is it right to blame only the rich nations for global warming?

Answer 1

Yes it is right only to blame US of A.
come to think they contribute 1/3 of all pollution alone. And they have resources to do it otherwise - they still do it!

Its like killing the planet even when they have a choice - they are rich today because in past they contributed over 70% of all pollutants... which is burden on poor people as well.

Let call it a pay back time....:)

Answer 2

every person alive on the planet is to blame. we all create greenhouse gases in everyday things you do. eg driving to work the gym sports. OK some don't drive but you take the bus taxi cabs etc the food we eat, drink, the clothes you wear everything we do contributes to this so called global warming. then we go cut down the forest the jungles all in the name of progress. but if you look into it with an open mind you have to be absolutely brain dead if you think that we can reverse the effect of the alleged global warming. recent ice core samples from the antarctic suggest that this phenomenon seems to have occurred regularly over the past few million yrs. as your all aware there is no conclusive undisputed proof that this warming actually exist. i live in the country right under the ozone hole and believe me there is no rises in sea level or anything else than could be directly linked to all edged global warming. ask yourself how long have we been on the planet, can we live without the technologies we have will millions more people suffer and die in feeble attempt to manipulate nature, can we really save the planet stop listening to the so called experts (ex is the unknown factor spurt is what comes from a leaky tap) they are pushing there own agenda. we cannot reverse so called global warming. if you think we can i suggest you start taking Prozac it just might bring you back to reality

Answer 3

Hi -

To be exact, there are no "rich" nations. All of the "rich" nations, are actually in debt.

Who is to blame?

The oil companys
The car companys
and
The energy companys

Here in the united states, power plants produce so much wasted energy, that they could run 84% of our cars on electricity, for free, from that would be wasted energy. Ofcourse ever car would have to be converted to electric, but we have the technology, and it would save us billions of dollars.

The "richer" nations host the most energy, and car companys, and produce the most CO2 emissions from cars.

Poorer countries usually have a lot more poverty. More people riding bikes, and walking, and live with no power.

The car companys are to blame because they do not want to provide the already available technology to stop global warming. Why? Because that technology causes cars to last A LOT longer. This decreases sales. They want you to buy a new car every year, or two. You could probably keep an electric car, or hydrogen/electric/gas car for about 20 years.

The energy companys are to blame because they produce CO2 emissions, and refuse to put caps on their plants to filter out CO2, because they wouldn't be able to burn as much, and the caps are expensive. George Bush didn't even care too, in fact, he stated that it would "ruin" the industry if they did that. What he doesn't realize is that our whole world could be ruined if we allow it.

The Oil Companys are to blame because they basically run the show. They pay off billions to people with rising technology to keep their mouths shut, like the XOGEN company. And on a personal level, I am sure they have killed people like Stanley Meyer, who have refused their money.

My guess, is that if we are not already extinct by the time oil runs out, THEN the government will bring this new technology in, and tax the crap out of it. The only reason they allow the oil to overpower everything else, is beacuse it is the most profitable, and would cost money to impliment the other technologys.

GRRRRR

Answer 4

No. There's a perverse belief that so called rich nations should lower the standard of living for its people, something that historically has caused that government to "disappear", to raise the standard of living of poor nations. Of course the end result would be lower standards even in the poor nations (whose gonna buy things?). Global warming is just being used as an excuse. Secondly, there is no consensus that man causes global warming although most scientists believe we're making it "worse" then it would be otherwise. When everything is factored in, activities just move north (in the northern hemisphere) where there is far more land then what will be lost in the south yielding a net gain in farmland. That is considered bad because it would mean a lowering of influence for the US, Europe, and China to their northern neighbors.

Answer 5

Green house effect is defined as under by this site http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1:

"It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases"

The site further says this:-

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume ppmv, and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years."

The emission of carbon di oxide is pronouncedly rising after the Industrial revolution. It is needless to say that the industrial production in the world are at the highest in the most industrialised countries like America and Western Europe. When the facts are so plain, why cannot America turn a blind eye to the problem which is real?

Answer 6

Whether it is issue of Global warming or any other issue relating to our planet, every person is responsible. Nations rich in money or knowledge must play vital part to save the mother earth.

Answer 7

No. America is a rich nation but you will be surprised to see the green wherever you travel and the enviornmental care they have
taken is praise worthy. It is the carelessness of any country that
fails to grow trees sideby side especially to nullify the effect of industrialisation... chemical factories... atomic researches etc.
be it a poor or rich nations. Eco-balancing must be the theme
for everyone on the earth if you want to avoid global warming ,
I feel scientists should find out any other reasons for this type of warming and find solutions accordingly.

Answer 8

Other 'poorer' nations don't have access to the polluting hazards we have in our 'rich' nations. All are to blame, but volume of people to pollution rates is terrible in big 'rich' nations such as the USA. We all need to do our part to help reduce the amount of pollutants that we produce. Poorer countries don't have the means to create programs like recycling, emission reducing cars, 'green' items (recycled grocery bags, paper, etc.) As a richer nation we have no excuse in contributing to global warming whereas the so called poorer nations can educated; but nothing will come of it if the resources aren't there.

Answer 9

I don't think that it is right to blame rich countries for global warming. That is just another way to try and llimit our freedom. There are alot of those who are talking about global warming and pollution in our country are livng in huge houses , driving big suv's and flying all around the world. That is not right. they want everyone else to downsize. What about their part in all of this? What about personally responsibility?

Answer 10

No Its Not, Becoz Even The 3rd World Nations Have A Share In Global Warming,As the 3rd World Nations As they are known use firewood for their cooking ,cut trees for their livelyhood

Answer 11

I think rich nations are more irresponsible about the environment but so many things contribute to environmental issues, both natural and created. Plus--global warming? Where I live, it has been the coldest, most snow-filled winter since I was 8 or 9 (I'm now 22). I totally support the idea that the environment has gone to hell but somehow I just find it hard to embrace the whole global warming concept when it's ten below, lol.