the Protocol’s swift ratification and entry into force so we can, at long last, begin to deliver on Kyoto’s promise and achieve real progress. What, then, of the United States?  With just 4 percent of the world’s population, we generate 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Each year, our emissions grow higher.  We’ve rejected Kyoto, yet we have no real strategy of our own.  I’m afraid I have little expectation that the Bush administration is prepared to put forward the kind of proposals needed to launch a serious effort, at least not at the moment.  Nor, for that matter, was the previous administration.  But just as President Bush’s rejection of Kyoto helped rally international support for the Protocol, it has stimulated a very interesting and encouraging bipartisan response on Capitol Hill.  Suddenly, both Democrats and Republicans seem eager to demonstrate their commitment to tackling climate change. For instance, Senator Robert Byrd, a leading Democrat from coal-producing West Virginia, and Senator Ted Stevens, a leading Republican from oil-producing Alaska, are teaming up on a bill that would devote billions to researching and developing climate-friendly technology.  It also would establish a climate change office in the White House and give the President one year to develop a comprehensive strategy aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.  A first step, but an important one. Other bills would require companies to track and disclose their emissions of greenhouse gases, an essential step toward building a comprehensive emissions reduction strategy.  This is an idea that the White House seems at least open to considering.  In the Senate, there’s a serious debate brewing over new pollution standards for power plants – in fact, the first real debate at the federal level over the kind of mandatory controls on carbon dioxide that Oregon already has in place.  Finally, another bipartisan duo, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, have said they plan to introduce legislation establishing an emissions trading system covering major sources of greenhouse gases throughout the economy.  It’s hard to imagine a bill like that moving through Congress anytime soon.  But the very idea that two such prominent lawmakers would be advocating such a far-reaching strategy was virtually unthinkable just a year ago. To be certain, there are many in Congress and elsewhere who remain adamantly opposed to concrete action against climate change. Perhaps they assume, in the greatest tradition of laissez-faire economics, that a rising sea level lifts all boats.  There are even those who continue to question whether global warming is real.  President Bush expressed his own doubts about the science when he first took office.  He asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review.  The NAS came back and said, yes, there are some uncertainties in the science.  There always will be, I’m sure.  But the NAS went on to say that, despite those uncertainties, the evidence for global warming is strong and growing stronger. Here’s what the science tells us. First, the earth is indeed getting warmer.  The 1990s were the hottest decade of the entire millennium, and 1997, ‘98, and ‘99 were three of the hottest years ever.  Second, this warming trend is almost certain to continue.  Projections of future warming suggest an average global increase of two to ten degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, the evidence strongly suggests that human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels, are largely to blame. What will the impacts of this warming be?  How will all this affect our children and grandchildren?  Some people like to see the bright side of global warming.  Lower heating bills in winter, for instance, and longer growing seasons in the Midwest.  But there’s good reason to believe that any potential benefits will be far outweighed by the costs.  Rising sea levels will flood coastal areas – a very real worry along portions of the U.S. coastline but a much greater worry for low-lying countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh.  Higher temperatures mean an increase in extreme weather—more flooding, more drought, and more severe storms.  Historic patterns of rain and snowfall will be disrupted, putting water supplies at risk.  Here in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, warmer winters will mean less snow pack in the mountains and an earlier springtime melt.  Water shortages are likely to grow worse.  Many of our most threatened species and ecosystems will face even greater risk.  Declines in river flow, for instance, could destroy any chance of saving this region’s precious salmon runs. And hotter, drier summers will stress the forests and pose an ever greater threat of wildfire. One of the tremendous inequities of climate change is that the people facing the greatest risks are those least able to bear them.  Wealthy nations like the United States can find ways to lessen the impact.  We can build sea walls to protect our coasts.  Our farmers can switch to other crops better suited to a warmer climate.  We can strengthen our public health system to guard against diseases like malaria and dengue fever.  But poorer nations struggling to feed and house their people cannot so easily adapt.  And, scientists predict, they will be the ones hardest hit.  For them, prolonged drought doesn’t mean parched lawns and water rationing.  It means starvation.  Rising sea levels won’t just be an inconvenience for those with beachfront property.  They’ll mean mass migrations and increased competition for scarce land.  Lest you think this is all conjecture, it’s worth noting that the people of Tuvalu, a small island nation in the Pacific, recently decided to abandon their homeland before it’s swallowed by rising seas.  All 11,000 residents will be relocating to New Zealand beginning next year. So this is the kind of world that awaits us if we continue on our present course.  What is the alternative?  What will it take to keep our planet from overheating?  Well, quite obviously, it requires dramatically reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere.  What is the primary source of these of these gases?  The combustion of fossil fuels.  So our goal, over time, must be to end our reliance on coal and oil and to develop new sources of energy that can power our growing economy without endangering our climate.  Yes, it is a tall order.  As I said earlier, it will take nothing short of a second industrial revolution. Let me be clear:  This revolution cannot take place overnight.  It will, in fact, take decades.  But there are important steps we should take right now to begin the transition.