Sanjeev Sabhlok, Economist: If CO2 were a pollutant, then carbon emissions trading would be a useful solution. But my personal conclusion is that climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science. In the meanwhile, we know for sure that the modest increase in CO2 over the past fifty years has been enormously beneficial.
David Lester, chemical engineer: It’s time for our state government to get real about our future electric power grid.
Uli Weber, geophysicist and author of Klimahysterie ist keine Loesung: From 2020 onwards, the industrialized nations of the world want to spend 100 billion US dollars annually on a " Green Climate Fund " to the rest of the world - in gratitude for their signature under the Paris climate treaty to the global decarbonization up to the year 2100. Just to fulfill our pecuniary climate obligations from this "Green Climate Fund", we are no longer able to avoid a CO 2 tax with falling tax revenues. And the next global UN octopus is already in the starting blocks to spread the last of our economic resources for alleged biodiversity conservation across the globe.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Science Director at The Heartland Institute: Many science and technology institutions and local and national governments use the term carbon to mean carbon dioxide. They refer to a person's, company's or country's "carbon footprint." Carbon brings to mind dirty carbon soot, not the colorless, odorless gas of life, carbon dioxide, which is what is really meant. Dr. Lehr explains the reason for this deliberate deception. It is like the deception of man-made global warming being called "climate change." Some countries don't tolerate this misuse of science. They will have far better energy programs and be in positions to take advantage of every weakness the "carbon footprint" using countries have. It is a shame to see North America and Europe allowing this to happen.