Is money the most important thing or our children's future and the future of mankind? Do we wait until there is no hope to do anything? Or do we suffer a little while and go through the economic set backs (maybe worse than the 30's) and just do it. Are we so greedy that only our comfort matters and not our children's right to live on a habitable earth? Anybody at least 40 years old can look at all the evidence between now and only back to the seventies. We need to act NOW!
2007-02-02
05:59:21
·
11 answers
·
asked by
?
5
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Some of my personal solutions on warming - Watch your next car purchase. Bring your plastic bags back to the grocery store, grow more plants and trees, put a brick in your toilet tank, substitute propane for wood burning. Any billboards must have air filters. Don't buy from any business who doesn't clean up after itself!!! Invest in Solar or Wind Power through FPL or another utility at least a couple of months and encourage people to watch the movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
2007-02-02
06:31:48 ·
update #1
Clinton REFUSED TO SUPPORT KYOTO.
He said it would hurt American's jobs.
My guess is that you weren't smart enough to have any idea what clinton did or did not do. Wouldn't that be pathetic of you
Clinton WAS for the KYOTO treaty CONGRESS* was AGAINST IT (*republican) and it was ratified. Are you sure you are smart enough?
2007-02-05
02:49:31 ·
update #2
Reduce Reuse Recycle.....Buy Hybrids...grow trees, vegetables etc. go vegetarian (cow farts are a major contributor to greenhouse gases--methane...Seriously.) teach our children to respect the earth. buy organic, stop using toxic fume emitting cleaners, use a manual lawn mower ( maybe a goat). Some of these are a little tongue in cheek, but realistic. :)
*** amazing the amount of denial and/or lack of credible information frm many of these sources.
*** This president has also done more to negatively impact the earth than ever. He loosened many EPA strictures on Industrial waste production by american companies, because by cheapening their production costs (its a little more expensive to be responsible) he hoped to strengthen the economy. This set back the EPA guidelines for pollution clean-up by about 20 years!!!! NOW that there's such a hullabaloo about the need for energy independance he is doing the "no foriegn oil" dance. he is a politician that is very involved in the increase of fiscal wealth for the top 1%...if you think otherwise you are very naive. Reagan started it., though he believed in the "trickle down" effect. The current brand of "reaganomics" is too greedy.. they reinvest their wealth in themselves, and many middle class Americans will not see the fruit of their endeavors...hence the pollute moe now to make more money now stance.
2007-02-02 06:07:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Katie 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
This president has done more on this issue than any other ever. He has pushed for more alternative fuels and renewable sources than any other president along with setting tighter MPG guidelines so before you spout off do some research. The reason he goes down as being anti environmental is due to his desire to drill and open for discovery Alaska. The same BS about how it would impact the environment back in the 70's is being repeated but the drilling currently being done has had no big negative effects. BTW global warming is not caused by us but rather it is a natural occurrence. I think I will get the sun tan lotion and a lounge chair and enjoy the weather. Al Gore said the weather was going to be warm and thanks to him I can post this BS on his Internet.
2007-02-02 06:10:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by joevette 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Crimminy, we're looking at an average of 10 degrees warmer in some places over the next 100 years. So bananas will grow a few more miles north of where they used to. I can live with that.
Why do people think global warming means our children will live in an inhabitable earth? Grab the sunscreen and hit the beach.
2007-02-02 06:05:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by $$ Profit of Doom $$ 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I observed some thread from an evangelical some years lower back whilst George W. Bush grew to become into president. He basically refused to beleive that Saddam Hussein grew to become into lifeless. human beings of this approach are area of the "fringe society". they're ever-alarmist and continually searching for the top of the international to ensue any minute. To them, each and every physique is a liar who isn't to be relied on. to a pair extenet, you may stick to this approach of people who do no longer want to even evaluate that international warming may be genuine. if your employer grew to become into Duke means (to call only one substantial application employer), could you want to hearken to that smokestack emissions make contributions to international warming? of direction no longer. apart from, individuals for the final thirty years have been customers extraordinaire. maximum don't have a care in the international touching directly to the bigger themes dealing with society--see you later as they are able to trot off to Wal-Mart and get something on sale. They ***** touching directly to the government being too enormous, yet then want the government to shield the themes they had a hand in springing up in the 1st place.
2016-11-24 19:28:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by rothman 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can't stop it. The Sun won't be controlled by us.
A habitable Earth? Face the facts - much of human Habitation is on land once covered by a mile of ICE. 12,000 years ago, the warming cycle began. Thanks to Global Warming, we now have a habitable Earth with accessible farm land and covered in forests rather than glaciers.
London stands where glaciers once scoured the land. So does New York. And Paris. Do you REALLY prefer Ice Ages over these warm times?
2007-02-02 06:03:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by speakeasy 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Since over half of ghg's are produced by generating energy, we should be building more nuclear power plants right now.
Nuclear is clean, and produces the quantity of power that we need 24/7/356 without producing ANY ghg's!
Only idiots scared of modern technology oppose nuclear power.
2007-02-02 06:42:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by radical4capitalism 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton REFUSED TO SUPPORT KYOTO.
He said it would hurt American's jobs.
My guess is that you weren't smart enough to have any idea what clinton did or did not do. Wouldn't that be pathetic of you?
2007-02-02 06:08:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by junglejoe 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
We are not the cause of, and neither do we have the ability to stop, climate change. We're all on this little old planet just for the ride. So, just relax and enjoy the sunsets.
2007-02-02 06:14:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by lurned1 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
You can stop driving or riding in cars,trains and planes.Mow your lawn with a push mower.Do not use gas or electricity for cooking.Wear clothes made only of natural products cotton,wool,animal skins etc.Then convince everyone else to do it.
2007-02-02 06:11:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dr. NG 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Anf just what is it that you propose the President do? I keep hearing all this crapola about global warming but no one has any solutions, you know why? BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY!!! Here's a hint, force the cows to quit farting.
2007-02-02 06:06:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋