Dear FRONTLINE,
Business and government both play an important role in solving global warming, which has to be a top priority. The part of the show that was missing was the part that everyday people played.
We buy the SUV's and drive them short distances instead of walking, we elect corporate sell-outs into office, we buy from companies that spend millions in ads portraying themselves as green, when the reality is that they are anything but.
It's tempting to place the blame soley on government and big corporations like Exxon (who rightfully deserve a big share of the blame) however I think that we all have to be part to play in being a part of the solution. The forecasts for our planets future would not be so distressing if I didn't have a young child. It's clear this is an issue that I personally need to do something about everyday.
One of the best tools that we have and it's at our disposal right now is conservation. That's something that wasn't mentioned much either. Well it's time to power down but before I do I'd like to share one more thing that we can do to help address this problem - vote for Barack Obama who I have no doubt will do more to tackle this problem that his opponent.
Doug Osborne
Sitka, Alaska
Dear FRONTLINE,
The documentary "Heat" was very well presented and I must commend you for a first rate program.
The World needs to see this program so put it on youtube, etc. to get greater exposure.
What the World needs yesterday is a concerted effort by all governments to actually do something to reduce CO2 as fast as possible. That includes the USA and Canada!
We do see the naysayers, as shown in one of the comments made, who want to do nothing and bury their heads in the sand.
Frontline is cearly one of the best programs on TV by far.
Rolland Miller
Powell River, , B.C. Canada
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
The program HEAT is available online for viewing in full here on this Web site - and for years to come
Dear FRONTLINE,
Regarding [professor] Kamman's North Dakota / Germany comparison, I don't find it useful. Yes N. Dakota has more wind resource than Germany. The statement as presented implies that only more 'political will' (an over used phrase in the 'Heat') is needed to throw up turbines in N. Dakota and all would be well. While Germany is only twice the area of N. Dakota, it has over 80 times the population. The point of course is that the energy source is not co-located with the population centers, and that electric transmission is a big problem.
Mark Heslep
McLean, Virginia
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
A valid comment.This point was brought up in the section on T. Boone's wind venture (Chapter 8 of the Video) -- that it will cost someone (likely the government or consumers) billions to build transmission lines to get electricity from America's wind corridor to customers.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for this piece. Finally a cogent, comprehensive report on the major conflicting issues underlying our ability to address global warming.A couple of areas I would like to see further in depth reporting are facts on solar and nuclear power options.
Having grown up in the southwest I would like to know specific projections of the possible megawatt generation capabilities of medium-scale solar thermal electric generation. I think pilot plants and proposed facilities show the great potential of distributed solar electric generation.
As for nuclear, which in many ways looks promising because of its lack of carbon contribution, I recall that a major problem with nuclear is the cost of decommissioning the plants. Bechtel, a primary contractor in the construction of nuclear plants in the 60's and 70's had moved into the business of decommissioning because of the tremendous profit potential. Most of the US plants fell short of their lifespan when built, by about one half. These plants performed for about 18 years before needing to be taken offline.
When decommissioned, they have required significant portions of the structure sitting for decades for the radiation to decay before expensive robotic tools can be employed to deconstruct the reactor vessel.• Comparisons to US Navy reactors is not accurate as a matter of scale.• The issue of containment of spent fuel boggles the mind. These radioactive materials are dangerous on the order of tens of thousands of years. Ten thousand years ago humans were hunter/gatherers. Isn't it ultimate hubris to think we can protect future generations over this time scale?
Thanks again for the report.
Craig Cheatham
Craig Cheatham
Santa Cruz, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Please google "pavement solar netherlands" and produce a sequel to the "Heat" program that emphasizes this technology!! Pavement is ubiquitous in the U.S. and it's time to give it a dual purpose. Each driveway could be paved this way to supplement household needs, and the streets and highways could be retrofitted the same way as they are being repaired/resurfaced.
Please do not discount this solution. I appreciate your investigations into possible solutions.
Gail Seymour
Sacramento, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
The most important issue facing our world was obvious in the program and it is not global warming; rather it is overpopulation.
Lonnie Thompson said it best: yes, there has been climate change in the past, but never before has there been 6.5 billion people. Indeed, the results of a recent study by Norwegian climatologists found that the northern shore of Greenland was ice free with a higher sea level 6,000 years ago. This backs up other studies that tell us it has been quite warmer than now within in the period of human civilization and as recently as 800 years ago.
Warmth is not the issue; resource consumption is. Recent evidence shows that the high point of this warm spell was reached in 1998. Since then the average world temperatures have reverted to near the 20th Century bench mark. Should this trend continue, resource scarcity will become a more significant problem with shorter growing seasons and lower agricultural production.
We all need to be more honest about what the data tells us and where the real problems lie.
Pieter Folkens
Benicia, California
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was concerned and suprised that nothing was mentioned about the incredible role animal for food production plays in the elavation of carbon levels in the atmosphere. Factory farms polute rivers that eventually make their way to larger bodies of water, like the Gulf of Mexico, and create dead zones. Their carbon footprint is massive when you factor in grain production carbon, the transportaion of grain, and the transportaion of flesh.
As well done as your documentary was, I felt their was a large piece of blame, and of the solution puzzle, missing.
Gregg Huff
Austin, TX
Dear FRONTLINE,
I concur with the other responders that this program was WAY WAY WAY one sided!! Who paid for this show again? C'mon guys!! It was like watching The Weather Channel's "Forecast Earth"..This was one of the worst frontline's I've seen.
What does the french love of Nuclear Power have to do with this anyway?..Your whole show was based on ONE THEORY! It's just like Creationist and intelligent design..These scare tactics and fear mongering only make for more fear. Do you think more clearly when you are scared?..I was dissapointed..
Bob Cicisly
San Jose, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
While wacthing Heat, the line graph you presented showing the precipitous rise in CO2 over the last 90 odd years bears a striking resemblance to the DOW since the Great Depression. A coincidence? Most unlikely.
Economic progress equals environmental devastation. There's no doubt in my mind global consumerism and convenience has brought us to a very precarious state. If we wish to survive, we have no choice but to design and adopt a new world order that places a premium on quality - not quantity. Doing so will buy us time and I'm all for it. But let's not kid ourselves. Life demands balance. And in that context, the problem of all problems is human over-population.
Any ideas?
Dan Rose
Upton, MA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Instead of adopting Al Gore's plan or Boone Pickens' plan or the oil companies plan, which they all say will cost about 3 trillion dollars over 10 years, why do we (the US Government - in a "Manhattan Project" effort) not give homeowners $20,000 dollars worth of solar electric panels and solar hot water panels as the first step in a highly efficient distributed power generation system? Under this plan, excess power generated by homeowners will be given freely to the power grid - this will make power companies happy. US census data ( http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr108/q108tab4.html ) says America has about 130000000 family homes which includes apartments. 20000(dollars) times 130000000(family homes) will cost about the same as Al Gore's plan or Boone Pickens' plan or the oil companies plan. Then, the existing power grid and power generation system could be used as a backup for homeowners and for powering offices, factories, businesses, etc.. Once in-place, and the hybrid electric plug-in car is widespread, homeowners will power their homes and cars with solar panels, heat their water using solar water panels, and forego their $100 to $700 monthly electric bill and gasoline bill. The $100 to $700 per month extra income per family will largely go to retail outlets, which in-turn will bolster the United States economy, generating local, state, and federal sales tax revenue. Under this plan, homeowners will be motivated to install - at their own expense - storage systems for solar electric power since otherwise, they will be giving away excess generation to the grid. Many electric storage systems are now available and better systems are being developed. With the new demand for electric storage, entrepreneurs will begin providing improved systems to homeowners - a hydrogen based storage system will in-addition be good for fueling passenger cars. This plan will begin the important process of freeing-up the 7 million barrels per day of US domestic oil production for the United States Military, airlines, trucking, heavy equipment, and ocean shipping, etc. - until heavy equipment bio-fuels and alcohol based fuels are developed and widespread. Instead of asking Americans to cut back on their energy usage, which could be devastating to US productivity, we should be promoting energy efficient systems. This means a highly distributed power generation system - generation at the source; maintaining a grid system has the inherent inefficiency of transmission loss, and almost all the energy for passenger miles is for moving the mass of the car not the passengers - light weight hybrid electric plug-in cars are the answer. This may also have a powerful influence on US inflation since the sun will not keep increasing rates. Just three years of the $700 billion America is spending on foreign oil will pay for this (call it glenn's) plan.
Glenn Nesbitt
Santa Barbara, California
Dear FRONTLINE,
"HEAT' is an excellent program for understanding how things are... I challenge "Frontline" to produce a program explaining what might, or, could be without regard to 'economic viability'.
A program exploring the possibility of reverting to a methane based energy system, utilizing all human and domestic animal waste to produce energy. Reducing human population. Global reforestation, etc. etc.
Paul Mooney
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear FRONTLINE,
One thing I almost never hear discussed when the subject of global warming comes up is over-population. Less people would mean less pollution. Of course, this would mean confronting religious assumptions like "be fruitful and multiply".
At current rates, we may just multiply ourselves into extinction. All the new technology in the world won't save us if we produce more people than the planet can support.
Dean Hill
Evanston, Illinois
Dear FRONTLINE,
This is one of the most important TV productions that I have ever seen. What happens on Nov. 4 will, very probably, determine if life on earth - at least in any semblance of what we and humankind are to know - can exist.
This sounds extreme and that scare tactics are in order. I'm 77. I won't be around when you younger readers suffer the results of our inability to come face-to-face with reality. So, my young friends, plug your iPods in and avoid your future.
Albert Melcher
Denver, CO
Dear FRONTLINE,
In the 1970s, the Center for Advanced Computation at the University of Illinois did the first energy input/output matrix for the US economy. Part of that work was an analysis of nuclear power that found the total life cycle costs were 2 times greater than the revenue over the life of the reactor. This was presented in testimony in Washington (probably at the equivalent of the NRC). This prompted power companies to do their own analysis that concluded the study was in error. It was more like 2.5 times greater. (Clearly, it is decommissioning that is the culprit.)
While your program covered the cost issue, I did not get the impression that you were aware of this work or that there is any reason to believe that somehow this rather large barrier has been or can be overcome. Admittedly it was a long time ago and much has changed, but so have the potential costs involved.
I have greater confidence that the safety issues can be overcome than the cost issues. To the point that the safety issues act as a cover for the cost. Clearly the concern should be, is nuclear power just another way to put our grandchildren in hock for our mistakes?
John Day
Foxboro, MA
Dear FRONTLINE,
CAFE standards are a coastal journalist program to kill small city Americans. I have an article that says that 2000 lb cars are 4 times as likely to kill the occupant as 4000 lb cars. Broadcast news reports never cover this issue. The answer to global warming is to drive fewer miles, not die for your environment.
In my last job, of 14 mechanics, one had Parkinson's like shaking from a motorcycle accident, one had bone issues from an accident in a Datsun B210, one was disabled and laid off work from hitting a tree in a mini-pickup, one lost two weeks due to being hit by a police car in his jeep. I knew four kids badly damaged in Volkswagen Beetles in the 60's. My 2 ton 59 Ford sedan (with seatbelts added) kept me whole through the years.
Tiny European cars are wonderful on the screen, but journalist won't say that the trucks in Germany run 37mph max, are banned in city centers in the day (Paris), and I never saw a major traffic infraction by a big truck in my 6 weeks in Bavaria in 1982. Journalists always criticise the government for not taxing carbon emissions to follow in with the Kyoto treaty. My gosh, the price of energy quadrupled during the Bush W presidency, how much more does the price of energy have to go up to satisfy you people. I could have moved to California in 1976 and made $75000 a year and driven a 10000 man-hour-to-build Prius 100 miles a day to afford a house to live in. Instead I live in low wage educationally backward Indiana where I averaged $35000 a year and can drive my 50 year old no-cost-to-make-again car 1.5 mile to work each way. (I'd walk but the newby 3rd shift cops arrest me too frequently for that criminal activity, walking.)
I'm planning to spend the first spring of my retirement digging up the backyard for a geothermal water loop so I won't have to spend another winter shivering in bed because I can't afford to heat above 55 degrees anymore.
Forget the heat pump, the ground temperature is 55 degrees. Start a congressional bill for that one, why don't you.
Jeffersonville, IN
