Editor’s note: While I highlighted the group sessions and activities in my coverage of the Symi Symposium in Paros, Greece, last month, I also had the great pleasure of meeting a number of people engaged in important and interesting work on environmental protection and restoration. One of those individuals was Gerd Leipold, the executive director of Greenpeace International. Gerd and I were originally going to do a podcast interview, but symposium activities prevented that, so he agreed to answer the handful of questions I’d prepared by email.

Gerd, and Greenpeace International, are based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Green Options: While Greenpeace is no longer viewed as the radical environmental group by US citizens (that honor is now reserved for ALF and ELF), it’s still often considered extreme by many Americans, particularly the on the right. How do you respond to these kinds of labels? How would you characterize Greenpeace to someone concerned about the same issues as the organization (the environment, nuclear energy and weapons, world peace), but who also might be put off by the perception of GP as "radical?"

Gerd Leipold: The most extremist environmental groups in the US are the government of George W. Bush and some big corporations like Exxon Mobil, who still refuse to fully acknowledge the clear evidence of climate change and prevent the necessary action.

I think that an objective observer would come to the conclusion that what we now know about the state of the environment vindicates 35 years of campaigning by Greenpeace. While we had strong and stark messages, one certainly can say now that we were more foresighted and more realistic than those who termed us extremist.

GO: I spent some time on the Greenpeace international web site today, and while I saw plenty of examples of the kinds of direct activism most commonly associated with Greenpeace (disrupting nuclear weapons testing, whaling, etc.), I also saw a number of consumer awareness and educational efforts (tips for green living, 7 Steps Towards an Energy Saving (R)Evolution). Is that a relatively new area for GP? Does this show an embrace of more evolutionary tactics vs. revolutionary? Does the web itself affect Greenpeace’s campaign style at all?

GL: Raising awareness and stopping environmental abuse through our peaceful actions remains at the heart of Greenpeace. But we also believe that we need millions of people to become Greenpeace activists in their way and with their possibilities. Only if many people become active and live differently do we stand a chance to overcome the environmental crisis.

The web has affected our campaigning style, because it allows a faster, deeper and more responsive relationship with supporters and members of the public. The web is a powerful tool of communication and organization, and it allows global action. It also allows campaigning without having a physical office infrastructure in a country, and therefore increases the global reach of Greenpeace.

GO: Can you give us any insight into upcoming Greenpeace campaigns? What should we be looking for?

GL: Our highest priority is climate, and we are putting special emphasis on creating awareness about the reality of climate change in India and China. Over the next few months we want to influence the crucial negotiations for the next phase of the Kyoto agreement: the positive countries need to be encouraged to agree to bold targets, and any attempts by the United States to derail the process needs to be counteracted.

One of the quickest ways to reduce climate change impacts is to protect ancient forests. If we manage to keep old forest standing, then we have achieved a massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we have protected many endangered animals and plants and some of the most beautiful and important ecosystems. And we can only do it if we also protect the future of the people who live in and of the forests. Therefore, rainforest protection in the Amazon, in Indonesia and the Congo is big task for us.

We have also a big campaign to stop the whaling operations of Japan in the Southern Oceans. Our whaling campaign is part of our oceans work, where we draw attention to the perilous state of the world’s oceans.

Thanks to Gerd for taking the time to answer my questions. For more on his perspective on climate change and related environmental challenges, watch this interview conducted at the symposium.

Photo source: papendreou.gr 

Symi Symposium Closing Ceremony. From left to right: Gerd Leipold, Executive Director of Greenpeace International; Misha Glenny, writer and editor (formerly of the BBC); George Papandreou, president of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement and the Socialist International, and former foreign minister of Greece. Photo courtesy of http://www.papandreou.gr

While my title is not exactly accurate, as I’m back home in St. Louis now, I wanted to get in one more post wrapping up my coverage of last week’s Symi Symposium in Paros, Greece. I also want to thank the folks at the Andreas G. Papandreou Foundation for inviting me to attend the symposium — it was a great time, and a week full of learning.

The final symposium session I attended (on Friday) addressed the important issue of climate change in the developing world. Moderated by Kumi Naidoo of South Africa-based NGO CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, the speakers at the session focused on the challenges climate change presents to the world’s poorer nations: namely, that while these countries historically have had the lowest levels of greenhouse gas emissions, they will likely be hit the hardest and fastest by the effects of global warming. Speakers addressed the issues of inequality tied up in the climate change debate, the notion of environmental justice, and specific problems, such as deforestation, that will increase the level of suffering endured by the world’s poorest citizens.

Friday evening, all of us gathered in the village of Naoussa for a closing ceremony. It was quite an event, as media crews were on hand to hear concluding comments by a number of symposium participants, and our gracious host, George Papandreou. We concluded with a wonderful Greek dinner (and real Greek food is incredible).

Yes, this is a bit lighter than some of the previous posts from the symposium — I’m blaming it on jet lag! If you have questions or comments on any of these issues, fire away!

Photo: A view of the Mediterranean

Editor’s note: I started working on this post yesterday, and after writing and writing and writing, I realized it was turning into a David post While I heard a lot of interesting discussion yesterday, I’ll try to stick to an overview of main ideas and questions, and then respond to your comments and questions. Perhaps we can extend the symposium into our own space here…

This morning, I got to attend my first major session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium. Entitled "Energy in Flux: Safe Passage to a Future of Alternatives," the session consisted of three presentations on transitioning to a new energy future, and a lively debate over the challenges and opportunities created by the need to shift energy priorities in the face of global climate change.

Overall, I was delighted by the optimistic tone that ran throughout these presentations (which, in some cases, became points of contention in later open discussion): all three speakers acknowledged the enormity of the environmental challenges we face, and noted that combined efforts of the public and private sectors will be necessary to mobilize the larger public to action. In each presentation, the speaker focused on public involvement (in the roles of consumers and citizens), and made the case that an educated populace will provide the momentum for adoption of clean, renewable energy options. Let me just give a very brief overview of the main points offered by each speaker.

The first presentation focused on consumers’ roles in transitioning to a low-carbon energy infrastructure. Dr. Joseph Stanislaw noted that, traditionally, when we talk about energy, we talk about supply: where does it come from? He argued that a shift in mindset and language towards the services energy provides creates greater opportunity for transitioning towards more sustainable energy options. Consumers don’t want energy created from coal, or from solar power, for that matter: they want the services that reliable energy provides. By focusing on meeting this demand, we can address our contributions to climate change by implementing currently available technologies (particularly conservation technologies) while also working on the next generation of cleantech solutions. Consumers can be empowered to contribute to lower consumption by educating them on the "low hanging fruit" available: CFLs, for example. Finally, Stanislaw noted that the private sector is well ahead of the (US) government in recognizing these opportunities: he specifically discussed Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts.

The second and third presentations both focused on engaging populations as citizens in transitioning towards cleaner energy technologies. The first, presented by James Fishkin of Stanford University of the two described experiments conducted by Texas utilities in "deliberative democracy": representative groups of customers were brought together in person, and through television, to discuss opportunities to purchase "green" power through their utilities. The sessions served to both educate the people gathered, and to listen to their concerns. These sessions produced amazing results: before these sessions, 52% of these consumers will willing to pay more for green energy; afterwards, 84% expressed willingness. The speaker noted the the increased prices don’t have to be much larger: even a $.25 addition to customers’ monthly bills would generate millions of dollars for increased renewable infrastructures. The success of the Texas experiment has led to other requests to hold such events: they’ve been repeated in Nebraska and Nova Scotia (with similar positive outcomes), and more will be held in Vermont, and as part of the next National Governor’s Association meeting. The third speaker, John Panarenos, provided the results of a similar effort in Europe: when asked, the representative samplingof citizens choose "energy and environment" as the most pressing issues facing the EU. The combination of terms was important — when the word "environment" was presented by itself, it didn’t receive nearly as high numbers.

As you might imagine, other symposium delegates had plenty of questions and even challenges for these speakers. A few points offered:

• The "small steps" position of the first presentation was challenged with the Chinese proverb "You can’t cross a ravine with small steps": ultimately, the enormity of these problems require much bigger responses.
• The market focus (which was not exclusive — he wasn’t arguing for "letting the market fix the problems") of the first speaker’s presentation was also questioned, with at least one respondent noting that we must focus on what scientists say is necessary, rather than what is possible in a consumer market.
• Several respondents also argued for more top-down regulation — in fact, that seemed to be a major point of debate: a focus on grassroots action (which is what I heard coming from these presentations) vs. government regulation.

Needless to say, this session was fascinating and provocative: as the first speaker noted, we can’t separate energy issues from climate change, so these kinds of discussions are necessary. I’ve just given the briefest of overviews here — feel free to offer comments or ask questions…

The evening sessions at the symposium are shorter and a bit less formal. Tuesday’s evening’s focused on a presentation by Kim Alter (Oxford University) on the concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: the hybridizing of business and non-profit models into a unique endeavor that harnesses market forces in innovative ways to address social (and environmental) challenges. As with the morning session, the discussion was lively following the presentation. The concept of social enterprise as a distinct category, rather than another form of non-profit, was a major question for participants in the discussion.

Tomorrow: Excursion day…. with lots of photos from Paros and Antiparos….

Paros, Greece, from the back porch of my hotel roomThis week, we've got something exclusive for you: an inside look at a major symposium on climate change hosted by Greece's Andreas G. Papandreou foundation. The Foundation invited me to participate in the event, and I just arrived on the Greek Island of Paros a few hours ago.

Needless to say, I was very excited by this invitation, and not just because I get to spend a week in the Greek Isles and still call it work. Papandreou's annual Symi Symposium brings together great minds from around the world each year to discuss solutions to global issues. The participants include politicians (several members of various parliaments, and one president), business leaders, academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations. This year's theme is "Climate Changes Everything," and I'm definitely looking forward to hearing the perspectives presented on addressing the global climate crisis.

Some minor travel mishaps kept me away from the symposium's first session, "After Kyoto: How to Design a New Global Accord." Now that I'm here, I'm definitely looking forward to upcoming sessions and workshops on energy alternatives, social entrepreneurship, the "Green Economy," and climate change in the developing world. I'll be providing details throughout here, and may even give podcasting a try (there's a studio for it here). I'll also take plenty of photographs… everything is worthy of a picture here!

The Papandreuo foundation has graciously picked up the tab for me to attend and cover this event.

Cross posted at sustainblog

Philip's post today reminds that the IT industry in general is pretty energy-intensive. Today, one of that industry's major players is taking another step forward to reduce the environmental impact of one of its major assets: it's users. Yahoo! Green is a new site by the internet giant that provides users with a range of tools that help them lower their personal carbon emissions.

Meg Garlinghouse, director of Yahoo! for Good, told me on Friday that the new site, which will be officially launched with a big kick-off event in New York City, reflects the company's belief that bringing many people together to take small steps can result in a major reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions. At Yahoo! Green, users can commit to a range of various actions that will reduce their own environmental impact: installing a programmable thermostat, installing a CFL in a porch light, air-drying clothes in the Spring and Summer, etc. The site records each user's plan and calculates the emissions savings produced. These figures are then compiled to show the total amount of GHG emissions saved by all users participating in the program.

Yahoo! will also add an element of competition to the site: user carbon savings, as well as information gathered from other Yahoo! tools, will be calculated by their location, and the US city with the highest totals will be named "America's Greenest City" by the company, and awarded either a fleet of hybrid taxi cabs, or the cash equivalent, which can be used to "green up" a public building. The "Be a Better Planet" competition will run through June 8th. Individual participants will receive a free CFL for their efforts.

We're impressed, and we look forward to Amy's coverage of today's NYC event, which will feature Yahoo! co-founder David Filo, Global Green USA CEO Matt Peterson, and Academy Award-nominated actor Matt Dillon. When combined with it's own carbon neutrality pledge, its sponsorship of 18seconds.org, and its Earth Week challenge to employees to reduce the company's overall environmental impact by 20% (which was rewarded by staging a Sumo wrestling match between Filo and co-founder Jerry Yang — watch the video), it's clear that Yahoo! is taking significant steps to not only operate in a more sustainable manner, but also to educate others about the benefits of living a greener lifestyle.

Yahoo! Green

As Maria reported this morning, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did release the findings of Working Group III today, which focuses on the steps the global community must take to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.

On one hand, the report was hopeful: we can lessen the effects of global warming with quick, substantive, mandatory action by the world's governments. Furthermore, the costs of such actions would be relatively low, and much of the technology needed already exists. On the other hand, the report does recommend the use of advanced nuclear power (let the arguments on this one begin!), and carbon capture and storage, which is not a fully developed technology.

We've gathered some of the responses to today's report, and provided excerpts below. Please let us know about others in the comments.

Environmental Defense: “We have a window of opportunity, but it won't stay open forever,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense . “Anyone pushing for delay is pushing for higher costs and longer odds.”

The Apollo Alliance: “The experts agree. If we act now, we can win the fight on global warming. As today’s IPCC report shows, with strong leadership and the right solutions, we can tackle the challenge of global warming while also creating new opportunities for jobs and growth through increased economic activity.

“By expanding the production of biofuels, we can promote energy security, strengthen our trade position and create jobs in agricultural communities. By investing in renewable electricity we will create economic activity while decreasing air pollution and its associated health care costs. And by making wise investments in new technology, we can reinvigorate our economy though the creation of good, new clean energy jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors.

“We can no longer ignore the facts. Global warming is happening, and if left untreated, the effects will be devastating for our planet and future generations. We have the solutions, now let’s fulfill our responsibility as Americans and international citizens and do everything we can to reduce global warming pollution.” — Apollo Alliance president Jerome Ringo

National Wildlife Federation: “The world’s scientific experts are giving us all the information we need. This latest report provides unmistakable clarity that we must act now, and that solutions are within reach to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

“Global warming is happening now. Our dependency on fossil fuels like oil and coal is causing the problem, and humans and wildlife are feeling the heat. We have a clear path to move forward with solutions that will curb rising global warming pollution, but only if we act with leadership and resolve.

“Scientists are telling us that we must start reducing global warming pollution immediately to limit further warming. Only by acting now can we prevent catastrophic environmental and economic damage that our children will otherwise face. America can do this if we set our mind to it.

“To limit global warming, we must start now and put ourselves on track to reduce pollution by two percent each and every year, ultimately cutting pollution by 80 percent by mid-century. We can do that." — NWF President Larry Schweiger

National Audubon Society: “This latest report from the world’s scientists makes it clear that people and governments have it within their power to curb global warming, but that time is running short. Humans caused the problem, and it’s up to humans to fix it.

“There is much good news here and even reason for optimism if we listen and heed the call to action. The report confirms that many of the technologies we need to address the problem already exist and simply need to be deployed in a serious way. The U.S. can start filling the scientists’ prescription by rapidly adopting emissions caps, renewable electricity standards, energy conservation measures, and improving fuel efficiency.

“The report makes it clear that voluntary measures have had no effect—these cannot be take ‘em or leave ‘em approaches. The world’s best scientists are telling us that it will take serious changes backed by the force of law if we want to minimize the risk to people and wildlife" — Audubon Society President John Flicker

National Environmental Trust: "After all the bad news from scientists on global warming, today we got some good news. The IPCC said that we can avert the worst impacts at a remarkably low price. The U.S. and the world simply need to make more efficient use of our energy and invest in cleaner technologies for the future.

"This newest report confirms that a small investment now is far better than bankrupting the treasury later by trying to build sea walls from Miami to Maine. " — Vice President for Climate Programs Angela Anderson

BioFuels Watch (UK): "It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate." — Almuth Ernsting

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): “The longer we wait, the more we will pay to fix this problem. The solutions are here. What we need is the leadership to make it happen,” said Daniel Lashof, PhD, the science director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The cost of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies pales in comparison to the sweeping impacts on our health and our economy if we continue to do nothing.”

“The IPCC has now completed its triple crown,” Lashof added. “The world’s leading scientists have told us that heat-trapping pollution is causing global warming, that global warming threatens unprecedented disruption of our way of life, and now most importantly that we know how to solve the problem. There are simply no more excuses for denial and delay.”

Friends of the Earth: “The report looks like a compromise rather than a serious plan. It offers something for everyone without making the tough choices,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said. “Some of these recommendations make a lot of sense, but unfortunately, some of them—especially the push for nuclear power—move us in the wrong direction. Nuclear power threatens humans and the environment. It is not necessary to combat climate change.” …

“The IPCC got a number of things right,” Blackwelder said. “Increasing energy efficiency and using clean energy sources such as wind power are steps that can be taken right now to reduce global warming—without damaging other parts of the environment. Let’s focus on those measures, and not nuclear power, which has such harmful side effects.”

U.S. PIRG: “This report provides a roadmap on how to avoid the worst effects of global warming, but we have to start moving right now,” said Ben Dunham, Staff Attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “The sooner we act, the sooner we start improving energy security, creating jobs, and protecting future generations from the worst effects of global warming,” he added.

Of course, we're also interested in your response… fire away!

Environment News Service

Editor's note: Today we start our post swap with LighterFootstep.com, a new site we've really come to like. We're happy that editor Chris Baskind has agreed to this swap, as we believe that GO and Lighter Footstep have similar missions: making green living accessible to everyone. Today's post was originally published on Tuesday, April 24.

Judging from reports coming in today, this year's Earth Day celebrations were among the largest and most optimistic in recent memory. Largest — thanks to attention being focused on climate change by movies like An Inconvenient Truth; and most optimistic — thanks to you.

Things happen when people get together. That's nothing new, of course, but people are finally uniting behind the idea of sustainable change.

The job ahead

It won't be easy. It won't be fast. But even if you set aside the entire issue of climate change and its controversies, we face a century of growing populations, shifting food and water supplies, increasingly fragile oceans, and the certainty that the age of cheap, plentiful petroleum energy will soon be behind us.

These are global-sized challenges. I spent some time this weekend answering comments on Lighter Footstep and elsewhere about whether or not a single person can make any difference when you consider the scale of the problem.

Ever heard this?

"Changing your air conditioning filter?" wrote one commenter on a major social bookmarking site. "It's feel-good nonsense to suggest anything like that matters when you have China and India opening coal power plants faster than we can even clean ours up. It's stupid."

One one level, he's right. Pulling a bit more efficiency out of your home cooling system is a drop in the bucket when you think of big energy-wasters — such as lit, climate-controlled office parks which stand unused outside the work day. Open freezer cases at the grocery. Or all the unnecessary travel which happens in cities without adequate public transportation.

But he's also wrong — very wrong — on two important fronts.

First: Sustainability is personal. Resources are getting tight. Things are becoming more expensive. By identifying more sustainable ways of conducting your life and lowering your overall environmental footstep, you (or your business) reap immediate personal benefits. You don't have to wait for government or big industry. Start saving money, living healthier, and making better use of the things you already own by taking that first step toward Sustainability.

Second: Global change is generational change. Admittedly, there are some things that need to be done as quickly as possible to make sure the 21st Century is a landmark, rather than a headstone. But it took the Industrial Revolution and a couple centuries of abuse to get our soil, air, and water to their current state. Maybe it will take as long to put it back. It's also taken us decades to teach our children that thoughtless consumption is an acceptable way of life.

Small now, big later

So every time we purchase a CFL, cut our water use, and carry home our groceries in reusable bags, we're making an investment in the future. If we can pass these habits to our kids — and if they do the same — a single act of conservation in the present will be multiplied manyfold through the years. That's not just a low-flow showerhead you're installing: it's a warehouse full of earth-friendly technology that hasn't been invented yet.

That's what happens when people come together and commit to change. Even the small ones.

The Green Web is amazingly vibrant. New sites and blogs pop up every day. Lighter Footstep and Green Options have experienced what could only be described as explosive growth. Our readership expands from week to week.

This is all happening one person at a time — one idea at a time; one intention to make a positive change at a time.

And that's how we're going to make Earth Day happen every day.

—-

Chris Baskind writes about environmental issues. He's also the publisher of Lighter Footstep, a web-based magazine devoted to Sustainability and learning to live more lightly.

Greenland MYTH: When Eric the Red and his Viking buddies settled Greenland, it was a lush pastoral paradise fit for farming and raising animals.

Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warm Period” to your favorite skeptic, and let ‘em go…

As a history buff, I always found today’s myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

The issue here, of course, really isn’t Greenland’s name; it’s the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that skeptics claim was comparable to the present day in terms of the average temperature (or even warmer!). By extension, ice melts on Greenland aren’t that big a deal: it’s happened before.

Coby has thoughts on the Medieval Warm Period, and points to information from NOAA. RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents a number of reasons why the perception skeptics have about the Medieval Warm Period are likely incorrect.

Greenland wasn’t green in the tenth century… and we don’t want it to become green this century…

MTYH: Cold weather, especially unseasonably cold weather, undermines the concept of climate change.

FACTS: "Global warming" is a problematic phrase for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the belief that cold weather somehow invalidates the concept of a global climate crisis. Climate change skeptics are quick to suggest that instances of winter storms (especially when they coincide with activities aimed at addressing "global warming") are evidence that climate change science is flawed.

Rather than exposing climate change as a myth or a mere belief, these skeptics demonstrate the logical fallacy of not seeing the forest for the trees. A recent report by Minnesota's WCCO addresses the problem with using current weather conditions as evidence of broader changes in climate:

"Don't confuse weather with climate," said WCCO's Chief Meteorologist Paul Douglas. "Weather is a snapshot, climate is a long term trend."

In other words, weather is what happens at any given moment in the atmosphere while climate is how the atmosphere behaves over decades and centuries.

Paul said the term global warming can be misleading.

"I think a better description is probably climate change because there are going to be regional variations across the globe," he said.

We need to keep a global perspective in mind because while the United States is experience record cold, some of Europe and Asia are seeing record warmth.

"Don't look out the window and make assumptions about long-term climate," said Paul. "But that goes both ways. In the summertime on the hot humid days we can't beat our chest and say this is global warming."

The Drudge Report Loves These Kind of Headlines

Grist's Coby Beck made a similar observation last November; RealClimate addresses some of the problems associated with "global warming.". And as happy as I was to see the Rev. Pat Robertson acknowledging climate change last year, we have to note that his recognition was based on the same logical fallacy as those who claim that winter storms in April are valid evidence of problems with climate science.

Our own David Anderson has suggested a new phrase: "global weirding." Given the multiple strange events we're seeing (rapid extinctions of species, shifts in weather patterns, polar ice melts, etc.), it seems appropriate. What other ways can we better communicate the issue of climate change?

From the outset, we wanted Green Options to be a space where people talk to one another about the green topics that matter to them. While we set the agenda here on the blog, and in other portions of the site, our Discussion Forum is the place where you decide what needs addressing. If you haven't visited the Forum, drop in, and strike up a conversation…or join one.

As Ryan and Jimmy showed Tuesday, there's still plenty to discuss regarding the topic of climate change. While I'd guess that most of the team members here at GO fall into the 90% of people who've accepted the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientific bodies regarding the role CO2 emissions play in the climate crisis, there's still much to discuss and debate about the action we need to take. Economics tend to be at the core of most discussions about large-scale action, and conversations about the costs and opportunities created by environmental challenges need to occur within the public and private sectors, as well as among informed and concerned citizens.

Some other fodder for discussion:

• The human costs: Climate change is definitely an environmental justice issue, particularly since the developing world will likely "feel the heat" the most.
• The broader ecological costs: We've all read and heard about the polar bears. What other implications does action (or inaction) on climate change hold for other environmental challenges?
• The "marketing" angle: A recent post at The Oil Drum addresses the long-term consequences of climate change in light of research that shows we human beings tend to be very short-term in our thinking. Marketing guru Seth Godin noted last year that "global warming" is an ineffective phrase from a marketing standpoint. How do we communicate the threat of climate change without resorting to "chicken little" tactics?

Clearly, I've just touched the tip of the iceberg (a fitting metaphor, no doubt!). Got something to say about climate change? Say it in the Forum…