Bush Administration Lobbying To Scuttle California's Climate Initiative (Optional)

63. Are you aware that Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters, with the approval of President Bush, personally lobbied governors and House members to block California from placing limits on greenhouse gases? (Zachary Coile, "How White House attempted to scuttle state's climate law, San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007, p. A1.)
64. Do you think the Bush administration is concerned that the 11 other states committed to climate change legislation will follow California's lead?
65. Do you think the federal government should interfere with states that want to take stronger action on climate change?

What U.S. Businesses Are Doing

66. Are you aware that on May 8, 2007, 17 of the leading fortune 500 companies are calling for federal legislation, modeled after California's climate change laws? These leading companies, which formed the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), include: Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, General Electric, Caterpillar, Pacific Gas and Electric, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group, PNM Resources, Duke Energy (one of this country's leading users of coal), AIG Insurance Group, Dow Chemical, Deere & Co., Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, Shell, and General Motors. (May 8, 2007 Press Release, "Major Business and Environmental Organizations Join Call to Enact National Climate Change Legislation," United States Climate Action Partnership website, at www.us-cap.org.)
67. Did you know that on March 14, 2007 the CEOs of the 4 largest car companies-GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota-recently appeared before a Congressional committee and agreed to cooperate with legislation to tackle global warming? Furthermore, they agreed to cooperate in devising a scheme to limit carbon emissions. (Edward Luce, "US car chiefs back tough laws to combat global warming," Financial Times, March 15, 2007, p. 1.)
68. Also, on March 19, 2007, a coalition of leading U.S. institutional investors-including Merrill Lynch, Calpers, Allianz, and Calvert-with more than $4,000 billion worth of investment capital, issued a statement urging Washington to set mandatory targets to cut carbon emissions. (Edward Luce, "Business lobbies for emission restrictions," Financial Times, March 20, 2007, p. 1.)
69. In addition, the Business Roundtable, composed of 160 Chief Executives of the largest corporations in America, has joined the chorus calling for action to reduce the risk of global warming. (H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, "U.S. business group joins worldwide call for climate fix," Palo Alto Daily News, July 18, 2007, p. 15.)
70. Moreover, Citigroup is committing $50 billion in investments to climate change projects over the next decade. (David Wighton, "Citigroup to scale up its green spending," Financial Times, May 8, 2007, p. 1.)
71. Would you agree that it appears that many people and organizations are beginning to see the seriousness of the problem and are willing to do something about global warming?
72. Are you willing to join with others to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions?

Fighting Climate Change Promotes U.S. Security

73. Are you aware that on April 16, 2007, 11 top retired U.S. generals and admirals issued a report warning that the U.S. faces future security threats unless it does something about global warming? (Frank Davies, MediaNews, "Climate change now threat to security," San Jose Mercury News, May 17, 2007, p. 1A & 10A.)
74. The report calls attention to the "threat multiplier" effect of global warming, namely, climate change will cause instability throughout the world, and instability helps religious extremists and terrorists. (Ibid.)
75. The military experts conclude that the U.S. must join with other nations to curb greenhouse gases to promote our own security. (Ibid.)
76. Former Army Chief of Staff and General Tony Zinni (former commander of Central Command in the Middle East) said, "We will pay for this one way or the other. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gases today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives." (Ibid.)
77. Do you think it is better to pay now, rather than to pay later in terms of human suffering and lives?