Comments on: David Hone: ‘U.N. urged to heed market in Copenhagen climate talks’

By: Benjamin Napier

Benjamin Napier — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:55:45 +0000

Cap and Trade is a tax. Pure and simple. There is nothing good about, economically nor environmentally.

By: feng-ling

feng-ling — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:12:14 +0000

It is a tricky that every nation waits for other nations to reduce the emission of greenhouse gas.Then,who will be the first one to commit a promise? I believe it is time for the world to cooperate with each others without self’s interest.

By: Barry Hsiung

Barry Hsiung — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:52:30 +0000

Yes, the emission market could be a effecient solution to the prob. The most important issue to establish the market is the definition or distrbution of the right of emission.

By: Michael Wright

Michael Wright — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:02:52 +0000

I was surprised at your piece that highlighted an oil company’s promotion of cap-and-trade and carbon sequestration as solutions to climate change. Cap-and-trade will only serve special interests; rather “fee-and-dividend,” as proposed by Dr. James Hansen, is the only approach that will make a difference. Further, carbon sequestration is too far in the future, and too energy-intensive a process, to help mitigate climate change in the timeframe required. So, please ensure that you are indeed serving as a “clear voice for science.”

By: Larry Sessions

Larry Sessions — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:45:01 +0000

While I am skeptical of any oil company that promotes viable alternate energy sources and processes — as it seems to threaten their bottom line, I applaud Shell and Mr. Hone for what appears to be an approach more reasonable than it was, say, 10 years ago. Time will tell, but let’s just hope it is not too late.

What amazes me most in this whole issue is how so many people, minds clouded with paranoia or “hidden” agendas (mostly monetary), are so eager to deny the reality slapping them in the face, just to maintain their distorted conception of the “status quo.” I guess it is true that “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Global climate change is most assuredly happening. There are well documented natural trends, and there are unquestionable contributions from human activity. The real questions are “how much?” and “how soon?” and “how much human contribution is too much?”

For a good global warming introduction, I suggest Jeff Bennett’s “A Global Warming Primer,” here:
http://www.beyondufos.com/globalwarming.html
I think Jeff has done a great job clearing up the major points from a scientist’s perspective.

By: Richard Bartholomew

Richard Bartholomew — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:41:09 +0000

Science is self-correcting even when some scientists are not. Climate change science is valid.

By: Deborah Byrd

Deborah Byrd — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:01:54 +0000

There are lots of scientists studying global warming, AP. The verdict isn’t in yet on the scientists in the UK whose emails were hacked. The British government is investigating, and personally I’m reserving my opinion until I see the results of that investigation. But even if there was some wrong-doing there, it doesn’t mean that all global warming data was “fudged.”

EarthSky receives federal grants from the same organizations that fund scientists … and we have never … not once … been asked to “fudge” any information regarding global warming.

By: a p garcia

a p garcia — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:07:42 +0000

I know that David Hone doesn’t read “The Drudge Report” and the report saying the scientist “”Fudged”" the numbers on GW.