I COULD NOT WATCH IT BECAUSE THE GIRL THAT I USE HER COMPUTER HAS NOT THE WEBSITE I CAN SEE IT ON.SO I AM GOING TO MISS IT OR ALREALY HAVE MISSED IT. SORRY. WHEN I GET MY OWN COMPUTER, I WILL HAVE A PC AND I WILL HAVE IT TO WATCH. EGROSSMAN

Unless Third World countries like China and India reduce their greenhouse gas and pollutants, all our efforts will mean nothing. All of the poorer countries in the world want what we have. They need power to make money. Power production produces pollution. Good luck convincing these people to stay poor.

No mention has been made of the overheating caused by hundreds of jets circling and circling overcrowded airports. Sometimes they even go to another airport to refuel so they can circle some more. Also, traffic lights can have hundreds of cars backed up, burning fuel, heating the atmosphere. This is a tremendous waste of energy that could be dealt with in various ways. Also, we should research and upgrade ways of collecting and storing solar power, like solar power banks. Also, a streamlined solar power collecting material, almost like a cloth could make installation easier.

I hope you get another time scheduled to watch the 2% Solution. It must still be crashed for some of us. I tried viewing it a few minutes ago. After two minutes of playing, it freezes. Everything was working fine until then.

I am impressed that several of the respondents seem so level-headed compared to Chicken Littles on the show. “The 2% Solution” presented "climate change" as a man-caused crisis demanding immediate action. The action recommended, of course, was more government intrusion into the lives of all citizens. This is typical leftist totalitarian thinking. The enlightened nobles of the environmental movement will tell we poor benighted masses what we can drive, how we will light our houses, what we can eat, etc. From their perspective it is fine because they are smarter and more benevolent than the rest of us so we should just do what they say. In order to contrive the appearance of a crisis from which we must sacrifice our liberties to these green fascists, “2%” did not accurately portray the context of the debate about climate change. Mankind's relatively tiny contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gasses compared to natural sources were not mentioned. No mention was made of the fact that the earth has gone through much warmer periods in the past (including as recently as the first half of the 20th century) without the catastrophes that are being predicted now. You also have lumped all climate change into one anthropogenic basket. Where do you mention natural variations--most obviously those caused by the sun? “Bad boy andy” correctly points this out. I was also struck by the cavalier way in which the most obvious way of reducing CO2 emissions was all but ignored--nuclear power. There is a reason why European countries were so happy to sign on to the Kyoto accord and berate the US for not doing do. Rarely have I seen it mentioned in the context of the global warming discussion that France for example produces over 70% of its electricity with nuclear power. With the US at less than half that, Kyoto would give the nuke countries a huge economic competitive advantage! Life cycle costs of "alternative" power sources were not mentioned either. Until very recently, for instance, it took more energy to produce photovoltaics than they ever generated during their life. The materials with which they are made are difficult to recycle and even that process results in hazardous waste. These are surmountable technical problems, but it is disingenuous to pretend they do not exist or do not consume energy. As noble and economically sensible as conservation is, we are not going to conserve our way out of our growing demand for energy. The US uses the most energy per capita not because we are greedy but because we are the most productive nation on earth. Energy use and productivity are inextricably linked. Rich nations can afford to protect their environment. Gratuitous government meddling in the market almost always reduces net wealth. None of your choices for what to do with $100 Billion extracted from the economy by the government made much sense. If you really want to help the economy and the environment in the long run, the best thing to do with that money would be to give it back to the people who paid it in the form of lower taxes.