Apparently the image if incinerated children amuses you.
2006-11-15 01:03:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, keep in mind the goal, which is to bring the potentially catastrophic warming under control by curtailing the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.
Ordinary people can help immediately by becoming more energy efficient. Stop using the familiar incandescent light bulbs and replace them with compact fluorescent bulbs, which last much longer and use only a quarter of the energy consumed by conventional bulbs.
Compact fluorescent bulbs are significantly more expensive, but because they last so long (up to 10 times the life of a standard bulb) and use so little electricity, they are substantially cheaper in the long run.
Next, when shopping for an appliance -- a refrigerator, a dishwasher, an air-conditioner -- select the one with the highest energy efficiency rating. There will be a sticker on the appliance, telling you how much energy it uses. Pay attention. There can be a difference of 30 percent to 40 percent or more in the amount of energy consumed by appliances with comparable features.
Even more important is the choice you make in the car or truck you buy. Motor vehicles are responsible for about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The vehicles that are the most fuel efficient emit the least carbon dioxide. (Fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions are inversely proportional. If you double fuel economy, you cut carbon dioxide emissions in half.)
According to the research and advocacy group Environmental Defense, if you buy a new car that gets 10 more miles per gallon than your old car, the amount of carbon dioxide reduction realized in one year will be about 2,500 pounds.
2006-11-15 08:02:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by rachel w 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Since most people (and there are billions of us) want to keep warm, drive affordable cars, and have cheap power we are kind of in a bind on this. Everyone thinks the other guys and gals ought to accept great cuts in their standard of living. Most of the limosine liberals are poor examples (including saint Al Gore) on this; driving in SUVs and living in energy expensive palaces (compared to those they demand sacrifices of). When the jihadis start tossing their dirty bombs and nuclear devices around though, you may get your wish for a nuclear winter. Public outrage will demand retaliation, setting off WWIII.
2006-11-15 10:05:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mad Roy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why don't we just build dikes along the coasts and move away from the coasts? It worked for Holland.
And no, we are not the main reason for global warming. The earth is warming,but nature is the main cause. We are just a speck on the radar.
And no, the Kyoto treaty would not help.
2006-11-15 08:03:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jeb R. 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
one priority needs to be the enforcement of polution laws. bush/rove have virtually wiped out all environmental protection because it costs their owners (those who own bush/rove) too much money to clean up their act. alternate fuels are also an important source to be explored. fuel cells seem to be a promising way to go, but need a serious push to develop them to a practical and affordable level.
2006-11-15 09:04:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by grumpy 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
according to bush nuclear weapons.
according to the tree huggers eat and live under trees...........
where is the happy medium?
2006-11-15 07:59:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
finally agree with ya
2006-11-15 08:28:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
How can you fight/correct something that does not exist?
2006-11-15 07:59:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by dorianalways 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
Stop driving.
2006-11-15 07:59:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dr Dee 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Stay home.
2006-11-15 08:00:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋