Could someone please explain to me why the Bush administration is so stubbornly refusing to join the European nations in fighting the global warming?
http://
According to the article, the Bush administration now acknowledges the global warming as a serious problem. They are at least willing to tackle the problem now, which is certainly good news.
Bush still seems to adamantly refuse to set any specfic goals, though. He proposes working with other polluting nations in order for each of the nations to set "its own" goals in combating the issue.
To me, German Chancellor Merkel's "two-degree" proposal, as below, makes sense.
-----------------------------
Her proposal is for a "two-degree" target, under which global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, (2 degrees Celsius) before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Merkel supports a global carbon-trading market as one tool.
-----------------------------
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the Bush administration's refusal to ratify this specific target.
http://
According to the article, the Bush administration now acknowledges the global warming as a serious problem. They are at least willing to tackle the problem now, which is certainly good news.
Bush still seems to adamantly refuse to set any specfic goals, though. He proposes working with other polluting nations in order for each of the nations to set "its own" goals in combating the issue.
To me, German Chancellor Merkel's "two-degree" proposal, as below, makes sense.
-----------------------------
Her proposal is for a "two-degree" target, under which global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, (2 degrees Celsius) before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Merkel supports a global carbon-trading market as one tool.
-----------------------------
I'd like to know the reasoning behind the Bush administration's refusal to ratify this specific target.
|
|
|
|
コメント(3)
He's an idiot. He talks about India and
China but India and China combined don't
equal the United States.
On a per capita basis the worlds biggest
polluters are Australia, Canada and the
United States. Strange isn't it that the
climate change sceptics pretty much all
come from those 3 countries?
http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php
だいはど> hey there,
I've read as much as I can on this and I can't see that the Science is bullet proof on Global Warming...
In-fact it's pretty much inconclusive at best.
The Earth is warming - but it's a geo-thermal fact that the Earth warms and cools periodically. Niether side has made a concrete case that we are or aren't the primary cause this time, or that the temperature will continue to rise sharply, or more accurately models for how much and in what way the temperature will rise are definitely questionable to say the least...
The variables are *extremely* hard to quantify and model.
I think both sides are skewing data to prove their respective points....just how you tailor your model for aerosol use, for example, can change outlooks dramatically...
More level headed peer review of theories from either side are necessary before anyone can say what is fact and what is fiction...
I use this as my yardstick ; Meteorologists can't really predict the weather next week with any real precision....
I've read that the argument put forward by Al Gore for instance seems to have gotten the "cause and effect" part the wrong way around...
There is a positive correlation between temperatures and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide throughout history, but the higher temperatures come *first*...
Increased temperature heats the oceans more and releases more CO2. Increased temperatures also fuel the decompostion of rotting vegetation and organic matter, releasing more CO2...
Solar activity is the primary cause of this cycle...
In other words, Sun = bad
Hummers tippin on 24s = inconsequential
I'm not so sure that's the case....
and this is in part the point...
But a more important one is that, the Earth is warming (for whatever reason) and if it continues to do so it's bad news for undeveloped nations who won't have the technology to at least start to cope....
Another way to think about it might be not what can the Industrialized Nations do to cut emissions...
But rather, if it's a real problem, shouldn't we be tooling the poorer Nations up already?
I've read as much as I can on this and I can't see that the Science is bullet proof on Global Warming...
In-fact it's pretty much inconclusive at best.
The Earth is warming - but it's a geo-thermal fact that the Earth warms and cools periodically. Niether side has made a concrete case that we are or aren't the primary cause this time, or that the temperature will continue to rise sharply, or more accurately models for how much and in what way the temperature will rise are definitely questionable to say the least...
The variables are *extremely* hard to quantify and model.
I think both sides are skewing data to prove their respective points....just how you tailor your model for aerosol use, for example, can change outlooks dramatically...
More level headed peer review of theories from either side are necessary before anyone can say what is fact and what is fiction...
I use this as my yardstick ; Meteorologists can't really predict the weather next week with any real precision....
I've read that the argument put forward by Al Gore for instance seems to have gotten the "cause and effect" part the wrong way around...
There is a positive correlation between temperatures and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide throughout history, but the higher temperatures come *first*...
Increased temperature heats the oceans more and releases more CO2. Increased temperatures also fuel the decompostion of rotting vegetation and organic matter, releasing more CO2...
Solar activity is the primary cause of this cycle...
In other words, Sun = bad
Hummers tippin on 24s = inconsequential
I'm not so sure that's the case....
and this is in part the point...
But a more important one is that, the Earth is warming (for whatever reason) and if it continues to do so it's bad news for undeveloped nations who won't have the technology to at least start to cope....
Another way to think about it might be not what can the Industrialized Nations do to cut emissions...
But rather, if it's a real problem, shouldn't we be tooling the poorer Nations up already?
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
