<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Optimistic economists weigh in on climate change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-policy/optimistic-economists-weigh-in-on-climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-policy/optimistic-economists-weigh-in-on-climate-change/</link>
	<description>EcoTone focuses on ecological science in the news and its use in policy, conservation and education.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:03:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Kluyver</title>
		<link>http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-policy/optimistic-economists-weigh-in-on-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-14842</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Kluyver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.esa.org/esablog/?p=1897#comment-14842</guid>
		<description>It does sound optimistic. It&#039;s worth noting that those three points are for the more ambitious of their two plans, for 350ppm by 2100. They also offer a by-2200 scenario, which is still optimistic, but not so extreme. And it&#039;s encouraging to see people considering how such targets might be met.

My impression is that they&#039;re focussing only on how much money it would theoretically take, and not on the practical questions like &quot;where are all those forests going to go?&quot; and &quot;where will our electricity come from?&quot; I appreciate that money is what economists study, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does sound optimistic. It&#8217;s worth noting that those three points are for the more ambitious of their two plans, for 350ppm by 2100. They also offer a by-2200 scenario, which is still optimistic, but not so extreme. And it&#8217;s encouraging to see people considering how such targets might be met.</p>
<p>My impression is that they&#8217;re focussing only on how much money it would theoretically take, and not on the practical questions like &#8220;where are all those forests going to go?&#8221; and &#8220;where will our electricity come from?&#8221; I appreciate that money is what economists study, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

