Comments 1 to 7:

1. John Bruno at 17:53 PM on 28 June, 2010
   wonderful. wish I could be there. thanks to whomever organized this.
   0 0
2. Megan Evans at 19:03 PM on 28 June, 2010
   Sounds great! And also great that it's being recorded.
   0 0
3. Tenney Naumer at 21:25 PM on 28 June, 2010
   Best wishes for a successful discussion!
   0 0
4. Byron Smith at 21:25 PM on 28 June, 2010
   Sounds like a good event. I hope the distinction between the science and the policy is made clear many times throughout the night. I fear that much of the angst about the science is really angst about policy options and people assume they are identical (i.e. if you accept the science, then there is only one policy option).
   0 0
5. chris1204 at 21:52 PM on 28 June, 2010
   A question I'd love to put to Dr Oschmann relates to the carbon footprint involved in making the transition to a clean-energy future? Eg, we still have to power the machinery to mine the ore to build our wind turbines, generate CO2 while we make cement to build the infrastructure, etc. The answer might well turn out to be 'very small' which would be very welcome news. Notwithstanding my propensity to curmudgeonly contrarianism, I genuinely believe we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel would prefer to see us pumping much less CO2 into the environment. Best wishes for the evening.
   0 0
   Response: Volker just emailed me a response to this question:

   “A recent comprehensive study (Almut Kirchner et al, “Blueprint Germany, A strategy for a climate-safe 2050”, Basel/Berlin 2009) argues that it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Germany by 95 percent by 2050 (compared to 1990). This includes emissions to build the infrastructure necessary for the transition. An English version of the study can be found here."

6. Jim Eager at 23:32 PM on 28 June, 2010
   Chris, unfortunately we're stuck with the fossil fuel energy source we have until we can build it's replacement, which means for the time being we have to burn fossil fuels to build that replacement. The more rapidly we build that replacement the sooner we can ratchet down using those fossil fuels. This is actually a very powerful argument in countering those who seek to delay taking action to construct a new energy infrastructure: if we wait until after peak oil it will 1) cost more, 2) we risk not having enough fossil fuel to build it in time, and 3) we will shift to coal, which insures that we will have less time.
   0 0
7. Alexandre at 00:29 AM on 29 June, 2010
   I'll definetely download it afterwards.
   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.