Dear FRONTLINE,
Another fact that the public needs to know is the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 seeks to unload carbon capture & sequestration liabilities even more than that provided by the Price Anderson Act for nuclear energy. Specifically, S. 2191 (@Section 8004 of Title VII) shifts all liabilities to the Federal government. Of course, this really means the American taxpayer.
Mark Krebs
Saint Louis, MO
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
This legislation failed to pass in the current Congress. But it's likely that most of its key initiatives re: cutting carbon emissions will be on the table in the new Congress.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline last night - HEAT - was, as always television at it's best: high quality, courageous journalism. I was disappointed that the courage did not go one step further, however. You clearly lay out the case that the natural world and our civilization itself are in jeopardy from global warming.
You featured the symptoms without ever dealing with the underlying cause.
Burning of fossil fuels is what allowed the human population to reach the incredibly high numbers we see at present. Of course the present situation is not sustainable. More disturbing is the projections for future increase far above what we see today. For example, Arthur Nelson, co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech recently predicted that by 2100 the population of the United States will triple to 1 billion. Unless we figure out how to have �oeZero Population Growth”, every step forward in technology to limit global warming will be offset by an increase in consumption by population increase.
We have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth to absorb our pollutants and provide sustenance. We are entering (and causing) the largest mass extinction since a comet wiped out the dinosaurs 64 million years ago. The public is blissfully unaware of the problem. Overpopulation is a taboo subject even though it is the underlying cause of all of our environmental problems.
Frontline should consider a program on this unpopular subject. Slowing the growth of the human population is really our only hope of leaving a livable planet to our grandchildren. Not only will we destroy ourselves, but we will wipe out a world of incredible biodiversity.
Diane Young
San Marcos, TX
Dear FRONTLINE,
California should stop trying to dictate tailpipe emission standards for the automobile industry. It clearly does not work. The power of Money over Congress gives Michigan the advantage.
California should, instead, regulate automobile use in California. Amount of use allowed to be based on tailpipe emissions expected using EPA tailpipe ratings and emission testing on pre-EPA vehicles.
Using automobile registrations per owner, assume all driving is done in the worst polluter owned. Restrict total driven miles by that owner to the amount of pollution that can be tolerated in the area of California involved during what ever time period is appropriate. First guess would be monthly and amount of pollution allowed would vary with anticipated climate conditions.
This regulation system would require developing a driver specific device, easily transportable from vehicle to vehicle, which disables ignition whenever the engine is shut of after reaching a preset emission threshold based on miles driven. GPS technology is appropriate to measure mileage.
The device would need to transmit a signal, at higher volume after reaching the threshold, when the engine is operation AND vehicle is moving. Any vehicle NOT transmitting would be cause for investigation and appropriate action. The device should also add miles at an appropriate rate when vehicle is idling.
Vehicle owners, via their vehicle purchase and vehicle use choices, would provide plenty of regulation to the automobile industry.
J D Smith
Dove Creek, Colorado
Dear FRONTLINE,
For more on Exxon's history and continuing campaign of climate denial see Greenpeace's www.ExxonSecrets.org
We have tracked the words and deeds of the "Denial Machine" for nearly 20 years and on this site we document over $20 Million in ExxonMobil funding of think tanks and front groups since 1998. Original source material provided for all citations.
The new wave of denial is being funded even more heavily and more privately by the Koch Foundation, Scaife Foundation and others. Read this great recent investigation of climate denial from the Center for Public Integrity here: http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/731/
The corporate campaign against action on climate is far from over, in fact it's just heating up.
Kert DaviesResearch DirectorGreenpeace US
Kert Davies
Washington, DC
Dear FRONTLINE,
Some of the posts state that population growth was not addressed in HEAT. The program mentioned that India's population will be greater than China's in about twenty years, and that a UK study showed that humans will consume more 16 times more resources between now and the end of the century than mankind has in its entire history.(see the carbon map on this website and the interview below it) In my opinion, the issue is not over-population, but consumption and they type of consumption. One million Amish will leave a much smaller carbon footprint than one thousand urbanites. Our solution to global warming lies within our values and our lifestyles. Some readers and viewers should ask themselves if they really need to put that giant inflatable electric jack-o-lantern out on their front lawn 24/7 for an entire month or if carving out a pumpkin and sticking a candle in it for one night will suffice. My electric bill was $9 last month. How much was yours? Reduce, reuse, recycle. Read, review and react.
Brent Klos
Warren, MI
Dear FRONTLINE,
HEAT was indeed an eye opene, but it wasn't the first one.
I was a U.S. Senate Staffer in the 1970's working, of all things, on a National Energy Policy. Senator Muskie, from Maine, was the driving force behind it. The hearings were thorough and extensive and had the recommendation been implemented we may not be talking about global warming today.
A major emphasis was on Nuclear and Hydro to produce electriclty and electrify as much as possible, thereby backing out fossil fuels. Alternatives, such as wind and solar didn't receive as much attention but were considered along with auto fuel efficiencies power plant scruppers.
Unfortunately the environmentalist are probably more repsonsible for the mess that we are in than anyone else. They viciously and irrationally opposed nuclear power. Muskie was intimidated by them and therefore became ambivalent about nuclear which didn't help matters and of course the fossil fuels industry wasn't pleased but would have gone along.
But it was a precipitous drop in oil prices that put an end to any National Energy Policy even though global warming had already become an issue! In attempting to deal with complex issues Democracy often seeks the easy way out!
Had the United States adopted nuclear power as its primary electric generation source, as France did, it could well have greatly influenced the world to do the same and therefore precluded the construction of thousands of polluting coal burning power plants across the globe!
karl kettler
flemington, nj
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for such a broad-reaching look at energy and global warming. The problems we face are discouragingly huge and interconnected in ways that few people realize. I think you rightly lay a big part of the failure to move forward at the feet of the government, particularly Congress, the White House and the Departments they influence.
It is next to impossible to get them to consider truly innovative ideas because they're either busy with their re-election campaigns, already beholden to the power behemoths or so burdened by their own inept bureaucracies that it's easier to fund the same projects in perpetuity than it is to investigate whether the hundreds of millions of dollars we've poured into those projects have any hope of producing a practical result. A little scientific investigation into the DOE's roster of alternative energy projects shows that we are wasting huge amounts of money and time when we have precious little of both.
I work with a small group of people trying to get funding for an innovative engine/power plant that produces hydrogen on-demand from water as it's working to power a car, a boat, your house--anything, really.
The design, by Neil McCanney, solves the so-far insurmountable issues of hydrogen production and storage, both of which have halted the use of hydrogen as a widespread alternative fuel source. The power plant requires a very small amount of gasoline/diesel to create the heat needed for the reaction, but the end result is a drastic reduction in CO2 pollution and an increase to 300-400 miles per gallon in fuel efficiency. The invention consists of parts that are available right now. People, including the interviewees in this Frontline, are talking about alternative energy technologies being available in 10 years or 20 or 30 (or when it's far too late?). Why not 2 or 3 years? It is possible to put the entire planet on a road to sustainable development that will allow a far more equitable distribution of resources across the globe, but somebody has to be willing to listen and take some chances.
Getting someone--anyone--in a position of power to listen to "the little guy" on the edge where breakthroughs so often happen is nothing but frustrating. We continue to try because it's the right thing to do, but I wonder how many other innovative ideas are out there in the hands of people who can't be heard? Without a serious sea-change in both priorities and the governance that pushes those priorities forward, I fear we're doomed despite the existence of practicable solutions, and that's the real tragedy.
Sharon Handy
St. Petersburg, Florida
Dear FRONTLINE,
In 1971 my biology professor talked about global warming, he stated that since the start of the industrial age global temp. had risen 2 degrees, he also stated that at 5 degrees rise the polar caps would melt. This information was garnered from then recently released navy documents about the thickness of the north polar cap. He also stated that a 2 ½ degree rise was probably the point of no return.
In the 37 years since, about another degree has been added and we are probably past that point. Yet our leaders are now just beginning to �oeseriously” talk about the problem and the corporation are resisting any change in the status quo.
To quote the author, Henry Fielding, --Too much, too little, too late.... this may be our epitaph.
Larry Sullivan
San Diego, Ca
Dear FRONTLINE,
Human frailties being what they are, it does not look good in the long run for mankind to come to grips with what has happened to the planet while on our watch.
With some viewers still passionately denying man-caused climate change, one must wonder what we can decide to do collectively to solve the problem that plagues the planet.
One thing is clear: get off of fossil fuels for electricity and transportation - or suffer the consequences. Solar and wind have got to be maximized. Utilize the existing grid to make electricity to the masses more cost-effective (instead of individual units .. although individual conservation is a good thing).
Let the military retain sole use of fossil fuel in the name of national security. In this day and age of instant information and sound science, it would be a shame if we couldn't get it together .. but greed, denial, protectionism, nationalism, are all human frailties that can come between sound decision making and ultimate destruction. Sad in a way, isn't it?
Jim Wheeler
Flagstaff, Arizona
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program on global warming (HEAT) was an excellent report by Martin Smith.However, not once did I hear the word OVERPOPULATION brought up--by him oranyone he interviewed! I can not believe this continued denial and blindness toevery problem the Earth faces is never addressed anywhere. Birth control is the bigbad taboo in all societies and it must end if we are to survivie. Poor people continue to suffer and starve and children grow up to consume more of our waning resources.Secondly: The energy kings love to say they must keep producing more coal to satiate our gluttenous use of energy. And they will keep having their way and polluting our planet until we have a transformational leader who mandates that our consumtive lifestyles be adjusted and a cultural change in what is important.
Kathryna Bee
Phoenix, AZ
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
This was on our mind during the entire production. Correspondent/producer Martin Smith brought it up in many of the interviews - he also talks about it in the video interview with him that appears on the homepage of this site. But, finally, we concluded that this was not the most urgent problem. Mostly because there is little that can be done immediately. The earth now supports around 6.5 billion people and is headed toward 9 or 10 billion before any leveling or decrease will take place. The issue FRONTLINE focused on was how will the world accommodate growth in energy consumption. That is an issue we must address in the here and now. Population pressures will ease as people gain wealth. But the whole house of cards will collapse if we don't rein in emissions now.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline has long been my all time favorite show due to the incredibly objective and honest content. The latest program, Heat, did not disappoint in that regard.
After watching the program and seeing the ease with which the political candidates from the two major parties can be swayed away from real progress, I am convinced that I will vote for Ralph Nader, a true progressive candidate that has been a victim of our corrupt political system in the same way our environment has been a victim.
I had been debating between a vote for Nader or Obama, but this program, Heat, has convinced me to vote my conscience.
I have to say I am outraged that every major source of mainstream media has shunned Nader even though he is on the ballot in 45 states. Even Frontline left him out of their program, The Choice. This is one area where even Frontline has dropped the ball.
Brian House
St. Louis, Missouri
Dear FRONTLINE,
I appreciated this week's show. I wanted to note that the version of the Chevrolet Volt that was shown on the program and derided as being unable to climb a small hill was strictly a concept vehicle, not designed to be roadworthy or to do anything more than slowly roll out onto the stage at auto shows and provide the occasional B-roll footage for news programs. General Motors recently revealed the expected exterior design for the real, production vehicle. You can find images of it on many automotive websites.As for the drivetrain, I understand that GM is still in the phase of using "mule" vehicles -- older cars with similar chassis that have prototype drivetrains installed -- for testing out the complex hybrid system underneath. While this vehicle isn't going to solve global warming by itself, I hope it will be the start of a positive trend.On another topic, I was surprised that I didn't see much mention of the renewable energy options available to some consumers in the U.S. (aside from perhaps E85 fuel, which certainly has significant issues). My electric company offers the option to buy wind-generated power for a modest increase in my utility bill each month. I pay for all of my energy to come from wind, though people can choose to get just a portion this way.Virtually all electric companies should offer programs like that, in my opinion. Certainly, government inducements are necessary to jump-start renewable energy, but simply offering a cleaner choice to consumers can also be successful.
Michael Hicks
Saint Paul, Minnesota
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
We understood it was a prototype. But at the same time, the GM rep at the publicity shoot expected the car would perform far better. When the battery conked out, they tried for over an hour to fix it and then had to give up. This was not what GM was intending to show off. The fact that they are struggling to get the kinks out is what we were illustrating. Producer Martin Smith gave GM Vice President Beth Lowery a chance to respond to the slow speed of the car and she did not offer the answer that it was just a prototype/develpment car. As far as we know, GM is still struggling with getting a working battery for the Volt.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for the in-depth reporting on the US business and government's (in)action on global warming. I urge Martin Smith to take the next step though which is to critically evaluate the situation of energy supply. The IPCC assumed in their analysis that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not constrained by supply.
The reality is that there may be real limits to not just oil but also coal. In fact, the same time Exxon was making record breaking profits, they were also reporting continuing declines in conventional reserves. In effect, this company is pumping themselves out-of-business as we speak. I'd recommend Smith interview energy advisor Robert Hirsh who authored the 2005 DOE sponsored study "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management". The message from this report is that if we delay the transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy we will subject the world economy to 10-20 years of prolonged economic stagnation.
Jeff Berner
Seattle, WA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Glad to see from your pie chart that venture capital is putting its money in solar.
Here is a great new company that can produce electricity in large amounts and use the current grid: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4286850.html?series=60&page=8&?series=60
The free market can not be trusted to "do the right thing". Government must intervene to jumpstart and regulate, similar to railroad expansion and investment in NASA.This is the greatest issue of our time. Let's get going!
Flagstaff, Arizona
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was pleased overall with your presentation of the energy issues facing our country and the world.
However, the lack of coverage of natural gas disappointed me tremendously. I don't believe the words "natural gas" were uttered once over the course of this two hour program. T. Boone Pickens enjoyed face time, but natural gas - a large component of his plan - did not. It is domestically abundant, relatively inexpensive and burns much cleaner than coal or gasoline. Natural gas vehicles have proven themselves to be reliable and efficient. The only thing lacking is a widespread fueling infrastructure for these vehicles and, of course, the will to build it.
Logically, natural gas is not a permanent solution, but it should play an important transitional role. This edition of Frontline passed by an opportunity to investigate and explain the story of natural gas, and so it remains cloaked in the shadows of discussions of "clean coal" and other such nonsense.
Tyler Jacobson
Los Angeles, CA
