C-SPAN is re-airing the debate NOW (9:30 pm) By Joe Romm on August 27, 2007 at 9:13 pm 0Share This 0Tweet This Share this: "C-SPAN is re-airing the debate NOW (9:30 pm)" Share: Hopefully that means they will upload the video later. Close Like Climate Progress on Facebook Don't show this to me again ‹ PREVIOUS Forecast: Storm Warning — Preparing for Global Warming NEXT › Climate Progress to Testify on Liquid Coal 4 Responses to C-SPAN is re-airing the debate NOW (9:30 pm) Dan Dreisbach says: August 27, 2007 at 10:15 pm For the whole debate evry thing is about regulation what is happening and what isn’t. For all the people in the world available fresh water is also a concern. Every suggestion I hear is temporary at best as the population grows the problem returns, until eventually there is no answers to no room , no water, and brown air. THE ONLY REAL AND LASTING ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING is WORLD WIDE VOLUNTARY REDUCTION IN POPULATION VIA A REDUCED BIRTHRATE. ADVOCATE ADOPTION, BIRTH CONTROL MAKE HUMANS UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO ALL END SOME TIME ONE BAD WAY OR ANOTHER UNLESS WE STOP MAKING MORE HUMANS TO USE THE FUELS AND MAKE THE SMOKE. tHERE IS NO US AND THEM IT IS ALL HUMANS WITH THE SAME PLANET TO USE WISLEY OR DESTROY. There is a magic number out there some where for an amount of humans, that can use all of our technology and fuels as desired at a rate the earth can naturaly overcome and absorb emissions with out killing us. Please contact me for more thoruogh thoughts and ideas to help. Thanks, Dan Pat Ho says: August 27, 2007 at 10:52 pm As a physics major going into my final year of college and possibly eventually a future in environmental science or policy, I found this evening’s panel on C-SPAN very interesting and inspiring, albeit frustrating. Basically, I would like to say thank you for being one of the only reasonable people on the panel. The representative from the Heartland Institute was more than a bit annoying and completely nonsensical in her arguments. You ought to have mentioned a thing or two about all the money the organization she represents receives from Exxon Mobil and GM. Also, a nice way to rebutt those Newsweek “global cooling” arguments near the end would be to show them this recent Newsweek cover story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/ Thanks for fighting the good fight. You kept me sane during tonight’s program. I’m still trying to figure out what to do with my life but I am seriously considering joining you in this enviromental policy work. Matt Olson says: August 27, 2007 at 11:21 pm I have been watching your C-SPAN debate. While I agree that you were unfairly faced off against several people who have co-opted the science community to their own ends, your statements of defense seem not to touch on the largest point. You said “you don’t have to give up your SUV, but replace it with a hybrid SUV.” The other debators picked up on this contradiction automatically and showed that this will not substantially reduce emissions over the long haul because we will still be relying on coal and oil processes and industries. Our savior is likely not be the use of replenishable natural energies such as wind and sun and other technologies (also produced from coal and oil industry) because our demand for goods continues to increase. The panelists use of making this a “global effort” to focus reduction on China and India is thinly veiled way of removing this country’s responsibility to the world for creating the possibility of this catastrophe which has already disproportionately affected pacific islands and permafrost regions that had little to no involvement in the production of greenhouse gases. The elite industry owners, those robber barons of the US and Europe from the middle 19th century until now, are historically responsible and must bear that responsibility because their wealth and power was generated from the destruction of this planet. Meanwhile the cultures of the people in India and China, similar in ways to the Native Americans who came across the landbridge, maintained a different relationship with the land. And this part is ABSOLUTELY key: They took no more from the land than was necessary for survival. Coal: not necessary for survival. Oil: not necessary for survival. Clearcutting: not necessary, in fact the opposite of, survival. It was not the desperate wage working (wo)man, deprived of land and hence detached from this developed natural relationship, that is at fault. Working class people, who in modern times still face too many obstacles at birth, to rise up. For the elite in a capitalist system dictate the histories that are remembered and can afford to hire the violence necessary to divide and conquer (read: kill) resistance. Resistance not only against facism and the authoritarian fact of bosses and elites, but against sustainable practices in relation to the environment, animals and humans included. It is civilization’s arrogance when arriving in the new world to create a manifest destiny and assume (read: steal) land. Many of the first European settler were working class folks trying to find new opportunities for survival under the control of these elite voyage companies. I only bring all this up to show the pattern of civilization’s abuse of nature and peoples outside the western (read: industrial) way of life. Einstein once said, and I’m paraphrasing, “it will take thinking beyond that which created the problems to solve them.” We must think beyond the free market and capitalism to solve the ills that capitalism and industry have caused. feel free to contact me as well. research these ideas for yourself, get to the root of these issues, not only that the industrial revolution created the greenhouse gases, but what kind of culture sees or allows or expands such an obviously destructive and unnatural type of behavior as placing lots of people in factories with unsafe machines. Joe says: August 28, 2007 at 5:28 pm I didn’t just say — “you don’t have to give up your SUV, but replace it with a hybrid SUV.” That is the first step. Then I said you need a low-carbon alternative fuel, like cellulosic ethanol or plug-in hybrids running on renewable power. The 4-on-1 format did not allow me to respond to every piece of misinformation and misinterpretation that was uttered. Nor could I clarify every point I made.