English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

24 answers

Economics pure and simple. For businesses it would cut into profits, for individuals it would mean higher taxes and for Governments higher spending.

I know that there are many 'free' issues but to make a real difference will take sacrifice ... would you forego your holiday this year to save the plane fuel?

ADDITIONAL

Panda ... how about not using "everyone" when you are actually referring to a minority.

2006-06-18 09:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The short answer is would you want to live in the dark ages?

By the time we think there may be problems it is likely that the only answer would require dramatic action. Most solutions suggested would result in a significant backward step in energy production, manufacturing, transport and the like. Whilst some would say go for it, what about the corresponding rise there is likely to be in disease, hampering of medical research and rise in global crime and terrorism?

Could the cure cause more trouble than the supposed problem? Don't forget there are many eminent scientists who do not believe global warming is correct and that a new ice age is more likely.

The hole in the ozone layer was only found some thirty years ago. What was there before? Have we always had a hole?

Whilst we can take small steps like recycling and coservation with relative safety we must be sure of our facts before taking any step that might make radical changes.

2006-06-20 13:08:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

We already started to take care .... the political Green Party movement in my country Germany changed quite a lot in economy and environmental protection .... even if their power now is history, strong technologies have developed in this time and are export hits of my country meanwhile like wind mills for electric power and waste sorting and recycling machines.

And also in science I see a lot of research about global pollution and interactions of mankind's behaviour on our planet's biology and geology. The growing insights are not only opening bad aspects.

For example, what gives me hope: Besides our greenhouse gas sins exist big geological cycles which can absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Since we meanwhile are sensitive to this problem and also have developed technologies to avoid the greenhouse gases, in about 100 years our present discussion while just cause a smile from our grandchildren.

2006-07-01 20:05:39 · answer #3 · answered by consultant_rom 3 · 0 0

Because the damage is already done. According to the discovery channel, mankind only stands a 50/50 chance of surviveing the next 100 years. Our cutoff point for revesring the damage is about ten years from now. There is no way you can get everyone on earth to agree to stop polluting in that time. Mankind will only try to fix the environment when there is no doubt that the environment is killing millions, by then it will be too late.

2006-06-18 22:46:31 · answer #4 · answered by crossbones59 1 · 0 0

The science is there but the will isn't because not many people know of the science which could help us take care of our home. Certain groups of people hold back information from the public because of "National Security". Why aren't we told of this information?

2006-06-18 16:33:11 · answer #5 · answered by <•>U4IK ST8<•> 2 · 0 0

Because we are greedy. If we are all REALLY willing to give up our cars, electricity, plumbing, electronics, and all other of our conveniences, the Earth, water, and air will eventually cleanse itself and the planet will revert to its more natural state. The governments are too wrapped up in the buying, selling, and trading of oil to allow serious implemenatation of natural fuel and energy sources. If the powers-that-be worldwide wanted its citizens to have solar, hydrogen, and ethanol power, we'd have it.

We started the destruction in the Industrial Revolution in the post Civil War era. We built railways and factories, and began mining for coal. All the refuse from these endeavors began filling our air and water with pollutants. When oil replaced coal as the primary fuel source, things really began to get ugly.

2006-06-28 07:34:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

In the mood of everyday life and earning money the people are paying irresponsibility towards the environment . But at sometime they may realize that his/her responsibility is too good.But the time may complete in such a way that all the doors are closed

2006-07-01 23:42:13 · answer #7 · answered by sravan v 1 · 0 0

Well you do what you can and hope others will do the same. But to those of you who keep saying get rid of cars, trains, factories, and things that pollute let me know how you would survive the famine in our cities, the lack of water oh and tell me when you will learn to make your own clothing, farm, and after you eat your pets what ill you do hunt? you will have no way to get to a place to hunt. It all comes down to you cause it too Do you own a car doyou go to the mall could you do with out seriously I doubt it.

2006-06-29 20:35:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Money... We need our natural resources to manufacture products to sell. And we need to supply our homes with energy fuel and water. Without stripping our planet of it's minerals the world as we know it will decade and revert back to the dark ages.

2006-07-02 12:19:13 · answer #9 · answered by Batman 2 · 0 0

I personally try my best to prevent pollution and have plants around the house and outside my home to clean the air....if i could control one thing in the world that would be get rid of cars,trains,factories,etc anything that pollutes the air and destroys our environment. If everyone in the world plants some sort of plant or have them through out their house then we might all make a difference. :)

2006-06-18 18:28:20 · answer #10 · answered by Zack T 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers