Its David! So last night a bunch of us went to a "debate"about nuclear power put on by the French Atomic Agency (Not sure what the exact name or acronym is- but thats who they are), and the presentation itself did not tell me a whole lot I did not already know- just facts and figures and them telling us that nuclear power has low carbon emissions. It took a while, but we finally arrived at the debate part. What actually ended up happening was that the panelists frequently refused to answer questions on the basis that they were "not scientific"(The King from the King and I would not approve!). It was a little frustrating, and I wanted to ask them about the carbon emissions of the processes surrounding nuclear power- IE construction of the plants and uranium mining- but I chickened out becuase they probably would have told me it wasn't scientific enough. Thusly, I have concluded that nuclear physicists are too scientific.
I was also just at a Greenpeace side-event about energy consumption and how they plan to reduce carbon emissions through clean energy. It was generally informative, we got a cool pen with a hidden secret and a copy of the full report. The most interesting part, however, was a Brazilian woman who attacked Greenpeace's support of biofeuls. She basically said that according to the projections the land required for the amount of biofeul required is more than the available land, and would lead to the annexation of lands that do not belong to the producers; which drew up strong anti-colonial sentiment. It was very interesting, and I do not quite know how to think of it.
Right about now I am going to an Ad-Hoc working group with presentations by individual countries about what they are doing to mitigate climate change- it should be very cool to see what everyone is doing. At some point today I hope to make it to the technology exhibits, and at 6 I am going to an indigenous peoples and mitigation session.