Climate Change

Since billions of people live in cities, with more coming every day, the infrastructure needed to support them needs building, rebuilding and rehabilitation, expansion and enhancement. There’s power generation and transmission, the delivery of drinking water and the treatment of waste water, housing and parks, schools and hospitals, transportation, and commercial and industrial development. All this activity requires energy and energy, as we know, is primarily carbon-based throughout the world. As I pointed out in my post, “Mike Bloomberg’s Earth Day,” the Big Apple’s carbon dioxide output is on a par with that of Switzerland, Norway and Ireland. New York City has 8.2 million folks with probably 800,000 more on the way in the next several years. The OECD reports that “60-80% of worldwide energy consumption occurs in urban areas.”

The fascinating event I attended yesterday, the Regional Plan Association’s annual assembly, focused on the problem of global climate change and how to address it. Robert D. Yaro, RPA’s president, said that climate change will influence planning for the foreseeable future. Former New Jersey Governor Jim Florio spoke about the imperatives of minimizing our carbon footprint and said that economic advancement and environmental sensitivity were not incompatible. The present N.J. Governor, Jon Corzine, was to have given the morning’s keynote address but, because of a recent terrible car accident in which he was involved, was replaced by Gary D. Rose, the Chief of N.J.’s Office of Economic Development. Corzine has an ambitious energy master plan that’s being developed now that will require a 20% increase in energy efficiency and 20% of electricity from renewables. This echoes the plan proposed by N.Y. Governor Eliot Spitzer recently. Rose, like Florio, emphasized the opportunity in developing a “clean and green tech economy” and that this sort of activity could “support the next great wave of economic growth.”  (See my last post - opportunity is what I’m seeing, and I’m sure glad that I’m in the company of folks who know their way around high finance, venture capital, and economic development. See also my post from March 9 on “The Business of Green,” and the mention of venture capitalists and their enthusiasm for renewables.)

The Assembly Chairman, Theodore Roosevelt IV, is an investment banker and certainly knows his way around these matters. He’s also the Chairman of the Lehman Brothers’ Council on Climate Change. John Llewellyn, a Kiwi with an impressive track record as an economist at the OECD, and now the Senior Economic Policy Advisor to Lehman Brothers, gave a stunning presentation on the realities of climate change and their implications for corporations. Llewellyn tells CEOs that the science is sound, the climatology is too, that the economic analysis shows that no matter how bravely and well we address global warming, we are going to have impacts:  2 to 3% of global GDP is going to be destroyed by the impacts of climate change annually. (See the Stern Review from the U.K. and its analysis of economic consequences as referenced in my post from March 30.) You can find much of Dr. Llewellyn’s compelling presentation on The Business Of Climate Change - Challenges and Opportunities here. (There’s that word “opportunity” again.)

There were six breakout sessions:  on carbon markets, protecting water resources under the pressures of climate change, transportation options, siting, green building, and the one I attended, “Tilting at Windmills? Opportunities for Green Power Generation.” One of the panelists was Jim Gordon, President of the Cape Wind project. He reported that NRDC has characterized Cape Wind as the largest single GHG reduction project in the U.S. He also reported that in the six years that the project has been going through the regulatory process, 20 offshore projects have been built in Europe and 25 more have been approved. He gave us a heads up too to a book that’s coming out next week:  Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound.

Another panelist was Dr. Stephen Hammer from Columbia University’s Center for Energy, Marine Transportation and Public Policy. He’s been running the Urban Energy Project there and they’ve been looking at the renewable energy potential for New York City and have found four main sources:  landfill gas, tidal, wind, and solar photovoltaic. I asked him after the session about whether or not they’d been looking at distributed generation, fuel cells, microturbines and the like, and he said they were working on this now. He further mentioned “microgrids” – “Small networks of power generators in ‘microgrids’ could transform the electricity network in the way that the net changed distributed communication.” See this from the BBC. Finally, I asked him if they were looking at geothermal and he said no. I mentioned this new report on geothermal from M.I.T. and the fact of a landmark geothermal project in downtown Manhattan. Maybe I’ve put a bee in his bonnet.

Mike Bloomberg was the luncheon keynote speaker, promoting PLANYC, and he promised that New York City was going to become the first truly sustainable American city in the new century. He said the stars were aligned and that it was time for action. As I said once before here, quoting Winston Churchill:  “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Cities for Climate Change is doing a lot of important work. I think this is a compelling thought from the mayor of Charlotte, N.C.:  “We are the ones building roads, designing mass transit, buying the police cars and dump trucks and earth-movers. We’re the ones lighting up the earth when you look at those maps from space. Together we have huge purchasing power and if we invest wisely, that can have huge implications for the environment.”

I’m going to another exciting event in ten days:  the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit. Much more soon on how cities are approaching the climate change crisis.      

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as I write, is finalizing its report, “Mitigation of Climate Change.” (You can watch the webcast of the press conference from Bangkok when it goes online on Friday, and read the summary for policymakers and the speech from the IPCC’s head.) There will be a ton of news stories, neither will we lack for analysis and spin.

What we’ve been hearing all week from the closed-door sessions of the scientists and governmental envoys who’ve been meeting to finalize the draft report is that, for one thing, China, and its partners in the developing world, are fighting strong language on the requirements for action. See this story from the “L.A. Times.”  This is a replay of the recent UN Security Council debate – see my post from April 21 on this. The developing world actors, India, Brazil and China, chief among them, make the argument that the industrialized world has caused the havoc and it should bear the brunt of the costs for the solutions. I have to wonder at this, not only because the developing world but also countries like the U.S. and Australia are missing the boat, or at least the point:  opportunity abounds here, there’s fruit begging to be picked and eaten. We can make money, jobs, and save the natural environment – it’s been proven over and over again. Why would we want to squander the opportunity to live smarter?  Okay, there, I’ve gotten a little of it out of my system. (Actually, I am a pretty serious student of psychohistory and political psychology and have all sorts of thoughts regarding why societies injure themselves and others. But that’s for another venue.) 

There are, of course, vital issues of costs – those to be incurred and those to be avoided by mitigating global climate change. If you look at the outline for the report, you will see that economic considerations are front and center. Sections have been written on “cost and benefit concepts,” macroeconomic effects,” and “economic and other generic policy instruments.”  There is some very heavy economic lifting indeed in this report.

The IPCC’s judgment is, in the end, a critically important factor but not the final word in any of this. There are, as has been pointed out here, many factors including national and local government actions, the role of business and finance, how science and technology are brought to bear, and public opinion for that matter. These reports this year from the IPCC are, however, a great body of information, nutrient solution for growing good policy at the international level. How the various national actors play all this out bears considerable further attention. This blog will necessarily delve into the roles that China, India, Brazil and other important developing world countries will play. Let’s see how tomorrow plays out in Bangkok and pick up the thread again soon on what we are likely to see from these massively important countries.

 **********

Media Notes:

Betsy Kolbert, the eminently eloquent author of Field Notes from a Catastrophe, writing in “The New Yorker” about New York City’s proposed congestion pricing plan, reports, among other things:  “The value of time lost to congestion delays in the city has been put at five billion dollars annually. When expenses like wasted fuel, lost revenue, and the increased cost of doing business are added in, that figure rises to thirteen billion dollars.”

“Sierra” (from the Sierra Club, of course), has a special section in their latest issue:  “Climate Exchange.”  In it, a panel of top experts and policy makers discuss where we are in grappling with the challenges of global warming. The worthies assembled by the Sierra Club include one of the founders of Sun Microsystems; one of the world’s leading climatologists; Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chair of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; as well as her senior advisor on climate change; and some others. Coverage at the website includes video clips from the panel discussion.

See this video from the BBC on HRH the Prince of Wales’s “mayday” alert on the climate crisis. “The crisis of climate change is far too urgent and discussion simply isn’t enough,” said Britain’s Prince Charles at the first May Day Business Summit on Climate Change. More than 1,000 businesses, convened by Prince Charles, made concrete commitments to reduce carbon emissions. He gave several speeches at the event. Here’s the welcome, given on the first day of the summit. (Links are here also to other of Charles’s speeches and articles, including on organic farming, historic preservation, and sustainable business.) Charles has been a quiet, forceful, progressive voice in Britain for years. He’s also hugely influential. We don’t have anyone like him in the
U.S. In any event, it’s great to see him so outspoken on climate change.

See my colleague Cassandra Clifford’s recent two articles on Children and Climate Change.  These, along with the rest of her material, are hard hitting. Start here. 

I talked about the depth and the intensity of the activity on renewable energy these days in my post from April 5. Here are some notes from recent news stories and elsewhere that highlight this theme.

PepsiCo – “PepsiCo makes big renewable energy buy” reads the headline from BusinessWeek. “The company’s three-year purchase is made up of more than 1 billion kilowatt hours annually,” says their story. See also this press release from the company. This is being done in concert with the U.S. EPA’s Green Power Partnership. Great stuff.

Lasers for Fusion – Here’s an update from “The Economist” on the state of research into laser-triggered nuclear fusion. This stuff is not in our immediate future, but it’s important to know about developments and the potential. (You can always go to their coverage of environmental issues. Some articles require a subscription, some don’t.) 

Hydrogen for Vehicles – The Sunday automotive section of the “NY Times” often has some interesting material. Here’s a link to this week’s issue in which they devote all their articles to hydrogen fuel vehicles. For greater depth on this, go to the U.S. DOE’s article on hydrogen vehicles.

Solar Power on NOVA – This top-of-the-line PBS science and technology program recently aired a terrific survey of the latest in solar energy, Saved by The Sun. Their website has a wealth of useful information, including a look at six new advanced technologies, a Teacher’s Guide and where to buy the video.

Germany’s New Energy Efficiency Initiative – In this story from Agence France-Presse (via WBCSD Energy & Climate News), we learn that “Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel called for additional investment of three billion euros (four billion dollars) to develop energy-saving technologies …”  You can go to the English-language website of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety to get information on their programs on climate and energy. 

I talked about the carbon market, and others, in the post from April 19 aptly named … Markets.  There’s a pretty big event coming up next week in Cologne:  Carbon Expo. This is billed as a “Global Carbon Market Fair and Conference.”  It runs from May 2 to 4.  One of the keynote speakers is the EU Environment Minister, Stavros Dimas. (See the cool picture.) 

The other keynote speaker is Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. They are billing more than 140 Speakers in 8 Plenary Sessions and 22 Workshops, divided into 3 streams – “Project,” Traders,” and “Global” – and over 35 Exhibitor Side Events.  Here’s the conference program.  This is going to be a really comprehensive, interesting, stimulating important event.  As I have indicated in several posts along the way here, we are in a whole new ball game. Frankly, I have seen the future and it works.   

Here’s something useful from the expo website:  a glossary of carbon finance terms. (See also the Conservation Finance Guide, a joint project of the Conservation Finance Alliance.) 

******

Let’s also quickly look back here at another big event that’s just passed:  “B4E, the Global Business Summit for the Environment.”  This took place April 19-20 in Singapore and was sponsored by UNEP,  the UN Global Compact, and Carbonfund.org. The website for the conference says:  “Fortunately, there is an increasing number of companies around the world that are facing the realities of this crisis and are leading the way by embracing environmental responsibility.”

When this sort of gathering happens, and when corporate bigwigs like the CEOs of Dupont and PG&E, and the Vice Chair of BP America come to the Senate to testify on behalf of a cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions, and an organization like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership is out in front on creating legislation, then we are seeing a paradigm shift. 

“O brave new world
That has such people in’t!”

Not having seen this program, I am making no judgements.  However, I have found Frontline to be consistently informative and to the highest journalistic standards.

Mike Bloomberg is a billionaire (see Forbes) and the mayor of the biggest city in the United States. He’s in his second term of office – NYC has a term limit of two for municipal office – and he’s come out with a very bold, far-reaching plan, PLANYC, for “A Greener, Greater New York.” He unveiled the plan on Earth Day at the American Museum of Natural History. “With historically low unemployment, a low crime rate and better schools, New York is thriving – it’s a place that people want to be. The time to build on our success is now, and I will not spend my last 984 days in office ignoring the problems that this City will face in the future,” said Hizzoner. (You can watch a video by going here.) 

Bloomberg’s plan is ambitious and, from my perspective, absolutely fabulous. It’s also unprecedented in my experience to have a New York City mayor really embrace so many of the ideas that urban environmentalists have been championing for years:  street trees, expanded open space, an emphasis on renewable fuels, energy efficiency and green buildings, distributed generation, mass transportation, brownfield remediation, protecting ambient water and expanding recreational opportunities. So many of New York City’s environmental mandates are dictated by federal and state law. Mayors haven’t been able to skirt these. But they’ve often stinted of their concern. Giuliani wanted to liquidate most of the community gardens and had nothing but contempt for recycling. I was at an American Planning Association convention one year listening to someone from Chicago talk about Richard Daley’s commitment to street trees and urban parks and I just was squirming thinking of my own city. I also remember being in a meeting in 1986 with one of Ed Koch’s deputy mayors. A group of us were discussing a state bond proposal to increase spending for open space acquisition. “We don’t want new parkland, even if the bond act will pay for it,” the deputy mayor told us. “We’d have to spend money on upkeep if we did.”  I wrote a magazine article for the twentieth anniversary of Earth Day in 1990 which, in essay form, was later published by the American Planning Association. “The City Is Built To Music” is a sort of urban environmental utopia. I always thought that the Big Apple’s politicians could never really think this way. Mike’s making a monkey out of me, and I love it.

Here’s one big-ticket item:  plant a million trees!  Sweet. “Beyond aesthetics and emotional well-being, trees perform important functions that protect and enhance city dwellers’ health and property. Trees literally clean the air by absorbing air pollutants and releasing oxygen. They reduce stormwater runoff and erosion; they temper climate; they can save energy; they create wildlife habitat; they can improve health, serve as screens, and strengthen community. They can even help contribute to a community’s economy and way of life.”  The USDA has a wealth of information on the benefits of the urban forest.

Another initiative in the plan is congestion pricing. I mentioned this in my post immediately below, under the heading How Green is Your City?  The pushback is already coming on strong. See this from “Crain’s NY Business.”  But you’ve got to see the congestion pricing also in the context of the overall transportation plan. We are supposed to get better mass transit at the same time.  Not incidentally, the NY metropolitan area already has, by far, the most extensive and widely used mass transit system in the country. See this from the US DOT. Anyway, London’s congestion pricing system works!  It can and should in the Big Apple. (For critics of congestion pricing as an “elitist” measure, consider London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s politics. They don’t call him Red Ken for nothing.)

So here’s the part that’s most germane for this little sector of the blogosphere:  the plan has a significant component on climate change. Fun fact:  The sheer scale of our city means that New York emits nearly 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, slightly more than Switzerland and Norway and slightly less than Ireland. We’re looking now for a 30% reduction from the 2005 baseline by 2030. The idea is to get reductions of 33.6 million tons - 10.8 million tons coming from “clean power,” 16.7 million from “efficient buildings,” 6.1 from “sustainable transportation,” plus an additional 15.6 million avoided by accommodating 900,000 people in New York City or “avoided sprawl” as the Plan terms it. Plus, the City will devise a comprehensive plan for dealing with weather impacts that are likely to come no matter how negatively or positively global warming trends. This is all heady stuff.  

Bloomberg and New York City are hosting the “C40 Large Cities Climate Summit” next month. “Cities are responsible for three-quarters of the world’s energy consumption, and as such, the world’s largest cities have a critical role to play in the reduction of carbon emissions and the reversal of dangerous climate change,” says their website.

I’ll let the Mayor get the last word in here. He’s earned it, for my money, with this plan. “Climate change is a national challenge, and meeting it requires strong and united national leadership. The fact is, the emerging consensus among scientists is that, to avoid serious harm, we must reduce our emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050.”

There were a number of developments this past week worth noting. Here’s a rundown:

U.N. Security Council - On Tuesday, Britain, holding the rotating presidency of the Security Council, brought the issue of climate change forward. (See this from “The International Herald Tribune” and this from the BBC.) The U.K.’s Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, for five years her country’s lead climate change negotiator, said: “There are few greater potential threats to our economies, too, but also to peace and security itself.” (See the Stern Report for further background on her reference to the world’s economies.) Beckett gave a speech the night before to the Foreign Policy Association and its partners titled “Climate Change - The Gathering Storm.” She concluded by saying: “Now it is time for us to rise to our newest and biggest challenge: to fight the first great war of interdependence, the struggle for climate security.”

At the Security Council on Tuesday, there was a considerable push back by developing nations. China’s delegate didn’t quite see it the way that Beckett did. Ambassador Liu Zhenmin asserted, “Developing countries believe that neither has the Security Council the professional competence, nor is it the right decision making place for extensive participation leading up to widely acceptable proposals.” The “Times of India” reported:  “Indian ambassador to the UN Nirupam Sen rubbished the idea that climate change presented any kind of imminent security issue that the Security Council should deal with.” Ouch.

UNSG Ban Ki-Moon playing conciliator, as is appropriate, had this to say:  “We must focus more clearly on the benefits of early action. The resources of civil society and the private sector must be brought in. And this Council has a role to play in working with other competent intergovernmental bodies to address the possible root causes of conflict discussed today.”

For some more perspectives from journalists from China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and elsewhere, go to PostGlobal.

U.S. Security Concerns – Last Monday, the non-profit CNA Corporation, issued a report called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.” The report was prepared by some serious former American military top brass. The website says:  “Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions …” That’s unequivocal. General Gordon Sullivan, Chairman of CNAC’s Military Advisory Board, followed up with a release applauding the Security Council’s activity on the subject (see item above) and then testified before the “Select Committee On Energy Independence And Global Warming” in the House Of Representatives. (Their website is pending.) He testified:  “After listening to leaders of the scientific, business, and governmental communities both I and my colleagues came to agree that Global Climate Change is and will be a significant threat to our National Security and in a larger sense to life on earth as we know it to be.” One more radical leftist tree hugger on record. (See my post “If You Don’t Like Al Gore, Then …)  A “NY Times” editorial from yesterday included this zinger:  “In an alliance of denial, China and the United States are using each other’s inaction as an excuse to do nothing.” 

IPCC – On North American Climate – As a follow-up to the IPCC report from April 6 – see my post “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” – regional briefings have been given all over the world. The one for North America was given in Washington on Monday. See this coverage from “ABC News” for example – “Global Warming May Put U.S. in Hot Water.” Another news organization, McClatchy Newspapers, reported here:  “More droughts, floods, heat waves, infectious diseases and extinctions are possible for two of the most prosperous countries on the planet …” One of the lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, put it this way:  “Water at large is the central (global warming) problem for the U.S.” (The North American section of the report has not yet been posted at the IPCC website but should appear here when it does, soon one presumes.)  Another of the lead authors, Cynthia Rosenzweig, talked to WNYC radio last week:  “Ground Water: Climate Change Could Flood Subways.” This sort of flooding, not incidentally, was the theme of the event I attended last Saturday, the Sea of People – part of the national Step It Up campaign. (See my post on it below.)

How Green is Your City? – This is a new book from SustainLane, “the first internet and media company dedicated to empowering consumers, businesses and government to go green.” Their 2006 US City Sustainability rankings are contained in a new book. You can find a great teaser for the book here. #1 sustainable city?  Portland, Oregon. No surprise there.

How’d my home town, New York City perform? #6 on the list! Mayor Bloomberg is going to have a big speech for tomorrow, Earth Day, on how we are going forward in all this. One of the newsiest components for his speech is on his embrace of congestion pricing. London’s certainly had great success. You go, Mike!  (I’ve been saying this for years and years, before the term congestion pricing was even coined.)

The new Governor of New York State, Eliot Spitzer, put out his comprehensive plan for energy and the environment, on April 19. The reviews from environmentalists were enthusiastic. NRDC energy expert Ashok Gupta said: “Governor Spitzer’s commitment to energy efficiency will make New York the benchmark against which all other states will be measured.” 

Media Notes

• “The Nation” devotes much of its issue of May 7 to “Surviving the Climate Crisis – What Must Be Done.”
• “Newsweek” and “MSNBC.com” have devoted a huge amount of coverage recently to climate change. See their website “Learning to Live with Global Warming” which has a great body of useful material.
• “NY Times” foreign affairs columnist, Thomas Friedman, made a big splash this week with a cover story in their magazine:  “The Power of Green.” There’s more:  a Discovery Channel series on energy with Friedman starting tonight:  “Green: The New, Red, White and Blue.” Here’s some commentary on Friedman’s magazine article from Harvey Wasserman at the Huff Po.
• Finally, “The Weather Channel Unveils Number One Weather Moment: Global Warming.” See the video. 

Not Incidentally, Comments -  Dear Reader, you are cordially invited to make comment at this website on this or any of the posts. One of the principal reasons the Foreign Policy Association has created this blog and its seven sister blogs is to provide not only some ongoing information on the subject at hand but also to engage you in a dialogue. We really do want to hear what you have to say. Feel free.

*************

* “That Was The Week That Was” or TW3 as it was more affectionately known, was a British television satire from the early 1960’s, with an American spin-off a little later.  

A series of events took place yesterday all over the United States to indicate people’s concern about climate change. The Step It Up website said: “In all 50 states, at more than 1400 iconic places across the nation, we have united around a common call to action: ‘Step It Up Congress: Cut Carbon 80% by 2050.’” Bill McKibben, a writer whose The End of Nature was the first popular book written on global warming, was the leading light of Step It Up. Here’s coverage of the events and an interview with McKibben from “Democracy Now.”

In New York City, there were a number of events, including the Sea of People in Battery Park. I was there and had a fine time. McKibben was one of the speakers. 

There were a good number of other speakers including one of our leading urban environmentalists, Eric Goldstein from the Natural Resources Defense Council. I also talked to Charles Komanoff at the rally. Charles is one of the founders of the Carbon Tax Center and an energy economist who’s been around for a long time. He has been one of the leading analysts of the financial issues around nuclear power. (See this report from Greenpeace for instance.)

As I indicated, a good time was had by all, including by this polar bear and my daughter, Diana. 

… what about these people?

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) from a speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations – “I can tell you, mainstream scientists are convinced, mainstream CEOs are convinced, and if you look at the surveys, mainstream Americans are convinced, that global warming and climate change is real, and that we have to do something about it.” Also, from this week, a “Newsweek” special section on Leadership & the Environment: Green Issues: “For the record, Schwarzenegger says he’s deeply impressed with Gore’s work: he even popped into a Beverly Hills book-signing not long ago with his teenage daughter to tell the former vice president so in person.”

Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell – “I am more convinced than ever that our short- and long-term business success depend on finding environmentally and socially responsible ways to help meet the world’s future energy needs.” (From the Shell website.)

Pope Benedict XVI said in August: “In dialogue with Christians of various churches, we need to commit ourselves to caring for the created world, without squandering its resources, and sharing them in a cooperative way.” (See this.)

Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips’ chairman and chief executive, in joining the U.S. Climate Action Partnership this week: “We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” (Go here.)

Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd’s of London: “We cannot risk being in denial on catastrophe trends,” Levene said January 12 in a speech to the World Affairs Council at the National Press Club. “We urgently need a radical rethink of public policy, and to build the facts into future planning.” See Lloyd’s webpage on climate change here.

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona (R), in testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee on Jan. 30, McCain called climate change “the most important environmental issue of our time.” (I cited this in the “Presidential Candidates” post below.)

Stephen Hawking, physicist, best-selling author of A Brief History of Time, and claimant of the Cambridge University post once occupied by Sir Isaac Newton (the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics), has been quoted as saying, “I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with boiling sulfuric acid.” (See this article.)

Jim Rogers, Duke Energy CEO and chair of the Edison Electric Institute. Rogers played a key role in launching the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. In this recent interview, Rogers said: “I think the probability that we’ll get good solutions to climate change — solutions that benefit both the planet and industry — is higher if we face the problem now than if we bury our heads in denial. If you’re constantly trying to define the problem, or deny it, or dispute it, it gets increasingly difficult and costly to develop a good solution.” (I referred to Rogers and an article about him in my post, “The Business of Green” from March 9.)

John Dingell, Congressman from Michigan (D) and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives. “Rep. John Dingell once dismissed global warming as a ‘theory.’ Lately, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan has had a change of heart. ‘The science on this question,’ he said recently, ‘has been settled.’” (This is from a recent “Wall St. Journal” article. See my post “Bits and Bobs” from March 30.)

Evangelical Christian Pastor Rick Warren, named one of America’s Top 25 Leaders in the October 31, 2005 issue of “U.S. News and World Report,” said, along with 85 other Christian leaders: “… many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough.” (See my post on this and some of the controversy surrounding it in “Bits and Bobs” below.)

UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, in a statement from March: “… the danger posed by war to all of humanity - and to our planet - is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, commenting on the IPCC’s latest report, said: “The report confirms that climate change is a fact. For that reason we need rapid and decisive action to limit the global rise in temperatures and to cut carbon dioxide emissions.” (See my post on the EU Summit Agreement from March 14 for more on Merkel and efforts in Europe.)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, from an article he wrote last October commenting on the Stern Report, cited at the PM’s web page on climate change: “The Stern Report should be seen across the globe as the final word on why the world must act now to limit the damage we are doing to our planet. The conclusions are a wake-up call to every country in the world.”

British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron: “Today, in the twenty first century, the greatest long term threat this planet faces is climate change.” (From a speech from July last year. See also this at the Conservative website, “David Cameron praised by Al Gore.”)