What should we do about global warming?
|It's beyond all reasonable doubt that
carbon dioxide emissions contribute to dangerous global warming. Most
EU countries have cut their emissions; the United States has barely
begun. Unless the US does more to restrain itself, how can we possibly
expect China, and other rapidly industrialising countries to do the
same. What is to be done?
Go to page 1 2
Derek Kelly, Retired American
During glacial periods, CO2 concentraions
in the atmosphere have, supposedly, been low; during interglacial periods,
such as now, they have been high. There does seem to be a correlation
between CO2 levels and climate. However, climate is influenced by many
things other than greenhouse gases, like CO2, including the Moon, solar
variability, water vapor, and other factors like global orbit and the
mass of continental areas, not to mention the thousands of volcanoes that
are underwater. The GW people cite the fact that in the last 200 years
or so, CO2 concentrations have risen from around 180 to 380ppm, even though
we have pumped 500 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, enough
to raise it to 500ppm were it not for carbon sink factors which have kept
the level down. But this "alarming" fact of rising CO2 levels
needs to be kept in perspective. CO2 is only now 0.0380 percent of the
atmosphere; that's considerably less than 1 percent. CO2 could double
or triple and it would still be a small percentage of the atmosphere.
The major problem with the Global Warming catastrophists is that they
assume that there is a "normal" range of temperatures and some
sort of "stable" climate (like a norm) that we humans have violated
by our industrialization and land-clearing. This stability and normality
of climate is like the "law of god" against which we have sinned--and
we must repent (Kyoto), else we will perish, blah, blah, blah. But there
is no stability of climate, never has been and never will be. We are fortunate
that the earth's climate has remained more-or-less between the extremes
of heat and cold beyond which human life would not be possible, but we
must remember that during glacial periods (one is long overdue, maybe
because of warming?), life shrinks to the tropics, then expands again
when things warm up. Instead of shutting down all our fossil fuel burning
and land-clearing activities to keep us (or return us) to some mythical
Garden of Eden, let's use our intelligence to respond to the changes as
they occur. (To be sure, I think we should get rid of all fossil-fuel
activites, but on aesthetic and health-giving grounds.) Who says that
the Maldives SHOULD exist? Or Bangladesh? or New York City, for that matter?
If the glaciers shrink and some of the ice at the poles melt, and ocean
warming and ocean thermal expansion cause the sea levels to rise, so be
it. Who says the beaches have to be where they are today? If a glacial
period comes around again and we're still around, and the ocean levels
drop by 2 or 300 feet, so be it. So, you can grow avocadoes in Maine,
and you can catch malaria in Siberia, or wear bikinis in Stockholm all
year round, so what?
In short, while I completely oppose the unipolar world that Bush has been
advancing, I fully support his refusal to be a part of the Global Warming
If you have objections to the science of global warming it would be best
to submit them to a climatology journal where someone with expertise in
the subject could consider them. As it is almost all climatologists agree
that we are on the brink of disaster. As it is I find your statement that
0.0380 percent CO2 is a "small percentage" of the atmosphere
quite unconvincing. Small is a relative term and should be seen as relative
to what is dangerous. If there were 0.0380 percent of H2S (which can be
produced biologically) in the atmosphere we would all be dead.
As to who says that Bangla Desh should exist I would suggest that there
are millions of Bangla Deshis who would prefer it exist. I would agree
that we might have to resign ourselves to coping with the loss of entire
nations if our lives were to be forfeited otherwise but what we are threatened
with is the loss of an "American way of life" that is unhealthy
and geopolitically unsustainable. This is the same "American way
of life" that Colin Powell gave as the motivation for the first Iraq
war back in 1991.
Derek Kelly, USA
I do not have objections to the "science" of global warming
(there is no such thing; there are many sciences that contribute to an
understanding of climate--geologists, astronomers, oceanographers, physicists
and so on). There are many scientists, however, who do have objections
and who do not agree with the idea that global warming is anthropogenic
or controllable. Global sea levels are rising. They have risen about 400
feet since the earth emerged from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Rising
sea levels are a natural event during interglacial periods (the times
between ice ages). Sea levels have been rising for 19,900 years without
the help of fossil fuel emissions; they have risen many times before without
our help. How much rise can we expect in the next 100 years? If all the
earth's frozen (Greenland and Antarctica) water melted, scientists say
sea levels could rise about another 250 feet. The IPCC forecast, upon
which Kyoto is based, assumes a 4.5 degree F. temperature rise as a result
of the doubling of the concentration of CO2, is that the sea levels will
rise 19 inches--nothing to write home about. On the other hand, I do have
objections to the question of what we should do about the issue. Kyoto
advocates reversion or stability; I think that adaptation is better. Look
at Holland--they adapt; they've been adapting for hundreds of years and
are prepared for even more changes ahead. I doubt that we can either prevent
global warming or revert back to some previous temperature. I think Kyoto
is more hysterics than realistic.As far as .0380 being a small percentage,
you're right--it is relative. What I meants was that before 3 million
years ago, an extended period of warm climate (the Pliocene) had much
higher sea levels, higher temperatures, and much higher levels of CO2
than today. Then 3 million years ago, the Earth changed to a cooler climate
with frequent glacial periods--and since then we've had 33 glacial (and
interglacial) periods. The high temperatures during the Cretaceous were
due to the much higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the
time; some say four times as much as is in our air today. The Cretaceous
was thus an extreme greenhouse world, but the dinosaurs did OK and our
ancestors survived. Some people suggest that global warming is good and
should be encouraged because it has held back or is holding back the cyclical
return of the next glaciation, which may last 90,000 years if the cycle
holds up. I don't know about you, but I prefer warm to cold.I agree that
many of us (not just "them") are going to be very sad to see
the changes that global warming will bring--England, too cold for life
or half submerged; many islands--gone; NYC, Houston, Shanghai, London,
and many others--gone under. Yes, lots of places will be gone, but no
one says these places must continue. Change is the constant in climate,
as in life. Cities and countries come and go. I also agree that the US
system is unsustainable and will need to be changed--nowadays may be its
last hurrah; but changing America should not be a reason for advancing
or defending Kyoto.
If you disagree with the science of global
warming, surely it's incredibly arrogant to ignore the opinions of the
majority of people who agree with it? It's not something where it's worth
waiting to see who's right. Surely it is too major a thing to be worth
the risk? This reminds me of the does-smoking-cause-cancer debate: there
are still those who deny it causes cancer, whilst the majority believe
Jan Paul, USA
But the majority of scientist don't agree
with it. Many outside of the Kyoto cliche disagree. And even the scientists
in the Kyoto Community agree that if they were to get everything they
want, it would have no significant effect because of all the countries
they exempted. China which was exempted will in a couple of decades have
more vehicles than the U.S., be consuming more fossil fuels, etc. and
yet they exempted them with their 10% GDP Growth.
It is also now beoming more prevelant that CO2 may actually be a result
of Global Warming more than a cause. At any rate CO2 whether a cause or
not is not what we have to worry about. One large volcanic eruption like
the one that lowered the temperature of the earth by 21 degrees a few
thousand years ago and caused the nuclear winter scientists talk about
destroyed more life in a year, than global warming will in centries. The
Yellowstone Volcano that many feel is closer to eruption than many realize
would lay ash down so thick the virtually everything west of the Mississippi
River would be uninhabitable and the earth would be plunged into another
nuclear winter. Do a search for "supervolcano Yellowstone" and
see if you worry more about global warming or nuclear winter.
I would rather spend money on river pollution, acid rain from sulphur
emissions and other pollution that we can have an impact on than waste
it on fuzzy science that even the scientist can't agree on and that admit
we can't change enough to even change the temperature by a degree in any
significant period of time. However, for those who would really like to
learn more about CO2 and what we are learning about it, here are some
New Antartic Study
Greenland (Temperature History) - Summary
Growth Response to CO2 with Other Variables (Disease)
Global Warming may increase the Antartic Ice Field
Yellowstone the Super Volcano
A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming
Causes of Global Climate Change
Playing with Numbers
A Matter of Opinion
Unraveling the Earth's Temperature Record
Stopping Climate Change
The interesting thing is that until about 1970, "all the scientists"
were saying global pollution was causing global cooling, and then suddenly
when that stopped and it started warming they switched their cry from
global cooling to global warming. We are now actaully seeing positive
things as a result of this normal trend in world temperatures in that
areas that were unproductive for crops are now starting to be productive.
Also, plants are starting to show more growth from the natural fertilizer
CO2 is for plants.
This "global warming" science is too fuzzy to waste time on
and we need to spend the money on pollution we can have an impact on.
Do you realize that of all the CO2 impact on Global Warming that human
contribution is only 2 to 3% and the other 97% is beyond our control?
Do you know how much CO2 is pumped out by even little burps from Mt. St.
Helens. What about the Hawaii Volcano that has been active for years.
Better crops from CO2
We may actually be better off with food supplies thanks to CO2. The world
is a wonderful dynamic "machine" that cycles and flips it axis
and bulges at the equators during the winter from snow weight during the
winters of the north, it tilts and is vunerable to sunspot activity changes.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the one gas that allows the atmosphere to
keep this planet inhabitable and it fluctuates in normal cycles. Let worry
about real polution.
If you have insight into the science of global
warming why don't you submit a publication to a refereed scientific journal
instead of posting it to a site that is read by lay people? If you could
disprove any of it you would be sure to get international recognition
and lots of money from grateful oil and weapons companies. I don't have
time to make myself an expert in climatology in order to respond to your
I see no reason to question organizations like the National Academy of
Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science when
they state that it is a serious problem. The overwhelming majority of
experts in the field are of this opinion and they no doubt could obtain
a lot more grant money from from the oil industry and the bush administration
if they support their side than by sticking to their current positions.
It is true that the Kyoto Protocol will not make much of a difference
by itself. It's just that developed countries must show that they are
willing to take serious measures to address the problem before they can
ask countries that produce much lower levels of greenhouse gases to limit
In all honesty I don't think that global climate change is the most serious
threat to our way of life. Oil wars are. But the way to prevent either
is the same.
I read with interest your article that gave a snapshot of global temperatures
over the last 15,000 years:
I was wondering if you could give some references that I could use as
ammunition in this debate. I've read the same information elsewhere, but
most of it is second-hand; would like some references that are incontrovertable
and credible. Thanks! (Remove "NOSPAM" from my email address)
Greg Barcon, USA
Derek Kelly's article on global warming--he's
in favor of it--has numerous errors.
Coming from a person with a PhD, I would expect an article that had been
tirelessly researched and with a biography to back up his thesis.
For instance, Kelly's contention that 1816, the "year without a summer"
in the US and other parts of the world, was part of the earth's cycles
of warming and cooling.
1816, the year without a summer, was caused by the 1815 eruption of the
Tambora volcano complex in Indonesia.
It was a series of massive explosions that sent enough dust into the atmosphere
that lingered well into the summer of 1816.
This volcanic cloud was able to affect the world's climate on a global
Kelly's whole article reads like a paper submitted by high school junior,
not someone with a PhD.
Or, maybe Mr. Kelly is in the pay of either ExxonMobile or the Republican
controlled White House and US media. The first two are in favor of global
warming and the large majority of the latter are still snoozing.
With the recent revelations that the Bush White House pays so-called journalists
to spread their propaganda, it would not be a surprise to learn Mr. Kelly
is beholden to Karl Rove.
Jan Paul, USA
If you didn't read the reseach on CO2 and
find that, yes we are having global warming and it isn't an significant
man caused event but a natual cycle that has warmed and cooled for the
history of the earth, you aren't open to the other problems with pollution
which are controlled by man.
CO2 is not a problem that we should waste money on. yet, this is the one
gas that gets the attention and is used to compare the nations of the
world for "pollution." Put pollution back into the realm of
reality. We can't control CO2 enough to matter, but SO2 for example we
It was pointed out that it was like a 20 to 1 ratio for emissions between
China and the U.S. China with a pop. of 1.287 billlion people compared
to 294 million and the pollution is more per person. But keep in mind
this, Much of China's polution on a per capita basis is very small compared
to its total population becasue the majority of polution is coming from
a few places while ours is pretty well spread out across the country,
especially from vehicle use and power plants. From a size of country,
they have 3.1 million sq. miles and we have 3.5 million sq. miles. So
for country size it is an entirely different picture. But again, they
use CO2 as the reference which with all our vehicles is going to definately
be a much higher per capita rate since until recently they didn't have
many and won't catch up to us for decades.
So, here they are comparing us to China on a gas that isn't important
since we can't control the natural production enough to change the 97%
nature produces enough to make a significant difference. The fact, and
most will agree it is a fact, that there is global warming which is a
good thing for many people, doesn't change the fact we can't stop it or
slow it down enough to make a difference before another large volcanic
eruption cools the earth down in a month more than we warm it up in a
hundred years. Read the sites I listed.
But, let's look at something we can control and that has a significant
impact on health and plants and life in general, SO2 and acid rain. China
produces 23.5 million tons to the U.S. 15.8 million tons. Almost 8 million
more tons creating acid rain from their economic zones.
"Acid rain has mainly been distributed in the areas to the south
of Yangtze River and to the east of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and in Sichuan
Basin. In Mid-China, Southwest-China, East-China and South-China acid
rain has reached or passed the critical load.
In 1996, the air pollution caused by acid rain was universally serious
and the affected areas were expanded, covering 30 percent of the total
territory. According to the monitoring data for 84 cities within the State-controlled-Network,
the number of cities with annual average pH value of acid rain lower than
5.6 was 43.The acid rain frequency was higher than 60% in 24 cities. "
"At present, together with the Beijing New Technology Experimental
Zone, there are 53 State-level new and high-tech zones in the country."
These few zones are the main polluters and the smog and pollution are
greater in those areas than in the major industrial zones of the U.S.
These are the games people are playing with statistic. They use CO2 becuase
that gas lends more to their argument than SO2. Yet plants love CO2 and
are killed by SO2. Plants are growing faster thanks to increased CO2 which
means faster replacement of forests and higher yields of crops and the
Global Warming may actaully beneificial overall. The biggest threat they
say Global Warming will cause? The rise of seas and flooding of low areas.
This is real and is a danger to the specified areas. But, even if all
manmade emissions of CO2 were stopped today, even the very scientist in
the Kyoto organziation admit it won't make a significant differnce due
natural emissions and especially due to expemptions.
Pollution is not best viewed from a per capita basis. It is best viewed
from the percentage of the earth creating it and affected by it. For example
100 people in norther Canada running a power plant or some other industry
that had no restrictions and put out 100 tons of a pollutant would endager
just as much of the globe as 1000 people in Southern Canada, or Brazil
or anywhere else. It isn't how many people are involved, but how much
of the world is involved at least with something like CO2. But SO2 is
more important on a per capita basis because of the damage it does in
the immediate area of emissions. Concentrated people around concentrated
industry are greatly impacted by SO2.
But, lets go back to CO2. Until about 1975 we were in a cooling trend
and then began warming. They said that was when CO2 started really becoming
a problem. Well, from 1950 on the U.S. did significantly increase CO2
emissions. We had increased by the 1990's to 103% of what were were in
1940. E.Asia? Well they increased in the same period by about 4,570% or
over 44 times as fast. So who was doing more to control emissions while
growing industry and economic growth? Their population wasn't growing
26 times as fast.
Source for CO2 emmission: http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/hyde/eise_co2a.html
But lets be more fair and come to more recent times. From 1960 to 1990
we grew 13% and they grew 330% or only 25 times as fast. Again they are
improving and that is good but they are still much more out of control
than the U.S. on percentage of earth being affected.Source for SO2 emission:
East Asia puts out about 24% more than the U.S. in SO2
The largest contributor of Carbon Monoxide is Africa.
"The major sources in 1990 of carbon monoxide were agricultural waste
burning (21%), savannah burning (18%) and deforestation (11%; Olivier
et al. 1996). Other important sources are road transport (21%) and the
use of biofuels (19%). Most important regions who contribute to the total
amount of carbon monoxide are located in Africa (savannah burning). According
to EDGAR they emitted 25% of the global total, followed by Latin America
(15%), China (11%) and India (11%)."
Source: Energy/Industry Emission data
The U.S. is big contributors in several categories that we can work on.
This is were the money needs to be spent, not on CO2 which may actaully
be beneficial as well as uncontrollable. The flooding of low level areas
can be seen and is such a long process that moving can be accomplished
with out sudden loss of life. However, one major volcanic eruption and
we may start worrying more about moving people from uninabitable cold
areas instead of uninhabitable areas caused by flooding. The projected
rise of the oceans is currently about 5 ft. by some
"Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about
10 to 25 cm." (4 to 10 inches)
"Since the end of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, sea level has
risen by over 120 meters." (590.55 ft)
Now since they say we have increased the rate in the last 100 years and
the average is over 3 ft. every 100 years, the rate of increase must have
been a lot higher before man was even contributing to it. During periods
of high volcanic activity the rate is much higher due to the higher emissions
of all kinds of gases including CO2. So, is our current warming due to
some increase in volcanic activity?
Lets look at the last 300 years.
here we see a sharp increase near the beginning of the 1900's and tapering
off to a spike in the 1950 era and down to the low at about 1960 and staying
low until when? About the time the cooling changed to warming about 1975
and volcanic activity slowly increased until about 1980 when it really
spiked up and the "environmentalist" really said we were going
to hell in a handbasket. Well, if we are, it isn't because of CO2. SO2
maybe or some other pollutant (by the way E Asia has more mercury pollution
than the U.S.).
Don't you find it interesting that only selective information is given
to you to support their claims? Don't you find it interesting they don't
prioritize other emissions that cause more damage that is controllable?
Don't you find it interesting that the major problem they are worried
about is more of the world becoming inhabitable while only some will be
"flooded" over a hundred year period?
What do you think 5 feet of additional water weight on 3/4 of the world
will do to a "balloon" filled with a liquid? Think maybe that
additional pressure will trigger such massive eruptions that instead of
CO2 warming the earth, dust particles will cool the earth? One volcano
like Yellowstone has the potential to put us into an ice age in weeks
not centuries. One volcano is attributed to cooling the earth 21 degrees.
" The last known explosion of what might be considered a super volcano
was Toba in Indonesia. Toba erupted with a titanic explosion about 74,000
years ago. The force of the explosion was estimated to be 10,000 more
powerful than the blast that destroyed Mount St. Helens, in Washington.
Tremendous amounts of rock and ash were ejected into the air, blocking
the sun for months. The temperature around the globe was thought to have
plummeted as much as 21 degrees. Perhaps as much as 75% of plant life
on the North American continent may died out."
Again, what is more important, this idiotic Kyoto treaty that exempts
some of the worlds largest pollutors or pollution we can control?
Kelly Marie Hillier, Wales
people should take note of what's happening
around us and take note quickly.
We should all every where in the globe should do our bit to help prevent
this global warming acting on us day by day.
America is one of the most biggest country in doing so with the amount
of co2 that is going up and polluting our world not saying that no where
else is doing wrong america and it's president should make it their priority
to help prevent it.
like they do advertise the energy efficiency on the television on what
steps we should do to slow it down for our sake and next generations after
that and so on.
The world is a beautiful place and we should keep it that way. NOT DESTROY
I have read some of the comments of other persons about this subject and
some is good and others seem not that bothered, it might not happen yet
at this time but soon will if we don't start fighting back to slow it
I do my bit by not wasting alot of the earths energy you should to.
I'm not saying we can save the earth but we can slow it down for future
SO PLEASE EVERYONE DO YOUR BIT AND HELP AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.
Jan Paul, USA
Kelly Marie Hillier
Did you not read the websites regarding CO2? It is not a pollutant but
the gas that plants have to have to live. No plants and you die.
CO2 is not the problem. Maybe SO2 or NO2 but CO2 isn't. You need to do
your research before you post nonsense that can't be proved. If you would
have read the sites on CO2 you would have noticed the world IS a better
and more beautiful world because of CO2 which has been causing plants
to be heathier, grow in previously inhabitable places for plants and thus
increasing grain production that can be used to reduce hunger.
You can't effect CO2 enough to change anything and yet instead of concentrating
on the smog, chemical waste, acid rain, you ramble like a fool about something
you can't stop since nature produces Natural sources of carbon dioxide
and release about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, while
we produce 7 billion tons of man-made emissions from fossil fuel burning,
waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture. This is about
4.6% and since we can only cut that 4.6% a tiny bit, even the scientists
in the Kyoto treaty admit it won't have a significant effect in this 18,000
year warming trend. Many expect us to go into another ice age first since
one large volcanic eruption can lower the temperature several degrees
as volcanos have done in the past.
You need to do a lot of reseach and quit listening to people with hidden
agendas. You need to start concentrating on the pollution you can control
and not something beneficial to plants. Remember the more plants that
grow the more CO2 they consume to produce oxygen. This is natures way
of balancing this gas.
Chris is very right! we should start cutting
down on our energy usage.
William Duffy, USA
Its been going on and off for mega-millions
of years. If your cold get to a warmer clime and vice-versa if your to
hot. but if you feel troubled get some ice cubes pour some liquid refreshment
over them sit back and relax the next cold spell is around the corner.
No Worry Mate.
If you do not want to believe on the science
of global warming, it's surely because it's in your own benefit not to
do so. It's always easier to ignore a problem than to make an effort and
do something to deal with it!
John B., USA
Well, being suckered into voting the creature
from the black (oily) lagoon back into power wasn't a step in the right
direction in many regards, and certainly including environmental concerns.
Having people in positions of power that are environmentally progressive
is, I belive, necessary to achieving goals of reducing carbon emmissions,
and improving the environmental state of things in general. Given the
current administration, I do not see any moves being made in the direction
of CO2 reduction for some years.
IF there's ever an administration favorable to the idea of reducing emmissions,
moving, quickly, towards the widespread utilization of fuel cell technologies
in automobiles will inevitabley be a great help.
Ok, For all you folks that are so keen on
Global Warming, start posting the Kyoto Scientists research. Since the
Kyoto treaty sounds so good to you, post the details you like. Go ahead
and excuse the biggest polluters like China who is rapidly increasing
their CO2 emmissions as they rapidly grow thanks to not having the burdern
Europe has. Compare the Economy of China that is now 2nd in GDP and going
to grow another 8% and now is number one consumer of all things except
oil and is rapidly catching up on that.
Put forth your research that shows how global warming has caused one of
the coldest winters in Siberia, or how the Antartic Ice cap isn't melting
and may get larger due to more moisture.
You are all good at running off at the mouth with general statements but
where is the Kyoto Scientists projections how much reaching all their
goals will change the trend and by when? Before or after the next ice
age are cooling trend begins. Are you afraid to use the statistics they
put forth for your basis for these statements? Hey, give us some convincing
statistics and you may convince some people you are right. Repeating things
you have heard but haven't researched isn't doing it. Are you too lazy
to do the research or to much like puppets following someone just because
they have a "degree?" Europe is being ruined by this crap and
you let it happen.
"The EU was China's third largest trading partner in 2003. According
to Chinese statistics, the bilateral trade between China and the EU in
2003 reached US$125.2 billion, up by 44.4 per cent.
Of this, China's exports to the EU totalled US$72.15 billion, up by 49.7
percent, while China's imports from the EU were US$53.06 billion, up by
37.7 percent. China had a surplus of US$19.09 billion."
Note how the exports to Europe are going up much faster than the exports
from Europe to China.
Recently the majority of the U.S. trade deficit is due to the China factor.
But, the U.S. is hanging in there only becaue they didn't get sucked into
the phoney "global warming" cry. Instead they are going ahead
with sensibile improvemtns in environmental contols and keeping unemployment
I am sure Germany is very happy with over 10% unemployemnt and France
has increase 1.2% to 10% so I am sure they are happy China is exempt."DATAWATCH
French unemployment hits 5-yr high, unlikely to decline this year
12:59 2005/02/25PARIS (AFX) - French unemployment rose to a 5-year high
in January, hitting 10 pct of the population and practically ensuring
the government will not meet its 2005 growth target of 2.5 pct, as analysts
see little chance for any improvement in the employment rate this year
For several months, France's economy has been supported by household spending,
which offset declining exports even as unemployment remained stubbornly
The U.S. with the huge trade deficit and the Eurozone with an overall
9% unemployment, with major economies of Germany and France at 10%, Ireland
getting ready to get hit with emissions violations for CO2 and China laughs
all the way to the bank. Yup, sure glad everyone was for Kyoto. It has
sure changed the world hasn't it. The warming trend will go on with China's
economy expected to grow another 8% this year, like last and like many
of the years before. 100 to 200 million middle class in China expected
to grow to 500 million in less than a decade
"American corporations have rushed into China seeking to win over
its population of 1.3 billion people and a middle class expected to grow
to 500 million by 2010"
Whats the total population of Europe? The population of the U.S. is less
than 300 million. They will have more middle class than we have people.
I am sure Europe will enjoy being a toursist spot to all the Chinese that
will have money to spend. Already they have 5 million skiers and 20 million
people visiting other countries.
Yup, it was good to exempt China. I am for China growing. I want all people
to do well. The Chinese people deserve a good living and they work hard.
Some work 2 and 3 jobs. They are getting a good education, most schools
teach english as a business language and they are giving businesses incentives
to come and hire their people with tax breaks and many have lower emission
restrictions than in Europe and the U.S.
It is not that I am speaking against China, but against the rediculous
Kyoto treaty that is killing Europe by adding huge emission control costs
in Europe to lower taxes in China, lower land costs, lower labor, and
a very hard working and increasingly educated workforce.
It shouldn't be hard to meet the restictions in Europe since they will
have fewer industries and jobs to pollute with.
Kensie Long, UK
global warming sucks! People should stop using
cars just to go halfway down the street. WHY DON'T PEOPLE WALK??????????????
Have you ever heard of exercise?????
Anyway, the reason why global warming sucks is cos once the ozone layer
is broken animals will die and so will we! And that's not fair! We should
stop global warming right now before its too late!
Tatiana Smith, America
WE HAVE TO SAVE THE ARCTIC ANIMALS!
Jan Paul, USA
What has global warming to do with ozone depletion?
Here is the site for the chemicals that contribue to ozone depletion.
You will note that the gases that are associated with global warming aren't
listed since the ozone depletion is more alligned with other Chemical.
Kensi Long, why don't you do some reseach on Global Warming and see how
it will probably trigger another cooling period before it becomes as warm
as it was in the middle ages. You do realize that we are just now getting
back to world timeperatures of the middle ages? What did you blame that
global warming on?
From this site we have this historical data.
"The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming
is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene
Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period
in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately
7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented
Unlike the garbage "theorist" quote, Historical Data reveals
the true nature of NATURE. You can not stop global warming since it has
been going on in cycles for as long as data can be found on the earth's
history. The earth corrects its own embalances. Why aren't you more concerned
with pollution you can control? Global Warming means more food production
in areas previously unable to grow crops. I would image people in Siberia
would like that. As the ice packs melt and the oceans rise, do you know
what will happen to this "liquid filled balloon" we call earth?
What happens when you push in on two sides of a ballon?
Jan Paul, USA
If you want to save artic animals, which is
a good idea, you will have to put them in refigerated zoos, since nothing
we can do according the very Kyoto scientists who are concerned about
"Global Warming" admit the only thing we could if all goals
were met is slow the process down. All scientists that believe Global
Warming is going to cause a problem with Artic Wildlife also admit this
is a several thousand year trend and that if man is having an impact,
it only to speed it up slightly and that will go on even if man is totally
elimnated from the planet.
However, since methane casues 10 times the effect of holding heat in,
why aren't they talking more about methane? Since methane may actaully
be the cause of Global Warming more than CO2 (not is but may be) why aren't
they doing more studies on it? It is proven that it has the capability,
so why not worry more about it, study more about it, and eliminate more
Have you looked the cycles of warmth the earth goes through?
Jan Paul, USA
"From these records it appears that there
have been short periods of only a few hundred years in the geological
past when rapid increases of the Earth's temperature have occurred superimposed
on top of the rise and fall of average temperatures over the longer term.
For these short periods temperature rises of up to 8 degrees centigrade
appear to have occurred on top of existing long term rises of 5 to 7 degrees
to give temperatures up to 15 degrees centigrade warmer than today. Temperatures
then fell back to the long term trend, the whole rise and fall only lasting
a few hundred years.
The most likely cause of this rapid global warming over such a short period
is the release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 60 times more
powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only remains in the atmosphere
for about ten years and so looses it's greenhouse effect quickly compared
to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for 100 years. CO2 would not be
available in sufficient quantities to achieve the rapid warming and if
CO2 was the cause then the raised temperatures would last a lot longer.
This is both an argument for and against CO2 effect. This article sets
the actual risk of extreme Global Warming on the back of Methane. It sets
the cause of Methane release on CO2 emissions.
However, the article doesn't answer what triggered the methane releases
in the past nor does it "prove" that human released CO2 is a
cause, of the 18,000 year trend we are in, for warming and that we have
through other processes reached the point methane is released in larger
quantities. Nor, does it explain what caused the warming to end and a
return to more normal temperatures to occur.
What we do know is that there is a link between pressure from weight changes
in portions of the earth's crust and volcanic actions. We also know that
there is a link between volcanic action and global cooling and global
warming. We also know that even as CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere,
we were in a mini cooling trend until about 1975.
We know that one large volcanic eruption can lower the earth's temperature
in days while the warming has taken thousands of years over all and even
with acceleration in the last 30 years, is still within normal cycles
and still not as warm as it was in the middle ages.
However, I believe we have passed the point where CO2 will have any significant
effect. Instead, we will now see methane take over as the leading cause
of global warming and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
We can't even slow it down if methane has taken over.
The only thing we can hope for is a huge eruption that cools the earth
several degrees and returns the natural release of methane to normal patterns.
This is what I believe ended the previous methane induced warming periods.
If one of the Super Volcanoes around the world, like Yellowstone erupts,
we could be plunged into an ice age that matches previous ice ages with
glaciers covering much of the Northern Hemispheres down to the middle
or upper states in the U.S. and covering much of Scandanavia and Russia.
Like the mastadons found frozen with their last meal still in their stomach,
we could find carabou, and other mammels frozen with their last meal just
It is a new Ice Age I fear, much more than Global Warming. You might say
the movie "The Day after Tomorrow" dealing with the rapid freezing
of much of the earth, is more likely to happen than many realize, only
it will be caused by a huge volcanic eruption.
" Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both
short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures
dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption
of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures
and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption
of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's
mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing
volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles
thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic
gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how
sunlight interacts with the volcanic material."
The constant volcanic action of the volcano in Hawaii and the eruptions
of Mt. St. Helen's could be contributing to Golbal Warming and at the
same time a major eruption could cause global cooling. These same actions
may result in expansion and contraction of methane release as well due
to temperature fluctuations the volcanic action causes.
"This all has rather interesting implications for concerns about
the "global warming" phenomenon. Most climatologists are trying
to prove that global warming is human-caused. Vortex tectonics demonstrates
that the current trends of global warming should be correlated directly
with the general increase in volcanic activity which is underway. Since
the El Nino/La Nina pattern has gotten directly worse with the sudden
increase in volcanism during the 1990's, most likely the cause of both
global warming and El Nino is at the bottom of the South Pacific in the
world's most actively spreading rift zone near the Fiji-Papua Tectonic
What is interesting on this very complex study is the charts of volcanic
activity and especially the sudden increase in the Fiji volcanoes(chart
397) exactly when we switched from Global Cooling to Global warming. Also
note the increasing earthquake activity recently. Could this also be related
to pressure changes from the increased release of pressure from volcanoes?
Since volcanoes can both warm the earth and cool the earth depending on
emmisions and quantity, it would seem more studies on their effects need
to be done. They emit huge amounts of CO2.
I think that co2 is something that needs to
be regulated. It's like food, not enough is a bad thing, and too much
is a bad thing. In my personal opinion we are putting too much of it into
the atmosphere. However, I am glad to see steps being taken to reduce
co2 emissions in things such as hydrogen and hybrid cars, stricter industry
pollutant standards, etc... I am currently reasearching co2 for a class
project, and with what little I know I feel it would be best for everyone
to do their part to help make the environment cleaner. Ride your bikes
or walk instead of take the car, use mass transit, recycle what you can.
If all of the billions of people out there would contribute, we'd make
one heck of an impact.
Jan Paul, USA
Having been an American citizen all my life, working hard
and having been taxed unresonably, having received the unjust treatment
of U.S. "authorities" destroy my family, having watched as so
many others' lives and rights are trampled for the benefit of a dishonest
government I can only respond to this question in one way, NO, it wasn't
right for Bush to send even one troop into Iraq, NO it wasn't right for
Bush to think he and his croneys can impose "Democracy on any people,
NO our people don't belong in other countries when there are so many injustices
commited here on our soil by the same administration. Democracy is not
something that can be forced on anyone, it is best encouraged by example.
but the example that has been shown by the U.S. Government and it's military
since the time of Abraham Lincoln is pathetic at best. Our original constitution
as it was written by the founding fathers of this country has been twisted
to suit those in power, influenced by greed and arrogance. King George
III was the reasom the declaratioon of independance was written, now we
have King George IV. We cannot rightfully backtrack and just pull our
people out of Iraq without leaving a mess, but it seems our administration
can only do so.
All we can do is learn from experiences, it is a shame though that those
who come to power in the U.S. fail to learn from our past. In this instance
I say big business needs to get it's paws out of our lives. It has ruined
this country, I hate to say it but look out all you other countries, the
Piper (U.S. Big Business) is coming to town and he surely demands to be
paid!! with blood or money.
you should all burn, the next ice age will not happen,
the more popular theory is that the temperatures will continue to rise
and cause major flooding around the coast, then, as the temperatures continue
to rise, the earth will slowly become un inhabitable. This will be because
as the ozone dissapears, the harmfull ultra violet rays will get through,
and our technology will not be high enough to stop ourselves from getting
severly burne, the human race will go extinct, and some uv resistant creature
will take over. survival of the fittest.
Katie and Heather, England
Yes and so, we agree global warming sucks. i mean whats
the point of frying under the sun wen we can just fry are sausages under
the sun on a bbq instead. We are trying to raise awareness at our school
and are trying to tell others about it and stuff.
Many say that global warming hasnt even started yet!! WHAT!!?? It flippin
snowed today and it's the middle of April, isnt that saying something?
thats why me and my mate are getting so freaked out about global warming
coz it snowed....in April!! and that everyday the earth is getting closer
and closer to frying.
And its kinda ironic that the dudes that we're trying to tell about it,
don't really give a crap! I dunno why thats irony we just like saying
Jan Paul, USA
Do you have any sources to back up your claim Justus, USA?
We are always interested in additional data. What triggered the ice ages
we had after the other warming periods some a much as now and even warmer?
Are you guaranteeing no large volcanic eruptions since that would spoil
your theory? If you have some proof of no further large volcanic eruptions
ocurring in the future, please give us the sources.
For those who claim we are denying Global Warming exists, I would be interested
in who they are. The majority I hear say there is global warming but that
it is a normal cycle the earth goes through and then returns to cooling
periods and the cycles have been will documented by scientists for both
warming and cooling. They disagree that we can "control" it
enough to worry about. Even the most ardent supporter of human causes
being the reason for it increasing in rate of rise admit we can't control
it in any significant way.
I notice nobody seems to want to talk about the countries exempted from
emissions control. That is interesting since the Kyoto treaty scientists
say those exemptions all but destroy any chance at changing the timetable.
Interesting that one of the fastest growing countries for auto emissions
and factory emissions is exempt, but nobody talks about it. Instead they
go on about a country that is reducing it emissions. Hmmmm? I wonder why
Sarah Hewett, United States
well yes the US should work more on helping to find solutions
of finding an end to global warming
Thanks to global warming, sponsored by USA, the Atlantic
Ocean will spare a decision.
Thomas, French and World Citizen
USA should sign the Kyoto Protocol to begin... The we gonna
be able to plan something!
Jan Paul USA - If you do not like America ...MOVE!
WHAT DO THE INDUSTRIES THINK ABOUT ALL OF THIS? IS THERE
ANY INFORMATION ANYWHERE ABOUT INDUSTRIES?!?!?!
Jan Paul, USA
How come you don't want the exempted polluters to sign
up that are even pouring more into the air then the U.S?
How come you aren't doing anything about methane with 10 times the warming
power of CO2?
Andrew Stoner, USA
Arguing over this is stupid. It's just a waste of time.
You all should go out with your friends and family and have a good time!
But if you don't have friends then you should get some!
So you wonder why that is, do you? The countries that are exempted have
per-capita emmisions that are a small fraction of ours. If we cut our
emmisions by 50%, which is much more than what the Kyoto Potocol requires,
we would still emit more than three times what they (the Chinese, I'm
thinking of now) do per person. Unless we make a token reduction in our
emmisions first, they will laugh at any request from us to cut theirs
- for good reason.
ASHKELON QUALLS, MILWAUKEE
I THINK THAT WE PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE BETTER CARE OF OUR WORLD.BECAUSE
IF WE DON'T THEN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THEIR WAY TO COME BEHIND US WILL
HAVE A LOT MORE WORK TO DO.
Global warming can save lives it really can, me and my
child were raped when it started raining and he ran away! it was thanks
to global warming
Jósel Cruz, Puerto Rico
CO2 contributes to global warming... but how much so?
The 95% of CO2 produced by nature does, indeed...
So does our measly 5%, although at a much smaller scale.
We can spend trillions of dollars to reduce that 5% to 4%. Trillions of
dollars for no noticeable change.
We would be better off planting trees and eliminating real pollutants
and toxins, rather than diminishing CO2, which is not a pollutant. It's
the stuff plants breathe. It's coming out of your lungs right now, you
Seriously, though: Want to reduce CO2? plant trees, but don't spend MY
tax money on something useless like Kyoto. Spend it on planting trees
and crops, more efficient-less polluting technology, social security,
education, food and aid for poor countries...
You really want to reduce CO2? stop breathing.
Want to really help the world? Do some research on what's wrong with the
Jan Paul, USA
Well when you have 4 times the people and pollute the same
you have a lower per capita but same per land mass. Have you seen the
satellite pictures of China's smog cloud. Way larger than any of ours.
They have to wear masks in some areas. But, the Chinese government is
trying to do the same thing we are. Clean up their air in a manner that
doesn't destroy the economy. They will soon be producing hybrid cars jointly
with U.S. auto companies and other auto companies to ship to the U.S.
and other countries and to sell to their exploding car hungry people.
Why do you disagree with the scientists that are involved in the KYOTO
treaty. They are the ones that admit exempting those nations including
China, will prevent any real change in emissions.
You deny the many scientist who have done the studies on the 18,000 yr,
You deny that the scientists claiming "global warming" were
the same scientists the claimed "Global Cooling" was the big
danger up until 1970 or so.
(Dr. Stephen Schneider is one that is now on the "Global Warming"
bandwagon who was on the "Global Cooling" wagon until the 1970's)
You deny the additional benefits coming from warmer areas that can grow
You deny the scientists who point to volcanic action that will also warm
or cool the climate based on size and type of emissions.
You deny the Stats that show the U.S. has made more strides in cleaning
its air than most other countries.
You deny the economic decline of Europe based on their loss of business
to China because of several factors including lower emission standards.
Ask the 10% unemployed in German how they like that.
First of all I didn't write the comment above regarding
"Having been an American citizen all my life, working hard and having
been taxed unresonably, having received the unjust treatment of U.S. "authorities"
destroy my family, having watched as so many others' lives and rights
are trampled for the benefit of a dishonest government I can only respond
to this question in one way, NO, it wasn't right for Bush to send even
one troop into Iraq,"
I don't know who wrote it or how my name got added to it and those aren't
my seniments at all.The U.S. is one of the best places in the world to
live and we have the highest GDP, yet, I don't deny in 10 to 15 years
China will pass us and they are already ahead of everyone else.
How much does it take to get you to listen to everything the scientists
you quote have to say on the issue of Global Warming. You don't even have
to take an opposing scientific view, just the one of the scientists involve
in the KYOTO treaty.
I don't see you listing your soucrces for the studies that were done.
All I see is generalities and summaries and often they aren't even by
the scientists that did the studies. I don't see you listing the impact
of methane with its 20 times power to retain heat. We have lots of pollution
around the world that we can do something about like SO2, NO2, dumped
chemicals, etc and you whine about something you can't even do anything
about according to the very scientists you quote.
Jan Paul, USA
Atmospheric pollution results mainly from coal-burning.
Soot and sulphur dioxide were the major pollutants. In 1997, the total
amount of sulphur dioxide emissions was 23.46 million tons, to which,
industrial polluters contributed 18.52 million tons, accounting for 78.9%
of the total SO2 emissions and domestic polluters contributed 4.94 million
tons. With regard to the industrial emission of SO2 industrial enterprises
at the county level and above contributed 13.63 million tons, accounting
for 73.6% of total industrial emissions; the amount of SO2 emission by
TVIE's was 4.89 million tons. The total amount of soot emission was 18.73
million tons, accounting for 83.6%; while domestic emission was 3.08 million
tons. With regard to industrial soot emission, enterprises at and above
county level were responsible for 6.85 million tons, accounting for 43.8%
of the total; while TVIEs were responsible for 8.88 million tons. The
total emission of industrial particles was 15.05 million tons, including
5.48 million tons of emission by enterprises at the county level and above
(account for 36.4% of the total emission of fine industrial dust), and
Township and Villages Industrial Enterprises (TVIE)'s emitted 9.57 million
Acid rain was very serious in central and southwestern China, with notable
increases in the southwest. Some areas in the north such as Tumen and
Qingdao regions also suffered serious acid rain problems.
The nation's (U.S.) air is much cleaner today than it was 35 years ago.
Over the last three decades, total emissions of six principal air pollutants
have decreased by 54 percent. Remarkably, this progress has occurred even
while the U.S. Gross Domestic Product increased 187 percent, energy consumption
increased 47 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 171 percent.
The Bush Administration is building on the proven market-based Acid Rain
Program that since 1990 has reduced sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by
about 40 percent at half the cost of traditional approaches to curbing
SO2 emissions. President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative expands the successful
Acid Rain Program and will cut SO2 emissions another 73 percent. Emissions
of nitrogen oxides would be reduced by 67 percent, and mercury emissions
would be cut by 69 percent. The trading aspect of Clear Skies and its
incentives for early reductions ensure that that emissions reductions
will come faster, cheaper, and with greater certainty.
total SO2 emissions (about 15.8 million tons) from all sources in the
U.S. (compared to China's 23.46 mil. tons)
Compare a real pollutant like SO2 instead of CO2 which is needed for life.
We can't live without CO2, the food of plants, but can live without SO2
which kills plants.
Here is part of China's problem
Estimates show that by 2010 in Shanghai, 75 per cent of total oxides of
nitrogen emissions, 94 per cent of the total carbon monoxide emissions,
and 98 per cent of the total hydrocarbon emissions will be from vehicles.
In 1997, the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels in three of the largest cities,
Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, were more than twice the WHO guideline
of 50 microgrammes per cubic metre.
Vehicles produced domestically often lag behind international standards
in design by as much as 20 years and are not subject to very effective
inspection systems. They emit two to seven times more nitrous oxides and
six to 12 times more carbon monoxide as compared to vehicles in industrialised
countries. In Beijing, 40 per cent of autos surveyed and 70 per cent of
taxis failed to meet the most basic emission standards. In Shanghai, emissions
of 100,000 motor vehicles and 300,000 motorbikes were above the national
While our NO2 emissions are going down, China's are going up thanks to
the rapid increase in vehicle sales. When you consider the number of vehicles
in the U.S. compared to them and then compare our pollution to theirs
you can understand why we have a heavy emission of certain gases. They
don't have that excuse even. Our power plants, of which we have a lot
more than they do are much more efficent and getting better all the time.
global warmin iz a peice of junk
Justin Redmond, Canada
There have been a series of scientific studies completed
to trace the time climate changes occurred. By analyzing the data discovered
scientists are able to show proof that global warming is really occurring.
They can also discredit the various governments and industries that are
trying to dispute global warming. Also, with the data discovered scientists
are able to create models of the different climates, past and present.
Discrediting global warming could seriously injure the earth and the species
inhabited within. Although one of the major contributors, the United States
has admitted that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming.
They still continue to heavily pollute the environment.
Over the past 30 years the earth‚s average temperature has increased
by 1.5F degrees and will continue to increase until Nations are prepared
to fix the problem. This is a drastic change for the earth, including
the species that are inhabited on it. While the temperature changes, so
does the levels of carbon dioxide within the atmosphere.
The earth‚s atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases, primarily
water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide. Together
these gases reflect enough heat back to the earth to maintain the average
temperature of the atmosphere at about 60 degrees F. Without the green
house effect the Earth would be a cold, uninhabitable place.
Trees remove carbon dioxide from the air through their breathing process.
The destruction of large forests has reduced the number of trees available
to clean the air.
The supply and use of fossil fuels accounts for about three-fourths of
humankind's carbon dioxide emissions. The burning of coal, natural gas
and oil accounts for most of the energy used to produce electricity, heat
houses, run automobiles and power factories.
Methane, produced when bacteria decomposes into organic matter, is the
second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. About one quarter
of global methane emissions from human activities comes from livestock
and the decomposition of animal manure.
How many of you have heard of alternative engines? Alternative engines
can run on anything, from alcohol to garbage to water. Hybrid cars are
a mix of electric and gas burning engines that save fuel and the environment.
Scientists are working on magnetic engines that can practically run forever.
You don't know about them because if they were to come into use, they
would put oil companies out of business. Car companies have had alternatives
to the internal combustion engine for over 50 years, but because of oil
cartels and corrupt government regulations, we have been forced to use
Big businesses are primarily responsible for destroying the water we drink,
the air we breathe and the food we eat. They have no care for the world
that they destroy, only for the money they make in the process. How many
oil spills can we endure? Millions and millions of gallons of oil are
destroying the oceans and the many forms of life it supports. Among these
is plankton that supplies 60-90 percent of the earth's oxygen and supports
the entire marine ecosystem. The ecosystem forms the bases of our planet‚s
food supply, but the plankton is dying. Even in remote states or countries,
anywhere on earth, these industries spread toxic waste all over the world.
They basically control the legislation. In fact they control the law.
The law says no company can be fined over $25,000 dollars a day. For companies
making 10 million dollars a day by dumping lethal toxic waste into the
ocean, that‚s only good business to continue doing this. They influence
the media so that they can control our minds. They have made it a crime
to speak out for ourselves and if we do so, we are called conspiracy nuts
and we're laughed at. We‚re angry that we are all being chemically
and genetically damaged and we don't even realize it. Unfortunately, this
will affect our children.
We go to work each day and right under our noses we see our car and the
car in front of us spewing noxious and poison gases that are all accumulative
poisons. These poisons kill us slowly even when we see no effect. Twenty
years ago, how many of us would have believed that we wouldn't be able
to see 50 feet in front of us today, because of smog, that we wouldn't
be able to take a deep breathe because the air would be a mass of poisonous
gas. That we wouldn't be able to drink out of our faucets, that we would
have to buy water out of bottles.
Most common and God-given rights have been taken away from us. Unfortunately,
the reality of our lives is so grim that nobody wants to hear about it.
What can we do? I think we need a responsible body of people that can
actually represent us rather than big business. This body of people must
not allow the introduction of anything to enter our environment that isn't
absolutely biodegradable or chemically neutralized upon production. And
finally, as long as there is profit to be made from the polluting of our
earth, companies and individuals will continue to do what they want. We
have to force these companies to operate safely and responsibly and with
all our best interests in mind so that when they don't, we can take back
our resources and our hearts and our minds and do what‚s right.
I think this is so good information.
Hermia, Germany, Hessen
i know it`s important to save our world against global
warming and even our english teacher does (obviousliy.. well she still
uses her car) well, i have one problem, i know that it's important ..but
my english homework is to find 10 things how teenagers can act against
global warming. and thats the fact. i can say.. yes! use your bike! and
what else? what else can we do to act? would you know ten things in such
a short time? well,i hope so. and if, please help me with my homework.
thank you very much. (i'm sorry. i know me english is not perfect;o)
David George Ferguson, American
I just wanted to throw some ideas out there that I don't
think get talked about enough.
On a truly long term (i.e. hundreds of years) scale fusion energy is almost
assuredly going to be the primary source of energy. There are no radioactive
byproducts in the prototypical fusion reaction. In estimating its importance
for the global warming debate it is not clear to me which is the shorter
time scale: The time scale on which global warming changes from a nuisance
to a devastating force or the time scale for building a economically viable
fusion energy reactor. In my opinion getting our governments to finally
move forward boldly on the International Test Fusion Reactor should be
a major priority of everyone concerned about global warming. Can‚t
agree on where to build it? Then build two!
Secondly, Kyoto is a good step, but of course it was only designed as
a first step. What is the next step? We need to include every country
on earth (USA, China, and India especially) we need to include every emission
type on earth (industrial and agricultural) and we need a viable trading
Finally I think everyone is so focused on emissions they forget that it
is only half the story. Absorption or "sequestration" of greenhouse
gases is equally important. The importance of this observation is that
emissions can continue to increase and we can burn all the easily accessible
fossil fuels on earth without it being an ecological problem if we can
figure out an economically viable mechanism to sequester carbon. In particular
a trading mechanism where people who sequester carbon could sell the rights
to emit, providing an economic incentive to do so is a must. The difficulties
in political will and the incredible resources needed to administer such
a program should not be understated, however it is clearly the most economically
efficient way for us as humanity to deal with the problem of excess carbon
in the atmosphere.
Dennis Konnoplev, United States of America
screw the global warming it has being to kill us all. I
don't want to freeze or burn to death or even worse get hit by a flood
or tsunami.This might go like the DAY AFTER TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Justin Redmond, Canada
Thanks everyone for the input on my post. Please give more
feed back and give more opinons. I wouldn't mind talking more about this
Michel Bastian, France
Just a quick link on this topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html
Michel Bastian, France
And another link on that topic: http://www.nytimes.com
Brian Smith, USA
Global warming is a lie. The earth has
been warming and cooling for millions of years. In fact, 50 million years
ago there was no ice on the north pole. 14 million years ago there was
about half as much ice on the north pole, while just 18 thousand years
ago there was abot 3 times as much ice on the north pole as there is right
now. I don't think there were automobiles 50 million years ago, do you?
Indeed, the earth has been warming slowly for the last 18,000 years, but
it is hardly because of human greenhouse gas emissions. New science reveals
that global warming has more to do with sunspots and the amount of heat
the sun emits at any point in time.
Go to page 1 2