First, we need to be more energy efficient, so we use less energy to achieve the same results.  The United States has made significant improvements in energy efficiency over the last decade.  But countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and Brazil are all far less energy intensive than we are, and we have clearly have much further to go.  Some of this could be as simple as turning off the lights, buying a compact fluorescent next time you need a new light bulb, or carefully checking the energy efficiency ratings the next time you buy a new washer or dryer.  We also should be insisting on more energy-efficient cars.  The technology exists.  The new Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that uses both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine, can go more than 50 miles on a gallon of gas.  It’s proven so popular you have to wait months to get one.  If everyone in America drove a hybrid, we would save about 1.6 billion gallons of oil a year – far more than we import from the Middle East. Improving efficiency is not enough, though.  To address climate change, we will also have to emit much less carbon, and this means switching to less carbon intensive fuels.   Some fuel switching can be done now, but we need a serious effort to begin laying the groundwork for the fuels of the future.  We’ve been through energy transitions before.  In the 18th century, we still relied largely on wood.  In the 19th century, the steam engine took over.  In the 20th century, we turned to oil.  Now we must develop new fuels to meet the needs of the 21st century. I can’t tell you what the fuel of choice should be a hundred years from now.  That will depend on the ingenuity of our scientists and engineers; investment decisions made in boardrooms; the unpredictable course of technological development; and the whims of the marketplace.  Solar, wind and geothermal power all hold tremendous promise.  But one technology that is generating real interest right now is the hydrogen fuel cell. Fuel cells are what NASA puts on board rockets to generate power in space.  They can run on different kinds of fuels.  But whatever the fuel source, the only byproduct is heat and water – pure water.  In other words, no smog-forming pollutants and no carbon dioxide.  Fuel cells could be used to power cars, and many automakers are now engaged in efforts to make fuel cell cars a reality.  They could be used to power businesses or homes.  Instead of buying electricity from a coal-burning utility, a fuel cell in your basement no bigger than a central air conditioner could generate all the clean power you need.  The use of hydrogen to power fuel cells is appealing because there are so many different ways to produce it.  Hydrogen can be extracted from coal, oil or natural gas – or, preferably, produced from renewable energy sources.  And it can take different forms.  Some energy experts envision the day when, instead of filling your car at the gas pump, you’ll pick up “fuel in a box” from the convenience store or a vending machine.  You could go about 250 miles on a six-pack. That’s just one possibility, and there are many, many more.  The point is that if we are to realize them – if we are to discover and pursue the most promising options – we must get started.  This second industrial revolution requires technological and economic transformation on an unprecedented scale.   And we must begin making investments now to ensure its success. There are those who say we can’t afford to address climate change, particularly when our economy is slowing.  I believe they are wrong, for a host of reasons.  I could tell you how the economic models they rely on exaggerate the costs of cutting emissions and fail to take into account the full range of benefits.  But instead, let me tell you about the concrete experiences of the companies we work with at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.  Thirty-seven major companies are now members of our Business Environmental Leadership Council.  These are primarily Fortune 500 companies – names you’d recognize, like Weyerhauser, Intel, Boeing, DuPont, Shell and Alcoa.  Together these companies employ more than 2 million people and generate revenues of nearly $900 billion.  And through their investments in emissions-cutting and climate-friendly technologies, they are demonstrating that what is good for the climate can be good, too, for the bottom line. Many of these companies have adopted voluntary targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.  We recently released a report that took a close look at six of them.  It looked at the reasons why they took on targets, and what the results have been.  The companies said one of the motivations for taking on a target was to improve their competitive positioning in the marketplace.  And that, in fact, has been the result.  Each of the companies is on track to meeting or exceeding its greenhouse gas goal. Together, they’ve delivered reductions equal to the annual emissions of three million cars.  And all the companies are finding that their efforts are helping to reduce production costs and enhance product sales today.  So, yes, I am confident that with smart strategies that tap the power of the marketplace instead of squelching it, that do not expect more than can be delivered, and that take into account capital stock turnover cycles, we can afford to address climate change.  In fact, we can strengthen the long-term health of our economy.  Whatever the economic indicators for the latest quarter, over the long haul, increased efficiencies can only improve the bottom line.  There are real economic opportunities that come with taking action on climate change.  It would be a mistake not to seize them. Before closing, I’d like to say a word about the new concerns now dominating our national agenda.  I refer, of course, to the horrible, haunting events of September 11.   The security of our nation is now, and will for some time remain, the overriding concern in Washington, and with good reason.  As a result, a host of other vital issues – climate change among them – will for now take a lower profile.  But I believe those of us working on climate change can still make an important contribution.  We can help show how, with the right strategies, we can both protect our nation and advance the fight against global warming.  This is most obvious in the case of  “energy security.”  We all know that continuing to rely so heavily on imported oil is a costly mistake.  To some the answer is drilling in the Arctic refuge.  But whatever your views on the Arctic, it is clear that no amount of domestic drilling will significantly reduce our reliance on foreign oil.  If we are serious about energy security – whether or not we’re serious about addressing climate change – we must move beyond oil.  So, where are we in the effort against climate change?  Internationally, after a decade of difficult negotiations, we are for the first time on the verge of enacting binding emissions limits for all industrialized countries but one.   In the United States, despite our refusal to join the rest of the world in the Kyoto Protocol, there is a growing bipartisan recognition that we cannot continue to blithely ignore our responsibilities as the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter.  In a growing number of boardrooms, corporate leaders are seeing climate change not only as a challenge but as an opportunity.  And in communities like Portland, ordinary citizens are acting locally to meet what is truly a global challenge.  We have a long, long way to go.  But we have begun.  And that is good.  Thank you very much.