Lurker Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 China and India resisted signing up for a global goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Developing economies demanded rich nations commit to steeper short term reductions. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSTRE5676L020090708 The line of argument is the same old "You-did-it-to-grow-now-it-is-our-turn". There are obvious arguments on both sides obviously. Clearly Western economies have raped global climate and grown rich in the process only to show Holier than thou atitude now. On the other hand if India/China dont join the risk is so much more, considering the two countries account for roughly 1/3 of world population. Which side are you on?
Ram Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 All countries have an obligation to combat any threat to our planet. If sacrificing 1% GDP growth rate/year means safeguarding our planet from destruction, so be it. After all, if global warming does produce something cataclysmic, then its probably the developing world that’ll suffer even further. So, it’ll be ludicrous for the developing world to simply stand-up and walk away from negotiations. That said, the bigger brunt of the responsibility to reverse the effects green-house gas emission HAS to fall on the developed world. After all, they were the primary contributors to it and they can afford the costs of a cleaner/greener living, better than people from a third world. But we’re all in this fight together.
punjabi_khota Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 All this while we have still not convinced ourselves about how much destruction global warming is gonna cause. Bloated figures from "scientists" never help
Brainfade Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 All this while we have still not convinced ourselves about how much destruction global warming is gonna cause. Bloated figures from "scientists" never help An interesting article from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. I am really not comfortable with this topic. I don't understand enough about the accuracy of the methods used to measure past and present global temperatures, and I am not sure good data are being fed to the computer models. I don't believe Al Gore - he has exaggerated the science. But I don't believe Inhofe either - the man is crazy. In any case, everyone points to whatever time-period they want as long as it fits their belief. I know one thing, though - CO2 is not the "health hazard" poison it is made out to be. It is not an acid; it is not a carcinogen. Yes, it is a greenhouse gas, but it is a natural, organic molecule that is absolutely required for sustaining photosynthesis (which sustains all life on earth).
Recommended Posts