Dear FRONTLINE,
Bravo to Martin Smith and the Frontline crew! Fine work. Excellent work!
One thing not discussed much, and one that tends not to be discussed in all the "blame govt., blame Exxon" type of language one finds in this subject matter (documentaries, books, articles, etc.), is that of personal responsibility.
We bash the hell out of Exxon for the Valdez and for their profits, but in reality their profit margins are rather sensible (ever check Microsoft's?, Apple's?), and I ordered the oil spilled out of the Valdez. Me. I said bring it, and bring it cheap. They have incredibly few accidents. So do all the major carriers.
Exxon fills a market niche. They operate to meet my demand.
And, frankly, I'm not really willing to give up too much of my first world lifestyle to be more pure somehow. Are you? and you? Nope, didn't think so.
Sure, I can buy a Prius and vote Democratic, and I do, but I sure do still want to buy shit just like everybody else, and it's making me think that in the end we're all just a bunch of greedy squirrels collecting as many nuts as we can as we march lemming-like towards a long steep slide of a cliff.
Actual decreases in our carbon footprints from even a rapid transition to alternative energies (each with their own carbon footprint much higher than one would think) aren't really gone over enough. Amortize the Nuke plant over the life of the plant from a carbon standpoint. It ain't "dirt cheap" in that regard, taking everything into consideration.
Looking at a population graph of worldwide growth in mouths to feed (and buy Ipods for), it is a most daunting task to create much of an argument for long term optimism whatsoever. Students in Environmental Studies Departments all know a few details, but it's not in a Department's interest to have much gloom and doom in the mix, is it? Nope, because we gotta have hope and good strong science can give us hope, and "our Department can help turn out a new generation of leaders". Uh-huh.
I'd like to see the math.
"The math" -- the numbers of people we're going to have on the planet in short order, and the personal sacrifices they are NOT going to make for that planet, never really gets crunched, sadly.
Sure, go solar, go wind, etc., but I just can't shake the nagging feeling that this whole game simply isn't going to end very well. Not very well at all.
That being said, back to my original point: Great job. And I thank you for it.
John Pilson
Asheville, NC
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was appalled and angered but not surprised by the political games that go on by the President, members of both parties and big business as well over our Nation's energy problems and the earth's environmental meltdown. It takes political and business leaders with real balls to make the hard but needed decisions for the country as a whole, unfortunately our country is sadly lacking in that department as was obvious by your program. It is the same result that we see with the economic financial mess also. I'm sure the U.S. auto industry will be the next one in line looking for a bailout from their failures to produce energy efficient automobiles. I for one would cast my vote to let the big 3 go out of business, they deserve it. As for pinning our hopes on the next President to fix our nations energy woes. He will have to deal with the U.S. Congress of which both candidates are members and that in itself is one of the biggest parts of this and all our problems. My answer to helping solve our nations problems is to give the next President the line item veto, so that he can force Congress and the American people to make those hard changes that are necessary and that we all know are coming. We need them to occur sooner rather than later when we may find ourselves in yet another crisis situation.God Bless America!! - Hopefully he still does!
Tom Sinitsky
Brewster, New York
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am stunned by the assumptions and the conclusion that were made by this program. The implicit assumption that the recent cycle of warm weather we have experienced over the last 10 or 20 years is the result of the activities of man and not the result of normal natural weather cycles is arrogant. Man produced global warming is far from proven. The conclusion drawn that the "solution" to this "problem" will necessarily involve assertive and unpopular government actions and government cooperation globally gives me the impression that you are trying to prepare the masses for more government and a worldwide government to boot. That is irresponsible. I suggest you bring on a scientist who holds to a more realistic view of climate variation as a way to make up for this show. How ironic it was that in one of the interviews at the end of the program the lady said that people of influence who constantly protected their own self interests and would not do what is right for greater good were one of the biggest obstacles to solving the problem. That is exactly what you were doing by presenting such a one sided view. Getting to the truth is the first step in solving about any problem and your program made the assumption that we have already arrived at that point. That is not the case.
Bob Scott
Milan, Illinois
Dear FRONTLINE,
I watched tonight's program "Heat" and I was deeply disappointed with Frontline. Your reporter called the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute "climate denier groups." Is it the policy of Frontline to slander groups with whom you do not agree?
What does it mean to be a "climate denier group?" Your reporter did not explain. The most obvious definition is that these groups deny climate change occurs. But neither the Heartland Institute nor the Competitive Enterprise Institute deny that climate change happens.
The slur "climate denier" is akin to calling someone a Holocaust denier. I thought Frontline had journalistic integrity and would not resort to name calling. Apparently I was wrong.
Daniel Simmons
Arlington, Virginia
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
In our report, we reported on the financial support companies like Exxon have given to "so-called climate change denier groups" like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.� We thought the "so-called" would signal that their position on global warming is slightly more nuanced than denying that it occurs.� However, both groups have, at various points, denied that global warming is a largely man-made problem and that it is fundamentally bad for the planet.�
Dear FRONTLINE,
How about some model hydrogen cities? Consider the micropolitan city of Macomb, IL as one feasible location for such a city. See my website at www.modelsustainablecities.weebly.com for more information.
Daniel Miller
Colchester, Illinois
Dear FRONTLINE,
To act is not an option but a necessity. Let us all use less and waste less. Let us all try to re-use items in our daily lives, get creative, who knows you might invent something. We must continue to recycle and we should begin to help regenerate the damaged parts of our Earth.
John B. Paulin
Euclid, Ohio
Dear FRONTLINE,
The program "Heat" was one of the most pointed and profound pieces of journalism I have seen in some time on the topic of global warming. I am amazed how we as a nation continues to put our heads in the sand as Europe and Japan "eat our lunch," as Mr. Smith pointed out.
I remember as a kid growing up in the late 50s, I saw an animated program aired during prime time produced by the Dr. Zeus people.
In short, this "cartoon" showed the profound effects of pollution and the devastation it wrought on the world. This program has stuck with me all these years and I have tried to find out if this particular Dr. Zeus piece was ever preserved.
Does anyone out there remember this animated program from that time?
Lorenzo Wilkins
Silver Spring, Maryland
Dear FRONTLINE,
The program "Heat" was the worst hatched job since the "Inconvienent Truth" The correspondent completely dismissed any notion that climate change maybe part of the natural cycle and that the human impact is most probably neglegible.
Many scientist, including myself, receive no support from big oil and still can't buy into the silly models and data that are spun by the IPCC. The attempt to discredit the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute by questioning their funding smacks in the face that Frontine receives substantial funding from environmentally biased philantropic groups.
The point of the program was basically socialistic and shows an overall bias of PBS. Thats why I have withdrawn my membership several years ago and will not send a dime to this nonsence.
Hamiilton Township, NJ
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
In our report, we reported on the financial support companies like Exxon have given to "so-called climate change denier groups" like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.� We thought the "so-called" would signal that their position on global warming is slightly more nuanced than denying that it occurs.� However, both groups have, at various points, denied that global warming is a largely man-made problem and that it is fundamentally bad for the planet.�
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your one sided editorialized report was no surprise. It is good to know where I can go when I want to see the socialist's distorted view on things. Hopefully more people will see your anti-capitalistic show and come to the realization how ridiculous socialism is.
Wayne Gregory
Charleston, SC
Dear FRONTLINE,
There is no such thing as clean coal. It is a term the coal industry wants people to use. They want it to roll off our tongues as if it exists. As long as mountain tops are blown off and streams clog to obtain it, there is no such thing as clean coal. As long as fish and wildlife are traumatized from coal excavation, there is no such thing as clean coal. As long as children and communities die as a result of coal retrevial, there is no such thing as clean coal. Do not use their term. The industry can clean up the emissions all they want even to the point of only steam being the by-product,but there is still no such thing as clean coal.
Molly Regan
Princeton, IOWA
Dear FRONTLINE,
After your program I feel much better informed about specific challenges in this new era, and as a result, will be better able to hold my state and federal representatives accountable in meeting those needs.
I am also optimistic about the entrepreneurial opportunities inherent in alternative energy industries and will continue to look for was to invest in these new technologies. Thanks again, I plan to share this with everyone I know and spark lively discussions!
Yvonne Vairma
Brooklyn, New York
Dear FRONTLINE,
I do not think we will act on time to avoid the critical threshold we are approaching with global warming. Our physical and mental capabilities are the result of evolutionary pressures and conditions, as such we are wired to act now to solve immediate dangers.
We are not prepared to deal with this one, not because the problem is not understood but because a big percentage of the world population is unable to act in his time delayed fashion.
Wish it was different, my son will suffer, al humanity will suffer, as a reality check we are suffering for a while, lost of birds, butterflies, corals and thousands more are affecting the necessary nurturing of the spirit, leaving us as consuming automata.How sad!
Francisco
Francisco Aguilar
Chicago, Illinois
Dear FRONTLINE,
Interesting piece, but hard to get through the cynicism of big business and politicians. They always want to present a "green" face while doing what they always do - making money and getting votes the cheapest way possible.
Had I done this documentary, I would have focused much more on our responsibilities as citizens and consumers. The fact is that we will all be impacted by global warming. We need to learn from our mistakes and we need to learn what we can each do to survive the coming climate changes - some of which may be very severe.
Ted Markow
Brunswick, Maine
Dear FRONTLINE,
I would like to see a full discussion of the comparative costs of alternatives to fossil fuels. In particular I hope Frontline will examine the potential of energy efficiency measures to decrease the need for more expensive options. Not as sexy as wind and solar, energy efficiency measures are the low hanging fruit.
Henrietta Davis
Cambridge, Ma
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg makes this very point about the need for action on "low-hanging fruit." Read his interview that is published elsewhere on this site
Dear FRONTLINE,
I generally respect the job Frontline does with it's stories but the one on HEAT is very biased in my view.
Increasing CAFE standards will only encourage the public to drive more miles, buy homes further from work and potentially increase demand for gas. In no way do you point to the American public as a part of the solution.
Car companies sell what the public demands. Why has the F100 Ford pickup led the list of best selling vehicles for years. I agree with Warren Brown, writer for the Washington Post that the politicians could help solve the demand problem but placing a floor on the cost of a gallon of gas and demand would drop.
Expecting Exxon Mobil to solve our thirst for oil is like expecting McDonalds to make us eat healthy foods. McDonalds sells what the public demands. Exxon will invest in alternatives if they determine it will be economically viable and that is how we should expect them to operate. Your examples from Europe make my point as to who drives the change(government)
Your program would be balanced in my mind if you clearly pointed out the the challenges of making the switch for fossil fuels and the possible sacrifices the American public may have to make to begin the transition.
winchester, va
