Questions 1 What incentives do the individuals have to support mitigation, when non mitigation strategies would lead to a higher income during his/her lifetime and the effect of climate change w or w/o mitigation during his lifetime will be non relevant?

Questions 2 After recognizing the failure of the use of renewable standard crops e.g. as biofuels, technology efficiency improvements and demand reduction are the most promising existing options of mitigation. Demand reductions mean less industrial work. Do we have to change the meaning of life from hard work to low consumption spare time activities, like sports?

Questions 3 One notion of ethics postulates equal share of CO2 emissions for everyone. Instead of taxing the governments which would lead to further debt explosions and demand shocks, shall we tax the individuals? Each relevant output/product including transport and distribution should be CO2 taxed. Governments can make their decisions of climate regulations without being in the stranglehold of the finance ministers and large companies. Collected taxes above the certain average shall be given to the people who consumed less than they are allowed too.

Questions 4 Global decisions need global deciders. Nations will always decide how they can profit the most, like the USA has acted so far. How can the United Nations become more powerful? Shall a public consensus give complete leadership on global problems to them? Or is a new global institution necessary, e.g. an „United peoples organisation“?

Question 5 Bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better than a juicy steak. Therefore bread is better than a juicy steak. We can´t go on like this on a global way and for sure our lifestyle cannot be reached by 5 billion other people without severe negative effects? What are possibilities fur a sustainable and fair future, while preventing developing countries from making the same mistakes as the OECD?

Question 6 What are the Stern Review‘s main arguments against excessive discounting in the case of climate change and how is it‘s aproach different from other studies?

Question 7 Some would argue, that the negative effects of climate change are quite uncertain to happen and therefore stringent climate policies are unnecessary. How can this somehow rational sounding argument be disproved by concentrating on costs, consequences & risks of action / inaction against climate change?

Question 8 What are policy options to tackle the market failure climate change and what kind of barriers exist for options like R&D and energy efficiency?