Thursday, February 22, 2007

It's All About Water, Stupid!

My Sustainable Natural Resources class went to Ankeny National Wildlife Reserve today to learn first hand about the management issues faced by the reserve.  Our guide was a USFWS officer stationed at the Willamette Valley complex of reserves that focus on protection of Dusky geese and other migratory birds.  She provided a first-class introduction to the Reserve, its resources, and management concerns.  She described the population explosion of other Canada Goose sub-species, the challenge of managing migrating species with geologically distant breeding grounds, the ever present problem of poachers, finding the optimal balance given differing management regimes required for various species, etc.

She responded to my question about how USFWS is incorporating climate change impacts into its conservation planning by saying that they have a lot of taskforces...but, its really hard to do because we don't know exactly what's going to happen.  That said, she went on to describe how her refuges are very water dependent and that regional climate change impacts may reduce water availability -- and some of the refuges have water rights and some don't.

Here's another account about how climate change will affect that most important and increasingly scarce Western resource: water.  The National Research Council has just published its report on climate impacts on Colorado River basin Management.  Though complete with the standard caveats, the most likely scenario is less water overall and more severe and frequent droughts.  Here are some excerpts from the report brief:

Colorado River Basin Water Management:
Evaluating and Adjusting to Hydroclimatic Variability
February 2007
    Recent studies of past climate and streamflow conditions have broadened understanding of long-term water availability in the Colorado River, revealing many periods when streamflow was lower than at any time in the past 100 years of recorded flows. That information, along with two important trends—a rapid increase in urban populations in the West and significant climate warming in the region—will require that water managers prepare for possible reductions in water supplies that cannot be fully averted through traditional means. Successful adjustments to these new conditions will entail strong and sustained cooperation among the many entities involved in Colorado River water management and science programs.

    This report from the National Research Council resulted from concerns regarding the long-term adequacy of Colorado River water supplies. Severe drought conditions have affected much of the region since the late 1990s, with 2002 and 2004 being among the 10 driest years on record in the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Water storage in the basin’s reservoirs dropped sharply during this period due to very low streamflows; for example, 2002 water year flows into Lake Powell were roughly 25 percent of average.
    During this same time period, there were several studies that produced “reconstructed” Colorado River flows over the past several centuries. These studies, based on data from annual growth rings of trees, show that there have been many past severe and extended droughts across the region. Just as important, they show that direct measurements of streamflow over the past 100 years, which have guided many administrative decisions for the river’s allocation and use, may offer an overly optimistic forecast of future water availability.

    This report assesses existing scientific information—including temperature and streamflow records, tree-ring based reconstructions, and climate model projections—and how it relates to Colorado River water supplies and demands, water management, and drought preparedness.
Past Climate Information is Creating a New Water Management Paradigm
For many years, scientific understanding of Colorado River flows was based primarily on measurements of the river’s flow at gaging stations along the river. The first gaging stations on the river were established in the 1890s. As records of the river’s flow measurements accumulated through the years and as the number of gaging stations grew, a more complete understanding of Colorado River
flows and variability emerged.

    The Colorado River basin extends over seven U.S. states and parts of northwestern Mexico.   For example, it is now known that the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which governs water allocations between the upper and lower Colorado River basin, was based on a short record of relatively high annual flows.  Since the 1970s, the gaged record has been complemented by many different studies of past hydroclimate conditions. Some of these studies are based on indirect, or proxy, evidence of past climates. Some of these proxy studies are based on tree-ring data. Because annual growth rings in trees at lower elevations can reflect moisture availability, tree-ring data can be used to reconstruct records of past river flows. Using data from coniferous tree species with long life spans in the Colorado River region, flow records dating back several centuries have been reconstructed.

    Past water management decisions have been based largely on the gaged record, and there has been an implicit assumption that there is a single value of the river’s average annual flow—about 15 million acre-feet/year—around which inter- annual flow variations occur. Even though the basin experienced wet and dry periods, river flows and weather conditions were expected to return to a “normal” state, largely defined by climate of the early and middle 20th century. However, recent tree-ring based reconstructions demonstrate that Colorado River flows occasionally shift into decadal-long periods in which average flows are lower, or higher, than the supposed mean value of 15 million acre-feet/year. These reconstructions reinforce the point that the gaged record covers only a small subset of the range of natural hydroclimatic variability in the river basin over several centuries. The basin’s future hydrology thus may not be reasonably characterized based on the gaged record alone.

Regional Climate Warming Points to Reductions in Water Supplies

    Temperature records across the Colorado River basin and the western United States document a warming trend over the past century. These temperature records, along with climate model projections, suggest that temperatures across the region will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. Higher temperatures will result in less upper basin precipitation falling and being stored as snow, increased evaporative losses, and will shift the timing of peak spring snowmelt to earlier in the year. There is less consensus regarding future trends in precipitation. However, based on analysis of many climate model simulations, the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that warmer future temperatures will reduce future Colorado River streamflow and water supplies. Reduced streamflow would also contribute to increasing severity, frequency, and duration of future droughts.

Increases in Urban Water Demand Will Stress Supplies

    Rapid population growth across the western United States is driving increases in water demand. From 1990-2000, Arizona’s population increased by about 40 percent, while Colorado’s population increased by about 30 percent. Population projections suggest that this trajectory will continue. Although many innovative urban water conservation programs have reduced per capita uses, population growth is driving increases in urban water demands; water consumption in Clark County, Nevada (which includes Las Vegas), for example, approximately doubled in the 1985-2000 period. Steadily rising population and increasing urban water demands in the Colorado River region will inevitably result in increasingly costly, controversial, and unavoidable trade-off choices tobe made by water managers, politicians, and their constituents.

    A significant trend in the quest to meet rising water demand has been the sale, lease, and transfer of agricultural water rights to municipalities, particularly in southern California and Colorado (in Arizona, tribal settlements, with transfers to municipalities, have also been important). With about 80 percent of western U.S. water supplies devoted to irrigated crop production, agricultural water appears to constitute the most important, and perhaps final, large source of available water for urban use in the arid U.S. West. Modest shifts of agricultural water to municipal and industrial uses can do much to help meet increasing urban water demands. At the same time, however, agricultural-urban transfers often entail “third party” effects that include costs for rural communities, ecosystems, and others indirectly dependent on water supplies affected by the transfers. Moreover, even though the amount of water allocated to western agriculture is large, it is finite, and thus there are limits on its ability to satisfy expanding urban water demands.

Technologies and Conservation May Not Fully Meet Future Demands

    A wide array of technological and conservation measures can be used to help stretch existing water supplies. These measures include underground storage, water reuse, desalination, weather modification, conservation, and creative water pricing structures. These measures may not necessarily be inexpensive or easy to implement, but many of them show promise and will continue to be pursued and developed as water supplies tighten in future years. However, technological and conservation options for augmenting or extending water supplies—although useful and necessary—in the long run will not constitute a panacea for coping with the reality that water supplies in the Colorado River basin are limited and that demand is inexorably rising.

Sustained Collaboration Important for Better Drought Preparedness

    Drought conditions have prompted the Colorado River basin states to move toward a new level of cooperation. This is illustrated by a February 2006 letter from the seven basin states to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, which was written in response to a request that the states develop guidelines for coping with water shortages. The interstate cooperation and initiative exhibited in this letter represent a welcome development that will prove increasingly valuable—and likely essential—in coping with future droughts and growing water demands.
In addition to interstate cooperation, enhanced communication and collaboration between the scientific and water management communities will be vital. The knowledge base of Colorado River hydrology and climate rivals and may exceed comparable knowledge bases for any of the world’s river systems. Some of this information has been incorporated into key legal and operational decisions, but some of it may not be as well integrated in Colorado River basin water policy as it might be. A commitment to two-way communication among scientists and water managers is necessary for improving preparedness and planning for drought and other water shortages.

Continue reading

February 22, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Live trees include mortally injured, "dying" trees

Lands Council v. Martin, 2007 WL 49058, 9th Cir. Feb 12, 2007
Lands Council v. Martin

Term "live trees" in Umatilla National Forest plan, which prevented harvesting of old-growth "live trees," included all old-growth trees that were not dead, and included mortally injured, "dying" old-growth trees that were likely to die in relatively near future but that had not yet died, and thus the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) prevented post-fire logging sales of those dying old growth trees, since the Forest Service had not adopted a technical meaning to the term and a common understanding of the term "live" was "not dead."

February 22, 2007 in Biodiversity, Cases, Economics, Forests/Timber, Governance/Management, Law, Sustainability, US | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

World Council of Churches endorses Global Roundtable statement

Here's the Global Roundtable statement issued yesterday.Download GROCC_statement_2-19.pdf .  The Roundtable includes senior officials from an array of corporations, universities, religious institutions, and NGOs:


Air France

    All China Federation of Industry and Commerce

Alliant Energy


American Association of Blacks in Energy

American Council on Renewable Energy

American Electric Power


Aristeia Capital

Association of British Insurers
    BASF Group

Business Leaders Group on Climate Change

California Clean Energy Fund

Calvert Group
    Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Canadian Electricity Association
  Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School

Chicago Climate Exchange
China Renewable Energy Industries Association

  City of Reykjavík

The Climate Group
  The Climate Institute
  The Climate Trust
  Coalition for Rainforest Nations

Columbia University
  Confederation of Indian Industry
  Conservation International

Covanta Energy
  Credit Suisse First Boston
Deutsche Telekom
Dow Chemical
  Earth Institute at Columbia University
  Electricité de France International North America

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
    Endesa SA

Energetech Australia

Energy Holding Romania

Eni, SpA

Environmental Defense


ETG International

European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts
European Commission Delegation to the United Nation
Exelon Corporation
  Federation of Canadian Municipalities
FirstEnergy Corporation

Florida Power and Light

Ford Motor Company

  General Electric
  German Electricity Association

Glitnir Bank
  Global Energy Network Institute

Global Environment Facility

Goldman Sachs & Co.
  HDR Engineering

Henkel KGaA

Iberdrola, S.A

Iceland GeoSurvey (ISOR)
    ICF International

Indian Merchants Chamber
  ING Group
  Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
  Institute of Process Engineering, ETH Zurich 
  Insurance Information Institute
  Interface, Inc.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Chamber of Commerce

International Council on Mining and Metals

International Energy Agency
  International Gas Union
  International Research Institute for Climate and Society
  International Trade Union Confederation
    JPMorgan Chase

Keyspan Corporation

Landsvirkjun (The National Power Company of Iceland)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Lenfest Foundation

Los Alamos National Laboratories
Marsh and McLennan Cos.

  MissionPoint Capital Partners
  Munich Climate Insurance Initiative

Munich Re
  Nand and Jeet Khemka Foundation
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 

National Commission on Energy Policy
National Development and Reform Commission of China:   National Coordination Committee on Climate Change and Energy Research Institute
    National Energy Assistance Directors Association
    National Council of Churches

National Grid
Natural Resources Defense Council 
  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Nippon Mining Holdings


Norsk Hydro

NRG Energy

  OECD Environment Directorate
  Old Harbor Outfitters  
  Papua New Guinea, Office of the Prime Minister     

Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Princeton University

Rainforest Alliance

Recycled Energy Development

Republic of Iceland, Office of the President
  Resources for the Future

Reykjavik Energy

Ricoh Corporation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Office of U.S. Senator Olympia J Snowe
  Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS)

State Street Global Advisors
Stanford University

StoraEnso North America

Suncor Energy
Suntech Power

Swiss Re
  Tata Power    
    Toyota Motor North America
    Underground Coal Gasification Partnership

Union of Concerned Scientists

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations Environment Programme- Finance Initiative
  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat

United States Combined Heat and Power Association
  University of Iceland
University of Tokyo

  U.S. Geothermal

U.S. Green Building Council
    U.S. Renewables Group

  Verde Venture Partners
  Vulcan, Inc.
  Western Governors’ Association 

World Business Council on Sustainable Development 

World Coal Institute

World Council of Churches

World Liquid Petroleum Gas Association

World Petroleum Council

  World Wildlife Fund

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Energy and Environment


Here's the executive summary:


Climate change is an urgent problem requiring global action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Energy use is vital for a modern economy. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. Thus, confronting climate change depends, in many ways, on adopting new and sustainable energy strategies that can meet growing global energy needs while allowing for the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at safe levels.


Energy efficiency must play an important role in these strategies, but long-term success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global energy system. This means significantly increasing the use of non-fossil-fuel energy sources, significantly raising the energy efficiency of fossil-fuel power plants through advanced technologies, and developing and deploying technologies that trap and store the CO2 produced by the fossil fuels that will remain in use.
Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be developed and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce emissions of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy. Research indicates that heading off the very dangerous risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at a reasonable cost.

Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts. To meet this challenge and take advantage of these opportunities:

    • The world's governments should set scientifically informed targets, including an ambitious but     achievable interim, mid-century target for global CO2 concentrations, for "stabilization of greenhouse     gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic     interference with the climate system," in accordance with the stated objective of the Framework     Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    • All countries should be party to this accord, which should include specific near- and long-term     commitments for action in pursuit of the agreed targets. Commitments for actions by individual     countries should reflect differences in levels of economic development and GHG emission patterns     and the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
    • Clear, efficient mechanisms should be established to place a market price on carbon emissions     that is reasonably consistent worldwide and across sectors in order to reward efficiency and     emission avoidance, encourage innovation, and maintain a level playing field among possible     technological options.
    • Government policy initiatives should address energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors,     allow businesses to choose among a range of options as they strive to minimize GHG emissions and     costs, encourage the development and rapid deployment of low-emitting and zero-emitting energy     and transportation technologies, and provide incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and     harmful land management practices.
    • Governments, the private sector, trade unions, and other sectors of civil society should undertake     efforts to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change, since climate change will occur     even in the context of highly effective mitigation efforts.
    • Signatories to this statement will support scientific processes including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); work to increase public awareness of climate change risks and solutions; report information on their GHG emissions; engage in GHG emissions mitigation, which can include emissions trading schemes; champion demonstration projects; and support public policy efforts to mitigate climate change and its impacts.

World Council of Churches (see below)


Continue reading

February 21, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

ExxonMobil --Some progress towards a clear message

original post 2/15; revised 2/20

Here's the text of ExxonMobil CEO's recent speech.  I still think Exxon should clarify the reasons why Tillerson discusses economic development, poverty eradication, and public health (according to Ken Cohen, to make effective policy with the interests of developing countries in mind -- not to suggest that we can't afford aggressive climate change policy).  But, the overall message does strike me as clearer.

No discussion about the realities facing our industry today would be complete without reference to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. This is an issue that crosses all boundaries, impacts industry and governments, but most importantly will directly impact consumers in every part of the world.

The majority of the growth in energy demand will come from developing nations as their growing populations pursue higher standards of living. With this improvement in living standards will come most of the growth in future greenhouse gas emissions.

By the year 2030 it is expected that global emissions of carbon dioxide will approach 40 billion tons per year, up from close to 28 billion tons per year today.

So, we know our climate is changing, the average temperature of the earth is rising, and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. We also know that climate remains an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. While our understanding of the science continues to evolve and improve, there is still much that we do not know and cannot fully recognize in efforts to model and predict future climate system behavior.

Having said that, the risks to society and ecosystems from climate change could prove to be significant. So, despite the uncertainties, it is prudent to develop and implement sensible strategies that address these risks while not reducing our ability to progress other global priorities such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.

Our industry has a responsibility to contribute to policy discussions on these important issues – and to take concrete actions ourselves to reduce emissions.

As an industry, we are already improving efficiency in our operations - greatly enhancing our energy efficiency while supplying more products than ever before. Steps taken at ExxonMobil, for example, since 1999 to improve energy efficiency at our facilities, for example, resulted in CO2 emissions savings of 11 million metric tons in 2005. That’s equivalent to taking two million cars off the road.

But we must do more. We must continue to foster and support scientific research into technology breakthroughs to deliver new sources of energy with even lower emissions. One example is Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project, which ExxonMobil and other partners are supporting with a collective contribution of $225 million.

The approaches policymakers adopt to address climate risks are also important. A global approach is needed that promotes energy efficiency, ensures wider deployment of existing emissions-reducing technologies and supports research into new technologies.

It is also critical to maintain support for fundamental climate research, recognizing that there remains much that we still do not understand.

Specific policy tools should be assessed for their likely effectiveness, scale, and costs, as well as their implications for economic growth and quality of life. In that regard, rigorous and informed debate - - debate that takes into account the essential role played by energy in advancing social and economic progress -- will best support thoughtful policymaking.

In our view, the most effective approaches will maximize the use of markets.  This will help promote global participation and facilitate the rapid spread of successful initiatives.


Consistent with a market-based approach, effective policies will ensure a uniform and predictable cost of reducing carbon emissions, maximize transparency, minimize complexity, and adjust to new developments in climate science and the economic impacts of policies.

Just as technology has continually been the driver of progress in our industry, I am confident that future technology advances will both expand our understanding of the climate system and enable an effective response.

We must encourage all participating in this debate to frame the discussion in terms of the realities we face – the realities of growing demand and the need for affordable, reliable energy to enable the world’s consumers to achieve genuine improvements in their quality of life.

The policy measures adopted today will have far-reaching implications in the years ahead. We must consider the potential impacts on future economic growth and quality of life for not just the current generation, but those of our children and grandchildren.

Last week, I summarized my reaction to Planet Ark reports on the ExxonMobil CEO's most recent statement on global warming as "little progress on a clearer message." 

ExxonMobil obviously is still not ready to assume a leadership position on climate policy and continues to play the "balancing" game: 

"It is prudent to develop and implement sensible strategies that address these risks while not reducing our ability to progress other global priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health,"

Ken Cohen had indicated that Exxon was not arguing that climate change policy had to be formulated to assure economic development and poverty eradication.  It sure sounds like it to me.

My opinion was based on the Planet Ark report.  Exxon sent me the full speech.  Looking at the speech as a whole, I think that the message delivered is clearer. I believe that "some progress" is a more accurate description.    But the problem for Exxon remains that it speaks in nuanced language that doesn't dramatically depart from its prior positions.  Until Exxon takes a dramatic step, such as joining the Climate Action Partnership or otherwise sending an unequivocal signal that it supports immediate progress on creating an global climate policy, including strict targets in reducing GHG emissions, Exxon will still be perceived as dragging its feet.

Planet Ark report:


Exxon Mobil CEO: Climate Policy Would be Prudent


HOUSTON - Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson said Tuesday nations should work toward a global policy to fight climate change -- another sign the oil giant is softening its stance on global warming.


"The risks to society and ecosystems from climate change could prove to be significant," Tillerson said.    

"It is prudent to develop and implement sensible strategies that address these risks while not reducing our ability to progress other global priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health," he said.

The comments come after Exxon Mobil, a long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions, began engaging in talks with about 20 other companies on ways the United States could regulate heat-trapping gases.

Speaking at a conference sponsored by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Tillerson said climate change is a global problem and policy should lend itself to global participation, including from the Asia Pacific region, where rapid economic growth could boost emissions.

He also said that the most effective policy approaches would maximize the use of markets. Europe uses a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in which government sets an emissions limit and companies buy and sell the right to pollute against that limit.

Tillerson said that regional approaches to the problem are "not likely to make much of a difference." And he added he believes that there is still much uncertainty about climate.

"Everyone recognizes that no one can conclusively say 100 percent what's going on," he said. "Whatever we do needs to have the flexibility to accommodate the fact that this is going to continue to evolve ... It will not turn out the way any of us expect it to turn out."

A United Nations panel of scientists said this month that mankind is to blame for global warming, and predicted droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels even if greenhouse gas emissions are capped.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions. Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Tillerson also said policymakers should remain realistic about the limited role biofuels can play in the wider energy market, saying it will be difficult to increase the amount of biofuel produced absent a technological advance.

"I'm no expert on biofuels. I don't know much about farming and I don't know much about moonshine," he said. "There is really nothing (Exxon) can bring to that whole (biofuels) issue. We don't see a direct role for ourselves with today's technology," he said.

February 20, 2007 in Climate Change, Economics, Energy, Governance/Management, International, Legislation, Sustainability | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

American Scientists Speak: Is Anyone Really Listening?


AAAS Board Releases New Statement on Climate Change

[PHOTOGRAPH] The retreating Qori Kalis glacier in the Andes of Peru in 2000. [Photograph courtesy of Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University]

The retreating Qori Kalis glacier in the Andes of Peru in 2000
Photograph courtesy of Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University

The following statement on global climate change was released today during the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Francisco. The statement was approved by the board on 9 December 2006.

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for
levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.

Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.

In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes.

The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.

The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the joint National Academies’ statement.

For more information, see the AAAS Global Climate-Change Resources page.


18 February 2007 9:05 pm PST


February 20, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | TrackBack (0)