Why do I think they will go up by so much?? The estimate that you share is on the extremely low side estimates.
Your claim of just a $9.00 a month raise is not quite believable.
Some estimates range from $50 a month to over $350 a month raise.
Right now, my electric company is building a coal fired plant with a new technology where the carbon emissions are "buried underground." ( I admit that the tech talk about HOW that would happen was over my head.)
But when that plant comes online, I know that my bill will go up by at least 20 bucks.
From what the utility company said, they would be "effected/affected" by this pending legislation, and would have to trade for those "carbon emission credits" that are talked about. ( I don't know what they are actually called. But "coupons" seem like a good name.)
There is no set price on those "carbon credit coupons."
Estimates on prices for those "coupons" go from a few bucks to hundreds of bucks.
That is the one flexible item that can not be "pegged" accurately.
I agree that the air needs to be made cleaner.
I HAD to move out of St Louis Missouri when the air was so polluted that most of the summer the air was in the "orange or red zone" and I could not go outside of my apartment.
Also, the "national power grid" needs to be rebuilt, and that will also cost us.
http://civilrights4all.gather.com/
You present your side well and, when debating, you stay clean of insulting the others position.
Put aside any arguments on climate change, we do need to clean the air of polution. ( I know that some wold say it's the same thing.)
Issues like you post is what needs to be seen and discussed.
Which is why I hope that you will join my group.
I think that one item that we will agree on, is when ANY monetary figure is mentioned by any side of an issue, that it would have to be exact and correct, or else that lobby group would be barred from lobbying. A "truth in lobbying bill."
I would agree that this should be the goal, but foresee there to be actual problems in meeting the "exact and correct" criteria. Even the best estimates can be effected by uncontrollable things like amount of economic growth, number of participants, unusual things like natural disasters or disease outbreaks, public mood, etc. But certainly whomever is proposing a figure should strive to use defensible assumptions, all of which must be stipulated as honest accounting.
A further note about this. You have to take what the utility says with a grain of salt. Business ALWAYS overestimates the financial impacts to themselves and underestimates the benefits to others. It's part of their game, just like the car dealer always quotes you a high price first to leave room to barter with you. Independent groups, which include the Congressional Budget Office (which is does analysis at the request of Congress but is actually an independent entity), have estimated the costs of various proposals to be "less than the cost of a stamp a day." In fact, that cost will be offset by savings in pollution cleanup that society now pays for, health issues that society now pays for, and the vagaries of the oil supply (not to mention homeland security issues).
Also, the "national power grid" needs to be rebuilt, and that will also cost us.
Yes, and the president actually authorized some funds for being that process in a private/public partnership. Modernization will allow non-traditional electricity to be fed into the grid to serve people beyond the local sources. Which means local utilities could actually sell their excess electricity to "the grid" and reduce costs to local consumers.
Finally, as a disabled veteran you do have some special circumstances that make you eligible for assistance. You say you get VA assistance already, which obviously isn't much. I'm not sure if that is designed to help cover things like your utility costs already or not, but your local utility may also have a separate program to give you a discount. This is especially true as our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has reminded members of Congress (and the public) that there are many veterans who have sacrificed a lot for this country who we ought to be thanking in any way we can. I believe there should be a VA representative that can help you identify all the options. [I apologize if I'm saying things you already know, as I don't know your specific circumstances or history. My feeling has always been that if we ask someone to fight for our country we should be willing to assist them once they return, especially those who sustain injuries so the rest of the populace doesn't.]
Best regards
China leaving US behind in green energy
What if the GOP is right and thousands of jobs will be lost??
Republicans are wrong.
U.S. Stimulus Creates, Saves More Than 30,000 jobs, Federal Contractors Report
Businesses Advocate for Comprehensive Clean Energy and Climate Legislation
Half was over $100, and even at $50 bucks, would be a stretch for me.
The government, other than the basic check, food stamps, and basic medical from medicaid/the veterans hospitals.
Many of the disabled do not have VA medical and medicaid is just basic coverage. (No heart transplants, for instance.)
Those, lke me, and in similar situations; will get no extra help because the brain dead politicians are only thinking of the legislation as it sits in front of them.
The truth that I mention by "lobbying groups" is for what they air in TV/radio and all other advertising.
I wold LOVE for the morons that came up with "death panels" with the medical reform;" charged with false advertising.
On this issue, I have to assume that on both sides, they tailor estimates towards what side they favor. I wish tey had a system simular to the medicine trials, where it is a "double blind study" where the researchers would not know who was funding the study.
That is the only ones that I do trust.
Basically, I am on your side, but we could come up with a questionnaire where with the WAY and WORDING of the questions, we would agree with the questions, but they would mean that we are against what we really support. Like, "do you want to see America lose thousands of jobs?" Of course not. But that is what one side is claiming.
As far as the ocean tides go, there has been no general increase in the range of "high tide's" yet.
To many Americans, they see no difference yet.
IF they focused more on air pollution, and what cleaner air would mean, would help.
China has 1.3 billion people, more and more of whom are emigrating to other parts of the world. The Chinese economy is growing faster than probably any other economy. There are more people that speak some version of Chinese as a first language than there are those who speak English (or any other language) as a first language.
In addition, the US will be conducting more and more business with China (and India) as we move forward. So it isn't a bad idea to know some basic Chinese (greetings, etc).
Is it a good or a bad thing? I don't know. I suppose it depends on whether you embrace cultural differences or are fearful of them. I personally would highly encourage all children to learn more than one language. I would also encourage all Americans to travel to places with substantively different cultures than the US. Doing so will enable us to learn the differences in how different cultures think, and the similarities that we all have, which is that are able to raise our children, feed our families, and put a roof over our heads. In short, we all want the same things, we may just have a different way of getting there.
Only Al Gore will benefit from anything we do to stop the alleged devastation by man.
Anyone who believes WE have anything to do with climate change is a) incredibly arrogant, and b) incredibly ignorant.
You see, there is an unequivocal scientific consensus that our CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented global warming. And that we have to do something about it now. No doubts, no questions, no equivocation. The data have spoken, and we are it. It's too bad some don't want to take responsibility for what we have wrought.
Meanwhile you parrot the non-scientific bs from the non-scientific Heartland Institute whose entire mission is to stop regulations impacting their membership. Gee, guess what, the free market lobbying group doesn't like the medicine so it decided retroactively to deny the disease even exists. Go figure.
Except the disease does exist. And the delays by the dinosaur industries that have been passing along the cost of their pollution to society for decades serve only their own pockets at the severe detriment to the entire world.
You can't even get the quote right. Just like the way you have lapped up the free market lobbyist bs you got suckered into thinking PT Barnum said the quote to which you allude. He didn't.
Yes, indeed, "there's one born every minute." Time to stop being one and help find a solution.
Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
American Medical Association - Report 3 of the Council on Public Health: Global Climate Change and Human Health
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society: Global Climate Change Policy
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
European Science Foundation: Focus on Climate Change
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics – The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change
American Society for Microbiology – Global Environmental Change: Microbial Contributions Microbial Solutions
The Society of American Foresters – Forest Resource Management in an Era of Globalization
American Astronomical Society Endorsement of AGU Statement on Climate Change
American Chemical Society: Global Climate Change – ACS Position
American Institute of Physics: Statement on Human Impacts of Climate Change
American Physical Society – National Policy: Climate Change
American Statistical Association Endorses Conclusions of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change