Environment - December 2007

The bill calls for the United States to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation.

The legislation was introduced by Republican John Warner and Independent Joe Lieberman.

It would create a "cap-and-trade" system whereby companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below the emission limits, or buy if they found they could not meet the requirements.

The trading is aimed at reducing the economic impact of putting limits on carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the leading greenhouse gas.

An amendment by Sanders (I-Vt.) calling for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 instead of 70 percent was defeated 12-7.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315464,00.html

Climate scientists generally recommend an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

So what do you think of this bill? Too aggressive? Not aggressive enough?

2007-12-12 09:11:59 · 7 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

2007-12-12 08:43:25 · 12 answers · asked by LifeisGoood 2 in Other - Environment

What energy is stored in anything that is stretched or squashed?


thanks,
bk_1

2007-12-12 08:16:57 · 3 answers · asked by BK_1 3 in Green Living

The issue is caused by industry and personal choices.
The effects may have major implications for the economy, health care, immigration, disaster relief, and the availability of water, food, and energy.
Deciding how to respond involves decisions on personal and societal mores and values.
The solutions must encompass industrial policy, transportation policy, regional planning, energy policy, international relations and collaboration, and so much more.

Since it's such an all-encompassing scenario, starts with people and ends with effects on people, and since most of the human scope of the effects are not studied or addressed in the course of environmental science, why does it get tucked away as an "environmental" issue? Most of us see the "environment" as being something outside of "us." Sure, the environment will change along the way, but isn't the issue far broader and greater, and ultimately more about our choices, and the effects those will have on us?

2007-12-12 07:44:13 · 10 answers · asked by J S 5 in Global Warming

2007-12-12 07:26:13 · 7 answers · asked by me45404 3 in Green Living

Thx

2007-12-12 07:12:27 · 2 answers · asked by A Human 3 in Other - Environment

2007-12-12 06:58:27 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Since science is largely funded by the government, would not global warming exploit scientists by forcing them to lobby for funds by ignoring facts and focusing more on forming a "concensus" so they can recieve my tax dollars? Why does Al Gore along with Democrats want to head the country in that direction rather than leave science to the scientists?

2007-12-12 06:51:55 · 5 answers · asked by james 2 in Global Warming

I know you AGW alarmist will say that you will not say your politcal views becasue global warming is not a politcal issue. But even so I would like to see reguardless of if you think it is politcal or not I want to see what people say.

2007-12-12 06:41:35 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-12-12 06:19:48 · 23 answers · asked by me45404 3 in Global Warming

Here is what Cullen (who is a Weather Channel meteorologist with a PhD in climatology) said:

"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html

Note that she did not say "if a meteorologist doesn't think humans are causing global warming...", she simply said they should be able to speak to the fundamental science of climate change.

Do you agree?

2007-12-12 06:14:27 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

The anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory (AGW) is not perfect. However, it is by far the best theory explaining the observational data that the planet is warming. No other theory comes close to the accuracy of the AGW theory.

It seems like the skeptics' arguments boil down to this:

"I'm not convinced by the anthropogenic global warming theory, and although I have no valid alternative scientific theory to explain the observations, it's possible that one exists".

Since there are no explanations for the observed data nearly as good as the AGW theory, most skeptical arguments consist of trying to poke holes in the AGW theory rather than supporting a competing theory.

Even if there are some minor discrepancies in the AGW theory, should people not accept it as the default theory since it's by far the most accurate in explaining the observations?

Isn't it rather silly to hope that someone will magically come up with a better theory?

2007-12-12 05:26:11 · 14 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

Is it possible to save all the endangered and threatened animals and plants..... and there habitats?

2007-12-12 04:50:03 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Conservation

i want to no the effects like flooding and stuff like that i would love ur help thanks x x x :)

2007-12-12 04:22:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Some anthropogenic global warming skeptics have claimed that although Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has remained essentially unchanged as global warming has accelerated rapidly over the past 30 years, the Sun may be responsible due to some sort of delay factor (perhaps related to the oceans' heat storage capacity).

Well examining the best available TSI proxy (from a Lean 2000 paper), the TSI increased from 1910-1950, decreased from 1950-1975, and remained roughly unchanged from 1975-Present.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/tsilean.jpg

Examining the global temperature, it similarly increased from 1910-1940 (aerosol cooling overwhelmed warming effects from 1940-1950), decreased slightly from 1940-1970, and then increased rapidly from 1970-Present.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

So the global temperature followed the TSI fairly closely for most of the 20th century.

Why is this no longer the case?

2007-12-12 04:09:55 · 5 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

As reported recently, "Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press."

Additionally, "Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Those interested can read more at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_sc/arctic_melt_13

Will this finally sway those still in denial about climate change?

2007-12-12 03:23:30 · 9 answers · asked by Andy 5 in Global Warming

I would like to take a small car like the Geo Metro and convert it to a electric car? Or a small pickup like a Chevy S-10 and convert it..any ideas on how to do this? Where could I get parts to do this at and plans?

2007-12-12 03:14:58 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

35 years ago i was watching television commercials and programs stateting we would be depleted of all fossil fuels specificaly"crude oil" by the time i reached 40 years of age.I`m just wondering if theres more crude-oil deposits that are never mentioned.

2007-12-12 03:04:51 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

If they don't stop using those terms someone might start believeing that global climate change is happening! Do you think it makes no sense to call a December tropical storm a freak weather event? Or a killer continent wide ice storm as never before seen? It's ONLY more than 1 MILLION people without electricity. And FEMA has ALWAYS been called out for two seperate events in the winter. Right?

2007-12-12 02:58:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

are we causing this also.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm



or is it all a cycle...

2007-12-12 02:39:59 · 7 answers · asked by inside and out 1 in Global Warming

Why do people keep on having babies? they're are MORE than enough people on the earth!!!! this is what mostly cause global warming!! aren't people stupid?

2007-12-12 02:30:15 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

One tree each - it wouldn't take much time or cost much, but if everyone in the world did it, think of the difference it would make! I know it's not practical for everyone to do it, but if just a small portion of each country would plant one tree each, it would surely halp in the battle with climate change!
Would you do it? More to the point, will you do it?!

2007-12-12 02:00:04 · 15 answers · asked by claire 5 in Global Warming

If the predicted amount of CO2 for 2030 is confirmed, we’ll have 55% more CO2 and a 4° C / 39° F temperature increase (which is the difference of temperature we’ve had between now and the Ice Age). It would probably destroy the world economy, animal and vegetal species, and threaten mankind.
IF NOT, WHY WOULD ANY COUNTRY IN THE 3RD WORLD SIGN A TREATY TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS? WHY WOULD THEY SIGN A TREATY WITH UNEVEN CONDITIONS?
IF YES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO STOP USING YOUR CAR SO THAT YOU POLLUTE AS MUCH AS ANY CITIZEN IN THE WORLD? WILL WE HAVE TO REDESIGN OUR CITIES, CONSUMPTION STANDARDS AND LIFESTYLE?

P.S. (By the way, are you happy competing with your neighbor and friends to see who’s got the best car? Having higher consumption needs is actually making you happier?)

2007-12-12 01:31:24 · 8 answers · asked by MAROBU 5 in Global Warming

By answering this question you are eligible to win an exciting eco-prize, a Whattson, which will go to the Best Answer, as chosen by the UK & Ireland Answers team.

For full details, including Specific and General Promotion rules, read our blog: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=3692

2007-12-12 01:06:00 · 331 answers · asked by Yahoo UK 4 in Green Living

One fact that CO2 levels rise after the temperature, is commonly countered with a response of "That was true in the past, but thats not what is happening now."

This would mean that either the properties of CO2 has changed, or physics is being discounted.

2007-12-12 00:37:33 · 10 answers · asked by Jack_Scar_Action_Hero 5 in Global Warming

2007-12-12 00:27:38 · 75 answers · asked by Samantha T 2 in Other - Environment

For a country that's getting "slapped" for not doing "enough" I can say I am really proud of this announcement because I know I fought to have something down about one of the largest polluters in our area for YEARS without getting ANYWHERE, so the fact that Baird has given the top 700 polluters a deadline for reporting on Greenhouse emissions and then DOING something about otherwise risking huge fines, it is indeed a HUGE step in the right direction. However it should go even deeper than just fines. They have to be big enough to put a dent and incentive into their making these changes.

This is the type of thing that all countries should do and should have done from day one. Agreed?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071212/world/climate_talks_cda_6

Now I just hope environmentalists put pressure and raise awareness to the communities involved so they can keep on top of their local government officials too.

2007-12-11 23:58:45 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice are happening at an even greater rate than scientists originally thought. It seems that we usually respond with laws and panic after-the-fact. Why isn't the government treating this as the crisis that it is?

2007-12-11 23:43:30 · 6 answers · asked by mosaic 6 in Other - Environment

2007-12-11 23:13:02 · 5 answers · asked by Paul C 1 in Green Living

Today, as technology advances around the clock, we are finding better products that are automated such as the new Microsoft Sync. Technology is surely advanced as far as optional items that can be purchased for user-friendly devices such as bluetooth technology. With the technology we currently have, do you believe the auto industry is dishing out enough effort to make cars as efficient on gas as they should be?

2007-12-11 22:39:30 · 18 answers · asked by tekkie07pti 1 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles