Comments for CENIC

Comment on by William Redden

William Redden — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:55:59 +0000

The World Energy Outlook predicted in 2006 that China’s emissions will surpass the U.S.’s next year. Along with India, China is rapidly developing, with emmisions per capita rising quickly. Even though the emmisions per capita of both countries are far lower than most devoloped countries, do you believe that there should there be more focus accorded to these countries in order to curb their greenhouse gas emmissions? Also should the UNFCCC adopt some numerical restrictions on devoloping nations’ greenhouse gases?

Comment on by Straus

Straus — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:52:37 +0000

The UN IPCC AR4 synthesis report states, “Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.”

First, why has there not been more investment in mitigation and adaptation technologies if there is such tremendous economic potential, and second, which will be more effective: reducing carbon emissions or engineering solutions to help cope with the changing climate?

Comment on by Straus

Straus — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:38:27 +0000

Given that the nations that emit the greatest amounts of CO2 will be among the least affected by climate change whereas the poorest nations in Africa will be most affected, what incentives are there for the heavy emitters (including the US, China, and India) to reduce carbon emissions?

Comment on by Harrison Monsky

Harrison Monsky — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:29:45 +0000

Even if we recognize that corn-based ethanol is adverse to U.S environmental and economic goals, will Congress ever lose its taste for ethanol subsidies? Or will farm-belt states, each of which holds two votes in the senate, take second, third, and fourth helpings from the pork-barrel for their farming constituents?

Comment on by Harrison Monsky

Harrison Monsky — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:11:39 +0000

“Building more reactors makes climate change worse than it should have been,” argues Armory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank in Snowmass, Colo. “That’s because a dollar put into new reactors gives two to 10 times less climate solution for the amount of coal-power displaced than if you had bought cheaper solutions with the same dollars.” Does Mr. Lovins have a point?

Comment on by Matt Brumback

Matt Brumback — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:32:39 +0000

Several years ago ethanol fuel and other biofuels were the darling of the media and consumers alike. However, it appears that in reality that we are for the most part unable to “grow fuel on American soil,” squeezed on three fronts between land use crises, the inefficiency of biofuel production processes, and resitance to GMO proliferation. Is there any hope for biofuels? How can we resolve the issues preventing the goal of affordable, home-grown fuels that can stimulate the economy?

Comment on by Aaron Glasserman

Aaron Glasserman — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:10:55 +0000

Would convincing organizations currently opposed to significant envrionmental legislation that such legislation was necessary be enough to to finally enact meaningful environmentalist policy, or would the many divisions between environmental groups simply become the next major impediment to real reform?

Comment on by Zach Hamed

Zach Hamed — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:59:53 +0000

Of the major current presidential candidates (that is, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain), who do you think has the most comprehensive and/or commercially feasible plan for battling global warming? Whose plan do you support, regardless of personal alliances, if different from the aforementioned question?

Comment on by Alex Sellers

Alex Sellers — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:27:49 +0000

According to many environmental specialists, it’s a sensible goal just to prevent the doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Is it merely enough for us to stop carbon emissions from doubling or do we have to do more?

Comment on by Graham Fortgang

Graham Fortgang — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:43:36 +0000

It seems as if most of the ideas and possible solution for slowing down the global increase in temperatures all lie on the basis of a target or goal. For example, in California, a policy was adopted to reduce their global warming “contribution” by 25% in 14 years. In the US and all over the world, policies and pledges alike are being made by both government and corporations. Do these goals offer a false promise of truly effective action in trying to reverse the effects of global warming?