U.S. Energy Policy and Global Warming

(April 2, 2008) Elton Sherwin, Senior Managing Director of Ridgewood Capital, discusses the federal energy policy and what should be done to address global warming. The Energy Seminar meets weekly during the academic year. For a list of upcoming talks, visit the events page at the Woods Institute for the Environment website.

Stanford University
http://www.stanford.edu/

Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford:
http://woods.stanford.edu/

Elton Sherwin
http://www.ridgewoodcapital.com/eltons.htm

Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Energy Policy
• Global Warming
• Climate Engineering
• Carbon Tax
• Cap and Trade
• Climate Change
• Environment
• Energy
• Sustainability
• Conservation
• Economics
• Politics
• Stanford
• Federal
• Government
• Regulation
• Policy
• California
• Leadership
• Carbon Footpr

[thetricon69]

A policy must be absolute.

[question279]

Global warming is not a concern for humanity. The concern should be more about the GLOBAL GREEDY. The fear of climate change is only a political mouth wash, such a thing as saving the planet.

If you have compassion for this planet, you should concern for other species that would survive after human extinction. The collapse of ecosystem is neccessary for human termination. Planet rejuvenate itself. Sooner human extinction arrive, this planet and other species would be at peace.

[FrankRizzo6662]

Global warming is BS, money making scam. Our carbon footprint changes the climate in a very VERY small fractional amount. Wacko's and left wing idiots are the only ones pushing this BS agenda

[madashelldude]

You are confusing economic growth with emission growth. In fact it is possible to use 100% green energy with no environmental footprint and manufacture everything from electronic components to building materials using microorganisms. Google Angela Belcher, Richard Smalley or nanotechnology.

[polyzygote]

you assume wrong. he calls for economic growth. just watch the video again.

[madashelldude]

where is he "calling for more growth"?! I assume you mean more CO2 emissions?! he says the exact opposite.

[polyzygote]

if you were interested in real solutions he wouldn't call for more growth. very simple.

[madashelldude]

Like with everything in science SO2 based solutions need to be quantified and tested. He is not proposing geo engineering for simply mitigating the symptoms he is proposing it to keep us alive and buy some time for real solutions. SO2 will start to react with O3 and albeit is not as potent as CFCs it took us a few decades to damage the ozone layer with CFCs. So SO2 could buy us some time. If during those decades we don't get rid of all the extra CO2 we are in big trouble when we turn off SO2

[mi8nu7by6]

Retnuh1974, if you are curious about why scientists are concerned about the difference between the expected natural climatic cycles and what we are actually experiencing, I suggest reading theIPCC AR4 Working Group 1- Physical Science Basis Report. It is available for free online- and while it will take a while to read, it may help you understand why there is a concern.

[polyzygote]

he is for economic growth? has he thought for a minute what that actually means? his solution is continued growth with geo-engineering to mitigate the symptoms of that growth. or, the pop a pill mentality, instead of addressing the cause of ill health.

climate change is only one of the many problems. solutions to which will need to be holistic and well integrated. continued economic and population growth are at the heart of the problem, but these subjects are still taboo. we're in deep shizuo.