Environment - December 2006

answer me!!!!!

2006-12-29 03:23:05 · 5 answers · asked by Ladyhot T 1

Living beings should live in complete harmony with environment. But it does not happen. Environment has been polluted to such an exent that it has become a threat to the survival of the living beings. Who is to be blamed for it?

2006-12-29 03:04:17 · 26 answers · asked by gupta_uncle 3

do you think that technology in the field of neuk has made the humanity in dangour?

2006-12-29 02:55:06 · 2 answers · asked by fasiullah K 1

2006-12-29 02:32:52 · 5 answers · asked by satish 1

2006-12-29 02:30:20 · 5 answers · asked by curiouskaren 2

2006-12-29 02:14:04 · 10 answers · asked by zchaar 1

See CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html. Good news: it was floating ice. Bad news: it has now moved away from land-locked ice which can now fall into the ocean contributing to increased sea levels. (Don't understand? Watch "An Inconvenient Truth" for a good explanation of the differences between floating ice and land-locked ice.) It is not a matter of saving the planet, but of saving humankind. With global warming in so much dispute in the mass media and with the majority of the population not taking an active part in making a difference, will we save ourselves before the Earth Mother restores balance in a way that will lead to the death of millions, billions, or all of humankind?

2006-12-29 02:05:24 · 11 answers · asked by wildfire2windsong 1

I was shocked to see that there were no questions under the Environment/Ecology section! Com'on peeps! Let's get talking!

2006-12-29 01:15:26 · 9 answers · asked by Ellie S 4

Scientist's opinions differ widely on the current reasons for world temp' rise

2006-12-29 01:09:08 · 31 answers · asked by McQ 3

for project purpose.

2006-12-29 00:51:03 · 1 answers · asked by baba 1

2006-12-29 00:44:51 · 4 answers · asked by seeking 3

2006-12-29 00:44:19 · 11 answers · asked by Charles S 2

2006-12-29 00:29:25 · 7 answers · asked by nathanburola 2

Its principle is roughly like this:
I own one car and no tree.. I can keep my CO2 emission as in 2004, without consequences, it means i can use my car same hours than in 2004 . If i buy a tree, i can use my car more hours. If i use my car more hours and i dont buy a tree then i must pay to someone else for the price of a tree.
One chinese friend owns one tree and no car. He or she may buy a car and use it as i did in 2004 without consequences.
He or she pays for a car, feeds one tree and uses that car as much as i did in 2004. i have to pay nothing to him or her and i own no tree. But he or she accepted that agreement.
With this agreement, for example EU (European Union) must reduce emissions 8%, USA 7%, Canada 6%, Croatia 5%. Australia can increase up to 8%, Iceland up to 10%.
The whole agreement will be reviewed and individual progress checked in 2008.
I know people who think that this this agreement didn´t protect world enough against global warming.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php

2006-12-28 23:22:50 · 5 answers · asked by carmenl_87 3

Then why do all the reports say "This was the hottest day since ,,,,"
Or "This flood last happened in...."
Surely if global warming was man induced they would be saying "This is the first time this has ever happened."
But they don't.
To me this suggests that all this "Freak" weather is normal and just the way the world works!

And then I heard one scientist say on the TV that the hole in the ozone layer was closing up so our efforts to save the planet were working, and no-one laughed.

So it took 200-300 years of burning fossil fuels to destroy the ozone layer and 10 years to fix it! yeah right!

What about all the atomic bombs that have been exploded by our governments, don't they have a role in all this?

2006-12-28 23:21:28 · 14 answers · asked by kiku 4

2006-12-28 20:57:17 · 8 answers · asked by wild_eep 6

it is important for ll of us to learn how to save the environment for the future.....

2006-12-28 20:26:57 · 9 answers · asked by politoad_06 2

Who was the person or organisation which gave the Idea of Nuclear energy

2006-12-28 19:29:40 · 5 answers · asked by Sak 2

2006-12-28 19:10:00 · 7 answers · asked by FREDERICK P 1

2006-12-28 18:31:47 · 11 answers · asked by britney22_543 1

2006-12-28 18:30:19 · 4 answers · asked by Tokicha 1

I heard they put the treated stuff in rivers and lakes.

2006-12-28 18:00:54 · 7 answers · asked by ? 2

The mindless destruction of the environment involved in putting money in the already fat pockets of developers is terrifying... priceless land is being destroyed, and for what? for flimsy housing and dollar bills... What will it take for them to have any sort of "Scrooge moment"; What will it take for them to realize how hideously destructive this is? Are they ever going to care to understand why they are being begged to stop?

2006-12-28 17:14:22 · 6 answers · asked by ? 1

...and in Iraq too...hmmmmm

2006-12-28 17:13:02 · 8 answers · asked by lipstick_insurgent 1

2006-12-28 16:27:56 · 2 answers · asked by funkdan154 1

2006-12-28 15:49:32 · 3 answers · asked by Manikandeshwar M 1

2006-12-28 15:49:08 · 6 answers · asked by james c 2

2006-12-28 15:32:27 · 16 answers · asked by james c 2

repopulation of the species . you are the leader , what sort of government or religion would you start ?... you are the only hope ?
what would your society be like ?

2006-12-28 14:10:54 · 7 answers · asked by jsjmlj 5

2006-12-28 14:02:30 · 3 answers · asked by Judith A 1