Wonderful to see the media taking such a proactive, supportive role in such a critical industry and issue. Well done, CNN. For the world to move forward in tackling the big issues we are all facing today a new form of professional maturity is needed. If global problems are to find global solutions it requires adoption by us all of sense of global responsibility.

The world needs aviation. The more the planes are flying the more countries across the globe are able to participate in cross-border tourism, business, trade, and basic cross-border cultural understanding. The industry deserves more support than it has received so far from the general public.

Great move, CNN, to start the movement in the right direction.

Yes, I do believe that too much blame is being put on aviation.

To tackle climate change personally I believe that it would be better to focus on industry, buildings and other forms of transportation. This group represents far more than 3% of CO2 emissions.

Manuel,
Coventry, UK

This is a great start on a great cause. But it is also one with major complexities. There was an interesting paper posted on http://www.wesrch.com a couple of weeks ago about the need for not only renewable energy but a clean sky and the challenges facing Air Transportation. Here is the link of you are interested (http://tinyurl.com/d39nwh)

Why do you as why about Mr. Obama's travels to the the G-20 Summit? No one asked all the questions when his white predecessors traveled to distanced lands to rub shoulders with other heads of states for mostly meaningless ambitions. Please allow Mr. Obama to do his job as President and stop being so nitpicky!

Three percent is too much, because less than three percent of world population only use air travel, aviation industry should work out ways of further cutting dawn emissions. Humans activities in all aspects of living, such as cooking, cleaning, heating, cooling and in many ways increase CO2 emission, in addition to all these damaged done. A three percent more by Air travel which is common to only less than one percent of the earth population is a bigger threat to environment . Because oil was a cheap source, unlimited amount is burned by air planes, creating environmental impacts, engines with less fuel consumption should replace the present air transport.

Please read im a 27 year old man that comes from a a great fam. tell me what you think about this idea insted of giving $$ to GM why dont they give that $ to working famillys that have paid taxes for at lease 10 years. And make a law that they can only and I mean only spend it on new cars that are great for the world. So if you think about it the car company gets the $ back in there pocket and saves jobs not just save jobs but make jobs all over. It would make jobs even in auto part stores. And then allso the familly that gets the $ for the new car should even give one of there old cars back for scrap that would once again make more jobs but the best thing of all it helps out on polution. and Global Warming.

I believe every coal burning plant should shut down immediately ! Show all the MORONS how stupid their plans are , What are you going
to replace coal with ? What are you going to replace oil with ? I have not
heard of anything that can replace any of it on a grand enough scale
to make one bit of difference , And until there is everybody should not worry about it , We cannot and should not have to pay trillons of dollars for something that is or might be a HOAX .

Was there no mention or participation from the military avaition units?
It seems to the casual observer that a significant amount of fuel is used by miltary flights, and we never see any mention of the pollution impact of those planes. I remember some years ago there was an uproar about the Concorde, but military planes break the soound barrier and waste tons of fuel every day. How big it their impact?

less than 3 percent ya but you are part of the 3 percent

Aviation may be responsible for "only" 3 percent of CO2 emissions. However, the effective contribution of aviation to radiative forcing is much higher: "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement)".
The overriding interest is to keep the impact of climate change to a minimum (which will be bad enough). The world needs some aviation, but as most flying is discretionary, there's no reason that it should not decrease it's emissions as will be required from all other sectors.