Ironically, oil baron Alberta is moving ahead rapidly with wind generation and actually provides incentives to develop it. As the Danish point out, their success in wind power generation is because the government believes in it.

I think our government does not understand the long term incentives to go clean energy and is too much at the behest of big oil.

Apparently not all scientists agree that the climate change, which is already set in motion, is caused largely by human hands. Let’s leave aside the question of whether the sceptics concern to so-called “pseudo scientists”, so by people who act only half-heartedly and without knowledge of all available information, or whether they concern scientists who operate in the service of lobbyists. That irritations can lead to uncertainties within the populations of all nations. On the other side there are so-called “alarmists” which cause horror scenarios under ignorance of all scientific knowledge and appear with excessive and disoriented demands which drives the industry to more powerful lobbying activities in politics.

I am persuaded of the fact that there also requires among scientists and engineers a moderate treatment of this awkward subject and that a demarcation to groupings of both sides is conducive. A transparency of the science is asked now.
I am absolutely sure that on the part of the science nearly everything is already insightfully finished or is intensely in treatment and that the scientists and engineers are ready to take the responsibility from the politicians and to present and to install an adequate model which protects our environment sustainably and which carries the economics sphere of interest into account.

However, it also requires of the pressure “from below” to persuade politics and lobby. To mobilize the population of putting pressure on the respective governments to operate, finally, with sustainable effect instead of reacting, is in my opinion a not to be underestimated challenge. And there I see another deficiency: The layman gets to know about forthcoming or carrying out climate disasters by the well known media. He gets to know about the climate summit by the press. He reads headlines, written by journalists and reporters who return on the one hand the argumentations of the scientists and of the politicians with own words and comments. On the other hand they are depend on the viewing rate of their channel or the sales results of their newspaper and magazine.

Qualitative and independent information, exposed coherently, are essential in my opinion. This includes a detailed description of measures that have to be taken in practice. They could be designed like manuals or textbooks or something like that. Thus the parameter of the science and the pressure of the citizen could take influence to the politics. But I fear this is a very long way accompanied by almost insurmountable obstacles in this complex interplay between politics, economics and ecology.

With the ever increasing winds that the earth is producing,ironically due to climate change, more investment in wind power would be a good start. Seems like some countries are embracing this technology. It also doesn’t need more study!

The concept that more study is required is simply a stalling tactic to do nothing.

although Copenhagen started with finger-pointing, I’m still hopeful that at least at the end, each party would agree that climate change is happending, we need to do something about it, and we at least could start with large scale awareness raising and environmental education for the general public to induce social behavioral changes and to empower the grassroot officials to make more informed decisions.