<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Freakonomics, Geo-engineering, and Climate Change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/10/26/freakonomics-geo-engineering-and-climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/10/26/freakonomics-geo-engineering-and-climate-change/</link>
	<description>Providing logistics professionals with clear and concise analyses of Logistics Trends, Technologies, and Services</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:26:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Gonzalez</title>
		<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/10/26/freakonomics-geo-engineering-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Gonzalez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2096#comment-108</guid>
		<description>Zuza,

Thanks for your comment. I don&#039;t disagree with you that behavioral changes are also important. I just don&#039;t believe that it is enough to fix the problem when you consider the scale of the problem and how little time we have to fix it (assuming, of course, you believe the models and predictions).

To use the analogy referenced in the 20/20 program, what we need is the equivalent of a &quot;polio vaccine&quot; for climate change. Or to use a more current example, when it comes to controlling the spread of H1N1, do you have more faith in a vaccine or in people actually washing their hands more often and always covering their mouths when they cough or sneeze(&#039;behavior changes&#039;)? The latter is certainly important, but I&#039;m sure glad the scientific community has also responded with a vaccine.

Finally, I completely agree with you that &quot;we look at solutions holistically and consider unintended consequences.&quot; That was the whole point of the posting I referenced: http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2008/02/22/inconvenient-truths-about-green-supply-chain-management/

Adrian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zuza,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment. I don&#8217;t disagree with you that behavioral changes are also important. I just don&#8217;t believe that it is enough to fix the problem when you consider the scale of the problem and how little time we have to fix it (assuming, of course, you believe the models and predictions).</p>
<p>To use the analogy referenced in the 20/20 program, what we need is the equivalent of a &#8220;polio vaccine&#8221; for climate change. Or to use a more current example, when it comes to controlling the spread of H1N1, do you have more faith in a vaccine or in people actually washing their hands more often and always covering their mouths when they cough or sneeze(&#8216;behavior changes&#8217;)? The latter is certainly important, but I&#8217;m sure glad the scientific community has also responded with a vaccine.</p>
<p>Finally, I completely agree with you that &#8220;we look at solutions holistically and consider unintended consequences.&#8221; That was the whole point of the posting I referenced: <a href="http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2008/02/22/inconvenient-truths-about-green-supply-chain-management/" rel="nofollow">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2008/02/22/inconvenient-truths-about-green-supply-chain-management/</a></p>
<p>Adrian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Gonzalez</title>
		<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/10/26/freakonomics-geo-engineering-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-107</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Gonzalez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:13:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2096#comment-107</guid>
		<description>Giles,

Thanks for the comment. Yes, methane is a far more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, but far less of it is emitted into the atmosphere. Also, according to Wikipedia, natural gas (comprised mostly of methane) produces less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil, and far fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels. But it does emit some CO2 nonetheless.

In short, natural gas is not perfect from a green perspective, but all things considered, it is &quot;less bad&quot; than oil or coal.

Adrian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Giles,</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment. Yes, methane is a far more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, but far less of it is emitted into the atmosphere. Also, according to Wikipedia, natural gas (comprised mostly of methane) produces less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil, and far fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels. But it does emit some CO2 nonetheless.</p>
<p>In short, natural gas is not perfect from a green perspective, but all things considered, it is &#8220;less bad&#8221; than oil or coal.</p>
<p>Adrian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Giles Taylor</title>
		<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/10/26/freakonomics-geo-engineering-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-106</link>
		<dc:creator>Giles Taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2096#comment-106</guid>
		<description>Now I&#039;m confused.  According to the Freakonomics piece, methane is the bad guy.  I think you reported a while back that the culprit in green house gases for Stoneybrook Farm is what the cows leave behind (methane gas).  Now this article saying natural gas leaves less than coal and petroleum. Yet, I&#039;m fairly certain natural gas is greener than petroleum.  Methane pales in comparison to CO2 in what makes up greenhouse gases, but is it more powerful.

Regarding zuza&#039;s comments, I agree we should find holistic solutions that are well thought out.  However, I&#039;m a lot more optimistic in mankind controlling physical changes than human behavior.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now I&#8217;m confused.  According to the Freakonomics piece, methane is the bad guy.  I think you reported a while back that the culprit in green house gases for Stoneybrook Farm is what the cows leave behind (methane gas).  Now this article saying natural gas leaves less than coal and petroleum. Yet, I&#8217;m fairly certain natural gas is greener than petroleum.  Methane pales in comparison to CO2 in what makes up greenhouse gases, but is it more powerful.</p>
<p>Regarding zuza&#8217;s comments, I agree we should find holistic solutions that are well thought out.  However, I&#8217;m a lot more optimistic in mankind controlling physical changes than human behavior.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zuza</title>
		<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/10/26/freakonomics-geo-engineering-and-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>zuza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2096#comment-105</guid>
		<description>I think a &quot;timely and effective&quot; solution paved by &quot;engineers and scientists, not politicians&quot; is dangerous for the very reasons that they look attractive i.e. we don&#039;t need to change behavior.

Think about this more holistically.  A technical solution only delays the same outcome we are faced with today.  But what&#039;s worse, is that the fix then will be even harder than what feels like a very expensive solution today.  

Isn&#039;t a technical fix here the equivalent of covering your current bills by finding a way to increase your credit limit, rather than living within ones means?

These are well intentioned and creative ideas.  Let&#039;s make sure we look at solutions holistically and consider unintended consequences.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a &#8220;timely and effective&#8221; solution paved by &#8220;engineers and scientists, not politicians&#8221; is dangerous for the very reasons that they look attractive i.e. we don&#8217;t need to change behavior.</p>
<p>Think about this more holistically.  A technical solution only delays the same outcome we are faced with today.  But what&#8217;s worse, is that the fix then will be even harder than what feels like a very expensive solution today.  </p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t a technical fix here the equivalent of covering your current bills by finding a way to increase your credit limit, rather than living within ones means?</p>
<p>These are well intentioned and creative ideas.  Let&#8217;s make sure we look at solutions holistically and consider unintended consequences.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

