Skip to main content
/technology
Just Imagine
  • E-mail
  • Save
  • Print

The big debate: Global warming or national security?

  • Story Highlights
  • Is global warming the greatest energy challenge we face?
  • Some say energy as an issue of national security is more critical
  • Share your thoughts and read others' views in our debate
  • Next Article in Technology »
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- Global warming or national security - which is the more pressing energy issue? We want to hear your views. Send us your thoughts and comments, and we'll publish the best here.

art.vietnamrig.afp.gi.jpg

A naming ceremony for Vietnam's first fully owned oil rig in March 2007

What's the issue?

As an expedition aimed at strengthening Russia's claim to fossil fuels under the Arctic reached the North Pole in August this year, we ask, which poses the greater threat: global warming or dwindling caches of oil, coal and gas?

Some say that climate change is a more urgent problem, while others say that countries' infrastructure will grind to a halt if, through scarcity, natural disaster or terrorism, their fossil fuel supplies are cut off.

What difference will Kyoto make?

The Kyoto Protocol obliges 35 rich nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but developing nations including China have no targets, while the U.S. and Australia have chosen not to ratify the agreement. By 2008, China will overtake the United States as the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases.

The politicians' views

Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel told London's Financial Times in January this year that the critical question was that of fast-developing countries like China and India. "Even if Europe were to cut its CO2 emissions to zero, this would still fail to prevent a rise in temperature of at least two degrees," she said.

During his 2006 State of the Union address, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed weaning the U.S. from its dependence on imported oil, with a national goal of replacing more than 75% of American oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

The solutions?

Should we consider a combined approach as an alternative to fossil fuels, developing nuclear power and sourcing new oil alongside renewable energies?

Should we take a renewable approach, switch our liquid fuels from oil to biomass, our high-carbon electricity sources to solar, geothermal and wind, and increase our energy efficiency?

Or is there another way?

Over to you...

We'd like to hear your views.

  • Which concerns you more -- the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, or energy as an issue of national security?
  • How can we solve these challenges?
  • Should we invest in securing the remaining sources of oil, coal and gas, or developing renewable fuels and technologies?
  • How far can renewable fuels meet our energy needs?
  • Is it morally right for developed countries to ask developing countries to restrict their emissions?
  • Are you hopeful that we can avert an energy crisis?
  • Send us your thoughts and comments, and we'll publish the best here.

    .................................

    From: Jay French, Honolulu, HI
    Date: October 5, 2007
    Your view:
    I recently viewed a map produced by the University of Hawaii that shows that Waikiki will be underwater by the end of the century. The implications of this scenario, which many climatologists claim as inevitable, by far outweigh any national security concerns. There will be no beaches for tourists, which will result in no revenues for the economy. In less than 100 years, Hawai'i will cease to function as a viable state. In fact, this catastrophe does not require actual flooding, because at the first sign that sea levels are actually rising and there is nothing to stop that rise, no company or business will invest in the state. I can't believe this but I am actually thinking about having to move (I live near Waikiki) because I know my apartment will become instantaneously worthless (sometime in the next 30 years) as soon as it becomes clear to everyone that the sea level rise is irreversible. A mass exodus will begin and the demise of the state will become inevitable. I believe that this scenario will play out all over the planet and the world that we live in will be radically altered.

    From: Tom Weeks, Tempe, AZ
    Date: October 2, 2007
    Your view:
    Contrary to what some people think, there is a strong and overwhemling consensus amoung the scientific community that global warming is not only real, but is being caused by mankind. Furthemore, global warming is more of a national security issue than the scarcity of oil. As global warming takes greater effect on the planet, famine, drought, and the changes that will occur within animal and pests life cycles, will certainly cause a more challenging national security environment for our country. Historically, it is these type of changes that have brought negative social upheaval. I certainly reject the idea that making the changes that are needed is beyond the grasp or ability of the American people. Of all the nations world-wide, we should be the ones illustrating the can-do attitude that is our heritage.

    From: Pete Gibson, Oroville, CA
    Date: October 1, 2007
    Your view:
    We should get off foreign oil, stop buying it! Global Warming is a money making scheme as was the Y2K, Ige Age and Nuclear scares of the past, which none came to be realized. It's the "Feel Good" cause for people that want to make themselves believe they made a difference. Want to make a difference...adopt a child, feed the homeless or do something for someone else when no one is looking, instead of something that's going to make you look good to your shallow friends. God made Earth so it could clean up itself, look how quick it clears up after a volcano eruption. National security is more important, it's the REAL problem not a bogus one.

    From: Alex Freedman, Mill Valley, CA
    Date: September 30, 2007
    Your view:
    Attending to the global warming crisis is MUCH more urgent and important than national security. Yes, national security is important, but it is not like we are at war! However, the economic effects of global warming and an energy crisis could be more crippling than any war that would ever effect us. If we put even half the money and resources into solar, wind, and other sustainable energies as we are into Iraq, we would be well on our way to energy dependence, not only protecting the enviornment, but also cutting off funding to less stable Middle Eastern nations where we get most of our petroleum supplies.

    From: Sam, New York, NY
    Date: September 30, 2007
    Your view:
    I believe the future of energy should take us in the direction of Solar, geothermal, wind, water wheel and gravitational based non-polutant reusable energy sources. People need to learn to understand that the continued use of fossil fuel is harming both our environment and ourselves. As-much-as we've advanced in video game, computer, software, automotive technologies, these companies have the ability to set aside 1% (percent) of what they do for the purpose of researching/developing in mass what we need. Using these types of energy sources (which the technology is available today) can help allow the planet to heal itself over time. It may take more than 10 years before anyone can tell the planet is healing, but its taken a shorter time to harm it. Do the research and see. P.S. never watched the movie, I'm a scientist at heart and can see over the years what's been happening to our environment. You also can see from your memories.

    From: Geoffrey West, Ciudad Colon, Costa Rica
    Date: September 29, 2007
    Your view:
    I'm sad that someone is even ASKING this question! We are all ONE, and what we are doing to the planet, we are ultimately doing to each other, and EVERY other aspect of LIFE. National Security - why is it necessary? Because certain people have unilaterally decided that their collection of wealth or power requires "protection" from some other (allegedly different) aspect of LIFE. Global warming - if we don't heal the planet , and our relationship to it - we won't HAVE to worry about giving a flying "bleep" about "national security". We just won't be around. This is not rocket science. It is about making choices that honour LIFE - and EVERY aspect about it. We are not separate from other people and we are not separate from our natural environment. Those that think we are, are living in an illusion of separation from LIFE - the same illusion that has been used to justify the hating, the killing, the fear, the separation, the greed, the jealousies and every other negative energy that has taken us away from knowing and experiencing who we truly are, BEINGS of energy, Light, and Love - with the awareness to CHOOSE the reality we wish to create.

    From: Tom Van Natta, Decatur, AL
    Date: September 29, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming affects us all. National security just affects the status quo of the "haves".

    From: ANN NORBECK, MPLS, MN
    Date: September 29, 2007
    Your view:
    WHY DO WE LET OUR POLITICIANS BOW DOWN TO THE OIL AND AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES? NO ONE INDUSTRY SHOULD HAVE THAT MUCH POWER PER OUR CONSTITUTION. WE NEED A LEADER TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE HEALTH OF OUR FUTURE.

    From: Kristina Kersey, Northfield, MN
    Date: September 29, 2007
    Your view:
    I fail to see at what point the issues of national security are divorced from those of global warming. The majority of our current fuel comes from unstable regions and a large portion of our goods come from China (where they're deforesting and otherwise eroding their natural resources in an effort to become a "player"). Just look at what our call for beef has done to South and Central America. If we're to believe the administration that there are all these "terrorists" out there just waiting for a moment of weakness, I would think the moment when our Capitol is under water would be prime choice. But are the fear-mongerers doing anything to keep that from happening? The sea levels are rising, this is a fact. That they'll continue to rise is a sucker bet. It won't be pick and choose. They'll rise significantly enough that not only will our coasts be inundated, but other nations as well. Some will be wiped off the map. New Atlantis. It's not like we can cons! cript the ocean to fight in our "war."

    It's terrifically sad that the people at the highest levels of authority, the ones who swore to protect us are so busy making up threats that they can't bother to even try saving the millions of people who will perish in a full-scale melt. Either by trying to mitigate and prepare now, or back when it would have made a difference. Maybe we'd have a chance if the corporations figured out there's a buck to be made in selling waders. The way I see it, I'm going to have to listen to a few more mouthpieces "speechify" before any flood happens. Either way, I could use a pair.

    From: Phil Kim, FFX, VA
    Date: September 29, 2007
    Your view:
    Two are linked by a common factor that you can not stop it. No matter how much money US spent, you can not stop terrorists, let alone domescticated terrorist from doing something. No matter what people will always hate someone. Global warming? What do we know, we human only been on earth for 1/10,000 time let alone we only had decent brain during last 1,000 yrs out ouf 5 million. This is a cycle and nothing can be done to stop it until earth stops rotating. Well, we can do much to not speed it up. But most pressing thing not many are talking about. Water!!! Ever since we had water, we have been losing it. thru ground and seeping out to space. NO water no food, no life like in Mars. Remember, Grand Canyon at 8K feet above sea lever used to be under the water. Where did that water go?

    From: Sam Campbell, Milwaukee, WI
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    What most people don't understand is that climate change is a natural process that happens no matter what...the real thing that they're questioning is that if humans are speeding up the process or not. Personally, I'd rather see Global Warming attended to because it's something that most of society recognizes and it affects everyone on the planet. The one thing I've noticed with National Security is it being criticized for it's harshness. So why don't we do something that will benefit mankind and not just the U.S. It's a problem that won't go away so we might as well deal with it now or we'll be sorry later.

    From: Nathan Wang, San Gabriel, CA
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    It seems both global warming and national security are embedded with each other. We can't solve only one and ignore the other. On the other hand, most politicians wants to make you believe one is more critical than the other. i.e. national security from Bush administration... global warming from enviro-guru. It's a complex problem, deserve a complex and well balance solution. The short term goal is securing enough energy resources, make sure all nations has enough energy for the next century, while the long term goal is to find/research/refine renewable energy, and replace the fossil fuel as soon as the technology is feasible.There will be sacrafices, and setback, but all of us must contribute and make the sacrafice.( say maybe pay $10/gal on gasoline with $5 goes to reasearch and development of renewable energy). Eventually, the renewable energy will be less expensive,and soon the whole world will be following it by necessity.

    From: rebekah hearn, memphis, TN
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    You can visibly SEE the effects of global warming in the world around you, if you look hard enough. The growing number of hurricanes and tropical storms suggest a sharp rise in the Earth's temperature that could be caused by humans, and by our burning of fossil fuels. In a lot of places in the US, you can see the changes in your own hometown's climate! In the Pacific Northwest, the rains are slowing down, the snows don't come as much and don't stay as long. Temperatures are warmer in a lot of places, ON AVERAGE. This is not something that can really be debated--global warming could bring an end to the human race as we know it--leaving few, if any, survivors--and would definitely bring an end to most of the plants and animals we have come to take for granted. We could experience an apocalyptic world unlike anything about which we've ever read or imagined, and then we will not even HAVE a nation about whose security we can worry.

    From: Nadine Schuermann, Nassau, Bahamas
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming is a matter of national security to the highest order! If these critical issues concerning our environment continue to fall on deaf ears there will be nothing left to stand for and protect in any regard!

    From: Lee Steht, Orlando, FL
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    I believe we need to get beyond our global politics before we can progress. Once we do that, I believe that a renewable resource (like the aformentioned) nuclear power. I think that we can contain such power to provide unlimited amounts of energy. Unfortunately, political strongholds by industry (such as the hybrid cars) will hold such benefits from the common man. Another example is the stranglehold we've felt over Gas prices.

    From: Stacy Jenkins, Glenpool, OK
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    Our dependence on oil as our major energy source contributes to both issues: danger to our national security and damage to the environment. We need to develop dependable alternative sources of energy and then switch over from oil-based energy to solar power, wind power, and whatever else we can. We shouldn't be dependent upon any one source, but diversify so that our economy blossoms and our country's security would be in less danger from terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

    From: Tony No, Novi, MI
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    The fossil fuels aren't the problem when it comes to national security. It's the way we go about obtaining it that causes security issues. That's easily fixed by diplomacy.

    If the US was completely free of importing oil, the wrong people in power could still cause national security issues.

    Global warming is certainly cause for concern regarding our energy usage, but the real problem will eventually be power and energy sustainability. Not that it will happen in the next 100 years, but as long as we aren't at 100% renewable energy, we will be a constant drain on the pool of finite fossil fuel found on Earth.

    We don't need to freak out just yet, but it's good that we're working on it. We're headed in the right direction, let's just not let politics hold us up.

    From: Keith Rando, Fulton, NY
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    Lets think about the solution to this question logically. National security is an ever-changing issue. Some days the country is on "red-alert" and some days it seems peaceful. Problems with secuirty will always come and go. We could completely lock down America, take away everyones freedom, and monitor the lives of everyone in America under a microscope and there could still be a threat to our national security, whether it be from within or abroad. Global warming, however, is a problem that will just get worse without any intervention. I feel the most important thing we can do is to start spending a lot more money on research and development for solar power and wind power to improve the efficiency, and most importantly reduce the cost of these invaluable sources of clean and renewable energy. We as a nation need to do to solar panels what we did for computers. When computers first came out they could cost around $3,000 but you can buy one that works 1,000 times better now for only a fraction of that cost. Thats because people did countless research on ways to improve it and then more and more people started to buy it which brought the price down. It can happen with solar power and wind power we just need a jump start from the government. The government should issue research grants to companies to help boost national interest and get more and more people to start buying them. In short, if you want to think about the here and now then focus on national security. But if you want to focus on whats important, which is the future of humanity, then we need to focus on global warming.

    From: Mark Breen
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    National security is the more serious issue, in part because our thirst for oil, and the increased international demand that competes with our own interests, has shaped a policy of aggression and inspired delusions of "state-building", such as Iraq. The result has cost thousands of lives, and billions of dollars, all the while enraging extremists, and increasing our vulnerability.

    Fossil fuels will likely turn out to be a flash-in-the-pan issue as related to climate change, because if politics ever gets out of the way of science, we'll find out that the climate is going to change with or without us. While policy makers are focused on the issue, publicly funded scientists are having to shout louder, and make more outrageous claims, because the real scientists are now finding out that much of the climate issue has been a political issue, not a science issue.

    And all of this obscures the real issue....POPULATION! If there were not 6 billion people, there would not be an issue with fossil fuel use or availability, nor issues of enough food and water, nor issues of habitat destruction and species extinction. And WHY aren't we talking about it? Because the solutions are bitter, derisive, and dangerous. Whether we like it or not, the world has limited, finite resources. Either we finally address the problem, or nature will take care of it. Given the choice of the two, I'd rather humans take up the challenge - nature does not come with compassion or a conscience.

    How can we solve these challenges? Get out of Iraq, and spend 80 billion a year converting energy systems to renewable energy.

    Should we invest in securing the remaining sources of oil, coal and gas, or developing renewable fuels and technologies? As above.

    How far can renewable fuels meet our energy needs? If the population were reduced, then there's no reason to think we can get to a point of renewables meeting all energy needs. Obviously not in the short term.

    Is it morally right for developed countries to ask developing countries to restrict their emissions? No.

    Are you hopeful that we can avert an energy crisis? No. There's too much money, and too many greedy people in positions of power and decision-making to think they'll act in the interest of a sustainable society. It is likely to get worse - much worse - before it gets better. An analogy: The western forests of the US were "saved" from the ravages of forests fires by well-intentioned authorities. But that is not sustainable. A few scientists told the authorities, but they did not listen. The situation looked fine, going along with few problems, but the standing timber became fuel for a greater conflagration. In 1988, half of Yellowstone burned, as well as 100s of millions of acres. It was an avoidable situation, but we didn't avoid it. Only now, after tremendous loss, are better practices being used I expect the world, with issues of population, energy, and resources, will have to go through the same "purging". A very uncomfortable, pessimistic view of the next few centuries, but it is a forecast based on how humans seem to behave. I would be grateful if leadership, real leadership, rose to the occasion, and guided us more wisely through the difficult choices.

    From: Steven Kromray, lake in the hills, IL
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    I personally am equally disturbed by both the effects of fossil fuels on the enviroment as well their effect on national security but in the end these are really just part of an even larger problem.Money.Money is destroying mankind.Not in the sense that people shouldnt have it,but in the fact that it is the single most corrutpion driving force on this planet and the corruption it breeds is in the areas that have the most direct influence on the problems you are asking about.Hearings,accusations,back door deals.....these all will continue to go on until the american people stand up for themselves and make their government do what it should. Any problem that is completely mismanaged for too long will eventually blow up into a very serious issue and im not a scientist but am definetly of the belief that the plantary damage caused by man cannot be repaired.

    From: Ngehi Dahdi, Tamuning, Guam
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming is not only a national security issue, it's a Global Security Issue. If an alien race is slowly but surely destroying planet Earth will there even be a debate as to which nation should or should not fight this fight? The only real question here is, is global warming slowly yet surely destroying mother Earth?

    From: samual hancock, aurora, IL
    Date: September 28, 2007
    Your view:
    global warming all the way u can get back the economy but not the polar bears

    From: Rebecca Druckenmiller, Morrisville, PA
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    Why not both? Both issues are equally important to the survival of this nation and each pose an equally dangerous threat. Why can't this country care about both?

    From: John Flowers, Tempe, AZ
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    It's true what others are saying about Global Warming being the bigger issue that needs to be addressed since it effects us all! We shouldn't focus on the one man war...if Bush wants to be there then let him run on over and loose...nobody wins in a war. The rest of us can focus on keeping this world safe for our kids and every living thing on it.

    From: Kam Grewal, Surrey, BC, Canada
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming is definitely the more immediate concern considering changes in climate are difficult to reverse and affect the global population. I am not taking away anything away from the significance of national security but its impact is only limited to a nation. If the Earth is being flooded by melting glaciers and people are being forced to leave their homes, cities etc, no one is going to care who has what bomb or how many weapons and such. Can you imagine a whole city trying to relocate just because the Earth is too warm and glaciers are floading coastlines where most of the planet's major cities are found?

    From: Steven Morrow, Everett, MA
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    I agree that even the experts can't agree on Global warming and it's cause - the problem is that we are able to accurately measure the RECENT changes and we tend to focus on short term changes, but most historical geology points to our climate changes are part of a NATURAL cycle - we MAY be contributing to the problem but I remain convinced that we are not the cause, our earth will continue to warm up even if ceased ALL wasteful fossil fuel consumption. We are currently approaching the average temperature on earth as was the case in 900AD before we went into 500 year cooling period. Case in point Nasa studies have shown that temperature measures on Mars over the past 35 years has increased at approx the same rate as that of the earth, yet Mars is 35-65 million miles further out in space and has NO human intervention. While I believe we MUST aggressively develop renewable sources of energy and continue to be vigilant in this effort, our National Security presents ! are far more serious and more immediate threat that we do have the power to control.

    From: Deborah D., Princeton, NJ
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    If the primary issue of national security is about oil resources, then the environment and national security are one and the same. If the issue of national security is about ideology, e.g. religion, I would still wonder if the fight is about resources, just couched in another vocabulary. Again, one and the same.

    From: GGordon Hawkins, Douglaville, GA
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    Since the "experts" can't even agree if there is man made global warming, this seems stupid to me. America is being invaded. No debate there. The only question is do we do anything about it. Or are we going to be politically correct and surrender?

    From: Suzanne perlmutter, mount vernon, WA
    Date: September 27, 2007
    Your view:
    I support the initiative that Greenland is making regarding developing geo-thermal and hydro-engines. Curently, they ae going through an extensive R&D process to explore this technology. Refer to CNN profile of Greenland 09/19/07-- very exciting. I am curious enough to go there and see it for myself....in addition, they aspire to be fossil fuel freee by 2012. Transportation costs of fuel are the limits that they have with $8/gal....Necessity is the Mother of Invention!!!!! Go Greenland....Let's get off fossil fuels, and then we can have a more accurate discussion of National Security... Living in the solution seems to be alot more exciting, and dynamic to be part of - then to have a debate that seems to be circular.

    From: Sally Dickie, Clarkston, MI
    Date: September 26, 2007
    Your view:
    There is one factor which makes global warming more important: Global Warming will affect the entire world, not only the United States, but the entire world. Also all of the species on the planet will be at risk of extinction. While it is very important to protect our country, why should we invest our time and money to protect our country if we cannot gurantee our people a sustainable future on this planet? Without our planet, we have nothing. Bottom Line.

    From: Maddalena Jackson, Claremont, CA
    Date: September 26, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming IS a national security issue. Our actions in the past and present threaten our safety, health, economy, and way of life. We need to adapt and protect ourselves against the future now while there is still time to make informed choices. If we don't treat climate change as national security issue, we will have to face the cost in human life and liberty, and from past experience we can forsee that it will be the underpriviledged who will be hit hardest.

    From: Gregory Ballantyne, Westminster, MD
    Date: September 25, 2007
    Your view:
    As any fool can see, Global Warming and National Security are the same issue. They cannot be separated.

    From: kathryn Benway, Oshkosh, WI
    Date: September 25, 2007
    Your view:
    Taking care of our environment should be top priority. Evidence of global warming seems to have fallen on ignorant and arrogant ears. Why are there still no alternatives readily, conveniently, and affordably avail to the US citizens? Why are car makers getting away with advertising 30mpg as being fuel efficient? That's a JOKE! America is about Freedom, but were NOT FREE. We depend on other Countries. We are vulnerable. To me, GREEN is the new definition of Freedom. A goal we need to mandate NOW! Govern our Government. Some will loose money but this isn't about them, the few. It's about us, the many, and our freedom to breath fresh air, fish unspoiled rivers and lakes, drink fresh clean water, and Taking back our Countries FREEDOM!

    From: andy flick, atlanta, GA
    Date: September 24, 2007
    Your view:
    The real threat isn't from terrorists, it's from ourselves when we ignore broader climate issues.

    From: Reinaldo Vega, Berkeley, CA
    Date: September 23, 2007
    Your view:
    The answer is simple. If we destroy our planet, then there will be no national security to worry about.

    From: Christopher Calkins, Gig Harbor, WA
    Date: September 22, 2007
    Your view:
    Where to Start. This is a silly question. Global Warming and Global Explotation is the most important issue on Humanities plate today and every day into the future. Human overpopulation over the past 100 years coupled with the Industrial Revolution and Religion have become the driving forces behind Global Warming, Habitat Destruction, and soon to be our own destruction! You Fools

    We have ONE PLANET EARTH! and we are destroying it piece by piece. The Aristocrats and Rich people of the Planet have been Negligent in their responsibilities to stewardship the Earth in a sustainable way. Greedy people have set the wheels in motion and when you educate yourself with factual scientific information and history, YOU will see how Grim our situation is. We as a Nation and We as Humanity have done far too little, far too late. People are more concerned with money, religion, sports, and politics instead of the REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES, like Large scale Ecosystem Destruction, Species Extinction, Global Warming, Human Overpopulation and Our Future as a Species!

    Some solutions to slow down the destruction of our planet and humanity would be to set Realistc, Difficult Goals to ELIMINATE the use of fossil fuels within 20 years. We have and have had the technology to produce clean pollution free energy: eg. wind, solar, hydro and many more. WE need to stop breeding like rats and impose limits on how many children a man or woman can have in their life time: eg, 2 and give tax incentives to those who have less or none at all. Having more than 2 children in an overpopulated world is the epitomy of selfishness and is the underlying problem of all our concerns. We also need to change our greedy little mind set about how we exploit our Planet. A whole bunch of you FOOLS think it is OK to use up all of our resources as you see fit. I am here to tell YOU Republicans, Capitalists, Democrats, and many more, that it is not OK and never has been! Our ancestors are furious with our NEGLIGENCE, as are our Future Generations, as am I and so many other Good People of Our nation and the World... As for National Security. The biggest threat to our nation security is an OUT OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION THAT RULES WITH LIES, TERRORISM AND FEAR. What a crock of dung. Some how, we as a Nation allow our government to get away with being above the LAW, and that clearly Jeopordizes our National Security. I wrote all of this because I need Accountability, not lies. I Hope and Pray that America and the World will put away their Big Trucks and their egos and buy Electric, Air, or Water powered Vehicles. The decisions we make today will have long lasting effects on the Future of our Planet and its' Inhabitants. Find the TRUTH and Follow it. Put sustainabilty First, it is the bottom line.

    I leave you with a poem.

    I did not want it this way.
    I don't want it this way.
    It does not matter what I think.
    It does not matter what I say.
    The Rich keep on making the Rules.
    While we the working people toil through the days.
    Paying, Paying, Paying for the Crooks who stole it All Away, Away, Away!

    From: Tony Roc, Rochester, NY
    Date: September 21, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming is not just a national security concern, it's a global concern for the entire human race. I don't think we've evolved as a species enough to survive on top of or under water as the ice caps continue to melt. All nations security is at risk. Our interests should be:

    Combine all resources to combat this global threat. (As if a huge rock from space was going to hit Earth.)

    Use government funds from each nation, profits from fossil fuel companies (oil profits0 to fund ways to harness more of what GOD has given us. The sun, more windmills and dams near the coasts. Since that's where the greatest demands are coming from.

    Or is this just a problem to those that can not "afford" to adapt to the planetary changes that are going to continue to happen.

    From: Dennis Markwith, Manassas, VA
    Date: September 21, 2007
    Your view:
    I have been waiting for a presidential candidate who will address our energy problem seriously and effectively. That candidate is nowhere to be found. In our selection of candidates we seem to forget the life changing energy events of the 70's and all the events since then. No candidate once they become president is willing to face down the oil and automobile industries that wield so much power over our government. No one is willing to place serious energy change as a cornerstone of their campaign and leadership. However, this is exactly what we need.

    Foreign oil dependence has caused many serious problems including our involvement in Iraq. Additionally, we are all subject to the greedy whims of our own oil companies who increase prices using any excuse under the sun and then dropping prices back down like nothing ever happened.

    Think of all the issues we would not be dealing with if we could cut our dependence foreign on oil.

    How could this be done? We need to develop the political will to change this.

    You see, this can be a win-win situation for everyone involved. With the right leadership, everyone can work together to reach new goals instead of preserving the status quo. With the right incentives, companies who produce gas powered cars could convert to "other" powered cars - be it natural gas, hydrogen, etc. With the right incentives, oil companies can invest their newfound hundreds of billions into new energy industries like alcohol production, hydrogen, etc. The government could provide these incentives and further lead by helping to change the infrastructure from gas stations to "other" stations.

    I don't see that government will lead us to this solution. I see that citizens will have to lead themselves by buying cars that don't burn gas, conserving energy, and converting our homes to cleaner alternatives like solar energy.

    If a leader will not emerge, we'll have to lead ourselves. Change will follow naturally...

    From: Paven Govender, Gauteng, South Africa
    Date: September 21, 2007
    Your view:
    Hey people , I think the time for debating which is more important to America has come and gone. Your National Security has been handled through diplomacy or the use of force depending on who's in the White House when. The more sensible American leaders have done an admirable job of doing the right thing when it counted.The current adiministration is mired in self interest and stupidity and driven by the avarice of big business. Taking a stand on a serious issue like Global Warming with a uniform policy would mean the loss of revenue and jobs for large American oil conglomerates who are ofcourse the real power brokers behind George Bush Jnr's government. The debacle of Iraq is the best reflection of republican selfishness ask Alan Greenspan. Just the other day he said that the 'Iraq war was about oil'.

    Global warming is a geographical and moral issue that cannot be ignored and must be dealt with immediately

    Just look at the stats for the melting of the Ice Shelf in Greenland. Currently flooding or droughts brought on by climate change due to warming in some far off corner of the 3rd world is acceptable to America because it's not of national concern. The day when a large chunk of the Greenland Ice Shelf rolls off into the Atlantic is not far off and when it happens it will cause immediate large scale flooding on your coastline and a super winter in the Northern Hemisphere that will potentially cripple America for hundreds of years - would global warming then not be an issue of national security? The issue of current Carbon emissions is serious and all countries should work together to reduce them immediately. The real devil in the detail is the excess carbon already in the atmosphere that is causing the earth to heat up as it is. This build up started generations ago and the main emitter bar developing nations was and still is North America. Sorry folks I think you've been duped by George Bush this time. American troops are fighting and dying in Iraq due to the greed for oil money. Ofcourse Al Qaida is now in Iraq , but were they there before the 2003 Invasion? This alone proves that this war is not a matter of national security . The 160 000 troops there could have done a better job in Afghanistan. The American people need to rise above the selfishness of some of their leaders and join the drive against global warming. Please note that I say 'some of their leaders' because America does and will continue to produce great leaders as well. I say this because most of the points I stated about global warming were first highlighted by Al Gore 2 years ago in his ground breaking documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Now more than ever the world needs men like Al Gore a truly great American Leader.

    From: James Crosland, Miami, FL
    Date: September 21, 2007
    Your view:
    If history has proven anything, predicting the complete and exact nature of our future energy sources is impossible. Generally, however, I feel that one source is certain. The future will see heavy and extensive use of nuclear power. With population rising and resources dwindling, the world's desire to modernize will demand power beyond what can be provided by wind, backyard solar cells, and other "soft" technologies. Rich countries and wealthy individuals may build strictly solar houses, garbage fueled cars and other gadgets, but the infrastructure of the modern world will be powered by fission. Nuclear power is essentially green in that it is far easier to store spent fuel than managing the atmosphere or completely re-engineering urban areas to be compatible with radical new technologies. One has to remember that although countries like the United States or Canada can afford to experiment with promising but untried alternatives, other countries (China and India to name two) will quickly need to replace their coal plants with a stable, powerful, and practical alternative. Nuclear power is the only answer.

    From: Steve Dunn, Dallas, TX
    Date: September 21, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming is a FAR more serious issue than energy security/national security. Climate change could actually drive humanity into extinction. It's my understanding about HALF of the U.S. greenhouse gas output is coming from the smoke stacks of our coal-fired power plants. Logically, our leaders should focus FIRST on eliminating those power plant emissions, perhaps using coal gasification technology to produce our energy.

    From: Michael Charlton, San Antonio, TX
    Date: September 21, 2007
    Your view:
    We need to be realistic about our energy sources. We can't produce enough corn to feed the demands of the petrochemical industry in a complex economy like the US. There's enough oil to go around, the only problem is self defeating regulation which keeps demand higher than supply. Oil companies love this concept, because if they can restrict the gas supply, prices will eventually spin out of control. So far they have no motivation to do build refineries. The best defense is to allow inflated prices to reduce demand by buying more fuel efficient cars and build a better public transportation infrastracture; and use them!! Eventually, prices will get so high, that we may be left with no other choice. That's when prices go down. The earth is not overpopulated. The average US family has 2.2 children. If anything, the population is shrinking. We've just become more industrial, which creates a thirst for raw materials. That's what they're there for. If we are efficient, recycle, and utilize technology, our resources will last a long long time.

    From: Richard Knapp, Morristown, TN
    Date: September 20, 2007
    Your view:
    On the question of Global Warming vs National Security - I have to side with those that are for BOTH, the only problem is that the Global Warming issue can't really be dealt with until the technology is both a> working well and b> reasonably priced. I would love to drive a fuel efficent vehicle, but since they cost too much to make them worth buying.Add to that, their batteries have a shorter life span and will need replacing, than a "regular" car's entire "normal" lifespan. Where am I supposed to get all this extra money? It's simple - make it cost not only effective, but also reasonable, and more people would be able to help.

    From: Donald Hopfe, Edmonds, WA
    Date: September 20, 2007
    Your view:
    In my opionion this issue about global warming and National Security can be looked at as a two prong issue with one resolving the other. On one side (National Security) we have big business who want control of how we power our cars, homes, boats and planes. On the other side (global warming) we are faced with self destruction. If these big companies would just invest in finding a solution to our energy situation that is both friendly to our ecology and the economy at large we will have a perfect solution. however, due to an issue that has and will continue to plague this country it may never come to pass. I am talking about greed and the need to continue things under the status quo. It is appalling that Big business does not care enough about the future. All they are concerned with is the here and now. They can not see past the all-mighty-dollar they are making for their company. They only see that they want to keep there company running even if it means the extinction of mankind. Yes, I am afraid that is what will happen if we don't do something to find a new energy source that is more friendly to the enviornment and this planet. It will not only make it so their company can stay afloot but it will show they are being the leader in helping mankind to survive.

    From: Bud Nolan, Bellingham, WA
    Date: September 19, 2007
    Your view:
    Hi Jack,

    Imagine a USA Where our congress people are kicked out of office and replaced with people who care about the American people.

    Where Bush is recalled and a new vote taken.

    Where we actually put people in charge of our service men and women and they are allowed to do their job. I don't see this happening so I guess we will have to put up with the crap we have, WAKE UP AMERICA. thanks Bud

    From: Jon Ramos, Naperville, IL
    Date: September 19, 2007
    Your view:
    Is it immoral for developed nations to limit emissions of the still developing? To a degree yes, but only if developed nations are not doing their part in researching and developing renewable and/or cleaner energy sources. Irgnoring this "responsilbity" is comparable to the developed world not providing aid, whether it be food or medicine, to the parts of the world ravaged by war, famine, and disease. Because of humanity's increased dependence on technology in this age of globalization, we must to a certain extent regard energy as we do food, water, and shelter.

    From: Nick Brown, Wadhurst, England
    Date: September 19, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming and Climate change are a Civil Defense issue. Globally to deny the human influence on climate is now an anti-patriotic, inhuman and irresponsible act. For that reason politicians around the world, except in the USA, are falling over themselves trying to compete for the Green vote, and trying to porduce more effective policies to combat carbon emissions.

    Why not in the USA? You can only understand the policies of the current US federal government if you realise that they do not represent the interests of the US people. If you understand the federal strategy in terms of maximising profits for big oil over the last 10 years and the next 10 years, then they make perfect sense.

    Sorry, but it looks like your government and your country have been bought.

    No president has ever reduced the World standing of the USA as much as Bush., including Nixon. The death and destruction related to Climate Change in the future may well dwarf Adolf's Hitler's efforts. Bush will go down in history as having made a major contribution to that.

    From: David M, Chesapeake, VA
    Date: September 19, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming is by far the more important, because of the potential to irrevocably harm the environment and destabilize nations. Long term the only solution is conservation and shifting to renewables, in that order. By conservation I mean global lifestyle changes, ranging from elimination of the urban spraw through cessation of building houses miles away from any work, etc) to elimination of the cut and burn in the Amazon to China and India accepting a much slower are responsible growth.

    From: Evan Decker, Pineville
    Date: September 18, 2007
    Your view:
    That question is simple, and can be answered within the question. GLOBAL warming, or NATIONAL security. Which is physically larger? Global warming is the more critical issue on all angles, but when comparing to national security, which is more of a long term danger? Oil is temperary. It is going to dry up, and we will need to change to a different means of energy. So converting is inevidible. It is just, do we do it now or later? How much of a national security issue would it be if most of Florida was under water, or even New Orleans, the city that needs millions of dollars of tax money to repair and upgrade the levies? We have to technology to stop using fossil fuels for energy, why isn't it being applied? It is a new technological age, and by using dirty polluting fossil fuels, is the equivalent of our ancestors refusing to use bronze instead of stones. The U.S. has always had national security. There are agencies who's job it is to ensure it, who receive billions of dollars a year to enforce it. But where are the agencies, and the money, and the fear for global warming?

    From: R. Michael Rice, Fayetteville, NC
    Date: September 18, 2007
    Your view:
    I'm not sure what the debate is here...let's see...GLOBAL warming vs. NATIONAL security. I'm sorry, but there IS no debate. GLOBAL trumps NATIONAL regardless of the nation. GLOBAL impacts everyone and every nation. Period. The act that some nations do not care or do not recognize the concerns or issues of the rest of the world does not change that fact.

    From: Amal Al Rantis, Qatar
    Date: September 18, 2007
    Your view:
    As a start i say that global warming should be our first concerns right now because if we think a bout it just a little bit we would find that global warming would give us the national security in the long run this is one , twe if we starts thinking about china and india as countries having the beggiest population it is our falt or to be specefice the developed countries fault why? because if we continue thinks in this negitive way that we will not make achange starting from us becuse there is other places who don't really concerns about this issue , we will lose because it will make the difference ,we are going to make the difference , because if you want to creat achange starts from your self then you will find every body follow, like when you throw a stone in a lake the circle developed will keep expansion and this is what do we want , then as a developed countries they can use there power to help the developing countries how much difference they are going to make if they changed there behavior i hope the best for all in the future.

    From: Joe Nunnelley Louisville, KY
    Date: September 18, 2007
    Your view:
    It is morally repugnant and socially unacceptable, but the fact of the matter is that the solution to the global warming (and many of the worlds other problems), is that there are too many of us on the planet. Michael Durham of Edmonson, AB, Canada nailed it (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/23/energy.forum/index.html 9/9/2007 blog). This poor planet cannot support any species with the population mass and the technological expertise we have today. We have antibiotics, solutions for many of our major medical maladies, few "major" killing wars, solutions for infant mortalities which help us to multiply exponentially. Although his timing may have been wrong, George Orwell's movie "1984" was also on target. Some way, somehow, we must reduce the earth's population.

    I agree with Mr. Durham that a solution for global warming is fission, but would add that fusion (with disposal of the waste into the earths already radioactive core) might be a short term solution. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy are also technologies we must invest in vigorously in the very near term. Using "biomass" as a "Carbon Neutral" solution, is simply a stopgap. We must vigorously protect the planet's plants and allow them to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere while we stop adding (CO2) into the air. We are currently a "Carbon Positive" species!

    The solution is to not be "Carbon Neutral", but to derive energy from non-carbon sources while at the same time reduce the earths human population. We are smart enough to make it work, now all we have to do is to "make it so"!

    From: shaun white, jacksonville, FL
    Date: September 18, 2007
    Your view:
    Did they make global warming a threat to national security? The problem of global warming needs to be fixed. Global warming will cause deadly storm that we have never seen before and the rise in sea water will make some island disapear. If you need info I would recomend Mr. Gore's book. it hase a ton of information.

    From: G. Arthur Spivey, Birmingham, Alabama
    Date: September 17, 2007
    Your view:
    I believe as we (hopefully) address the peaking of oil production that this will address climate change and this in turn will serve to address security issues. I include military security as but one component of many that make up overall national security.

    If we are to be effective in addressing climate change, I believe we must control greenhouse gases and this means reducing the increase in the production of these gases while dealing with those already present in the atmosphere. This means developed countries who use the lion's share of fossil fuels need to accept a commensurate responsibility in mitigation. And yes, Mr. and Mrs. USA, that means us, too!

    I suggest rather than chastising developing countries for adding to the problem as their use of fossil fuels increases, the more constructive approach would be for developed countries to offer them a more environmentally benign way to build their economies. Perhaps a kind of packaged deal to help them both develop and implement the same new technology developed countries will be working on to solve the existing problem with the aim of helping developing countries understand the issues and not foster a desire to make the same mistakes we did because we, like they, didn't know any better. Today, we know better. We can use trade agreements to reward cooperation. Punishment only angers and fosters retaliation; positive reinforcement ruffles no feathers but rewards friends.

    Another issue that bears on the environment is destruction of the rain forests that are huge natural carbon sinks that we need today more than ever. We have to ask why the forests are being destroyed and help find alternatives because voicing displeasure by itself gets no results because it does not address the underlying cause for deforestation.

    If you study forestry you learn that after oxygen that water rather than wood is probably the most important thing forests produce and global warming threatens our fresh water supply making forests ever more important. Large forests don't make water but they hold, purify, protect, and dispense it while making use of it.

    Offering more constructive alternatives to developing countries will necessarily involve more than mere words and will require financial and technical commitment if we ever expect to get results. It is incumbent upon those who know the problem to ensure everyone involved understands what is at stake in no uncertain terms. Mitigation is not an option and is not a national or an economic issue. Rather, it is a matter of our collective survival and is more important than any other issue between peoples and nations. All our differences pale in comparison.

    If one thing has been made clear to me, it is that we have an abundance of resources and solutions but we probably have a shortage of time. For the sake of argument let us agree to concede Peak Oil and Climate Change are both real and present dangers not only to our way of life but to our very survival. Only when we agree there is a problem that is serious enough to require action and define the problem and propose solutions can we ever hope to deal with it in a meaningful and timely way.

    We need to do this starting locally and proceeding to global action. We can't do this just at home because the reach of the problem exceeds national boundaries so we have to talk to those beyond our borders. This is where people-to-people organizations can perform valuable groundwork that ultimately leads to the all-important government involvement. When a government hears it from another government they may be skeptical of motive, etc., but when they hear it from their own people it can save lots of time and get the ball rolling sooner.

    We need to communicate our problems and solutions and the Internet allows us to do this globally right down to the neighborhoods. Where solutions have proven valuable we need to reward the developers by returning a part of their development cost so they have the means to develop other solutions. Not everyone is a fount of practical ideas but we can all help prime the pump by funding those who are when their solutions are implemented and work well.

    We need sensible, scientifically based but practical solutions and we have universities full of educated and talented people who can develop them and who are capable of making unbiased studies to help governments plan what to do to create the environment to encourage and not impede the solutions we need. We need a fast track to modify or strike down laws that make harmless solutions illegal or impede major environmental efforts. Something like environmental arbitration as a friend of the court.

    We need to understand and use the tax system to provide incentives for positive contributions to mitigation and to provide disincentives for negative contributions. We are either part of the solution or part of the problem and sometimes just doing nothing contributes to the problem. We need to move forward but at a sustainable pace that will not collapse our economy so we need mandatory but reasonable goals and rewards when they are met great enough to ensure they are met.

    Because enabling and regulating legislation will form an important role in crafting solutions, we need to use the power of the vote to retain in office only those who understand and are working on the problem and to remove from office all those who do not represent the views and concerns of those who elected them. It is high time we had a government that works and not one that must be driven to meet its responsibilities by the courts.

    There is a huge amount of innocent-seeming misinformation being generated by the special interests and this needs to be countered with the full truth and not the half-truths they employ. This effort is necessary because misinformation is delaying action on our problems by promoting a false sense of security that makes it hard to convince voters to vote in their own best interests.

    Implementing any solution involves energy and materials which require energy to produce. We need a standardized way to evaluate the costs as well as the benefits of any solution so the solution will not be worse than the problem.

    We need to apply the principle of triage to keep our resources focused where they will deliver the fastest and most productive results. We have to realize there is no magic bullet and we need a machine gun rather than a rifle so we need to advance every promising solution where that solution makes the most sense and this will not be the same everywhere. What works in hot, dry climates will not necessarily be the same as what works in cooler more humid climates just as what works at the seashore will not necessarily work in the mountains. In short, we need to fit solutions to the locality.

    As we look at solutions we need to be mindful of the scale of this problem and the unprecedented amount of material resources that will be required. If we need a resource in a volume that cannot be supplied then the solution using this resource cannot succeed at its maximum potential. This must be a factor in the evaluation of any solution so if we need alternatives they can be developed.

    To this end, we may need to stamp a bar code representing content on each piece of material assemblies are composed of to facilitate inventory maintenance and disposal. We may need to know what material is being produced and in what volume and where it is going and how it is being used. We may need to first electrify transportation and then set up regional recycling centers to separate material by the code stamp and place it into a national inventory industry can draw upon.

    We also need to have the cost of what we buy prepay the cost of disposal or recycling so recycling centers can cover their legitimate costs and we can avoid using landfills when we don't have to. The sale of recycled materials should serve to keep the disposal charge low and sales feedback should identify what disposal fee is appropriate for each product sold. Since the disposal fee increases the selling price it will have an ultimate influence on the choice of materials from which goods are made.

    We need to evaluate critically from a material and energy cost the value and critical need of a material candidate for recycling to determine what is the least cost method consistent with strategic importance of the material to mitigation. We have seen, for example, plastic soda bottles are not recycled into new bottles but are used to produce other goods such as carpeting. Broken glass does not necessarily find its way into new bottles but may be mixed with cement or asphalt. One consideration involving recycling is that it is not necessarily cheaper to recycle but we may need to balance this against sending material to landfills because there is a cost to society there, too.

    The problems we face cannot be left to fester but must be addressed and we have to realize there will be a cost, that it will be significant, and we will have to pay it or pass into history. We have all manner of resources available but they will never assemble themselves into solutions. We have to call the shots, we have to do the work, and we have to pay the price. But ignoring this problem will not make it go away, I promise you!

    Or, if we do not want to lift a finger we can let Nature solve the problem by removing us from the planet by droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, starvation, etc. and the remnant that remains may pay more attention to what they are doing and learn to live with rather than in spite of Nature. The forces of nature are neither beneficent nor malevolent; they are simply indifferent. Our problem is we have been indifferent, too, and it is in our best interests to change our attitude seeing we cannot change Nature's.

    From: Carol Black, Irving, TX
    Date: September 17, 2007
    Your view:
    Which concerns you more -- the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, or energy as an issue of national security? Answer: Fossil fuels on global warming concerns me more. The sooner we run out of dirty CO2 the better. Solar is a better alternative and we should try to implement it in our homes and businesses. And we should develope it before we run out of choices.

    How can we solve these challenges? Absoulutely.

    Should we invest in securing the remaining sources of oil, coal and gas, or developing renewable fuels and technologies? Both, but lower percentage of investment on fossil fuels.

    How far can renewable fuels meet our energy needs? Even a small percentage would be better than being totally depentent of fossil fuels.

    Is it morally right for developed countries to ask developing countries to restrict their emissions? Good luck with that one. I can't even get my neighbor to turn his music down.

    Are you hopeful that we can avert an energy crisis? Yes.

    From: James Lundquist, Tucson, AZ
    Date: September 17, 2007
    Your view:
    There is absolutely no reason why the Southwestern United States should not become the 'Saudi Arabia' of Solar Power. The advances in solar technologies, such as Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) systems and photovoltaic panels, make places like Arizona, Nevada, and Southern California ideal locations for a vast expanse of solar power plants.

    From: Sara Engman, Everett, WA
    Date: September 17, 2007
    Your view:
    For a long time now I have felt that the Global Warming issue is far more pressing than National Security. After all, its our children's and grandchildren's future we're talking about here. And up until recently I have felt rather alone in my views on the subject. But reading these emails gives me hope for the future. So...what to do about it? I think the first thing we need to do as Americans is take matters into our own hands. Yes, I agree that George W. Bush is an abyssmal leader in general, and particularly horrible when it comes to environmental issues. But instead of complaining that he hasn't done much to curb global warming, maybe we should look closer at what we can do on the individual level. If you don't like your energy bill every month, make an initial investment and install some solar panels on your roof. It will help in the long run and it is better for the environment. Drive a hybrid (or at least something fuel efficient) rather than a Hummer. Plant a tree. Recycle. Write to any congressman or woman you can think of that would be sympathetic to this cause. In general, just do whatever you can. I love to complain about old Bushie as much as the next person, but I don't feel like I would be taking much responsibility if I didn't do what I could to help the environment. We have to take matters into our own hands. The good old boys club isn't going to do it for us.

    From: John Lohmann, Little Rock, AR
    Date: September 17, 2007
    Your view:
    In my opinion, too many people are ignoring the history of the world. Yes the climate is changing, it always has and it always will. It changed literally overnight early in the first century and man had nothing to do with it. Should we do what we can to take care of the environment and mother earth: absolutely we should! Should we send the world into economic chaos to do it overnight: absolutely not! The earth has proven time and time again to be very resilient and I seriously doubt any of the quick solutions will solve the problem. Let's face it; one good volcanic eruption would undo all that man could possibly do and then some.

    What approach should we take? I have always found that a measured response is the best way to go. Measured in that we should develop alternative fuels and move away from fossil fuels as we build the appropriate infrastructure to support the alternatives. It will take time for this to take place; it is not an overnight solution. So far, I've see too many people ignore too many facts because they did not fit with their agenda.

    Is energy a national security issue? It absolutely is. Without energy the country stops. We don't heat our homes in the winter, we don't cool them in the summer, we don't go to work, and even if we could walk to work, most could not afford our goods and services, and under such conditions, the vast majority of the goods and services available in the US today would be worthless anyway. The country would fall back into the dark ages without energy. It's very easy for people to sit in their nice warm home and point fingers and make all kinds of statements about what we should do to fix the energy problems; however at the end of the day the vast majority of those same people would be the first to point fingers at the government when the lights went out rather than admit it was their own ideas on energy that killed the economy. Take a look at Three-Mile-Island. When the nuclear plants failed, many of the people who lived near the plant were against Nuclear Energy. However, it was only a few years later that I saw many of these same people on TV complaining about their high energy bills and how much lower they were when Three-Mile-Island was producing electricity. As my Mother used to say, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

    From: Scott Cooper, Bargersville, IN
    Date: September 15, 2007
    Your view:
    National security is definitely more important; hasn't anyone in the media heard of the cyclic nature of weather patterns? In another 100 years the concern will be global cooling, and so on and so on...

    From: Peter Boome, Shelton, WA
    Date: September 15, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming IS a National Security problem. Our nation was attacked by a criminal organization. In response to a crime our government decided to use military action against a sovereign nation. Yet when faced with the very real threat of global climate change, our government has responded by dismissing the best available science, obfuscating the truth and distracting the public from the fact that the very environment where we live is changing at such a rapid pace that it very likely will not be able to support life as we know it. It seems only logical that the biggest threat from to life as we know it isn't from organized criminal elements as much as it is from the destruction of the very places that support our life, places we call home.

    From: S. Dudley, Fernandina Beach, FL
    Date: September 14, 2007
    Your view:
    As far as national security and global warming go, I don't think the solutions are mutually exclusive.

    If we decrease oil consumption, we clean up our environment and quit sending money (via our fuel purchases) to those nations whose population appears to be bent on our distruction. Take away their oil money and how do the terrorists pay for their activities?

    Granted, China and India may take up the slack, but, at least we won't be orchestrating our own demise evironmentally or financially.

    It's time we flexed the only true muscle we have; if we don't buy their product, they have no money to buy plutonium and we clean up our environment. It's win-win to me.

    From: mary mead, morgantown, NJ
    Date: September 14, 2007
    Your view:
    We all know why oil is so important to the President because his family is the fourth richest oil family in the U.S. We also know that Bush has decided that fighting an imaginary war he made up to make money is more important than the planet we live. It is quite clear to anyone who lives in the U.S. that the climate is changing and we don't need to be a scientist to figure it out. So my question is this, How important is money and oil, when there will be no one on the planet to impress?

    From: John Fleming, Cleveland, OH
    Date: September 14, 2007
    Your view:
    Security means nothing if we have no world to secure for our children. We needs to take the rights steps as a leader in this world to significantly develop climate safe technologies, pollution controls without higher costs to consumers and re-usable fuels.

    How far would $2 trillion dollars (the projected cost of the IRAQI War) have helped this country in developing new technoligies in energy, automobile and transportation, pollution controls, and re-building our crumbling infrastructure, let alone the positive aspects it would have on our economy.

    Our U.S. Government gives General Motors a grant of $60 Million dollars for research and development in climate safe car technoligies. That is not even a drop in a bucket. We need leadership that will aggressively attack our issues for the economic safety of our country and personal safety and health of our children.

    From: Jacquie Clement, Haviland, ON, Canada
    Date: September 14, 2007
    Your view:
    well, to me this feels like a no-brainer...if we're talking about the U.S. and their national security. I guess that if good old George W. had not completely, entirely, and irrevocably changed, for the worse, the national and otherwise security of this whole world, the U.S. would have just billions and billions or more money, and perhaps our behemoth neighbour (that's right: "oUr") to the south could have done something truly great, which would have been to use her then world-respected leadership and resources, to set a fine example, and lead the world in the truly important "fight" against global warming. So I'd say, and I hope you'll print me, that there is nothing so important today as the fight against the deleterious climactic effects of large countries (that would be them, again) on the environment.

    Why in "heck" you Americans have not yet impeached his, and Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's, and other's, to say it nicely, butts, we'll never understand up here (THANK GOD, AND VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!!). It's just such a shame that the U.S. pulls all of the rest of us to hell on a hand-cart. Why??? I've thought about this a lot, and I think that it is the American's BLIND PATRIOTISM. Yes: BLIND and yes, blind PATRIOTISM. Where are the thinking people down there?

    I, as a Canadian nurse, drove down at my expense entirely, with a full truck-load of supplies, and my therapy dog, to help after Hurricane Katrina. I met some darn-fine people down there. To be fair, I don't think that George Bush's America, is their America. So, America, why in "heck" are you still letting yourselves be "shocked and awed" by such a moron? Canadians knew what a "butt" he was from the get-go. Our not being, and never agreeing, to go to Iraq, was not by accident. I hope that whoever chooses which emails to post, has the ability to see mine as an interesting (and not uncommon up here!) viewpoint. I think that the Americans need the smelling-salts to come to, and save their almost dead, in every way, country (you asked!!!!)

    From: David Evarts, Leesburg, GA
    Date: September 13, 2007
    Your view:
    I believe that it is imperative that we find and use more alternative fuels. And NOT Ehtanol, as this would still put a large amount of dangerous toxins in the environment. Global warming is a major WORLD issue. If we do not do enough, if we do not pass new laws to protect the environment, we will cause global flooding, loss of lives, just to start. Think of our children for God's sake! Do we really want our children to have to deal with the problems we are creating by being stupid!

    However, I also believe sucurity and global warming are intertwined. You cannot have absolute security if you are dependant on foreign oil. I fully believe if we had dedicated ourselves to creating alternative fuels sooner, we might not be in the mideast fighting terrorism now as we would have had no reason to go and we could have curtailed the global warming disaster before it became a problem.

    I guess my main frustration, as I am sure alot of people feel the same, is that our politicians it seems DO NOT CARE!!! Bickering like kids seems to be their fortay.

    From: Steven Cotton, Saint Charles, MO
    Date: September 13, 2007
    Your view:
    This is the wrong question. The real question is when are we going to solve the real problem which is overpopulation. Never mind global warming, the Earth cannot survive given the current rate of population growth. Depopulation is a necessity, not an option. Fewer people = less greenhouse gasses (and everyone seems to politely ignore methane -- a very high efficiency greenhouse gas compared to CO2). Fewer people = less ruminant animals which are a large producer of methane. Fewer people = less Wood Structures and termites are another large producer of methane. Fewer people = less insects (insects may be the single largest source of methane). Fewer people = more greenhouse gas gobbling forests. Only with depopulation, can we sustain life on this planet as we know it and permit developing (and grossly overpopulated in most cases) countries to attain the standards of living of the developed world. If we continue at this rate, China alone will account for nearly 10 times the greenhouse gas production of the U.S. if China were to attain current standards of living -- and irreversible runaway global warming. Depopulation is likely to be mandatory as climate change in the world's "bread baskets" drastically reduces yields and famines become commonplace even in the developed world. Nature has been "hunting" for a way to control humans with the relatively recent introductions of diseases like AIDS, Ebola, Marburg, SARS, the Plague and new strains of Influenza. It is crass, but what the world really needs at this point are frequent Influenza pandemics (like 1917-1919) over the next decade or so. I believe nature will succeed even if mankind is unable to effectively come to a voluntary solution! Fewer people = less competition for limited resources and that clearly leads to less conflict. Overpopulation is a guarantee for ever increasing global insecurity!

    Silent Spring was published in 1962 and most scientists at that time agreed that overpopulation (and the side effects of overpopulation, one of which is global warming) would eventually destroy the planet (and perhaps civilization) and they agreed that drastic measures would be needed if the Earth were to survive as a place to sustain life. The population at that time was considered to be unsustainable. The nations of the world could not agree on how to effectively reduce growth rates let alone work towards depopulation. With more competition for ever scarcer resources, what makes me think that the world will wake up to the real problem. We are now faced with global warming, crashing populations in the world's fisheries, imminent loss of our breadbaskets, and massive irreversible reductions in the diversity, quantity and quality of non-human life on this planet. As glaciers melt, the sources of fresh water for large populations of humanity will literally evaporate. We are depleting oil which may be the most valuable resource on the planet for all manner of uses besides burning. I believe that some or all of these problems could have been mitigated or avoided if only we were willing to reduce population growth to zero. China implemented Draconian measures in an attempt to reduce population growth but even more Draconian measures are likely to be necessary to depopulate and save the Earth. The real problem is there are too many of us and life spans worldwide have increased dramatically since 1962. Science Fiction stories with themes of population control along the lines of Logan's Run may prove to be more prophetic than we would like. Religions aside, mandatory population control is an absolute necessity if we are to have any chance to reverse global warming.

    From: Gordon Longerbeam, Livermore, CA
    Date: September 12, 2007
    Your view:
    It is misleading to talk of global warming and national security as two separate issues. And. you can throw in economic security and balance-of-trade. The four sub-sets of the same issue also have the same solution - CONSERVATION.

    From: Kay Johnson, New Port Richey, FL
    Date: September 12, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming, no question about it! Terrorism is a relativiely short term problem in comparison. Also far less costly and difficult to deal with. GW is also a world wide phenonom ,not a multi-regional concern. More people are affected and more economies disrupted.

    There's also the issue of critical mass. If GW proceeds to far is could be life extinction event. Few people seem to comprehend that global warming is a critical mass scenario. Once it progresses to far it can't be reversed and/or will speed up far beyond humanities ability to deal with the devestating changes. Resulting in an environment incapable of supporting life as we know it. I realize that sounds like a sci-fi / disaster movie but it's NOT. Part of the problem is Americans have seen too many disaster films. They can't relate it to reality anymore.

    From: steve robbins, arvada, CO
    Date: September 12, 2007
    Your view:
    Q. Are you hopeful that we can avert an energy crisis?

    A. I've been looking into this for about two years. There is no way we can avoid an energy crisis. The only question is whether we can avoid a catastrophic environmental crisis while responding to the energy crisis. Fossil fuels are addictive because they provide a quick easy fix - hence a short term solution. Renewable energy & environmentally sound solutions are great but require long term thinking. In the 1970's we were able to solve the problem of US "peak oil" production by buying other countries' oil. A practice we continue today, but will not be able to continue once exporting countries decide not to share or run dry. And once cut off, we will milk oil out of tar sands and shale. Both of which will provide oil, but at a staggering environmental cost. If we care what kind of world we leave our kids, we won't go down that path. But that will require long term thinking and discipline, which is tough for a generation that has never know hardship. Steve in Arvada, Co

    From: Tom Marks, Alexander, NY
    Date: September 12, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming is not coming, it is here. We need to start doing everything we can if we have any hopes of reversing its effects. The artic is melting to all time lows, and the winters are definitly easier. Until we get International and Domestic leaders who are willing to fight for the good of the planet, not just the good of there approval ratings, we don't have a hope.

    From: Ben Wright, Iowa City, IA
    Date: September 12, 2007
    Your view:
    I think most of the comments have hit on the right idea that these two issues are actually the same issue anymore. It is interesting that most have not attempted to answer the question of whether or not it is moral for us to tell a developing country not to walk the path we did that lead to such great success.

    As the oldest of three brothers, I can easily say that I feel a responsibility to warn my younger siblings about bad decisions I've made when I see them wandering in the same direction. Knowing the effects of the path we have taken, it would be irresponsible for us to NOT attempt to divert other nations to a less destructive option.

    Making a poor choice is not OK, and the other nations have no moral standing when their excuse for making a poor choice is "he did it first!"

    They are simply riding the coattails of the past hoping to "cath up" by utilizing dated technologies. If they really want to catch up and get ahead, they need to expend some effort and find ways to innovate rather than recreating things that others have already done, and reinforcing the damage those technologies have already inflicted.

    From: Devon Guralnick, London, England
    Date: September 11, 2007
    Your view:
    Considering the fact that according to observations constantly being made our world that we know today is falling apart we might have to think about the WORLD before we think about ourselves. The leaders of the world need to come together and a make a difference to save our world before its too late!

    From: robert hansen, Chico, CA
    Date: September 11, 2007
    Your view:
    Security first, complete the war on terrorism.

    From: Amanda R., Newark, DE
    Date: September 11, 2007
    Your view:
    I may only be in the ninth grade, but i think it is clear that these gases and emissions are kiling our planet! It's not only congress that has decicions! We all have a say. We can protest! We can let everyone know how we feel about Global Warming! Do you want our grand children to see this world?!

    From: Chris Smith, Albuquerqu, NM
    Date: September 11, 2007
    Your view:
    Currently, fossil fuels is a very big part of our national security at the moment and there is no denying that. So, our challenge is to guarentee the availability of oil while developing effective alternative energy. A 50/50 balance should be looked at here.

    Right now, we have not EFFECTIVE alternative energy to oil, so the arguments to "switch to (insert your favorite green energy here)" are mute. We need "something new". We need to invest alot more into finding that "something new".

    We can't ask anyone NOT to use energy. Not even ourselves. That is pointless. You might as well as ask people not to breath as much.

    The sooner we find a viable "clean(er)" energy source, the sooner we can get the developing nations to switch.

    Unfortunatly, with man-kind, Nessisity has been the Mother of Invention. And it will probably take a major energy crisis to get the world to spend it's time and resources in discovering the next Energy.

    From: Zack Wheeler, Seattle, WA
    Date: September 11, 2007
    Your view:
    They should do... I feel that... We need to... I've stopped prefacing statements with these because the fact of the matter is... we won't. America will continue to do what it does best: consume and deplete. We have never learned from our mistakes and we never will. We never plan for a situation, only react to one. There is absolutely NO form of energy we can ramp up to match oil capacity by 2020. That's a fact, do your research. Hydrogen, solar, nuclear, methane, hydro, wind, new technology, n-o-t-h-i-n-g. There is no magic cure, either the cost is too great or the technology is too far behind. Make no mistage about it, we're in resource wars, indefinitely. Our troops will never leave Iraq. Why else would Russia be looking for oil in the Arctic? The concept of Peak Oil is by far the most frightening issue I have ever had the misfortune of researching. Industrialized society has allowed the Earth to balloon from less than 1 billion to over 7 billion in a single century. Non-industrialized Earth can handle 1, maybe 2 billion tops. When oil goes away (not if), guess what's following it. THAT is my concern. THAT is the scary part. At least it's an exciting time to be alive. I'm going to live to see the single greatest economic collapse and the most devastating depression in human history. And the best part, Mother Nature is in the driver's seat.

    From: Paul Miller, Hazlet, NJ
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    National Security? The only way to secure the nation is to stop pissing the rest of the world off. And that doesn't cost $1. So how is this even an issue? If congress actually cared about national security they wouldn't give money and weapons to countries whom they later decide are a threat, no matter how absurd said threat is. Furthermore, they wouldn't go around the globe and try to force people to accept our form of government or face an attack. If we kept our troops in OUR country where they can actually defend OUR citizens then no one would ever have a problem with us and we would be secure. Simple as that. But that doesn't raise the stocks of companies in which Mr. Chaney has investments in.

    The real issue we as Americans face (in regards to the two listed here) is energy. Not just energy but energy which won't hurt the environment. Oil is no efficient and expensive. And the main reason it's so expensive is because America can't ever seem to use enough of it. We use and use and use until there is very little left to use. Then we jack up the rates because after all who cares about coasts of living when you can make a few dollars extra? California is building a rather large solar farm, and there is no reason why the rest of the country isn't producing solar and wind farms. This country does not need to be dependent upon oil. Only a few companies do.

    From: Craig Nazor, Austin, TX
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    Global climate change is happening. There are two polarities in the continuum of ways to face this: as individual countries promoting our own self-interest (sometimes refered to as "National Security") or as an entire world ecosystem working synergistically to prevent catastrophe. This presents a moral delimma. As it is right now, small island nations that produce little global warming pollution could legitimately conclude that countries like the US do not care if the oceans swallow up most of their land. If this were happening to the US, what would our reaction be? In the near future, if we don't act like the integrated ecosystem that earth truly is, I'm afraid our future will be one of war, famine, and huge refugee populations until we finally realize that we are all a part of the same global community. There really is no other moral choice.

    From: Ariel Shaw, Ann Arbor, MI
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    These issues have the same solution and the artificial division into an either/or question perpetuates the problems the world is facing. There are renewable energy technologies available to Americans which will eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of fuel from potentially unfriendly regimes. These are the same sources of renewable energy which can reduce or eliminate global warming emissions if America is willing to take the steps necessary to ensure their success. By investing in renewable energy available right here in the United States, America is also investing in its local economies, keeping many billions of dollars in the country rather than spending it on oil from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, as well as stimulating the renewable energy manufacturing industries around the world to invest in America's economy as it installs these technologies. The alternative to this investment is a business-as-usual approach which ultimately leads to a future of conflict ! as resources of all kinds become scarce, further endangering America's quality of life as well as our national security.

    From: Kim Rolland, Widener, AR
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    Regardless of the doom and gloom being preached about the damage we are doing to the environment, and regardless of anyone's agenda or personal belief on the matter, the sad reality is that as long as there remains abundant, relatively inexpensive energy to be had we are not likely to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Not by 2020 anyway.

    Perhaps the best thing that could happen in terms of finding new ways to generate and store energy would be $5.00 per gallon gasoline in the US. Such a burden on the economy would trickle down to every level, and affect virtually ever man women and child in this country. It would provide ample motivation to get the creative and inventive juices flowing throughout a broad spectrum of society in both the private and business sectors. I believe breakthrough technologies would result which "Big Oil" would be powerless to quell. (Do you think perhaps that's why we don't have $5 gas in the US??)

    So what will the nature of the breakthrough technology look like? CNN may have reported a glimpse of it today. A "battery-like" device has just been patented that reportedly is able to recharge in minutes and run a vehicle for hours. If it lives up to its billing, such an energy storage system combined with ultra-efficient electric motor technology now available could revolutionize the transportation industries. It would certainly be a step in the right direction.

    From: Jim Hays, Wynnewood, PA
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    I think the overall impact on the environment should be looked at, rather than just global warming, after all one of the biggest greenhouse gases is water vapor. There is also economic security, remember how when oil prices go up, so does the cost of everything else (it requires gas to transport goods to market).

    We should look to do away with all non renewable sources of power, however we also need to find quick fixes to carry us over until those new renewable resources are found.

    Developing more efficient and safer nuclear plants (gravel bed reactors) would definitly help, however fusion power would be the silver bullet that would allow us to rid ourselves of our thirst for oil, as long as Detriot can make an electric car.

    Current renewable energy technology can only get us so far, we need another leap such as prices on solar cells dropping. However even if everyone had roofs made of solar cells we would still need more electricity.

    From: Phil Westcott, New Market, MD
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    Instead of spending $142 billion earmarked for war funds for fiscal year 2008, why don't we just spend it all on trying solve our pending energy crisis and stop (or better yet, REVERSE) the damage being done by global warming. You can accomplish just about anything with that amount of money, except the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    From: Josh Strege, Grand Forks, ND
    Date: September 10, 2007
    Your view:
    By 2020, the U.S. will depend predominantly on coal for our energy, both electrical and in the form of liquid fuels (by the Fischer-Tropsch process already used in South Africa and being researched or developed by essentially every major energy company with business in the U.S.). Biofuels will never play a major role in transportation fuels simply because we cannot sustainably harvest enough cellulose to make ethanol or crop oil to make biodiesel or green diesel for the entire nation. People will probably not remember that there was an energy crisis in the first decade of the millennium by 2020, so little research will be conducted. By 2040, we will have mined all of the useful coal near the surface. This is not to say that we will have mined a majority of the U.S.'s coal resources; it is to say that the vast amount of remaining coal will be uneconomical to safely collect and transport. By 2040, solar panels that have only recently been developed with efficiencies of 40% or higher should be relatively cheap and will probably enjoy a lot of popularity once they are mass-produced. I suspect that the coal industry will fight this change just as any industry fights such changes, but eventually solar will win out. Nuclear will not play a big role beyond the near future because, even today, only one spot in North America is known to have uranium reserves of greater than 1% purity, and this source (which is in Canada) is proving difficult to mine due to water infiltration. Today, much of our nuclear reactor fuel comes from recycled nuclear weapons. By 2020 or 2040, even these may be depleted, and nuclear will simply not be an option once we are out of any uranium deposits that can be recovered at low cost. Fusion may play a role if it is ever successfully demonstrated, but it is a technology that can only be a net producer on a sufficiently large scale. For remote areas or areas with low electrical demand per square mile (such as the Midwest), the economics of constructing a fusion plant would not make sense, either because the plant would be grossly oversized or because the payback period would be close to the expected lifetime of the plant. So, in short, expect coal for the next few decades, then solar.

    From: Justin Farino, Marietta, USA
    Date: September 9, 2007
    Your view:
    Which concerns you more -- the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, or energy as an issue of national security?

    -Personally I think they are inseperably related. Global Warming is a cuase of our use of fossil fuels, and because these fuels are dwindleing they are becoming national security concerns. The solution is stop using these fuels and look for other means. Of course everyone knows this, but it will inturn then no longer be a problem for our country (goodbye national security problem too**). Unfortunately, with the world arguing over when the world will end, no one seems brilliant enough to try and do something about it.

    Should we invest in securing the remaining sources of oil, coal and gas, or developing renewable fuels and technologies?

    -Both, until we can achieve cleaner more reliable energy sources we need to keep safe the limited supply we have. This does not mean going to extremes, because one way or another they will run out so we need to work on our new fuels more so than we need to protect the "as good as gone" ones.

    How far can renewable fuels meet our energy needs?

    -This depends on the willingness there is to convert and to invent. Synthetic material is only as good as the maker wants. If we really wanted to change it would be all too easy.

    Is it morally right for developed countries to ask developing countries to restrict their emissions?

    -Yes and no. No because they have everyright to success and doing the way we did seems to work so no wonder they feel they should try too. Yes, because unlike us, they don't seem to realize the problems it would cuase. We were the test subjects who came out benefiting, but now it seems that we made a mistake, and in trying to benefit everyone (including our descendants), we have to try to stop the use of these fuels.

    Are you hopeful that we can avert an energy crisis?

    -Energy crisis...... if our politicians can pull together and stop complaining that their SUV's are too small, or their BMW's don't go fast enough, or their Limo isn't long enough, then we might be able to start cooperating on finding new energy sources. The few who have started (private or commercial groups) have been relatively successfull. However, with more government aid and funding they would be able to accomplish much more.

    I'm turning 17 this November, I'm not an adult, and most would say that there is no way I could possibly know what I'm talking about being so obviously immature due to age differences. However I'd be willing to bet I know more about this subject than do most Americans. Why? Becaus if the current "adults" screw this up, my future looks like it may very well suck beyond comparison. You say "when we were kids we had to walk to school 3 or 4 miles or we didn't have the comfort of air conditioning." Well, thats nothing if I have to say "when we were growing up we had air conditioning but it didn't help." or god forbid I have to say to my children "I'm sorry kids, theres no such a thing as a polar bear anymore, nor are there icebergs, Louisianna sank like Atlantis, you should have seen Florida while it had beaches, and the sea doesn't make seashells anymore. Its all my father's and my grandfather's generation's fault, they couldn't solve anything because they argued too much and !

    all that stuff just went away."

    If you all could just realize the problems we are facing.. we could actually save our race. But at current speed, if this keeps up, maybe the next species will wonder what a human looked like. Remember, you only have save the lives that are important. (everyone)

    From: Brennan Jorgensen, Englewood, FL
    Date: September 9, 2007
    Your view:
    The thought of having to pursue fossil fuels has now become completely absurd. The world's subtropical deserts receive enough annual solar energy to easily supply over 100 times the world's total energy needs and the technology to capture this energy has existed for the last 25 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, if a square area of solar concentrators, 100 by 100 miles long on each side were constructed in the Southwestern U.S. desert it could supply the entire U.S. with virtually free electricity after a one-time capital investment. This area would be roughly 9 % of the size of Nevada. A strategic project like this would also provide the U.S. with nearly absolute energy security independence without any carbon emissions. Current solar to electricity conversions have now reached over 40%. Essentially a NESG Grid (A National Energy Security Grid-as I call it) would provide an excellent source of domestic energy security and climatic security to some extent through reduced carbon emissions.

    From: Kyle Rosen, Athens, GA
    Date: September 9, 2007
    Your view:
    The debate should not be about global warming "or" national security because both are intertwined together. For example, if nothing is done soon about global warming then national security will be at stake i.e. extreme heat, floods, droughts, etc. Stopping global warming or lessening its effects is but a piece to national security because we are not secure until this problem is taken care of.

    From: Emanuel Sungging, Bandung, Indonesia
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    The energy problem is no longer the issue of environment nor the nationality (& national security), but we have to see as the problem of humanity. So if one say energy crisis, it is crisis of humanity - sustainibility & survivability.

    Developing country has the right to develop themself, that is including the right to use the energy by any way they think necessary, that is including the emission, otherwise, there is no development. But the emission problem cannot be isolated as a local problem, no matter how small the quantity, the emission is the problem for the globe. So, for the developed country, it would be unfair to restrict the emission from developing country, while the developed country continue to puff the air with heavy & heavier emission. Unfair in ecology, unfair in economy.

    Energy alternative? It could be an utopian dream for some, it could be a time-bomb for other , it could be anything. But if we do not try to sit together and think together the alternative, we would be like a dog chasing it tail. Energy crisis is there, whether we want to believe or not, that is the mark of humanity. It is the true test for humanity.

    Too costy? Sooner or later, fossil fuels will run out, on the other end, the environment is on hanging thread, so, better to do something to have the alternatives, rather than someday human will have no place they call home? So, why bother about nationality? Why bother about economy? Why bother about political power? Why bother about national security? Ironically speaking, sooner or later we all face the extinction.

    From: Chrissy Jackson, Parkersburg, WV
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming and national security are intrinsically linked. If we have to depend on other countries for fuel then we lack the power of independence and freedom for which we built our country on. If we continue to ignore global warming, our impact on the environment (including our land), and the option of alternative fuels, then we will untimately loose power as the strongest nation in the world. We must stop our dependence on other countries, not just in relation to fuel, but also in goods. If we were totally cut off from other countries, would we survive as a country? Would we be able to feed our people? Would we be able to make our own goods? Sadly, I think the answers to these questions are no. We should be able to support ourselves 100% if needed. Because of this, we NEED to secure alternative energy sources in our own country. This does not, however, mean digging up oil on our land. If you have ever seen the devistation that coal mines and oil fields bring t! o an ecosystem, you can see why we need to find other energies as well as other ways to spend energy. When it comes to energy, there is not right or wrong answer and there is no one right fuel. We must bring more diversity to our fuel and energy alternatives (oil, coal, natural gas, battery power, harnassing the sun's rays, methane, etc...). If we don't, we will lack true freedom until we do.

    From: Jessica Smith, Austin, TX
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    What good will national security do for us when mother earth is riding herself of the burden of man. We can stop the speed of our destruction or we can focus on protecting ourselves from the product of our own medaling. In focusing on our planet we help the whole of the earth. The US needs to wake up out of this lip gloss, fast car way of life.

    From: John Warren, Kirkland, WA
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    Asking whether reducing our dependancy on fossil fuels is important because of global warming, or security issues seems immaterial, and more of a divide and conquer tactic than anything else.

    Whatever happens to us, the earth will remain, the question should be, do we want to be around in the future? If we are all killed in nuclear war, or if we all die from increasing heat, and pollution, it matters not. The fact is that we need to remember that the earth is finite, and ever expanding economies all over the world are taking larger chunks out of that finite resource each year.

    We need to take control over the destiny of our species, and wrest it away from the power elite, who consume huge amounts of resources, far beyond their needs. They do this while others starve, are sent to war, drink polluted water, and breathe caustic air, all in the name of ever expanding economies, and personal wealth accumulation.

    That is the real question, are we going to sit back while all of this continues, or are we going to take control of our "democracy", and make it actually represent the will of the people?

    From: Steve Hoffer, Worcester, MA
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    We need to wake up! Our infrastructure revolves around oil. At current consumption rates, the younger people of the world will see the end of oil as a primary fuel source -- that is not even debated!!--. We need to attack this issue! Corn will not support the future energy needs of our economy. The inevitable restructuring of our infrastructure will be costly by any route, but if we wait for the problem to fall in our laps, our economy, the world economy, will be devastated. Other countries are taking steps, reducing their dependency, and so must we! This is all before we even consider the ecological considerations. Yes, we probably wont destroy the planet, but the science overwhelmingly points in one direction. Regardless, --at least-- an economic storm is approaching. So do we sit and watch as it approaches and only "think" to act once it is upon us? I know I don't want to get caught unprepared.

    From: James Smedley, Buthiers, France
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    Referring to the question about an impending energy crisis and global warming, I find it hypocritical that the question is even considered. Why does a nation founded on the ideal that every human being is equal allow itself to consume more fossil fuels and create more greenhouse gasses per capita than any other nation? Any effort to share (carpooling/public transport...), is certainly worth the inconvenience it imposes. Finding and developing alternative "clean" forms of energy, parallely, are worth the cost they impose. The US has the potential to become the world leader in enviornmental responsible living. My expectation is that it will eventually rise to take its place, hopefully before it's too late.

    From: Greg Cross, Willoughby, OH
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    This is pretty much a no brainer - if we don't do something about global warming now, there wont be any future energy crises, as there will be NO FUTURE. All the idiot-speak about balancing environmental issues against business need is ridiculous to the point of the absurd. WHAT BUSINESS NEED? selling to cockroaches? (which, interestingly enough, won't do to well without us). If we do not act to prevent the catastrophic changes coming due to Global Climate Change, we are all well and truly doomed and no amount of money in the world is going to save us - and we are also not going to just "poof" come up with some miracle way to save the planet - well, we probably could, but no doubt the Bushies of the worl will say it's too expensive and we'll all still die. I consider this to be the ultimate adventure in living Darwinism; As a species are we too stupid to save ourselves? So far, it's not looking too good. And just think how much research could have been done with the 3.9 trillion dollars we've spent in Iraq since 2003.....

    From: Edwin Knight, Seoul, South Korea
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    The way you have framed the debate is moot; all of these things are important and need serious attention. How everyone starts today is by cutting their personal consumption of all energy by 10~20%. Set an example and encourage it worldwide. So you take a bus twice a week, is that so tough? Imagine if you opted to take the bus every day, or arranged a serious carpool. How about turning off some lights, especially in unused office towers at night; using fewer appliances, and less frequently. Think a little bit. It's not so tough. What would happen? Everyone wins.

    From: Paul Manwell, San Francisco, CA
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    Dear CNN -

    I am a firm believer that global warming and other environmental concerns are far greater that national energy policy. Whilst national energy policy affects a country's economic growth and development - this growth, when taking a long term perspective (decades vs. years) is temporary, and often corrective through the economic cycle. However, the strain the world's continually growing population puts on our relatively finite resources - clean water, clear air, moderate climate - is significantly more permanent. The downside of the first is stunted economic development for one or more countries - including a relatively lower standard of living for the people living in them. Whereas the downside for the latter is an unlivable planet for us all. While this feels like melodrama - I keep thinking back to high school biology, when we would grow bacteria in petri dishes - the bacteria would grow rapidly until they consumed all the agar in the dish, then the entire colony dies.!

    It is frustrating, because one can understand why it is hard for most people to focus on the longer-term picture - we are (hopefully) not talking about issues that will occur in our own lifetimes, or our children's or even children's children's lifetimes. And so, paying the bills, getting the newest, biggest car, or newest television (or "defending our cheap gas"') seems much more important than some ethereal end-state "in the future."

    But, we should look to solve the problem - and the ways to do that are either through conservation and energy efficiency (using less) or innovation (developing new technologies and processes that help us use our resources more effectively, or generating from abundant resources)

    Through their current focus on the environment media outlets like CNN have help educate us, your viewing public, on ways we can maximise our conservation and energy efficiency. But at the end of the day, consumers must make hard decision with their pocketbook -

    - yes, I will pay an extra $1 per lightbulb, but they will save me 70% on my electric bills, so actually I SAVE money

    - yes, I will install local solar, even though installation costs are $7,000, but on-going electric bills are negligable and are even making money selling power to the grid

    - yes, I will take public transit and not drive to work, even though I spend an extra 10 mins each way, I save money on gas (which adds up nowadays)

    Finding technologies that have low eco footprints, are inexpensive to buy, and save consumers money in ongoing expenses should be what companies in the developed world are investing in. If we can innovate - developing cost-competitive technologies to sell INTO developing world economies, we will keep an advantage, and keep jobs local, while providing products that help those emerging economies grow.

    Governments (especially developed world countries) should put policies - taxes and innovation grants - in place that encourage this. The easiest for the US would be a tax on gasoline - even a moderate 4-5% tax increase on gasoline would 1) increase local conservation and 2) generate tax revenue that could be used to fund innovative research. AND, gasoline in the US would still be less expensive than in most other nations.

    I believe renewable energy sources, coupled with improvements to energy efficiency and a consumer mind set change, can greatly reduce our dependency on fossil fuels - in the long run, it has to - there are only so many fossil fuels, and the global population is not going to decrease anytime soon.

    From: Aric Melvin, Elizabethtown, KY
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    Fiirst of all, global warming is a scientist's situation. What if global warming is supposed to happen? We have only been on this planet for maybe 1/1000000th of the time it has been alive. Perhaps it is meant to become warmer. Either way, if we can't adapt then we shouldn't be the dominant species on the world. You hear a lot of people talking about save the polar bears, well unfortunatly nature is cruel. Survive or die. So the focus should nto be on global warming or alternative energy sources, but simply how we are going to survive. I have my ways, but many Americans do not.

    From: Ken Adams, Cambridge, MA
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    The fact that this is even a question reflects just how backward the US is on this issue! We obviously need to invest in renewables and energy conservation. Anything else will simply perpetuate the accelerating climate change. The debate should have been over at least a decade ago, it is time for action NOW! Energy efficiency, public transit, fuel economy standards, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal... No more technology is needed, just some vision, some leadership and a nice hefty carbon tax!

    From: Omer Pearlman, Denver, CO
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming and national security are one and the same, they are equally pressing energy issues that stem from the same challenges: human population growth and ethnocentric attitudes. To a large extent, our expanding race is utilizing precious and limited resources in ways that ultimately harm us. We continuously trade the natural richness of our planet for our own material riches, degrading the overall quality of our collective home for the immediate quality of our individual homes. These short-term competitive practices make us dangerous to one another and consistently make our environment less hospitable.

    One of the ways we can begin to solve these challenges is to accept that we are neither superior nor invincible. While us humans depend on multitudes of plant and animal species for our survival, very few other species actually depend on us for theirs. In other words, we are by far the neediest species on the planet. As such, it would benefit us to limit the use of the fossil fuels that endanger us and the species we depend on, at the same time as seeking cleaner sources of energy. Wind, water, and solar energies have been powering life on this planet long before we came along, so all three are proven viable alternatives that still exist in rich supplies. In addition, we should research safe ways to capture and store the colossal amounts of energy generated by naturally-occurring atmospheric phenomenon such as lightning.

    We should use our ingenuity and technological advances to learn how the natural world powers itself without generating adverse effects. Once we model our energy acquisition systems in non-harmful ways, we can utilize them to increase our respective national securities. Secure nations are not only secure because of their relationships with other nations, but also because of their abilities to secure the health, resources, and lifestyles of their own citizens.

    These approaches apply equally to both developed and developing nations. In the same way we have all been able to switch from audio tapes to CDs; from VHS tapes to DVDs, we can all switch to smarter, cleaner methods of energy acquisition and consumption. In addition, non-polluting countries are more likely to develop positive relations with their neighbors. Is it so unlikely to assume that nations with superior energy technologies might be motivated to share them for gains in wealth and health? These advances could usher in an era of economic growth on a scale enjoyed by the iPod! If we can share what we discover in exchange for material, as well as, health gains, the globe might get cooler - and we could all end up a bit more secure.

    From: Beth Neilson, Skead, ON, Canada
    Date: September 8, 2007
    Your view:
    The problem is a lot of national policy is driven by fear, not pragmatism. The reality is that global warming will for certain rise unless we do something about it, and a change in temperature of a couple of degrees will alter the climate drastically. Renewable energy makes sense for both national security and global warming, so fast and tough action against climate change seems the most logical solution. If America takes initiative and acts as an example, developing countries will lose many of their excuses to not try and prevent climate change.

    From: Jeannie Tremblay, Skead, ON, Canada
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    I feel with how our world leaders prefer economic growth to a future with a sustainable environment. We keep making it harder and harder for our children and grandchildren to have any future at all. To me, a visionary is someone like Dr. David Suzuki, who spent most of his life crusading for our environment; even before is was fashionable.

    From: Jason Root, Elizabethtown, KY
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming and National Security go hand in hand. We need to increase subsides to solar, wind and nuclear power. We need to create laws that make a mandatory change in mileage requirements for vehicles and higher construction standards for energy efficiency. The energy demands placed by other countries (China, India) and the future cost of the environemental impact of Global Warming, whether you believe it is man made or not, demand that we safeguard our economy by making it energy independent.

    From: Curtis Clark, Trinidad, CA
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    The choice between global warming or energy security as an 'either / or' issue seems moot.....real solutions to both exist by committing to a HUGE solar initiative in this country. The media really needs to educate this country on the alternatives out there TODAY. Take a look at Germany/Spain/Japan....these countries are making big changes in building a solar infrastructure right now. If the USA took a California style approach, i.e., [the recent Million Solar Roofs program ] this could make some real progress forward. There have been many studies on this; if just half the commerical roof space was installed w/ solar countrywide,-- not to mention the obvious residential capacity the benefit would be astounding. The real estate is here right now [ roofs] and the technology is here now [solar P.V]. It would be a win/win on both the global warming /energy security fronts. Of course in the total energy picture this couldn't fix 100% of the needs, but imagine if this could provide 50% of the energy demand in the US alone..... Add to this advances in technology-- [Sunpower produces a new solar panel w/ cell conversion rates over 21%..a huge gain over just a few years ago.].

    CNN has at least produced a few featured shows on the alternatives.... [i.e., ethanol in Brazil..although I don't think that's something possible to copy in the country..] CNN should have at least a monthly program devoted to the alternative energy advances worldwide.....'on the ground' reporting on installations around the world,-- w/ updates on emerging new technologies like the solar stirling engines. ..Australian companies are building several kinds of solar concentrating technologies that could bring big changes if implemented worldwide...etc. It's a start, but China is looking this way also...Suntech of China is now a leading global solar company and growing fast.... People will demand for a change when they can see what's working & what's possible.

    Add a push for plug-in hybrids on the transport side as well-- as has been invisioned by many....and the need for more fossil fuels is diminished further. Obviously, we need to stop mining/drilling and burning the stuff that leads to more CO2. This is the time for a national resolve to make the changes NOW.

    From: Ben Hoerst, Cleves, OH
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    Personally I believe we should turn our eyes toward the planet rather than worrying about a country's fuel problems. If we let our planet go on like we are now, someday within the next couple hundred years our planets future inhabitants won't be able to survive. This is our only place to live, we must get our planets problems under control before we worry about things we can do without. We can't do without a planet, it'd be a little hard wouldn't you say? In all reality there's no quick fix for this. We all have to put effort in or we're all done. It's about time we did something right over here, the last 8 years of this president set us back. We need someone who cares about this place in office next so we can finally get America back on track.

    From: kevin gallagher, salisbury, MA
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    the answer is so simple that it seems all overlook it. If we have no environment, (no life) who would be around to worry about national security. it is that simple and there are those who will do anything to scare you into believing otherwise.

    From: Bill Agathsis, Union, NJ
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming is by far the greatest threat to the enviornment and the economy. We should cut US emisions and if developing nations like China and India refuse to do so, we should trade embargo thier countries. One additional reality check - Why is it the the US is not leading the technology that can solve global warming (windmills, solar pannels, nuclear energy, etc)? What happened to the US leading the world? Historicaly, we were always at the forefront of technology. Our we becoming a "sleeping giant"?

    From: John Hartz, Columbia, SC
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    Until such time as the United States changes the mission of its Military-Industrial Complex from building "bigger and better" Weapons of Mass Destruction to finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the negative impacts of climate change, bold and decisive American leadership on the global warming front will be nothing more than a hollow shell .

    From: shloime hakohen, toronto, ON, Canada
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    with a texas oil man in the white house, of course u.s. foreign policy revolves around oil. president bush has made war in the middle east, proposed mining the moon for hydrogen, and even burning coal, all to "solve the energy crisis". but suv sales are still climbing, especially in the states. what is really needed, TODAY, is an international programme to remove atmospheric greenhouse gases, not just to reduce emissions. if a small fraction of the billions of dollars A DAY that is spent on the military could be diverted to saving all of the people on the planet....

    From: Sharon Hofer
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    I believe we are at a dangerous intersection in the history of the planet.

    We are far beyond Democrat vs Republican, Christian vs Atheist, Environmentalist vs Capitalist. For hundreds of years, citizens of Mother Earth have always pushed and shoved our way ahead in the quest to be better...at EVERYTHING!

    In our quest to see if we COULD - - - we never stopped to question if we SHOULD.

    In the United States alone: Can we build humongous SUVs - maybe even transform the Humvee into a "family" vehicle....Yes - we can!

    Should we?

    Should we build huge SUVs that suck gas like it's their job knowing full well that we are dependent on foreign oil to support our infatuation with "Big Trucks" - all while we are preemptively going to war with countries in the middle east - where, by the way, approximately 68% of our oil comes from and talking out of the sides of our mouths about how we would love to come up with cost effective ways to help "save" the environment if we could just figure out a cheap way to do it and of course, not until something serious happens...(BIG BREATH)...

    PERSONALLY, I believe that the longer we use this planet as our own personal playground, devoid of respect and compassion, Mother Earth will eventually fix herself...which pretty much means that we as humans will not be around to interfere with her healing process. Whether we get to the point of lobbing nuclear weapons at each other until half of us are incinerated in initial blasts and the rest of us die frozen from nuclear winter - who knows. Maybe she'll just start whipping up bigger hurricanes, gigantic tsunamis, massive earthquakes and dormant volcanos will begin spewing lung choking ash and soot until we realize that we started the fight. (Anybody see any sign of increased nature phenomenon in the past couple years or so???!!!)

    We should consider that in the grand scheme of LIFE, we as humans are truly on this planet for a minuscule amount of time. Regardless of personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - Mother Earth trumps the crap out of our life spans! We can nationally secure ourselves as nice and tight as we possibly can - taking away all rights and freedoms in the name of National Security. However, if we keep destroying the plot of dirt we so earnestly are protecting, there won't be anything left to protect.

    I truly believe that the majority of the human race, in the process of growth, has become blind to LIFE! We are on the brink of Armageddon - and I don't believe GOD is bringing it!

    From: K Pullins, Massillon, OH
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    Save the world or protect your country? Hmmmmmm...It is like protecting your bedroom instead of your house. Come on now...

    From: Mike Williamson, Dallas, TX
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    The mindless gorging or energy by our inefficient cars and homes is our biggest national security issue.

    From: PETER SMITH, JACKSONVILE, FL
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    what natural security? the government is just a puppet to the international bankers that killed its own on 9-11 to cause a war to make more money and rule all the oil left in the world. the powers that be dont give a rats ass about global warming or an energy crisis there oblivious to there downfall. the collapse of society is inevitable the romans fell the egyptians fell all great societies fall.

    From: Julie H., Austin, TX
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    One way or another, we need to plan for a day when fossil fuels won't be a part of our daily life. If global warming isn't happening, we will still run out of fossil fuels. And if global warming is happening, we need to cut back on fossil fuel usage before things get worse. Either way, the longer we put things off, the worse they will be.

    From: David Zenner, Atlanta, GA
    Date: September 7, 2007
    Your view:
    Scientists measuring temperature changes in the Arctic noted that temperatures have risen twice as fast there as in other areas, probably because exposure of new, darker soil areas exposed as ice melts causes absorption of heat which would be reflected by snow and ice. It is now predicted that polar bears will be extinct by 2300.

    It is probably true that nothing can be done to stop global warming, since the man-made effects began with the onset of industrialization, and the greenhouse gases we have created during the last hundred years will not go away, so the warming will continue.

    So perhaps we shouldn't try to slow our consumption of fossil fuels now through the passage of aggressive government incentives to spur technological development of new energy solutions. After all, we can't be sure that our prowess in research and innovation will really lead us to new markets and new possibilities that we can't imagine at this time. Perhaps the primitive technology that was developed by our ancestors for lack of any more sophisticated alternative should continue to power our exploding appetite for energy until the oil and coal run out. Then we can look around at the world we created and say to our children choking in the smog, frying in the ultraviolet radiation, wondering what "glaciers" were... at least we didn't act too hastily.

    From: Nathaniel L. Flowers, RSM, CA
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    This is all really straight-forward. I'm not sure what the great debate is about. When we talk about saving the environment, we're not really talking about saving the environment. The earth has been around for billions of years; it will continue to be around for billions of years after we and all of our evolutionary descendants are long gone. What we are really talking about is saving ourselves from ourselves, here and now. About that, there can be no debate. The science is there. The technology is there. We only need the will to take the next steps. It will require the coordination of government, and that will require public outcry. But, public outcry won't be there until awareness is there. But, once the public outcry is there, the action will soon follow. And, solving the energy crisis, the national security concerns that go with it, and the climate crisis go hand-in-hand. If the U.S. government can spearhead a movement toward sustainability, in our transportation, in our production of energy (i.e. solar, wind, and waves), in our manufacturing of goods, and in our production of buildings, then all our major crises, war, global warming, declining health, and economic and political instabilities, will be solved.

    From: Kevin Graham, Tega Cay, SC
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Hopefully people will wise up that global warming is a natural occurance and nothing we do is going to alter the Earths natural cycles. So given that man made global warming is obviously blown way way out of proportion then I'd say the REAL threat to our nation is the large amount of fossil fuel reserves in the hands of the wacked mideastern countries and some South American dictators. We need to keep finding more fuel reserves and keep working on alternatives like hydrogen and nuclear power but global warming has nothing to do with it.

    From: Andy Backer, Bilbao, Spain
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Human kind has seen many revolutions. Some of the last and most significant ones were the industrial, the agricultural and the digital revolutions (the first two especially quite responsible for the current mess: CO2 emissions and overpopulation). Now it´s time for the energy/sustainability revolution. Just look at the highflying renewable energy stocks and you´ll see it has already started. Looking back, 20/20 vision, but still, how many megawatts worth of windturbines could have been purchased for the cost of the Irak war?

    From: Deivis
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    # Which concerns you more -- the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, or energy as an issue of national security? Really, we can live with a bit less money, and we can live with a bit less energy; but with the way things are going now, soon we wont be able to live at all. Sure national security is important, but so is our race (humans) and other animals. The world seems to be dying little by little, and a lot of people in power are doing nothing if very little about it.

    # How can we solve these challenges? For starters, we can get back on the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. never actually ratified it but we were doing things to help the problem. When the Bush Administration came in, they dropped it. Also use some other fuel, we can live with cars going 20MPH, and we can live with solar power and less water. And less food too.

    # Should we invest in securing the remaining sources of oil, coal and gas, or developing renewable fuels and technologies? I'd say both. We need to try to keep away from oil, coal and gas and at the same time try to create new fuels on which we can do our day-to-day activities.

    # How far can renewable fuels meet our energy needs? Until renewable fuels run out(can they?). But since they are renewable we can reuse them opposed to oil, coal and gas which when used can no longer be renewed.

    # Is it morally right for developed countries to ask developing countries to restrict their emissions? Yes. As long as the developed countries have also restricted their fuel emissions, maybe even to a lower level than that of what they are asking the developing country to lower their fuel emissions.

    # Are you hopeful that we can avert an energy crisis? Yes and no. I'm hopeful because there is a lot of things we can do to stop this. I mean were humans, we've been to the moon, we've sent probes beyond our solar system, we built computers we have airplanes; but we can't stop something like this?

    I'm not hopeful because I don't think humans will learn until something like that happens. What will all the money you made selling oil throughout the years be worth...when there is no longer a world to spend it in?

    From: James Yanisko, Olney, MD
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    The question posed was asking what is more important of a problem to fix, do we need to fix global warming, or do we need to find ways to increase our fuel production so that our infrastructures don't come to a grinding halt. I believe the answer to this question is very simple, since it will fix both problems.

    If we do not pay attention to global warming, and instead worry about national security in the form of terrorist protection, or fuel protection, we miss the larger picture....the one that shows that the world like we know it will not exist in the future, and the future will happen in my lifetime if we continue at this pace. Once global climate change from global warming kicks in, there will be few places that humans can survive. Alaska, Greenland, and northern parts of the UK - this is already seen in rising land prices in Alaska.

    In paying attention to these problems, we will automatically be trying to find new alternative sources of fuel, therefore leading to a fix in the problem of fuel shortages. This seems to be a win win situation to problem solving, one that doesn't always seem to happen with huge decisions like this.

    I'm just reminded that there will be no more fuel problems when 90% of the human race dies off from natural disasters caused by global warming. So, which problem would you want fixed first?

    From: Michael Ibarra, Wenatchee, WA
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming or National Security? Global warming isn't the end of mankind, it isn't armaggedon, though some folks think it is; It is our climate responding to how we affect it, raising the average temperature with all the fossil fuels were burning.

    As far as i'm concerned, we can do both. In the future our energy will come from clean, safe nuclear reactors that will reuse so called "Waste", and for smaller homes and towns, from renewable energy sources, solar/wind/bio-fuel, etc. Also from fusion reactors, if the scientists can ever make then cost less than a trillion dollars!

    We have already done damage that can't be completely reversed, but we aren't going anywhere, Earth will still be our home, and even now we are learning how we need to live in order to keep it our home. Our concern now is what kind of world will we leave to our grandchildren?

    People think you have to compromise the environment to be safe and secure or the other way around? Then ask them this: At what cost???

    From: Adeyemi Asaleye, Ibadan, Nigeria
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Since Global Warming is an International Issue, and the developing countries are the most ones contributing to global warming. How can the UN & EU come into this to help the developing countries in Renewable Energy Resources such as solar & wind in Nigeria.

    From: Nathaniel Thomas, Albuquerque, NM
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Anyone who doesn't believe that global warming is a national security issue is obviously missing the big picture. Why are people so reluctant to admit that this is the largest crisis that our species has ever faced? All the guns and nukes and refineries and power plants in the world don't mean jack if we're all dead or in such constant peril that we're unable to use them! Environmental Ethics need to begin with the individual, not the government. If you want to see change in the world, affect change in yourself, then your communities...

    From: Emily Dodge, Stamford, CT
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    I think that both of these issues go hand and hand. Though a difficult issue because one side or the other wont be satistifed, you cannot argue that there is no global warming or that our national security is safer today then 5 years ago. If we stop depending on fossil fuels from the rest of the world and focus on alternative energy and being self sufficient with our energy needs, we can then not have to rely on volatile areas to fuel us and get ourselves out of involvement in their problems. then we can focus on our national security instead of every one elses. I think its time to think about what is good for America and let other nations take some responsiblility for themselves.

    From: John Clark, Kings Lynn, England
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    There's no contradiction between national security & global warming: it's either win-win or lose-lose. Gas guzzlers both pollute and put money into the pockets of some very undesirable governments.

    From: miles w.n. lee, shenzhen, China
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    All neighbourhoods of the global village should join together in endeavouring a solution to the global warming problem, on the basis of which a national security shall be built.

    From: Keith Rutter, Morrisville, NC
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Excellent question. My first thought is that the issue of Global Warming is more important then fossil fuels. But I realized it is question with many perspectives. You see I believe that both the U.S. and the World should be focusing a much more on alternative energy sources. This allows us to tackle both issues at the same time (from my perspective).

    I do understand there is a large economic infrastructure devoted to fossil fuels. If this same economic body was heavily invested in the change, then it would not only convert to alternative energies faster, but it would greatly ameliate the economic impact on both the industry and the individuals involved.

    The truth is that the idea of a loss of readily available energy scares me tremendously. I choose to believe this means a change ...now, for all new energy sources to be renewable in nature 'while we still have the energy to change cheaply'. It would seem that there are still too many people that believe that we should just work harder and faster to collect the fossil fuels.

    If everyone focused on the renewable energy (which is not nuclear) then you address both issues at once. How often do we find a solution that does that?

    From: David McCauley, Waialua, Hawaii
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    You have created a false dichotomy for your debate, at least for the US. For security reasons we need to wean ourselves off of heavy dependence on foreign energy sources, mostly from the Middle East. And for economic and environmental reasons we need to accellerate the transition to a lower-carbon society in the face of climate change. These are complementary goals, though tricky issues will need to be tackled, like the choice of policy incentives to encourage this transition and what to do about coal and nuclear power. Climate change represents a very real threat globally, and all nations -- rich and poor -- will have a role to play in shifting their economies into less carbon-intensive patterns. Reducing dependency on fossil fuels serves everyone's interests except the major oil exporting countries and their friends in the energy companies.

    From: Daniel Simon, Seattle, WA
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming is a national security issue. If the US curbed its reliance on fossil fuels and shifted its economy to a renewable energy/nuclear energy based energy structure, it would both solve a large national security issue and fight global warming. While difficult an undertaking, the build up of the current oil based infrastructure was not easy or quick and that must be remembered.

    From: Dennis Okeefe, Texarkana, TX
    Date: September 6, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming is debatable. Terrorism is not. There should be no question as to our priorities.

    Even if global warming is occurring, the Kyoto agreement is insanity at its best. It penalizes the US while it gives a free pass to the most polluting countries in the world.

    I KNOW about 9/11. I KNOW about the 1994 bombing of the world trade centers. I KNOW about the Oklahoma bombing and many, many others that neither time nor space permits listing. I'm not at all convinced we have a global threat because of Earth warming. Here is only one of my many reasons why.

    During the mid 1970's the world was in panic that the earth was cooling and many respected scientist and news sources presented a plethora of evidence to support their findings.

    The Cooling World
    Newsweek magazine in 1975
    There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    Today we hear the opposite.

    Earth Warming at Faster Pace, Say Top Science Group's Leaders Published on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle:
    "Leaders of one of the nation's top scientific organizations issued a new warning this week that human activities -- most notably the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industries -- are warming Earth's climate at a faster rate than ever".

    From: Robert Johnson, Atlanta, GA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    I don't understand why the question is posed as an either/or proposition. Weening this country off of oil and finding alternative energy sources available at home would seem to address global warming concerns and reduce one of this country's most glaring national security vulnerabilities.

    From: John Mendenhall, Chandler, AZ
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    I consider the threat of Global Warming and National Security to be one in the same. Oil bridges the gap between these two ordinarily different factors. On the Global warming side of it, the continuous burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation pumps 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere at alarming rates. Allowed to continue, not only will smog and other city troubles get worse, but large scale economic crises will begin to form such as an increase in acid rain which can lead to crop devastation, which in turn leads to starvation in parts of the world, political unrest and worst case scenario, war. This is one of many paths where global warming and national security cross. There are potentially an infinite number of scenarios in which this can happen, but the point is that they are inter-related and should be treated with equal amounts of caution and care.

    From: Stanley Brodsky, Hillsboro, NM
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Clearly Global Warming is the more urgent matter, because it's effects are being felt right now, and will continue to worsen each season until not only will various animal species continue to become extinct , but millions of people will die too. Regarding the "energy crisis", we know what the solutions are. We just don't have the will to implement them.

    From: Tal Simpson
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming OR national security? I suppose it depends on how long you expect to live -- national security is clearly the most immediate threat we face, but global warming and/or climate change is less-than-clearly the most significant long term issue mankind will have to deal with. Which is scarier?.....to think that thousands of undocumented and unidentified (and therefore illegal) immigrants have made their way over our southern border in the last couple of years?..... or that most of the anthropogenic warming we have witnessed to date is due to greenhouse gas emissions from the 18th and 19th centuries, and that much of the 50+% increase in man-made emissions since 1980 have likely not yet settled in the upper atmosphere? if we are having trouble slowing the rate at which our emissions INCREASE from year to year, is there really much chance we will be able to REVERSE the trend anytime soon?

    From: Billy Montgomery, Waynesville, MO
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Both are important to adress but terroism and all it's perpatrators can be identified and eliminated and if a country or a host of countries unite and do so in a determined way then terrorism can be eliminated. It is a matter of E equal enough. Go after the terrorists where ever they are, who ever they are what ever country they are in evenj if they are a country and eliminate them and do so (to coin a phrase) with, "Special Ops without borders"! Then those same countries can also go after global warming on a global scale unimpeded. Yes some people's rights are going to be violated and some countries borders are going to be violated but without the ability to move and work due to terrorism takes any countries resources off line to approach global warming on a global scale. The PC people can cry foul but even they would benefit from the removal of terrorists. Even if each country went after terroists in their own borders sharing information and extraditing those that need to be extridited. Measurable observable progress can be made. Global warming while a major problem has not been identified in an observable measurable way that means the same thing to everyone involved but terrorism is so measured right now! As far as countries that are terrorist oriented the same process applies. I understand CNN's terms of use and agree that editing will be applied. My central premis is there are known people terrorists and known countries that are terroist oriented and both need to be stopped by what ever it takes to stop them. By economic means or by force if necessary. That premis includes all drug producing countries and cartells as well. There has to be a will to do this and the UN should take the lead but the UN is in many ways part of the problem and seriously would hamper a solution.

    From: GM, Poplar Grove, IL
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Even if you do not believe in global warming, do you think the world's oil supply is going to last everyone forever with the United States using it up like water and China and India not far behind. We only have a limited supply and since it takes millions of years to produce it. Do you think we might need another source to run our cars, trains and trucks, ect. before it runs out? Maybe we can look at compressed air, hydor power, solar, just an idea. If you do not believe in global warming, I sure hope you have the gift of thought to know that OIL IS NOT GOING LAST FOREVER.

    From: Jason Ryan, Austell, GA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    First, let me remark upon something that is always missed in these global warming debates.... WE ARE COMING OFF OF A SMALL ICE AGE! Ask a climatologist, it's pretty well known that there was a rather significant COOLING PERIOD during the Dark Ages. Now, that being said... let's think rationally. Can we, today, completely stop our gasoline usage? No. Five years? Probably not. A decade? Maybe... but probably still not. What about all of our other petroleum products? Kerosene, fuel oil for those cold northern winters, plastics, rubber for your tires, your shoes, insect repellant, pesticides... and the list goes on and on. Anyone thinking that gasoline is the only thing made from oil needs to check their facts.

    So... we are addicted to oil, no doubt. And thinking rationally, it is going to run out some day, especially with China and India's increasing demands. We do need to wean ourselves off of it, not because of "global warming" or anything of the sort. No, we need to because, at some point or another, there won't be any more... and as dependent as we are on oil, for all phases of our society, we cannot afford to be caught with our pants down, so to speak, when the supply finall does dry up.

    From: Joe Strunk, Forest Lake, MN
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warming or National Security??? It's about both. We need to stop our reliance on resources that we do not control. Our country has a rich history of making our own path, now we are controlled by a congress that is voting based on special interest money and not the will of the people. Oil is a huge contribuator to this. We also need to leave a better place for the next generations to come. We have the technology available to clean up this mess, yet we choose not to take the first uncomfortable steps to do this. Our transition from oil only to a blend of wind, solar, nuclear, and other sources will be difficult at first, but we need to start now before oil runs out or some one shuts it off.

    From: Ben Kniesly, Tampa, FL
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    The obvious answer is both -- its hard to separate the two issues.

    I must be brief, but America should develop alternative energy sources to address fossil fuel burring and dependence on foreign energy.

    I suspect that if we directed the same resources toward alternative energy development as we currently do to make better weapons and securing our energy interest abroad, it would not be long before we has some viable alternatives.

    Its amazing to me this policy is not being pursued with a greater sense of urgency.

    From: Dennis Huber, Great Falls, VA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Ramp up nuclear power construction immediately. Use advanced nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies including burner reactors to eliminate all long-lived radioactive isotopes. Eliminate as much coal burning for electricity generation as possible as new nuclear plants come on line.

    Use additional nuclear plants to manufacture hydrogen and oxygen from water for use in our vehicles. Eliminate as much of our gasoline imports as possible. Let the oil exporters export their oil to someone else.

    From: Edward Wansing, Ashland, TN
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    I believe that climate change and energy security are both equally important issues, with the same solution. Large scale centralized fossil fuel power plants are both polluting and susceptible to attack. As fossil fuels become scarcer, we will see more violence between the parties trying to claim the dwindling supplies. Climate change will affect our food production capability and many of our homes, forcing refugees to migrate to more habitable regions. Decentralized renewable energy sources are much less susceptible to attack and, as their name implies, are renewable, so we don't have to worry about what happens when they run out. They are clean and non-polluting, which addresses the global warming problem. We don't need to single out one problem to work on; we need to look at an integrated solution for all of our problems. We keep looking for a cheap, easy way to fix the problems that we have created, in turn creating more. Why not look for a solution that will fix the problem, with no future problem in tow, in the form of solar, wind, biomass, methane and low-impact hydro.

    From: Shamim Riaj, Brooklyn, NY
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Ofcorse global warming is the greatest threat than a national security. How can you secure the nation if global warming wipes everything from the face of the earth? The stucture of the nation will change because of the global warming and that would be the worse situation for nations security.

    From: Yegor Jbanov, Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    What will happen?

    We will hit a wall at 200 mph. The current infrastructure can only burn fossil fuels and it is growing. Once we hit the limit of supply we will start falling and there is no cushion to catch us. Global Warming can devastate our food supply and everything we take for granted will suddenly become a privilege.

    Why?

    Corporations and politicians are too busy to take extra effort. "It will hurt our economy/business" they say. People are too busy watching TV and doing what is tells them to do.

    What to do?

    Vote. Vote at the elections. Vote with your money. Vote against unsustainable development. Vote for sustainability. Take your money out of the dirty funds and put them into sustainable funds, green funds. Yes, those are your RRSP and other savings. That will give opportunity to people who can make difference. Invest exclusively in clean & renewable energy. Keep in mind that apart from obvious benefits investing in clean & renewable energy means more jobs in your country, money no longer flows to terrorists, but to your brothers and sisters.

    From: Lee Irons, Yorktown, VA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    The advanced energy technologies that are being developed for cars (e.g. batteries and hydrogen fuel cells) only move the carbon emissions from the cars to electric power plants that provide electricity to the national grid. The power plants still have to use some source of energy to produce this electricity. If the energy source is carbon-based, you still have just as much carbon being produced. The government can regulate the emissions from power plants better than from cars, but we still have the same basic problem until we use non-carbon-based energy sources in our power plants. Nuclear power is not the best answer, because the USA is in political gridlock on long-term storage/disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and no one in the world has a solution for what to do with the liquid high level waste that results from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel (i.e. the stuff that will kill you real quick if you stand too close). I am not hopeful that we will have a non-carbon-based replacement for fossil fuels until they become so scarce that solar, wind, and wave power are cheaper than gasoline. And this will only happen when the whole world begins to run out of it. However, when this happens, we will have multiple functioning solutions within a couple of years. Then, everyone will see clearly that the solution to global warming is the same as the solution to national security. We have the solution designs now. There is simply no market or political driver for a solution right now.

    From: Jeff Shearsmith, Spartanburg, SC
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    This is not rocket science we are talking about. If you pump all the oil out of your automobile, the enigine will overheat and cease to operate. How much more do we have to pump out the earth before it overheats and ceases to operate? We need to explore renewable energy sources now before it's too late.

    From: Joe Hernon, Olathe, KS
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    National Security vs Climate Change; or, should it be National Security & Climate Change???

    In my opinion, National/Economic Security must get top priority. However, Climate Change also has the potential to cause problems that will affect our National/Economic Security. So, even if we only tried to fix one of these issues; all of the "LONG TERM" solutions end up fixing both issues.

    The key to achieving energy security, and thus National/Economic Security; is the conversion of the residential and small business sectors of our economy to "DECENTRALIZED" "DOMESTIC" sources of "RENEWABLE" energy. By combining this with modern nuclear reactors and possibly even fusion to power the industrial and large commercial sectors of our economy; we would be totally energy self suffiecient. Fortunately, we are blessed with abundant DOMESTIC sources of RENEWABLE energy here in the USA. Through the use of the following, it would be quite simple to convert our homes and small businesses to renewable energy: Passive solar H&AC, solar electric roof panels / shingles, residential scale wind turbines, roof rain water collection, grey water recycling, high efficiency lights and appliances, daylighting, etc. This would then free up the central power system (the grid) to power the industrial and large commercial sectors of our economy.

    Personally, I do not know anyone who would not love having their house be energy self sufficient. Just think if you had no utility bills, or if they were only 10% of what they are today. WOW, how big a boost to the economy do you think that much disposable income would have???

    From: David Kline, Santa Clara, CA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    In the short term, certainly before 2020, we need to minimize dependence on foreign oil. Beyond that, fossil fueled global warming, left unchecked, will certainly impact national security for all countries as severe weather escalates, populations migrate, and wars over water and useable land erupt.

    Right now we can scale back our use of oil, coal and gas as renewable fuels and technologies are developed. I am not in a position to estimate how far renewable energy sources will meet our energy needs, but our economy of consumption will change to one of conservation, reducing those needs. Whether we ask developing countries to restrict their emissions is not a moral question but a question of whether all of us will have a habitable world.

    In the long term, we need to look to the energy bound up in ordinary matter. So far, we've learned how to release it suddenly, as in a hydrogen bomb, or gradually as in a nuclear reactor. These fissionable plutonium sources have radioactive consequences. It's time now to ramp up efforts to make energy from hydrogen fusion a reality.

    From: gabriele courtney, kennesaw, GA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Global Warning is most definitely the more important issue. This issue will affect generations to comwe whereasNational Security will come and go. By the way we can do both so there really shouldn't be a question or choice to make. I am happy to see the progress other countries have made in stopping terrorist, but i don't see any progress in the US at all. With this administration it is not about us people any way only the corporate world

    From: Alison Mitchell, Blacksburg, VA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    Global warming is most definitely the most pressing issue of our time. It has the potential of dramatically altering our access to and abundance of food, energy, and other resources as well as our ability to live comfortably and possibly even to survive. And, this won't only affect developing nations. It will affect us here in the United States. Natural disasters and rising sea levels will in all likelihood displace hundreds of thousands of people. This will mean more crowded cities that are safely away from the shoreline, not to mention damage done to people, property, and livelihoods. Katrina was one example that shows us we are not prepared for such catastophes. The worst national security breach could likely come from disasters such as this. More and longer-lasting heat waves, more mosquitos and mosquito borne illnesses, more deadly storms, reduced access to clean water due to less glacier melt, and more noxious weeds are a few natural phenomenon that are said ! to worsen with a warmer climate.

    By 2020, it's likely many of the above affects will be more apparent than they are currently. I'm convinced we'll all be doing everything we can to offset these. We'll all be driving electric cars or possibly biodiesal powered ones and our cities will be more suitable for walking, biking, and public transit. There will be an economic and technological boom as energy efficiency and clean power becomes more popular. This trend is already starting. Certainly in 12 years, we'll become the most efficient and respected country in the world.

    From: Kelvin Mays, Gladstone, VA
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    I think all the talk about climate change being man made or not begs the question What are we going to do about it? This is becoming a run away train. It sure will be a security issue when people in other countries are starving due to lack of rain and knocking on our door. Or our own folks are forced out of their home due to rising seas. I have lived in the same part of the US for most of my life and I know the climate has change here. The ground use to freeze in the winter months and that hasn't happened in the last 10 years. We have not had any snowfall for the last 5 years. These are facts I know about my own environment and I think if some others would get their head out of clouds (no pun intended) and look around then they would see things have and are changing faster each year.

    From: Michael Klein, Brooklyn, NY
    Date: September 5, 2007
    Your view:
    In the short run, having adequate supplies of oil and gas is more important. In the long run, the threat of global warming is more important. In 50 years or less, global warming will become an issue of national security. While we need to guarantee our present supply of oil and gas, it is essential to wean us off these energy sources in favor of non-carbon-based energy sources. I am confident that we can do this within a 30-year time frame.

    From: william Bolding, Doyline, LA
    Date: September 4, 2007
    Your view:
    What Energy Crisis??? If we had 3 or 4 new Refineries there would be no gas shortage. We can thank Congress for that !!!!!! The only thing Ethanol will do is raise the price of the food we buy at the grocery market...Visionaries? What Visionaries. Congress can't do anything right so it is up to the private sector to come up with new Ideas and Ethanol is not a good idea. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

    • E-mail
    • Save
    • Print
    Today's Featured Product:
    2011 BMW Z4 sDrive35is
     8.0 out of 10
    Recent Product Reviews:
    RIM BlackBerry Torch 9800 (AT&T)
     8.0 out of 10
    Motorola Rambler - black (Boost Mobile)
     7.0 out of 10
    Samsung UN46C6500
     6.9 out of 10
    Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Money  |  Sports  |  Time.com
    © 2013 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.