How Obama and McCain voted on environmental issues in 2007

How did Barack Obama and John McCain vote on environmental and clean energy issues in 2007?

By Glenn Maltais

According to the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), Obama did OK, McCain, not so much.

Even though both presidential candidates are rigorously touting their environmental credentials, when it comes to walking the talk, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain appears to be significant.

The national environmental scorecard, a ranking system that evaluates individual U.S. legislators based on their votes on environmental issues, highlighted 15 key votes last year–all of which senator McCain missed, resulting in a 0% score.

It is not uncommon for Presidential candidates to suffer from absenteeism during hectic election campaigns, or to miss roll call votes while being away from Washington for prolonged periods. Nevertheless, Obama managed to only miss four environmental votes, resulting in a 67% score – not great – but a whole lot better than 0%.

As scored by the LCV, McCain’s lifetime average is 24%, well below Obama’s 86%. Granted, this is not the greatest of comparisons, considering McCain has been in the Senate for a few decades, and Obama, a few years…but still, 24%? Not cool.

Out of the 15 votes where McCain chose to be elsewhere, the one that upset environmental groups the most occurred when an important piece of legislation fell one “yes” vote short of passage. The legislation involved tax incentives for renewable energy (set to expire December 31st, 2008) and repealed unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industries.

Unfortunately, when it comes to what is arguably two the most important issues of our time, energy and the environment, McCain’s “straight talk express” may sound like it’s headed for greener pastures, but it appears to be circling the current administration’s big oil wagons. And, that leaves many environmentalists and those striving to usher in a new [clean, domestic] energy era, seeing red.

Life in the Balance: Coral Reefs Are Declining

Government Report Says Pollution and Climate Changes Threaten Coral ReefsCoral Reef

Coral reefs — a key element in ocean ecosystems that provide not only coastline protection but billions of dollars in benefits from tourism, as well as ingredients used in cutting-edge medicines — are increasingly threatened from the effects of global warming and other hazards, according to a new U.S. government report.

Photo Credit (Getty Images)

The report estimates that nearly half of the coral reefs in areas from the Caribbean to the Pacific “are not in good condition and are continuing steadily on a long-term decline.”

“It’s a pretty alarming situation,” said Jeannette Waddell, the report’s co-editor and a marine biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service. “Coral reefs around the world are confronted by the same types of threats. In some places it is worse. In some places, it’s slightly better. But we’re finding that even remote reefs are showing signs of decline,” she told ABC News. The NOAA report looked at the health of coral reefs in 15 areas under the jurisdiction of the United States and a group of countries called the Pacific Freely Associated States, which include Palau, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

A major threat facing corals is climate change, the report says, which affects coral reefs in multiple ways.

First, warmer ocean temperatures cause corals to expel the colorful living algae in their tissues, leaving them with a “bleached” white look.adsonar_placementId=1280605;adsonar_pid=42753;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=165;adsonar_zh=220;adsonar_jv=’ads.adsonar.com’;

“It really stresses out the coral and makes them more susceptible to things like disease,” Waddell said.

A major bleaching and disease event in 2005 devastated coral reefs across the Caribbean. In the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, scientists say an average of 50 percent of the coral was lost. Some areas lost 90 percent of their coral.

Another problem for corals is that human-induced climate change is altering the chemistry of the oceans, making them more acidic. It happens as fossil fuels are burned, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Much of that carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean, which becomes more corrosive.

“If the ocean continues to acidify, it’s possible that it would preclude corals from growing, because they won’t be able to draw the nutrients and elements out of the water that they need to create the structures that they produce as coral colonies,” Waddell said. “It’s also possible that ocean acidification may become so extreme that it may begin to dissolve the corals that already exist, which would spell disaster for coastal communities.”

A 1997 report in the science journal Nature estimated that the resources and economic benefits derived from coral reefs are worth $375 billion a year.

“Coral reefs only cover about one percent of the world’s surface, but they are a very diverse and important environment or ecosystem,” said Mark Monaco, a marine biologist with NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.

“They provide us fisheries, they provide us culture from the cultural resources, they provide us pharmaceuticals, and they provide us protection from storm events,” he told ABC News.

In areas that have been hit by severe tsunamis, experts point out that damage is usually less severe in places with intact coral reefs just offshore.

Scientists who study the medical benefits of coral reefs say there are about 20 compounds in clinical trials derived from the corals themselves or the many organisms that depend on them.

“That biodiversity is holding the key to treatment of diseases current and future,” said William Gerwick, a professor of oceanography and pharmaceutical sciences who holds a dual appointment at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the University of California San Diego Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

“As we disturb that biodiversity, and reduce the species’ richness, we change that equation dramatically,” said Gerwick, who was not involved in the NOAA report.

Gerwick points to a drug compound derived from a species of sea squirt — small, colorful organisms that live on coral reefs — that has been approved by the European Union for treating soft tissue cancers. The drug, marketed under the name Yondelis in Europe, is in clinical trials in the United States.

Some corals have recently gotten better protections from the federal government. In 2006, two coral species were designated as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.

Climate change isn’t the only threat to coral reefs. Tropical storms, coastal pollution, even boats and their anchors are serious concerns.

“The declining conditions that we’re seeing is exacerbated by having a number of threats work together to cause the decline,” Waddell said.

The report — the work of 270 contributors — is being presented today at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“I think if we don’t change the way we’re going with these reef ecosystems we can’t expect them to get better,” Monaco said. “So we’re going to have to make some hard choices — society-wise, political-wise, economic-wise — to protect these ecosystems.”

Oceans on the Precipice: Scientist Warns of Mass Extinctions

For Immediate Release

Oceans on the Precipice: Scripps Scientist Warns of Mass Extinctions and ‘Rise of Slime’

Threats to marine ecosystems from overfishing, pollution and climate change must be addressed to halt downward trends

Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego

Human activities are cumulatively driving the health of the world’s oceans down a rapid spiral, and only prompt and wholesale changes will slow or perhaps ultimately reverse the catastrophic problems they are facing.

Such is the prognosis of Jeremy Jackson, a professor of oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, in a bold new assessment of the oceans and their ecological health. Publishing his study in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Jackson believes that human impacts are laying the groundwork for mass extinctions in the oceans on par with vast ecological upheavals of the past.Jeremy Jackson, Scripps Professor of Oceanography

Jeremy Jackson, Scripps Professor of Oceanography

He cites the synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overfishing, ocean warming, increased acidification and massive nutrient runoff as culprits in a grand transformation of once complex ocean ecosystems. Areas that had featured intricate marine food webs with large animals are being converted into simplistic ecosystems dominated by microbes, toxic algal blooms, jellyfish and disease.

Jackson, director of the Scripps Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, has tagged the ongoing transformation as “the rise of slime.” The new paper, “Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean,” is a result of Jackson’s presentation last December at a biodiversity and extinction colloquium convened by the National Academy of Sciences.

“The purpose of the talk and the paper is to make clear just how dire the situation is and how rapidly things are getting worse,” said Jackson. “It’s a lot like the issue of climate change that we had ignored for so long. If anything, the situation in the oceans could be worse because we are so close to the precipice in many ways.”

In the assessment, Jackson reviews and synthesizes a range of research studies on marine ecosystem health, and in particular key studies conducted since a seminal 2001 study he led analyzing the impacts of historical overfishing. The new study includes overfishing, but expands to include threats from areas such as nutrient runoff that lead to so-called “dead zones” of low oxygen. He also incorporates increases in ocean warming and acidification resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.

Jackson describes the potently destructive effects when forces combine to degrade ocean health. For example, climate change can exacerbate stresses on the environment already brought by overfishing and pollution.

“All of the different kinds of data and methods of analysis point in the same direction of drastic and increasingly rapid degradation of marine ecosystems,” Jackson writes in the paper.

Jackson furthers his analysis by constructing a chart of marine ecosystems and their “endangered” status. Coral reefs, Jackson’s primary area of research, are “critically endangered” and among the most threatened ecosystems; also critically endangered are estuaries and coastal seas, threatened by overfishing and runoff; continental shelves are “endangered” due to, among other things, losses of fishes and sharks; and the open ocean ecosystem is listed as “threatened” mainly through losses at the hands of overfishing.

“Just as we say that leatherback turtles are critically endangered, I looked at entire ecosystems as if they were a species,” said Jackson. “The reality is that if we want to have coral reefs in the future, we’re going to have to behave that way and recognize the magnitude of the response that’s necessary to achieve it.”

To stop the degradation of the oceans, Jackson identifies overexploitation, pollution and climate change as the three main “drivers” that must be addressed.

“The challenges of bringing these threats under control are enormously complex and will require fundamental changes in fisheries, agricultural practices and the ways we obtain energy for everything we do,” he writes.

“So it’s not a happy picture and the only way to deal with it is in segments; the only way to keep one’s sanity and try to achieve real success is to carve out sectors of the problem that can be addressed in effective terms and get on it as quickly as possible.”

The research described in the paper was supported by the William E. and Mary B. Ritter Chair of Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

# # #

As Gas Prices Soar, Administration Undermining New Fuel Economy Law

WASHINGTON — At the same time Americans are demanding relief from soaring gas prices, the Bush administration is quietly undermining improvements in fuel economy standards as mandated by Congress late last year, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). In comments submitted today, UCS pointed to several flaws in the administration’s proposal to implement those standards. Chief among them is the use of a gasoline price estimate that falls about $1.50 per gallon below current prices.

The energy bill enacted in December directed the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set standards requiring consistent progress toward a 35-mile-per-gallon (mpg) minimum fleet average for new cars and light trucks by 2020. It also directed NHTSA to require automakers to go beyond 35 mpg if they can achieve a higher, “maximum feasible” fuel economy.

When NHTSA sets fuel economy standards, it balances the cost to consumers for fuel-saving technology in new vehicles with the savings from reduced gasoline consumption (as well as benefits to society, including reducing global warming pollution and strengthening energy security.) Thus, the fuel economy standards NHTSA establishes will depend on the gasoline price the agency uses in its calculations. The higher the price of gasoline, the more cost-effective the fuel-economy technology will be.

But the gas price estimates NHTSA is using to make its calculations fall far short of today’s gas prices and, as a result, will rob Americans of the fuel economy they deserve.

NHTSA’s draft rule proposes using one of several gas and oil price projections from the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The one it used in the draft rule assumes a cost of gasoline around $2.50 per gallon between 2011 and 2030 (in 2007 dollars). Today’s current average price for a gallon of regular is $4.09, or $3.97 in 2007 dollars.

UCS recommends that at a minimum, NHTSA should use the most recent EIA “high oil price” projection, which ranges from $2.96 to $3.63 in 2007 dollars between 2011 and 2030. According to NHTSA’s own analysis, if they used that slightly more realistic estimate from EIA, required fuel economy standards would jump 3 to 4 miles per gallon.

UCS is not alone in its criticism of how NHTSA is estimating gas prices. The EIA administrator, Guy Caruso, has recommended that NHTSA use a higher gas price estimate in setting fuel economy standards. At a House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, Caruso testified, in direct reference to NHTSA’s rulemaking process, “.we’re on the higher price path right now. If you were to ask me today what I would use, I would use the higher price.”

The proposed rule NHTSA announced in April calls for fleet average fuel economy to improve to 27.8 mpg in 2011, 29.2 mpg in 2012, and 30.5 mpg in 2013. Those improvements represent an average increase of 1.5 mpg per year. But in 2014 and 2015, fuel economy improvements under the proposal would slip to an average of 0.55 mpg per year, increasing to only 31 mpg and then 31.6 mpg. If fuel economy improvements continue at the pace the proposal sets for 2014 and 2015, the U.S. fleet would achieve slightly more than a 34.5 mpg average by 2020, short of the 35 mpg minimum Congress set.

According to a recent UCS report, NHTSA could set cost-effective fleet average fuel economy standards approaching 40 mpg by 2020, a target achievable even without hybrid technology. With a modest 25 percent hybrid market share in 2020, a fleet average fuel economy of 42 mpg could be achieved, while increased sales of fuel-efficient hybrids could push the average even higher. The UCS report also assumes a carbon price of approximately $41 per ton of CO2, equivalent to $0.49 per gallon, and a conservative estimate for the benefit of increasing oil security of $0.35 per gallon. Both figures are in 2006 dollars.

Article source

Green Living Roof

Green Living Roof

Green roof

Green roof

By Geoff Davis

A green roof (also known as a living roof) is a growing system built on top of a protected waterproof roof. The growing system can be grass, plants, small herbs, etc.

Many benefits. The main ones are:

  • good for small animals and plants
  • add greatly to biodiversity within the immediate local urban environment
  • create extra green open spaces.
  • prevent flooding as water run-off is reduced and slowed down
  • absorb carbon emissions

Water retention is a big factor in urban areas as many gardens are concreted over, paved over for carports, or decked for play areas.

Decking and tarmac greatly increase run-off rainwater. They provide diverse habitats as they can be planted with indigenous flora for bird, insect and arthropod populations. A green roof modifies the urban micro-climate.

Plants cool the air through transpiration, and reduce surface roof temperatures by as much as 40 degrees centigrade in the summer, given the baking heat on a dark flat roof. They also improve air quality, not only absorbing CO2 but also trapping about 85% of airborne particulates.

Roof gardens lose 30% less heat in winter and are cooler in summer, and also provide sound insulation. A green roof can reduce indoor sound by as much as 10 decibels for every 3 inches of growth. Green roofs have been shown to reduce heating costs by as much as 25% and cooling costs by as much 50%, for the floor directly under the roof.

The subsurface protects the roof against aging and replacement. They also add value to a house or building. They look very attractive compared to traditional grey slate or asphalt roofs, and provide a soothing effect for the stressed urban person.

What is a green roof? The subsurface is a high tech system that holds water for dry periods. There is also a waterproof membrane to prevent leaks. They can be very heavy, from 80 to 365 kilograms a square metre . This means most roofs will have to be structurally reinforced.

Amazing fact:
A recent study by US company Weston Solutions estimates that greening the rooftops of all buildings in the City of Chicago would result in nearly $100 million of annual energy savings.

For more information about Green Roof, solar, wind, eco DIY etc, and other sustainable green building tips, with informative photos from our actual builds, see our new Ecotist Green Building Ebook, with free chapters.

Free green building book chapters and more info

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Geoff_Davis
http://EzineArticles.com/?Green-Living-Roof&id=1025204

photo credit

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity

Some 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992.

The World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of Union of Concerned Scientist’s board of directors.

INTRODUCTION

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT

The environment is suffering critical stress:

The Atmosphere

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth’s surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.

Water Resources

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world’s surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world’s population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans –

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world’s food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste — some of it toxic.

Soil –

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth’s vegetated surface has been degraded — an area larger than India and China combined — and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests –

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species –

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world’s biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain — with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe — but the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world’s interdependent web of life — coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change — could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today’s 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world’s scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

  1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth’s systems we depend on.
  2. We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs — small-scale and relatively easy to implement.We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.
  3. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.
  4. We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.
  5. We must stabilize population.

This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic, and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war — amounting to over $1 trillion annually — will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is required — a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth’s limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists — natural, social, economic, and political.

We require the help of the world’s business and industrial leaders.

We require the help of the world’s religious leaders.

We require the help of the world’s peoples.

“We call on all to join us in this task.”

NASA warming scientist: ‘This is the last chance’

WASHINGTON (AP) — Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world’s only hope is drastic action.

James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the “dangerous level” for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth’s atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.

“We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path,” Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. “This is the last chance.”

Hansen brought global warming home to the public in June 1988 during a Washington heat wave, telling a Senate hearing that global warming was already here. To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he was called a prophet, and addressed a luncheon at the National Press Club where he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing.

To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don’t capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn’t be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030. That carbon capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.

Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth’s atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million.

Hansen said he’ll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.

“The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants,” Hansen told the luncheon. “I’m not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this.”

Frank Maisano, a spokesman for many U.S. utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a scientist, his “stop them all approach is very simplistic” and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise.

The year of Hansen’s original testimony was the world’s hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it’s too late to do anything about it. His answer: There’s still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. “The Arctic is the first tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would.” Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

Longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., citing a recent poll, said in a statement, “Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it.”

But, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”

On the Net: