Global warming is a HUGE issue, why don't the country's of the world get together and try to SOLVE it ?

Question

Our future is at stake, the people of earth need to UNITE to solve the problem of global warming or there won't be anything left but a dried out crust of a planet in 100 years or so.

Answer 1

A lot of people are working on it already. Not enough to be sure, but as it gets worse, which it will, more and more people will come around and start working with those of us who are already on it. Momentum is building. I started to get worried about it back in 1997 and I was pretty late in joining folks like Al Gore who has been working on it since the seventies. There is a lot to do and there will always be room for more people to pitch in. Global warming is going to be a long-term crisis and dealing with it will be a process not a one-time effort. It will probably be between 100 and 300 years before we have fully dealt with global warming and we will be living with the lingering effects for thousands of years. Sad but true.

Answer 2

You are assuming a lot. 1) That global warming is actually occurring, 2) That humans are the cause, 3) That if it is happening, can it be reversed, and 4) If it can be reversed, do we even have the knowledge to stop it. Global warming is a theory, supported by scientific evidence... loosely. Considering how poorly we understand local climate, we can barely forecast out a week, let alone months or years, how can we possible be able to accurately predict climate out decades? That being said, I really don't have the knowledge to judge whether or not global warming is occurring, but I'm leaning toward not.

Secondly, how do we know that we are the underlying cause. How far back does our knowledge of climate go. We may be in the midst of natural, cyclical change in our planet's environment, but we don't have enough evidence to go either way. Increases in hurricane activity in the atlantic have been widely used as propaganda for global warming, but could it simply be that activity is related to 40-50 year cycles, one of which is changing now?

Assume that global warming is currently occuring. Can it be stopped. I have heard climatologists argue this point, along with how bad it could get. There really isn't much agreement here, and I'm not going to shed any light on it, so we'll move on.

Next, could we change it? Have humans ever successfully intervened on nature's part? NO!! The only success we have shown is to leave nature to itself. Our interference can only make things worse.

So why bother?

Whether global warming is happening or not, we should do our part to keep our planet clean. Humans should strive to preserve the resource that spawned us. I want the ecosystems to survive for the future, therefore we should continue to do our best to leave a light footprint.

Answer 3

Here is something to think about don't believe me check this stuff out...

1.Water(H2O) is the only element known to man to expand when it freezes every other element contracts when it freezes so that is the first fact. For example fill a milk jugg with water, now stick it in the freezer... come back later and it will have exploded from preassure of freezing water.

2.Icebergs are massive chunks of ice, only a few percent of the ice is above water, which means the rest of the ice is underwater.

3.The ice underwater because water expands when it freezes is displacing the liquid water. So when that iceberg melts all the ice under the water will contract and fill a smaller space, so the level of the water will be less now because the ice which was displacing the liquid water is unfrozen and now occupies a less amount of space.

4.Scientific models show that if all the ice on this planet melted we would see a 3" DROP in ocean levels NOT a rise but a DROP.

Now isn't that interesting.

Now for the greenhouse gasses.

1.Plants LOVE a carbon dioxide rich air supply.

2.The more carbon dioxide their is the faster they grow.

3.Plants use photosynthesis to get their food so they can grow.

4.When the plants sense a higher level of carbon dioxide they will make up for it by sucking up more and more and one of the products of photosynthesis is OXYGEN!!

5.So no matter how much CARBON DIOXIDE there is the plants will COMPENSATE and suck up more and grow faster and bigger. and the bigger the plant is the more OXYGEN it produces through photosynthesis

Answer 4

In response to Bob's completely idiotic and ridiculous response. Bob, I don't know where you get your information, but you need to check your facts. You are probably either a big-business Republican, or you work for one of those oil companies that are destroying the Earth.

1. You claim that water is the only element known to man to expand when it freezes. While this may be true, what does this have to do with global warming??
2. Your example of how ocean levels would actually fall if all of the icebergs melted is completely ridiculous. Here's how it really works: There are two types of ice on our planet: sea ice and land ice. The sea ice, such as the Arctic ice cap, would not cause any rise in ocean levels because they are floating in the ocean. To understand this, imagine an ice cube in a glass of water. When it melts, it doesn't change the level of the water does it? However land ice, such as Antarctica and Greenland, does impact sea levels because the melting ice turns into water that runs into the oceans. If all of the land ice in the world melted, it would cause sea levels to rise at least 50 feet.
3. As for your example on greenhouse gases, it is also FALSE. First of all, the idea that more CO2 will "fertilize" the world's crops was generated by the American coal industry, so that should give you an idea as to the validity of this claim. A recent study by botanists Elizabeth Ainsworth and Stephen Long have analyzed the idea. Many of our most important crops would have a very small benefit from the abundance of CO2. For example, rice would only show an increase in yield of about 6 percent, and wheat 8 percent. In addition, in the futre crops will be stressed by higher temperature, more ozone at ground level, and changes in soil moisture, all of which decrease yields. Therefore, instead of an increase in yield, a CO2-rich world promises to be one in which crop production is lower than today.

Bob, you are a moron, and you need to stop trying to spread misinformation. Get your head out of the sand and start seeing the truth about global warming, and what we can do to stop it.

Answer 5

The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country - although it also produces more wealth. When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.

For the agreement to become a legally binding treaty, it had to be ratified by countries which together were responsible for at least 55% of the total 1990 emissions reported by the industrialised countries and emerging economies which made commitments to reduce their emissions under the protocol.

As the US accounted for 36.1% of those emissions, this 55% target was much harder to achieve without its participation.

But 141 countries banded together and the protocol came into force in February 2005.

President George W Bush said in March 2001 that the US would not ratify Kyoto because he thought it would damage the US economy and because it did not yet require developing countries to cut their emissions.

He says he backs improvements in energy efficiency through voluntary emissions reductions - rather than imposed targets - and through the development of cleaner technologies.

Answer 6

It's a fake ... a fraud .... the boogie man story told to scare unintelligent people. We are at the end of an ice age of course its warming up. what do you suppose the weather was when the dinosaurs ruled? a balmy 75 and a slight breeze from the east. hell no it was probably hot and humid and rained a lot. why don't they ever show dinosaur pictures in the rain. like it never rained then. Most countries can't even solve stuff like traffic signal problems or what color to print their money or how to get rid of corrupt politicians. How do you think they are gonna tackle a problem like "CHANGE THE TEPERATURE OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE FREAKIN' PLANET.

Answer 7

Ignorance and Pride get in the way of getting together to sort out a real solution. I totally agree that we need to preserve our earth for the future generations and the for the good of everything yet to come. Why can't the world just set their differences asside and let their heads come together for as long as it takes to find the proper way to end this potential catastrophe!? There is an answer to everything, and if we just sit back and let fate come, then how can we say that we are truly "well evolved" human beings?

Answer 8

Governments want to ignore it and let big business companies like Shell, ESSO and the like to continue pumping for oil and throwing waste in the oceans so that they keep on making donations and the economy strong-that's what they think. There are a few places in Brazil and Mexico, that are actively environmentally friendly communities. Cuba is a country that is trying to find new and better ways to have a more environmentally conscious way of living.

Answer 9

There is no conclusive evidence that says we can do anything about it. Most everything is debatable and nothing has been proven one way or the other. Think about this for a sec....how do we know we are affecting the earths climate when we can't even predict the weather more than a day in advance.

Answer 10

We can't expect other countries to come on board when George Bush hires former oil employees to "spin" the facts. I'm buying my friends fluroescent light bulbs and copies of "An Inconvenient Truth". It's a start anyway. I think everyone should be writing their senator, congressperson, etc. and let their feelings be known. Only when they see how concerned they are will they at least acknowledge it.