Recent Comment
Share
I'm putting a call out for your most pressing climate change questions. CNN is broadcasting another YouTube debate, this time on climate change, live from the climate conference in Copenhagen. CNN has asked all major environment blogs to submit a question to be asked of the leaders and activists taking part in the debate.
Post your questions in the comments and I'll come up with a question from the EcoGeek community based on your responses. Please post your questions by this Friday, December 10. The debate will stream live on CNN.com and YouTube on December 15 and then on CNN International on December 16. Here's a link with the details.
You can submit your own question too, if you'd like. The deadline for that is December 14.
UPDATE: A representative from CNN has contacted me and clarified that they actually want ALL of your questions! You can submit them at www.youtube.com/COP15 as either a text or video question. Then you can cast votes for the questions you'd most like to see answered at the debate. I will still submit a question or two on behalf of EcoGeek, but I strongly encourage all of you to submit your own questions. You guys have posted such great ones here - let's make sure they're heard!
Hits: 9308
Comments (30)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Richard, December 07, 2009
I certainly want to hear the rebuttals against arguments against climate change.
I also want to know about what they're going to do about the people whose livelihoods depend on these "emissions".
Special training?
Compensation?
I also want to know about India, China and the US' stand on climate change.
I hope for the best!
Long live planet earth!
I also want to know about what they're going to do about the people whose livelihoods depend on these "emissions".
Special training?
Compensation?
I also want to know about India, China and the US' stand on climate change.
I hope for the best!
Long live planet earth!
-
- -2
-
-
written by Henry, December 07, 2009
What “easy” lifestyle change should be most emphasized to obtain the widest base of people adjusting their harmful emissions footprint?
Are individuals who actively minimize their personal footprint in positions of power to affect the way businesses and governments treat the environment? In other words, is there a trickle down or trickle up effect?
Are individuals who actively minimize their personal footprint in positions of power to affect the way businesses and governments treat the environment? In other words, is there a trickle down or trickle up effect?
-
- -1
-
-
written by Jasper, December 07, 2009
If you come home on the 18th, what would your (grand)children think of the progress you made? Will they be proud of you?
-
- +2
-
-
written by EV, December 07, 2009
In the event Climate Change is not caused by humans, what would it take to prove this?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kevin, December 07, 2009
What efforts are world leaders taking to make technical experts in charge of policy implementation, and to reduce conflict of interest?
Currently, I see decisions primarily made by those with considerable conflicts of interest, politically and financially. Lobbyists, who frequently have financial goals tied to their input, tend to water down environmental regulation. Agencies and lobbyists, who both often worry about job security, tend to make regulation unnecessarily complicated to ensure the continued need for their job. Governments try to create jobs, which adds to the trend towards unnecessary complication.
Currently, I see decisions primarily made by those with considerable conflicts of interest, politically and financially. Lobbyists, who frequently have financial goals tied to their input, tend to water down environmental regulation. Agencies and lobbyists, who both often worry about job security, tend to make regulation unnecessarily complicated to ensure the continued need for their job. Governments try to create jobs, which adds to the trend towards unnecessary complication.
-
- -1
-
-
written by peter dublin, December 07, 2009
Question to the politicians:
Why not tax instead of ban light bulbs and other energy using products?
Governments make a lot of money on the reduced sales
(2 billion light bulb sales in USA, as it was last year in the EU) - and consumers keep choice,
also the money can go to home energy/insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
The sales tax on energy efficient products can be lowered too, so people aren't just hit by taxes.
See
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
Why not tax instead of ban light bulbs and other energy using products?
Governments make a lot of money on the reduced sales
(2 billion light bulb sales in USA, as it was last year in the EU) - and consumers keep choice,
also the money can go to home energy/insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
The sales tax on energy efficient products can be lowered too, so people aren't just hit by taxes.
See
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hugh Parker, December 07, 2009
Given that the consensus among economists is that a carbon tax is the most effective, most efficient and least costly mechanism of reducing emissions, why is such a lot of effort going in to cap-and-trade schemes?
-
- +6
-
-
written by GGTD, December 08, 2009
What's the most simple change that world government can do that is a no brainer that hasn't been done yet?
-
- +0
-
-
written by graceonline, December 08, 2009
Are our world leaders cognizant enough of the dire feature we are bequething our children and grandchildren to have changed their personal habits?
Did they fly to Copenhagen, for example? If so, how did they offset their carbon contribution. Did they take a limo from the airport to the hotel? What about reducing, reusing and recycling in their daily lives? Do they use energy saving appliances? Do they have low-flow shower heads in their homes?
I will be genuinely encouraged if world leaders take climate change so seriously that they have changed their personal habits in addition to any plans they make at Copenhagen to change corporate and societal behaviors.
Did they fly to Copenhagen, for example? If so, how did they offset their carbon contribution. Did they take a limo from the airport to the hotel? What about reducing, reusing and recycling in their daily lives? Do they use energy saving appliances? Do they have low-flow shower heads in their homes?
I will be genuinely encouraged if world leaders take climate change so seriously that they have changed their personal habits in addition to any plans they make at Copenhagen to change corporate and societal behaviors.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Pete, December 08, 2009
Many scientific teams have studied the ice core samples from the Vostok project in Antarctica. Some peculiar results of the study have not been explained.
Evidence from the ice cores clearly shows that (for paleoclimates) a temperate rise is recorded in the ice core and then there is a lag of several hundred years before the CO2 levels spike in sympathy. Surely, if CO2 were the driver, then CO2 levels would spike first and then be followed by a temperature rise. What has been seen is the reverse.
My question therefore is for a scientist to explain this phenomena.
Evidence from the ice cores clearly shows that (for paleoclimates) a temperate rise is recorded in the ice core and then there is a lag of several hundred years before the CO2 levels spike in sympathy. Surely, if CO2 were the driver, then CO2 levels would spike first and then be followed by a temperature rise. What has been seen is the reverse.
My question therefore is for a scientist to explain this phenomena.
-
- +3
-
-
written by kalirren, December 08, 2009
A second on the carbon tax versus cap-&-trade question.
I'd also propose the following:
It is common knowledge that the United States' generates a commanding share of the world's carbon emissions. The efficacy of enforcement of any global carbon regulation scheme therefore depends upon the compliance of the USA and the political support of its government.
To what degree has the United States' effective rejection of the Kyoto Protocol compromised the international political feasibility of setting and enforcing more ambitious emissions control targets in the Copenhagen negotiations? Are there any courses of action that we are -not- currently considering, or are only considering, because of the United States' refusal to support Kyoto?
I'd also propose the following:
It is common knowledge that the United States' generates a commanding share of the world's carbon emissions. The efficacy of enforcement of any global carbon regulation scheme therefore depends upon the compliance of the USA and the political support of its government.
To what degree has the United States' effective rejection of the Kyoto Protocol compromised the international political feasibility of setting and enforcing more ambitious emissions control targets in the Copenhagen negotiations? Are there any courses of action that we are -not- currently considering, or are only considering, because of the United States' refusal to support Kyoto?
-
- -2
-
-
written by kalirren, December 08, 2009
I second the carbon tax vs. cap-&-trade question.
I'd also like to propose the following:
It's common knowledge that the United States is responsible for emitting a commanding share of the world's carbon dioxide. The success of any global carbon regulation scheme is therefore dependent upon the compliance of United States emitters and the support of the US government.
To what degree has the United States' failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol compromised the international political feasibility of setting and enforcing more ambitious emissions targets at the present negotiations? Were there any courses of action that were eliminated from consideration due to the US position, or measures that were only considered because of it?
In short, to what extent are we Americans holding back the rest of the world?
I'd also like to propose the following:
It's common knowledge that the United States is responsible for emitting a commanding share of the world's carbon dioxide. The success of any global carbon regulation scheme is therefore dependent upon the compliance of United States emitters and the support of the US government.
To what degree has the United States' failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol compromised the international political feasibility of setting and enforcing more ambitious emissions targets at the present negotiations? Were there any courses of action that were eliminated from consideration due to the US position, or measures that were only considered because of it?
In short, to what extent are we Americans holding back the rest of the world?
-
- -2
-
-
written by Peter, December 08, 2009
Ask each to name the person & organization/s behind them who provide the most anti-green pressure they receive?
Lobbyists should be required to justify their "science" & be held professionally accountable - like anyone else...
Remember that politicians are accountable to the public, their party & influential sponsors, while also having to deal with professional lobbyists, etc.
Lobbyists should be required to justify their "science" & be held professionally accountable - like anyone else...
Remember that politicians are accountable to the public, their party & influential sponsors, while also having to deal with professional lobbyists, etc.
-
- +1
-
-
written by VeruTEK Green Technologies, December 08, 2009
It is already turning into a politics game, which is truly sad. "Who has the upper hand in global warming?" That very idea is pathetic. Give praise to those who are making a difference, instead of deciding who is to blame.
You can blame countries all you want, but you have to realize what people make up that country. Enterprises hold a LOT of weight on world wide industries. So you need to go deeper then just blaming an entire country. There is a mass majority of Americans who want to see a global change.
Better time can be spent then deciding who is to blame. We need to go further, and decide how to fix it.
You can blame countries all you want, but you have to realize what people make up that country. Enterprises hold a LOT of weight on world wide industries. So you need to go deeper then just blaming an entire country. There is a mass majority of Americans who want to see a global change.
Better time can be spent then deciding who is to blame. We need to go further, and decide how to fix it.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Andy, December 08, 2009
Just how bad do things have to get, how obvious does the catastrophe have to be, before you bring the global warming denial industry to account for the harm they have caused?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Richard, December 08, 2009
It's nice to see that a lot of people came to voice out their opinion. Down with apathy!
-
- -1
-
-
written by Helter, December 09, 2009
The religious undertones of this 'debate' are becoming scary. People who voice rational doubts are labelled 'deniers'.
I predict a new McCarthyism is underway.
I predict a new McCarthyism is underway.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mike, December 09, 2009
Seriously, how do you account and analyze the conflicting opinions on the research on climate change?
These people have to take a stance on what they believe. Since there is scientific evidence supporting both sides of this issue,are they receiving this information? or is the lobyist only giving what they want.
I'm amazed at how many people blindly believe what they've been told without reading more than the latest blurb in the paper/website. On such a huge issue, it would be nice for people to understand what they think they believe.
I embrace the reduction of energy use. I can't wait to put a wind turbine up. I'm eagerly waiting for more energy efficient cars (whatever form) I like that I can see and breathe better than we could in the 1970's but I've got serious questions on what the US and world governments are doing. I'd imagine many of them have not read near the amount of information on climate that I have, and I consider myself to be just scratching the surface.
My 2 cents that cost 6 cents to make.
These people have to take a stance on what they believe. Since there is scientific evidence supporting both sides of this issue,are they receiving this information? or is the lobyist only giving what they want.
I'm amazed at how many people blindly believe what they've been told without reading more than the latest blurb in the paper/website. On such a huge issue, it would be nice for people to understand what they think they believe.
I embrace the reduction of energy use. I can't wait to put a wind turbine up. I'm eagerly waiting for more energy efficient cars (whatever form) I like that I can see and breathe better than we could in the 1970's but I've got serious questions on what the US and world governments are doing. I'd imagine many of them have not read near the amount of information on climate that I have, and I consider myself to be just scratching the surface.
My 2 cents that cost 6 cents to make.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Jeff, December 09, 2009
Any research or perceived controversy, legitimate or not, that brings to light a negative or a positive outcome for either political faction is used to give weight to their arguments. What can we as a civilization do to make sure that the lies and propaganda are exposed. Because if can't get a grip on this issue it will continue to dominate the political process and the human race will continue to suffer the consequences. An ignorant public will continue to make ignorant choices.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tudor, December 10, 2009
In my opinion, the biggest challenge we face in creating a more sustainable future is how to get groups of people to focus on ethical and long-term practices instead of the current short-term, profit oriented mentality?
I, for one, feel good about making responsible decisions even if it comes at a financial cost. However, they are still too few and too far between, since personal choices are often interconnected with business, and business is competitive mainly through the financial medium.
And so how can be get industry leaders to accept lower profits and instead (uniformly) strive for even higher operational excellence? What kind of role should government play in this? Such ambitions would trickle down to every individual, and that's when our environmental action will finally be on a large enough scale.
I, for one, feel good about making responsible decisions even if it comes at a financial cost. However, they are still too few and too far between, since personal choices are often interconnected with business, and business is competitive mainly through the financial medium.
And so how can be get industry leaders to accept lower profits and instead (uniformly) strive for even higher operational excellence? What kind of role should government play in this? Such ambitions would trickle down to every individual, and that's when our environmental action will finally be on a large enough scale.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Mark, December 15, 2009
i second mike above
"I embrace the reduction of energy use. I can't wait to put a wind turbine up. I'm eagerly waiting for more energy efficient cars (whatever form) I like that I can see and breathe better than we could in the 1970's but I've got serious questions on what the US and world governments are doing. I'd imagine many of them have not read near the amount of information on climate that I have, and I consider myself to be just scratching the surface. "
being a scientist, i am suspect that we mere men REALLY know how the climate works, and the East Anglia emails clearly show there is more than the "scientific facts" at work here.
that being said, they would get my vote of approval if there main focus was energy efficiency and not reducing GHGs... i just updated my entire home heating/cooling system, i have CFL's in almost every outlet in the house, i drive a Honda civic (but would like a diesel hydrid), etc.
the debate over global climate change will continue. but there is no debate that we will run out of "cheap" energy at some point, and probably sooner rather than later. so energy efficiency goals could really unite the world
"I embrace the reduction of energy use. I can't wait to put a wind turbine up. I'm eagerly waiting for more energy efficient cars (whatever form) I like that I can see and breathe better than we could in the 1970's but I've got serious questions on what the US and world governments are doing. I'd imagine many of them have not read near the amount of information on climate that I have, and I consider myself to be just scratching the surface. "
being a scientist, i am suspect that we mere men REALLY know how the climate works, and the East Anglia emails clearly show there is more than the "scientific facts" at work here.
that being said, they would get my vote of approval if there main focus was energy efficiency and not reducing GHGs... i just updated my entire home heating/cooling system, i have CFL's in almost every outlet in the house, i drive a Honda civic (but would like a diesel hydrid), etc.
the debate over global climate change will continue. but there is no debate that we will run out of "cheap" energy at some point, and probably sooner rather than later. so energy efficiency goals could really unite the world
-
- +0
-
-
written by ml johnstone, December 17, 2009
why do you support corporations who pollute, destroy and pay pay low or huge salaries while so many human beings suffer?
-
- +1
-
-
written by Invent Horsepower, December 17, 2009
If all electricity was produced from nuclear reactors would man not be effecting the climate. The electric cars would still be driven on roads that are heated by the sun. This heat would be transferred to rain water that eventually flows into the oceans. Does not man's row crops darken the earth causing it to absorb more energy. Is it not plausible that the ice sheets are melting in part to the particulates emitted from smoke stakes before there was an EPA. This does beg the question. Shouldn't the world start by asking all nations to have standards on the "old" forms of pollution first. So instead of taxing carbon, lets tax BTUs. It would be more enforceable. The unintended consequences should be reduced since a carbon based system might encourage farmers to adopt practices that darken the earth more.
-
- +0
-
-
written by renew, December 17, 2009
As Ray Andersson of Interface says: "We have built our society on the wrong platform: take - make - waste." We have set up the rules of the economy to tax goods (including good things like employment) and let 'bads' go largely uncosted (e.g. emissions, effluent and pollution more generally. Global agreement to shift costs from goods to bads would be an excellent way of starting to reorient our economies towards sustainable production.
What would it take to make this reorientation stick?
What would it take to make this reorientation stick?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mike Rushford, December 17, 2009
Travel efficiently, go slower and shorter distances. Consider moving your residence to acomplish these goal.
Where and when possible use food as fuel, consider manual labor, walk, run or ride a bike, it is healthier.
Chart your efficiency, improve when and where possible.
Where and when possible use food as fuel, consider manual labor, walk, run or ride a bike, it is healthier.
Chart your efficiency, improve when and where possible.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Ben, December 17, 2009
How long do our "leaders" expect to jostle and push each other around like cattle in the killing yard, trying to get closer to the trough, while time runs out. When the waters rise and the winds rip apart our society we will all be paying a price that could have been reduced or even avoided by control of our appetites and the greed of our stockholders and boards of directors.
We are talking about a climatic/geographic/economic change that could spell extinction for our species. They still look at environmental issues like it's an issue of aesthetics. We will see who's a tree hugger when the storms are blowing ALL of us off our feet.
Does doomsday need to dawn before we wake up?
If so, ask the Maldives islanders if it's doomsday yet.
We are talking about a climatic/geographic/economic change that could spell extinction for our species. They still look at environmental issues like it's an issue of aesthetics. We will see who's a tree hugger when the storms are blowing ALL of us off our feet.
Does doomsday need to dawn before we wake up?
If so, ask the Maldives islanders if it's doomsday yet.
-
- -3
-
-
written by Patricio, December 18, 2009
It's been a fraud since Maurice Strong was forced out of the UN, and it's an overt fraud now, especially after the release of all of the emails from the climategate scandal... one that the mainstream media is avoiding like the plague. Wake up people, man-made climate change is a decades-long scam to enrich the bankers and scammers like Al Gore.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Ray Fontanes, December 19, 2009
How can anyone still say that global warming is not happening? Even if it were not happening, isnt it good to use 1/3 the energy. Changing the speed limit 55 MPG would save everything we are shooting for by 2022, NOW.
Sorry to say this but we had less kids we could save mare energy than would take 20 years to plan, NOW.
Sorry to say this but we had less kids we could save mare energy than would take 20 years to plan, NOW.
-
- -4
-
-
written by Patricio, December 19, 2009
Climategate should have the man-made global warming people dancing in the streets! Think about it... it's the same as your doctor one day saying, "sorry, all of those test results were bogus, you really DON'T have cancer! Hooray!" But instead, the climate criminals like Al Gore and the rest of the crazies are all up in arms, pissed off and more angry than ever and wanting to push trillion dollar taxes in Copenhagen more than ever. If they were really concerned about the temps, they'd be happy... but that's never been the plan, and that's why they're mad. The plan has always been to enrich the banksters, Goldman Sachs, climate trading schemes and people like Al Gore.
Please people, WAKE UP! Read about how the solar cycles impact global temps, and look for the real data that was excluded from Al Gore's despicable and fraudulent Powerpoint presentation.
In the words of Morpheus, take the red pill! Please!
Please people, WAKE UP! Read about how the solar cycles impact global temps, and look for the real data that was excluded from Al Gore's despicable and fraudulent Powerpoint presentation.
In the words of Morpheus, take the red pill! Please!
-
- +4
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Many politicians, whose job it is to make decisions, seem to think the debate is still open. Why is it that those who decide think differently from those that know? How do denialist politicians justify this?