There’s been a lot of talk about Obama’s choices for his upcoming administration, but some of the most heated (sorry, climate change pun) debate may come from his picks for the energy and environment teams.  There will also be much discussion about what will be the best and most appropriate action to take on combating climate change.   According to Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, conflicts may arise between proponents of regulation versus advocates for technological approaches to reducing our carbon footprint.  My hope is that both perspectives will be pursued fully.  To understand the different rationals, Revkin has proposed three questions to experts and readers alike:

There will undoubtedly be tension within the Obama team between those seeing the climate-energy challenge mainly as a technology problem (putting a price on pollution, pushing efficiency, but also rebuilding the innovation pipeline) and those seeing it still as an old-style pollution problem (regulate or price the pollution and the technology will come to take it away).

1) Do you see the climate-energy challenge, at its root, as primarily a “technology problem” or “pollution problem” (presuming you believe there is an energy-climate challenge, of course)?

2) How would you boil down the necessary steps to show a serious commitment to averting a relentless climb in emissions and the concentration of CO₂?

3) Do you see any signs that Mr. Obama agrees with you? If not, what’s your biggest concern?

takepart by joining the conversation and read the responses that Revkin received at Dot Earth.

Related: Inconvenient Truth of the Day

Photo:  Public Domain