>> The argument about climate change is over.
Now it's time to act.
>> NARRATOR: As the 2008 presidential campaign begins, a new bipartisan consensus has emerged on global warming.
>> This is a problem whose time has come.
>> NARRATOR: But for nearly 20 years, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the federal government failed to take decisive action.
>> Are you planning to go to Rio?
>> We're contemplating that right now.
>> NARRATOR: The first President Bush signed the International Climate Treaty in Rio.
>> It was, however, not binding because the Bush administration insisted that the targets be voluntary.
>> NARRATOR: Vice President Al Gore committed the U.S. to the Kyoto Protocol... >> The United States remains firmly committed to a strong, binding target... >> NARRATOR: ...but the Clinton administration didn't bring it to the Senate for ratification.
>> I thought it was a little disingenuous to go sign the treaty and... and never even fight for it.
>> NARRATOR: And President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty process altogether.
>> The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways.
>> The way it happened was the equivalent to flipping the bird, frankly, to the rest of the world.
>> Why do you think we've had three administrations who have not been able to deal with this issue on the federal level?
>> NARRATOR: Tonight on Frontline, correspondent Deborah Amos investigates the politics behind the U.S. government's failure to act on the biggest environmental problem of our time.
>> It's still hot and it's still dry in the nation's drought-stricken farm belt.
>> Is this summer's terrible heat just temporary, freakish weather, or is there a change in the atmosphere caused by our pollution?
>> NARRATOR: Climate change became a national issue for Americans in 1988.
They could feel it.
The temperatures climbed all spring, with an unusual number of floods and forest fires.
>> It's said that this drought has the potential to be a nationwide disaster.
>> 50 miles south of here you get the same situation.
>> NARRATOR: Farmers lost crops in the withering heat.
1988 was the hottest year on record all over the planet.
Even the Amazon was on fire.
A growing number of scientists saw convincing evidence that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were warming the earth's atmosphere.
Dr. James Hansen, a top climatologist at NASA, decided it was time to speak out.
>> I decided I was going to say it was time to stop waffling so much, and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here, and is affecting our climate.
>> We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so, and was very certain about it.
So we called him up and asked him if he would testify.
>> NARRATOR: On Capitol Hill, Senator Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony.
>> We called the Weather Bureau and found out what, historically, was the hottest day of the summer.
Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was.
So we scheduled the hearing that day and-- bingo-- it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
>> AMOS: Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
>> What we did was the... went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room and so when the... when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.
Dr. Hansen, if you'd start us off we'd appreciate it.
The wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the... at the table at the hearing as... at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony.
>> Number one, the Earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.
Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.
>> If he hadn't said what he had said, it would not have become the major issue and scientists would not have taken it up the way they did after that.
It was a major breakthrough.
Certainly it was a major political breakthrough.
>> I said that I was 99% confident that the world really was getting warmer, and that there was a high degree of probability that it was due to human-made greenhouse gases.
And I think it was the 99% probability statement which got a lot of attention.
>> I mean, this was a very, very brave statement.
I mean, he was on the edge of the science.
He's working for the federal government and certainly this was not cleared, you know, far up the line what he had to say.
So, the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention, but I thought we were going to move a lot more rapidly than we did.
>> NARRATOR: As it turned out, the country had more immediate concerns.
In 1991, the first President Bush launched the first Gulf War.
Then, global warming seemed to stop, briefly.
>> Well, in 1991, Mount Pinatubo blew in the Philippines.
It sent a huge cloud of sulfate particles high into the... in the stratosphere and cooled the world's climate, which is kind of a drag if you're trying to build impetus toward cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases.
>> We've got to fight against that kind of extremism... >> NARRATOR: The climate became an issue again in the 1992 presidential campaign.
>> I believe, passionately, for America to compete and win... We stopped building nuclear power plants, but our addiction to fossil fuels still is wrapping the earth in a deadly shroud of greenhouse gases.
>> NARRATOR: Candidate Bill Clinton challenged President Bush to attend the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and commit the United States to a global warming treaty.
>> Mr. President, are you planning to go to Rio for the Earth Summit?
>> We're contemplating that right now, as to what to do.
There's some preliminary work going on.
>> Do you want to go?
>> Well, I'm... >> And it became a major issue, was he or was he not going to go to the Earth Summit?
And at that point, we on the Democratic side were beating up on them as hard as possible, saying, "What do you mean the President's not going to go to the Earth Summit?
It's the most important gathering in the history of the world."
>> AMOS: Was he getting it equally strong from the other side-- "Don't you dare go to Rio"?
>> Oh, of course he was.
And within the administration we were divided.
A number of people were concerned that he not go, thought that it was going to be an environmental jamboree and that we would be the punching bag down there.
>> NARRATOR: William Reilly wanted strong action on climate change and negotiated a secret deal to smooth the way.
>> I had previously worked out an understanding with the president of Brazil that before I advocated his coming, the President guaranteed to me that they would do everything not to embarrass him there.
There was a strong debate about whether he should go, and I think, honestly, the President went because he thought it was where the President of the United States, concerned about these issues, ought to be.
>> In the United States we have the world's tightest air quality standards on cars and factories... >> NARRATOR: President Bush did join the largest gathering of world leaders in history.
He signed the landmark treaty on climate change.
But his signature came with a catch.
>> There was a commitment by the United States, as a ratified party to that treaty, to return its emissions by the year 2000 to the level they had been in 1990, which, frankly, would've been a fairly easy thing to do if we had started in 1992 when we ratified it.
It was, however, not binding because the Bush administration-- the first Bush administration-- insisted that the targets be voluntary.
>> AMOS: Did you agree with voluntary, rather than mandatory, provisions?
>> No.
I recommended that the President commit to a mandatory program of trying to control carbon dioxide emissions going forward.
I was a lonely proponent of that position at that time.
I think the economic advisers simply were much more concerned about the cost.
>> NARRATOR: The President made it clear-- the U.S. economy, not the environment, was his priority.
>> I must, as president, and will, as a human being, keep in mind the needs of American families to have jobs.
>> NARRATOR: That message would resonate powerfully back home.
>> We are 550 coal miners!
(cheers and applause) >> Where it resonated was with very specific special interests: coal companies and their associated unions.
The companies could move the Republicans, the unions could move the Democrats.
Same was true in the auto unions and the auto industry as well.
These companies give Republicans large campaign contributions and Democrats depend on the unions very heavily in many of these states for their electoral support.
>> NARRATOR: In 1993, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore took over, there were high hopes for stronger action on climate change.
>> Of course, when Gore became vice president, and with his interest in... and having published a book on this, everybody thought this was going to be a major preoccupation of the Clinton administration.
>> NARRATOR: The new administration had a plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
The B.T.U.
tax-- a tax on energy-- was designed to cut energy use and also help reduce the federal deficit.
>> A B.T.U.
tax on the heat content of energy... these measures will cost an American family with an income of about $40,000 a year less than 17 dollars a month.
It will cost American families with incomes under $30,000 nothing.
>> NARRATOR: The Republican minority in Congress seized on Clinton's new tax.
>> If you're on the left, the answer's always a tax.
The answer's always bigger government.
The answer's always more regulation.
>> AMOS: You were against it.
>> I think it's nuts.
>> If he didn't get this message, he'd better get a hearing aid because it was pretty loud and clear.
>> This was the one piece of the Clinton deficit reduction plan that Republicans could say hit middle-class families.
And therefore it was the most dangerous, the most politicized and the most controversial.
>> NARRATOR: In the end, it was Clinton's own party that killed the B.T.U.
tax.
Senate Democrats from western states rich in oil and coal rejected the tax before it even came to a vote.
>> I don't think it's going anywhere.
>> AMOS: They were undermined by people from their own party.
>> Many Democrats represent farm states and coal-producing states, and that's where the Clinton administration had not done any spadework.
It was like many of the things that the Clinton administration did in its first two years.
They got the policy right, but they got the politics entirely wrong.
>> Clinton later said that it was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
>> AMOS: So you start to ask yourself what... what was it?
I mean, did they not know how to do politics?
>> Well, it's one of two things.
Either they didn't really know how to do the politics or they were not serious about really getting it done.
>> There's something in these pictures you can't see.
It's essential to life... >> NARRATOR: And there was another factor in the national debate-- a media campaign funded by the energy industry and designed to raise public doubts about global warming.
>> It isn't smog or smoke; it's what we breathe out and plants breathe in.
Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution; we call it life.
>> There was a concerted campaign by lobbyists and communicators for industry, and scientists who had partnerships or relationships with either libertarian think tanks or with industry directly, to cast doubt, basically to focus everyone on the uncertainties.
>> NARRATOR: A coalition of coal companies produced a film that suggested more carbon dioxide might be a good thing.
>> A doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere will produce a tremendous greening of planet Earth.
>> A better world, a more productive world.
>> For citrus it would be a very, very positive thing.
>> In terms of plant growth, it's nothing but beneficial.
>> NARRATOR: While these scientists touted carbon dioxide, a handful of others became industry-sponsored greenhouse skeptics.
>> Once you tell enough people that the world is warming, people start to believe it.
>> What would you attribute their rationale?
>> NARRATOR: They made themselves available to the media and claimed global warming was a myth.
>> The most of a temperature rise we could get would be of the order of half a degree, which doesn't strike me as a catastrophe.
>> NARRATOR: It turned out the energy industry also funded the research of some of these scientists.
>> And I found out that about three of these skeptics had received about a million dollars over a three-year period and that was never publicly disclosed until we wrote about it.
>> And the money came from...?
>> And the money basically came from coal interests, from mining interests, from some oil companies.
>> The planet has not warmed up nearly as much as the computer forecasts that are used for the basis of this gloom-and-doom scenario suggest that they should have.
>> And this is a playbook that was actually developed way back in the '80s, and it started with the tobacco industry.
What the tobacco industry did was begin to question the science.
Simply say, "Well, we don't know the way that cigarette smoking causes cancer."
So, they began with the attack on the science.
Same playbook on global warming.
>> NARRATOR: One of the most distinguished of the skeptics, Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, received research funds from both the tobacco and the oil industry.
>> AMOS: Did it matter to you where the money came from?
>> As long as it was green... when money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used, not the old.
>> AMOS: What is your position today on global warming?
>> I would say it's unlikely that we face serious danger from global warming.
>> AMOS: Unlikely?
>> Unlikely.
>> AMOS: In the 1980s, you said, "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate."
>> That's still true.
Most scientists are Democrats.
I think-- what is it, 73... 93% percent-- and it got to be a political issue.
I think it's simple as that.
>> NARRATOR: The skeptics' position became a political strategy.
In 1995, a Republican pollster outlined the approach in a confidential memo.
"Voters believe there is no consensus about global warming."
His advice?
"You need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue."
>> AMOS: Was that you?
>> That is me and that was written... this discussion of global warming and climate change is something I've been involved in since 1995.
>> AMOS: And those are your words.
And they used your words as a strategy to undermine the credibility of scientists who, for the most part, there are very few scientists who say that global warming is not a real thing.
>> It was a great... look, you want me to say it?
It was a great memo.
It was great language.
I know that those who dislike my position or... or who... who resent the memo, they will acknowledge that it is good language.
>> AMOS: An entire group of... of science skeptics grew up around that, who have, in some ways, moved the debate back to scientists aren't really sure, when, in fact, scientists are sure.
>> Again, I'm...
I'm not going to... my own beliefs have changed from when I was tasked with that project.
>> NARRATOR: While Frank Luntz says he now believes global warming is real... >> ...handicapping the American economy... >> NARRATOR: ...his strategy of doubt was embraced by some prominent Republican politicians.
>> Wake up, America.
With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?
I believe it is.
>> There's no question that the skeptics campaign had a major impact on Congress and it allowed those who were ideologically opposed to moving, senators like Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, to have something to wave in the air and say, "There's no reason to run any sort of economic risk here, "there's no reason to take any action because we don't have the science yet."
>> NARRATOR: By 1995, the science was more certain.
An international panel of more than 2,000 scientists issued a new report.
Their consensus: global warming is due to greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
The remaining question: how severe would the climate changes be?
That same year, the climate talks that began in Rio would reconvene in Berlin.
>> In Berlin, nations will meet to determine what more the international community can do in response to the dramatic scientific evidence that now exists.
>> NARRATOR: The Clinton administration had decided voluntary emission cuts would never be enough.
Eileen Claussen was on the negotiating team in Berlin.
>> The Clinton administration was very actively pursuing an international agreement that would move from a voluntary system to a mandatory system.
>> NARRATOR: But the Clinton team could not convince China and India to agree to mandatory cuts.
>> Developing country leaders uniformly saw the effort to put a binding climate change regime on them as an effort by the United States-- the most advanced, productive economy in the world-- to now stunt their growth before they could even have a chance to catch up.
And they were truly outraged by it.
>> NARRATOR: There was also outrage in Congress, now controlled by the Republicans.
>> The fact that China and India aren't even included means that you give them a substantial economic advantage in taking jobs away from America by increasing manufacturing in China and India.
We would have been raising the cost of doing business in the U.S. >> NARRATOR: Once again, the economy, not the climate, was the major concern, and America's most powerful industries-- the energy and automobile companies-- were dead set against mandatory carbon cuts.
>> I can remember sitting in a room where the language was finally agreed.
And I was there with Tim Wirth, who was also at the State Department at the time, and he very pleasantly said, "Now, Eileen, just go and tell all the industry groups what we've just agreed."
Which, of course, I did.
And when I described sort of the language of the Berlin mandate, there was just unbelievable sort of silence as I was sort of saying, "Well, and this is the language we've agreed to."
>> AMOS: But when you looked out on that sea of faces, what did you see?
>> I could see the beginnings of the plan to make sure that there was no treaty negotiated.
>> NARRATOR: In Congress there was little support for the agreements hammered out in Berlin, which would form the basis of the next round of negotiations in Kyoto.
>> As Speaker of the House, I had a team in Kyoto who came back and were just appalled by the way the treaty was negotiated, by the role of the U.S. delegation, by the degree to which the Europeans rigged the entire treaty to be anti-American.
>> NARRATOR: In the Senate, the opposition was bipartisan.
Democrat Robert Byrd, from West Virginia's coal country... >> ...not only to consent but to advise... >> I am not in favor of... >> NARRATOR: ...and Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel sponsored a non-binding resolution opposed to a treaty that did not include India and China.
>> It is the developing nations that will be the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases during the next 25 years.
When a nation like China says, "I won't voluntarily step up, "with no mandates, "nor will I agree to anything in the future.
We'll see how our economy works."
Well, that's asking the United States to take a tremendous leap out into the unknown.
I don't think that was in the interest of our country.
I don't think it was in the interest of the world.
>> The ayes are 95 and the nays are zero.
And the resolution is approved.
>> AMOS: Why was... "Kyoto is not fair."
Why was that such a powerful idea that couldn't be countered?
>> Well, it could have been countered because, of course, you could say... you could say, "Look, we've been responsible for the problem up till now.
"They're going to be responsible for the future.
"But we have to act, "as a consequence of our past emissions, "before we can ask them to act in anticipation of their future emissions."
That's not a hard argument to make.
That's why I've always believed it was a red herring designed to avoid action because it's obviously a phony argument.
And the other phony argument that went with it was, "We can't act alone because then "all our industry will move overseas to where carbon emissions are not regulated."
And, of course, most of our energy use can't move even if it wanted to.
It's in our buildings.
It's in our stores, in our homes, in our office buildings.
It's in our automobiles.
>> NARRATOR: But the 95-0 Senate vote still hung over the Clinton administration as delegations gathered in Kyoto in December 1997.
Vice President Gore decided to head the U.S. delegation despite the concerns of his political aides.
>> Gore was obviously running for president and you can imagine what all of the political handlers were saying.
"Don't touch this issue, don't get involved in it."
"Don't do this, don't do that."
A lot of the conservative part of the administration, I know, was arguing against him going to Kyoto.
And it was a bit of... well, like the conservatives arguing against George Bush going to Rio.
>> The human consequences and the economic costs of failing to act are unthinkable.
>> NARRATOR: Gore set out the administration position: a mandatory cap on carbon emissions.
>> For our part, the United States remains firmly committed to a strong, binding target that will reduce our own emissions by nearly 30% from what they would otherwise be; a commitment as strong or stronger than any we have heard here from any country.
>> NARRATOR: Although Gore had committed the U.S. to the climate treaty, in Washington, convinced they faced certain defeat, the Clinton administration decided not to bring the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
>> I thought it was a little disingenuous to try to score political points and go sign the treaty and never bring it before the Senate or even fight for it, or even push it on us.
>> AMOS: And how did you feel about that?
>> Well, I mean, obviously I felt strongly enough that I resigned from the administration, in part, over this.
Because I thought it was dishonest to go and negotiate a treaty that you had no hope of getting ratified in the Senate and because I also felt that it's better to have good rhetoric than bad rhetoric, but it's actually better still to want to do something.
>> NARRATOR: Former President Clinton and Vice President Gore declined to be interviewed for this program.
During the late 1990s, America's booming economy sent more carbon into the atmosphere than ever before.
>> So by the time Bill Clinton's administration was finished, we saw greenhouse gases so much higher than they were at the beginning of the decade that any president, not just George W. Bush, but any president-- even an Al Gore presidency-- would have found it very, very difficult to meet the Kyoto targets.
That's the dirty little secret.
>> NARRATOR: In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore had the reputation as the strongest environmentalist ever to run for president.
>> Now, I want to talk about the environment here today because we have a situation where the big polluters are supporting Governor Bush, and they are wanting to be in control of the environmental policies.
>> NARRATOR: But candidate Gore rarely mentioned global warming or talked about mandatory carbon caps.
>> The politics was so divisive, they wrapped all of the... any problems with Kyoto around Gore's neck.
>> ...ranked number one as the smoggiest state.
>> The Republicans were going to try to beat him up on this very... you know, really, as aggressively as they possibly could.
They go "Ozone Al" or whatever he was called.
>> In Texas we passed one of the toughest laws in the nation... >> NARRATOR: Then, Texas governor George W. Bush outflanked Gore on Gore's own turf.
>> My opponent calls for voluntary reductions in such emissions.
In Texas, I think we've done it better with mandatory reductions.
And I believe the nation can do better as well.
>> NARRATOR: Bush surprised many by backing mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
>> With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon binoxide... carbon di... dioxide within a reasonable period of time.
>> And that was kind of a big deal coming from him.
And I think it was seen as a way to sort of out-green Gore, which probably worked.
>> NARRATOR: In the first few weeks of his administration, President Bush sent another signal.
He appointed a governor with a strong environmental record to head the E.P.A.
Christine Todd Whitman also backed mandatory CO2 reductions.
>> I felt it would be important for our country, as a leader, as the number one producer of greenhouse gases, to be seen as being engaged in this issue, be a world leader here.
>> NARRATOR: One of Whitman's first duties was to attend ongoing climate treaty talks in Trieste, Italy.
Before leaving, she says she coordinated her talking points with the White House.
>> I went through the White House and went to all of them and said, "Look, I am going to say, 'The President's called for a cap on carbon.'
Is that okay?"
>> AMOS: And in that White House, who said, "You can go to Trieste and you can say those things"?
>> Oh, I ran it through the National Security Council, and I ran it through the Chief of Staff, I ran it through everybody that I could think of.
>> AMOS: So that was Andy Card and Condoleezza Rice?
>> Yes.
>> In the "Crossfire," Environmental Protection Agency... >> NARRATOR: Just before her trip, the former New Jersey governor was a guest on CNN.
>> Governor, tonight, as we sit here, the environmental conservatives are up in arms.
>> NARRATOR: Robert Novak charged Whitman with misrepresenting administration policy.
>> The only theory under which carbon dioxide is allegedly harmful is a catastrophic global warming theory, which was, as I remember, it was Al Gore's, not George Bush.
>> NARRATOR: Whitman reminded Novak of the President's campaign pledge.
>> He has also been very clear that the science is good on global warming.
It does exist.
There is a real problem that we as a world face from global warming and to the extent that introducing CO2 to the discussion is going to have an impact on global warming, that's an important step to take.
>> So, without having a serious discussion with Bush, because Whitman had not had a detailed discussion on global warming with Bush at the point at which she's on CNN... and so she thought she was on safe ground.
And, of course, she finds out quickly that she was not.
>> NARRATOR: While Whitman was in Italy, a policy review was already under way in Washington.
Energy had moved to the top of the White House agenda.
Vice President Dick Cheney had assembled an energy task force, meeting in secret with the oil, gas and coal industries.
Up for discussion: was the President committed to mandatory carbon caps?
>> We were hearing things out of Vice President Cheney's office, who certainly made it very clear they didn't think that was the case.
Then we were hearing things from the E.P.A.
administrator.
We weren't sure where the President was, so the only way to deal with it is write a letter and get it on the record, "What is your position?"
And that's what we did.
>> NARRATOR: The letter from Hagel and three other Republican senators intensified the debate at the White House.
The Vice President asked the Energy Department to assess the costs of capping carbon.
>> The Energy Department said cutting these emissions will be costly in a certain way.
And the Environmental... the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in saying, "No, that report isn't applicable.
"This is why, and there really is growing evidence "that the world is warming because of these emissions, and it's worth sticking with what you did."
And the team at the White House that was assessing all this was made of politic... political operatives.
There was not a scientist in the room.
And they obviously took the information that was convenient and disregarded the information that was inconvenient.
>> NARRATOR: Within a week of receiving the letter from the Republican senators, President Bush signed off on a reply.
He would reverse his campaign pledge on carbon emissions.
When Whitman returned from Europe, she requested a meeting with the President.
She says she had no idea the carbon policy had been reversed without her input.
>> I thought I had a chance.
It was just the President and Andy Card and I, and it was kind of to go through the reasons why we were going to go away from the cap on carbon and back away from it.
>> NARRATOR: The President told her the decision had already been made.
>> There really wasn't much discussion about climate change or how we could live up to the campaign promise or anything like that.
And then, when I left, as I came out of the Oval Office, the Vice President was coming down the hall putting on his coat, and he said, "Well, is the letter ready?"
and took a letter.
I didn't know what it was at the time, but it turned out it was the letter to Hagel.
>> AMOS: How much do you think that the Vice President had to do with that decision?
>> I think he probably had a great deal to do with it.
He is certainly the one who had the lead on the energy issues.
I had long conversations back and forth with him.
Well, no.
I had long conversations with him.
It wasn't a lot of back and forth.
With him, he sort of smiles and nods and... and you don't really know where he is on a lot of things.
>> NARRATOR: But there would be even bigger news.
The Bush administration had decided to withdraw from the Kyoto climate treaty process altogether.
>> Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.
The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways.
>> NARRATOR: America's closest allies were stunned.
Protests were immediate and worldwide.
>> AMOS: Do you think that the President understood that there was going to be a huge, huge reaction in the rest of the world?
>> I'm not sure they understood how big a reaction it was going be and I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference even if they had because what was happening here was more important.
>> AMOS: And it was a big reaction.
>> It was a big reaction.
It was a very big reaction.
It was a British paper, I think, that said, "With one stroke of the pen, "the President has determined "that there are more important things in the world than the rest of the world."
Basically that the United States is more important, and that there are other issues, that this is a minor thing.
It... it was a... the way it happened was the equivalent to flipping the bird, frankly, to the rest of the world on an issue about which they felt so deeply.
>> The key message from this White House is that "We will do what we decide to do "and you can sit and listen, "you can throw up your hands and run in circles.
"Well, that's your choice.
"The United States "will now do what it does for whatever reason it decides.
"And your job, as the rest of the world, is to... is to deal with it."
>> NARRATOR: But it was the White House that would have to deal with steadily mounting, tangible evidence that global warming was already under way.
>> You're beginning to see the actual, measurable impacts of global warming.
You're seeing enormous melting of glaciers, especially up at the poles.
You're seeing sea level rise in places like Bangladesh, very low-lying countries.
You're seeing Pacific islands that are already almost going underwater by then because they're such low-lying little island atolls.
And so, at that point, you no longer had to be a scientist to see that, wow, something is really going on here.
>> It was very difficult for the Bush administration to come to grips with the science hardening.
And, in part, the administration tried to do this by ignoring the science or trying to water it down or censor it even.
>> NARRATOR: One of the first to feel that censorship was Rick Piltz.
He coordinated the research for the government's climate science program.
>> It happened really starting in the first year of the new administration at the same time that the President was pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, the White House science office was telling us to start deleting all references to the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, a major study that we had just completed.
>> NARRATOR: In that $10 million study, government experts had examined the potential consequences of global warming across the country.
>> So we looked at agriculture.
What is it going to mean to food and agriculture in the U.S.?
What is it going to mean to human health?
What's it going to mean to forests?
What's it going to mean to water resources?
What's it going to mean to coastlines?
I mean, we didn't have a notion that they would suddenly stop the whole process, which is what, in effect, happened during the next year.
They basically stopped funding and they totally refocused the program back on trying to look at the science of climate change and not focusing at all on what the potential impacts were.
>> NARRATOR: The White House ordered the E.P.A.
to take the assessment off the government web site.
>> There was basically a "thou shalt not mention the National Assessment on Climate Change anymore."
And it was... you could see it excised from documents in the... in the index, government documents.
>> What we missed by not having that Assessment out there for the public to see is people did not get a good sense of "what this means to me."
And the National Assessment could have helped people to see that, that this is real, it's about me, it's not about somewhere... someone else, somewhere else.
>> In terms of a large-scale suppression of an intelligence gathering enterprise, what it does to block a process that's essential for national preparedness, to me, makes it the central climate change science scandal of this administration.
>> In my 30-some years in the government, I've never seen constraints on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public as strong as they are now.
>> NARRATOR: Nearly 20 years after he first raised the alarm about global warming, Dr. James Hansen was told by administration political appointees that he had to clear all his public statements about global warming in advance.
>> He had given a speech at a science meeting and had been chastised for that and told there'd be dire consequences if he kept doing this without letting people know.
And they wanted to know his speech engagements and I said, "So, let's get this into the paper."
>> NARRATOR: In the speech, Hansen had not only talked about the science, he also outlined policies he believed were required to prevent further, disastrous climate change.
>> I don't think my opinion about policies has any more weight than that of anybody else.
But I shouldn't be prevented from... from saying it, and I shouldn't be prevented from connecting the dots.
>> NARRATOR: Throughout his administration, the President has been at odds with the scientific consensus on global warming.
>> I suppose I want to know what is your plan.
>> Good.
>> NARRATOR: At times, raising doubts about its cause.
>> First of all, there is... the globe is warming.
The fundamental debate... is it manmade or natural?
>> There's no question there will always be some uncertainty about some aspects of climate science.
It's too complex an area to say otherwise.
But we know more than enough to start action now.
We'll solve the problem of global warming when our government gets serious and when we sweep the obstacles out of the way.
That was the opportunity that George W. Bush missed.
>> NARRATOR: The President, Vice President, and White House environmental officials all declined to be interviewed for this program.
While the Bush administration was trying to contain the warnings from government scientists on climate change, events like Hurricane Katrina were driving many Americans to reach their own conclusions.
>> I think Americans now believe that something has happened to the climate, that they think that there's... that the weather patterns are not the same as they were 20 years ago.
We now wonder, is it just Mother Nature?
Or is there something else that's at play here?
We didn't use to think that way, but we do so now.
>> NARRATOR: Before Katrina, polls showed most Americans saw global warming as something that might threaten their children or grandchildren.
>> In our poll, the number of people who said, "It's going to impact my life," after Katrina, skyrocketed.
It went to actually a majority of Americans saying that "this is a threat which may impact me."
>> Here... here cows!
Come on, girl.
>> NARRATOR: The change in American attitudes can be seen across the country.
>> The earth has had cycles since God put it in place.
And, and... but those were pretty much clear cut in logical order.
The weather patterns we're seeing today are... there is... there is no logical order.
You know, there is no balance there like it once was.
>> NARRATOR: Ranchers here in central Texas began making connections between carbon emissions and what was happening in their backyard.
>> It's been such mild winters that we have grasshopper infestation that survives the winter.
About four years now we've had grasshoppers that ate everything up.
>> NARRATOR: They were also making connections between global warming and the state's largest utility company, T.X.U.
The Dallas-based utility wanted to build 11 new coal-fired power plants, a plan that was fast-tracked by Texas governor Rick Perry.
>> When our population is expected to double in just over 30 years, power outages are just a few years away if we don't take action.
>> We stopped building coal plants in '88 in Texas for a reason.
And now, you know, all of a sudden now we've got the... this big push to get all of these coal plants built.
You've got a billion-dollar company, they've requested to permit.
You know, facts say they're going to get it, so you just need to live with it.
Well, we've had people tell us, "What do you think a bunch of hicks, you know, out here in Riesel, Texas, can do against a billion-dollar plant?"
>> NARRATOR: The ranchers, along with environmental groups, filed suit to stop the coal plants from being built.
Mayors from across the state joined the fight, backing the cowboys against coal.
>> What is it that brought us together?
One word: coal.
We are alarmed that the state of Texas is currently considering doubling the number of coal-fired plants in our state.
And, worse than that, our governor has decided that he wants to fast-track all of it and get it up and built as soon as possible.
And it just seems contrary to the direction that the rest of the country is going.
>> NARRATOR: In other parts of the country, local and state politicians were taking action on global warming.
In California, Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed landmark climate change legislation in 2006, the nation's first law imposing mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions.
>> And we do not want to wait for the federal government to create that action.
We want to create it and we want to be the leaders in that.
>> Governor Schwarzenegger has said the reason that we have to take such aggressive action is because the federal government has been dragging its heels for years.
Our Department of Water Resources has already documented a significant shrinking in the annual snow pack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which is the source of two-thirds of our developed drinking and agricultural water in the state and a trend which they said that by 2050 we'd lose about two-thirds of our snow pack.
>> AMOS: So you are already seeing some pretty serious... this is now, this is right now.
>> This is right now and that's the reason that we are, you know, frankly, scared into... into acting.
>> The hearing will come to order.
>> NARRATOR: In February 2007, an unexpected group showed up on Capitol Hill to demand federal action on global warming.
>> It's very important to note that this group includes some of the world's largest corporations, such as General Electric, DuPont, B.P., Caterpillar, Alcoa, and includes key energy companies, such as Duke Power, Florida Power and Light, and PG&E from my home state of California.
>> NARRATOR: These corporate leaders, motivated by the reality of climate change, the fear of state-by-state regulation and the hope of new business opportunities, wanted the federal government to impose mandatory limits on carbon.
>> Our organization is here because we share a view that climate change is the most pressing environmental issue of our time.
And also because we agree that as the world's largest source of global warming emissions, our country has an obligation to lead.
>> B.P.
believes that all emitting sectors of the economy, including the transportation sector, both fuels and vehicles, must be included in any national climate change policy.
>> We must know the rules of the road if... you want us to follow to reduce greenhouse gases.
When you lay down the law, our universities, our companies, our national laboratories and individual citizens will lead the world in finding solutions.
>> When I see such an extraordinary cross-section of America's free enterprise system together with the environmental groups come and form a group like this, you've got my attention.
>> NARRATOR: Back in Texas, it was, in fact, big business that stepped in to resolve the state's battle over the coal plants.
>> In a stunning turnabout, the new buyers of T.X.U., the largest power provider in Texas, promised to take a company that had been the enemy of environmentalists and make it go green.
>> It is the biggest leveraged buyout ever.
>> NARRATOR: Two Wall Street private equity firms decided to buy T.X.U.
and to put the deal together, they negotiated an unusual agreement with environmental groups.
The buyers pledged to cancel plans to build eight of the 11 planned coal plants, reduce carbon emissions by 20% and invest millions in wind power.
The deal was brokered by the former E.P.A.
director William Reilly.
>> I believe that this investment that we're doing in Texas is going to be green in both senses of the word.
>> AMOS: What's the significance of this deal?
It is unprecedented, certainly, but is this some new model?
>> Well, you know, I would hesitate to characterize it as a new model until it really plays out and we see how successful we are.
But, certainly, it has been described by the environmentalists as a game changer.
And based upon the calls I'm getting from other energy companies, I think it may be.
There is a sense now that the most aggressive expansion program for coal-fired power has been reconsidered.
>> NARRATOR: In early 2007, the United Nations panel of climate scientists reported that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing faster than ever before.
Unless greenhouse emissions are cut aggressively, the report says, temperatures could increase by five degrees Fahrenheit by century's end, enough to create a planet much warmer than humans have ever known.
>> I went to the North Pole where you're actually at the place where the world spins.
And you're on sea ice that is essentially ephemeral.
It's floating, drifting ice that's only a few, few feet thick.
And the notion, when you're standing there, that later in the century the new normal in summertime up there will be a blue ocean, is a pretty profound feeling.
It's not like, "Oh, my God, the world is ending," but it is, "The world is transforming."
>> AMOS: Why do you think we have had three administrations who have not been able to deal with this issue on the federal level?
>> What you have is people on the right know they're against regulation and they're against taxation and they're against bigger government, so they don't want to think about it because the only answers they ever see are things they hate.
People on the left know the environment's important, but they... their answers are all regulation, taxation and litigation.
And so you're caught in this... this gridlock because the left insists on pain and the right insists on avoidance.
>> This is the biggest, most complicated-- and most interesting-- issue that I think we've ever faced.
You know, outside of blowing ourselves off the face of the Earth, the climate change is the single most important issue.
Economically, politically, socially, diplomatically-- I mean, it's got everything involved in it.
And whoever wins the presidency in 2008 has got not only a tremendous obligation, but a wonderful opportunity to really change the future of the world.
>> Next time, once, Mormons were hated, persecuted, exiled.
Today, they're 12 million strong.
>> Mormons are everywhere.
>> Follow their astonishing journey from the margins to the mainstream... >> It's a breathtaking transformation.
>> ...and discover the truth about America's most controversial faith.
The Mormons.
A Frontline/American Experience special presentation.
>> To order Frontline's "Hot Politics" on video cassette or DVD, call PBS Home Video at 1-800-PLAY-PBS.