The politics of global warming have involved policy decisions, legislation, and political debate over the science of and response to global warming. The political struggle over global warming has involved various governmental bodies, special-interest groups, and scientific organizations.

Political sphere Edit

No middle ground Edit

Many moderates suggest the solution to global warming is "akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging." [1]

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric....I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory."[2]

The moderate political viewpoint has been largely abandoned in the US due to Congress' inability to pass any significant CO2 regulation despite the overwhelming popular support for such measures. Also there is substantial evidence showing that the oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production.[3] Given the US government's intransigence despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities, the political rhetoric has become more extreme if only to get government to move even slightly in the direction of CO2 control.[4]

Political alignment and global warming Edit

In most English-speaking countries, support for action to mitigate global warming, such as ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is strong on the political left.

However, the first politician putting Global Warming on the political agenda was Richard Nixon 1969[5]. Nixon wanted environmental topics (as acid rain and greenhouse effect) to be treated by a third and civil pillar of NATO. The reaction of the NATO allies was lukewarm but the initiative gained impact in the civil field[5]. Margaret Thatcher has been involved as well in bringing an anti-carbon element in the public agenda

See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name[6]. In Germany Angela Merkel, then secretary of the environment during the conservative Helmut Kohl government, lead the German Kyoto Delegation and had a substantial role in making the Kyoto agreement possible[7]

In some countries the political right are fighting on a platform of taking tough action against global warming[9], while in others the political right either dispute the scientific consensus on global warming or oppose action to mitigate global warming, instead favoring adaption.

See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name All European countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and all have supported strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
  • In the United States, a February 2007 survey found that 95% of the 41 Congressional Democrats surveyed agreed "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems" while only 13% of the 31 Republicans surveyed agreed.[10]

United StatesEdit

Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States

Specific actions of the Bush administration Edit

In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor. [5]

The Bush administration has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters," according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine which reviews hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.[11]."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . .

"The CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites. "two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command. [12]

Also, the White House removed key portions of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report given to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers to human health of global warming.[13] According to one CDC official familiar with both the CDC version and the version given to the Senate, the version given to the Senate was "eviscerated." The White House prevented the Senate and thus the public from receiving key CDC estimates in the report about diseases likely to flourish in a warmer climate, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes, more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution, an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus, mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress, and how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming.

Also according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the White House has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming[14][15]

"High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.[16] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[14]

Federal government Edit

The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol — though their one-time representative, Condoleezza Rice, remarked that the Protocol was "unacceptable" at the time it was presented to her.

See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue. [6]

In October 2003, the Pentagon published a report titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. The authors conclude by stating that "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."[17]

From 1989 to 2005, oil and gas industries gave $179.5 million to U.S. federal candidates and parties. [18] In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate. [7]. In the 2005 vote, Republicans opposed the Bill 49-6, while Democrats supported it 37-10. [19].

In January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming.[20] The US government announced that it was withdrawing funding from the lobby groups it had been supporting that aimed to discount the evidence for global warming.

See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name

Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus." [8]

See also Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 was introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on January 15, 2007. The measure would provide funding for R&D on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, set emissions standards for new vehicles and a renewable fuels requirement for gasoline beginning in 2016, establish energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards beginning in 2008 and low-carbon electric generation standards beginning in 2016 for electric utilities, and require periodic evaluations by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether emissions targets are adequate.[21]

There is a Report about federal climate change legislation as if the states matter.[22]

Political pressure on scientistsEdit

US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, [23] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[24][25][26]

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article [27] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[28] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."[29]

According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[30]

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey [31] was itself unscientific.[32]

Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.

Allegations of U.S. government attempts to mislead the publicEdit

The book Hell and High Water asserts that there has been a disingenuous, concerted and effective campaign to convince Americans that the science is not proven, or that global warming is the result of natural cycles, and that there needs to be more research. The book claims that, to delay action, industry and government spokesmen suggest falsely that "technology breakthroughs" will eventually save us with hydrogen cars and other fixes. It calls on voters to demand immediate government action to curb emissions. Tyler Hamilton, in his review of the book for The Toronto Star, wrote that the book offers "alarming detail on how the U.S. public is being misled by a federal government (backed by conservative political forces) that is intent on inaction, and that's also on a mission to derail international efforts to curb emissions."[33]

Global warming litigationEdit

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forced the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.[34]

State and local governmentsEdit

However, 195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, California (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production. The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally. [9]

On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both political parties agreed to terms in the California Global Warming Solutions Act. When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [10] The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Gov. Schwarzenegger also announced he would seek to work with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, and various other international efforts to address global warming, independently of the federal government. [35]

On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.[11]


Seven Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.

  • Participating states[12]:

Beginning in 2009, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will be capped by state:

Federal government attempts to undermine state effortsEdit

The US government has worked to undermine state efforts to mitigate global warming. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, personally directed US efforts to urge governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California’s first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.[36]

Vatican Edit

Pope Benedict XVI told up to half a million people, over a hillside near the Adriatic city of Loreto on the day Catholic Church marks its annual Save Creation Day, that world leaders must make courageous decisions to save the planet "before it is too late" [37].

Canada Edit

  • Canada's Liberal Government during the 1990s had agreed to Kyoto but oversaw the increase of greenhouse gas emissions during their terms in office and did little to meet Kyoto's targets. Canada's current Conservative Government has claimed that, due to increased emissions since 1990, it is realistically impossible to meet their Kyoto targets and attempting to do so would be disastrous for the Canadian economy. Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under fire for being adamant in leaving Kyoto and working on a different climate plan. Consequently, this issue has become something of an Achilles Heel for the Government in recent months. The current Liberal Party has been quick in their condemnation of the Government but has also been accused of using Global Warming for political purposes as seen in the naming of leader Stéphane Dion's dog 'Kyoto'. Recent polls have indicated that, if there were to be an election soon, the environment would be the top issue for Canadians.

Asia and Oceania Edit

  • Australia has now officially signed the Kyoto ratification, after the new Labor government came into power on December 3, 2007. The previous Coalition government had long objected to ratifying the treaty, arguing it would unduly impact on Australian jobs, especially when countries such as China, India and the U.S. were not party to it.
  • Japan is preparing to force industry to make big cuts in greenhouse gases, taking the lead in a country struggling to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations. [38]

Europe Edit

Main article: European Climate Change Programme
  • Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004, after a deal with the European Union over WTO membership. Russia's ratification completed the requirements of the treaty to come into force, based on nations totaling 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The UK government-commissioned Stern Review into the economic effects of climate change was published in October 2006. Tony Blair's assessment was that it showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". He added, "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto — we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."[39]
  • Britain's government launched an official calculator in the week of June 18 2007 that enables every person in the country to work out how much carbon dioxide he produces and how to cut it.[40]. Tory group sets out plans for Green Revolution. [41]

Positions of the Energy IndustriesEdit

One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. [13] After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations.[42][43]

In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming. In recent years, other companies have increasingly come to accept the existence and consequences of global warming; for example, the Chairman of BP, John Browne, declared a need for action in 2002. Lord Oxburgh, non-executive chairman of Shell, said in a speech at the 2005 Hay-on-Wye Festival: "We have 45 years, and if we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no time to lose." [14]

One sector of the energy industry that has no problem with the greenhouse gas arguments is the nuclear industry. Margret Thatcher was one of the first major political figures to suggest that the nuclear power was a "green" solution. This was largely regarded with derision at the time but it is the ultimate goal of Tony Blair's solution to tomorrow's energy needs and probably explains his enthusiasm for CO2 emission controls.

Indeed as many countries move towards legally binding engagements to Kyoto targets, including fines for failing to achieve them, many governments may find this a convenient excuse for otherwise unpopular expansions of their nuclear programs.

As pointed out on Counter Punch [15] the nuclear power industry is not slow to present itself as the "green" solution :

only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years", the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts.

Nuclear power produces fewer CO2 emissions than fossil fuel plants; the exact level remains somewhat controversial; Greenpeace assert that nuclear power produces about one third of the CO2 emissions as equivalent fossil fuels energy over the lifetime of an installation. [16]

Environmental groupsEdit

Thousands of protesters marched on the international day of action on December 3, 2005, which coincided with the first meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the World Social Forum.

Christian environmental groups are also increasingly active on climate change, such as The Evangelical Climate Initiative.

US Catholic Bishops also have recognized the urgency of addressing global warming in a 2001 statement from the US Congress of Catholic Bishops Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good

In New Zealand, the Climaction Coalition has blockaded the main thoroughfares of Auckland City on two occasions, calling for Free and Frequent Public Transport to reduce the city's dependency on cars. They argue that such a measure would also help reduce global warming if repeated in other cities throughout the world. [17]


There are a large number of academic contributions specifically to the politics of global warming. The following are a small subset of these works:

  • G8 science academies' statements [18]
  • Monograph by Dessler and Parson entitled The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: a Guide to the Debate, emphasizing the complexity of the issue.

Global Warming Celebrities Edit

Many celebrities have become involved with green campaigning. They include Charlize Theron, Morgan Freeman, Natalie Portman, Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon, Salma Hayek, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Alanis Morissette, Leonardo DiCaprio, Joanne Woodward. Others who have become better known to the public because of their environmental statements include Al Gore, Prince Albert of Monaco.


The debate over global warming was raised to a considerably higher profile when former Vice President Al Gore was given an Academy Award for his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore has made a considerable number of public appearances to promote the film and the subject-matter within it.

Other major media treatments of the controversy:




See also Edit


  1. Montopoli, Brian (January 2, 2007). "Middle Ground on Global Warming?". CBS News. Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
  2. Hulme, Mike (November 4, 2006). "Chaotic world of climate truth". BBC News. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  3. Nesmith, Jeff (June 2, 2003). "Foes of global warming have energy ties". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
  4. Herszenhorn, David (June 7, 2008). "After Verbal Fire, Senate Effectively Kills Climate Change Bill". NY Times. Retrieved on 2008-07-07.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Die Frühgeschichte der globalen Umweltkrise und die Formierung der deutschen Umweltpolitik(1950-1973) (Early history of the environmental crisis and the setup of German environmental policy 1950-1973), Kai F. Hünemörder, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004 ISBN 3515081887
  6. [1]Nationalreview September 17, 2003, 9:00 Fixing the Game Kyoto rules, von Iain Murray
  7. [2] Time Magazine 7/2007: Heroes of the Environment: Angela Merkel
  8. Rudd ratifies Kyoto - National -
  9. Climate change concerns championed by Cameron's Conservatives
  10. Base page
  11. Rolling Stone, June 13, 2007,
  12. The Washington Post, June 21, 2007 " , citing the Rolling Stone invetigative report published 2007/6/13
  13. Associated Press, Oct. 24, 2007,; also archived at
  14. 14.0 14.1 Reuters, January 30, 2007, free archived version at, last visited Jan. 30, '07
  15. Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at
  16. written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at last visited Jan. 30, 07
  17. Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall (October 2003). "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-09-08.
  19. A breakdown of the Senate vote on the Climate Stewardship Act | Grist | Muckraker | 05 Nov 2003
  20. Pelosi creates global warming committee, Associated Press, 1/18/07.
  21. Climate Change Bills of the 110th Congress Environmental Defense, May 29, 2007.
  22. McKinstry, Robert B., Dernbach, John C. and Peterson, Thomas D., "Federal Climate Change Legislation as if the States Matter" . Section of Natural Resources Law, Forthcoming Available at SSRN
  23. Campbell, D. (June 20, 2003) "White House cuts global warming from report" Guardian Unlimited
  24. Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications)
  25. Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, July 27. Obtained via FOIA request on July 31, 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, September 29. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" The Raw Story, October 4. Accessed December 22, 2006
  26. Zabarenko, D. (2007) "'Don't discuss polar bears:' memo to scientists" Reuters
  27. Revkin, Andrew C. (January 29, 2006). "Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". The New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  28. Eilperin, J. (April 6, 2006) [ "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House"] Washington Post
  29. "Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear". BBC Panorama (June 1, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  30. "Groups Say Scientists Pressured On Warming". CBS News and Associated Press (January 30, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  31. Donaghy, Timothy; Jennifer Freeman, Francesca Grifo, Karly Kaufman, Tarek Maassarani, Lexi Shultz (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)" (PDF). Atmosphere of Pressure – Political Interference in Federal Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project, Retrieved on 14 April 2007. 
  32. Taranto, James (February 1, 2007). "They Call This Science?". Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  33. From Toronto Star review
  34. Pidot, Justin R. (2006). "Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues" (PDF). Georgetown University Law Center. Retrieved on 2007-04-13.
  35. Blair, Schwarzenegger announce global warming research pact, Associated Press, 7/31/06.
  36. "How the White House Worked to Scuttle California’s Climate Law", San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007
  37. Planet Ark : Save The Planet Before It's Too Late, Pope Urges
  38. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
  39. BBC News: Climate change fight 'can't wait'
  40. calculator to help save the planet
  41. Planet Ark : Tory Group Sets Out Plans for Green Revolution
  42. Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics, MSNBC
  43. Reuters
  44. A "scandinavian connection" was alleged by Nils-Axel Mörner who saw an early friendship of Palme and Bert Bolin as reasons for Bolin then being promoted as environmental steward in the swedish government and later as first head of the IPCC
  45. 45.0 45.1 [3] The Brandt Proposals: A Report Card, Energy and the Environment
  46. Cut CO2 - You Can Help Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

External linksEdit

Environmental groupsEdit


See alsoEdit


nn:Klimapolitikk fi:Ilmastopolitiikka