I think, if you dont believe and need concrete proof that you can see with your own two eyes,....come to south east queensland, australia! Here it is not a threat , it is a fact of life. We are in the grips of the worst drought on the record books, we are implementing recycled water, towns have run dry, no one is alowed to use water outside,farmers are walking off their land....the list goes on and on.........we are paying the price for the whole world at the moment, but that too will change........Every man woman and child in this world need to be held accountable, and step up to the plate and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!
2007-02-25 13:13:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ozone is very important to stop UV rays from killing living things. Right now UV is cutting the ice at the poles melting holes and creating crackes in the ice. If we solve the UV problem we shift global warming from a 10 to 30 year problem to a 40 to 100 year problem. And this gives us time to find and build new forms of energy. I sent this letter to Al Gore some time back-no responce yet.
Dear Al Gore:
Putting the technology together to start cleaning up and reintroducing new ozone to the atmosphere is possible. The cost and size of this project means taking a long term commitment. I am proposing the biggest cleanup in history. Al, I do not see any proposal that is realistic or proven at any cost, not even Washington can solve this problem. But if every person on earth does his or her share, we may be ok. Never-the-less, I see governments acting like a deer in a car’s headlights and people doing the same thing. The inevitable is almost upon us. Cleanup and change is the only option.
The first cleanup machine starts with a ten billion dollars investment. Ten year later with twenty-five machines operating, these machines will produce enough ozone to replace both holes at the poles. But more importantly, these machines will remove chemicals that deplete the ozone. Beyond making ozone, decreasing the poisons that deplete ozone, these machines reduce the major greenhouse gases and unbelievably we can have all this for fewer than one hundred billion dollars.
Beyond cleaning up our atmospheric mess as I am suggesting, we humans must do a better job reducing or cleaning up carbon monoxide, collecting and storing methane and ethane for fuel, burning less of everything, cleaning up our forests and using more solar insolation. Solar steam electric generators are the type of systems we need and are 90 percent efficient and near 100 percent if heat recovery is used. I believe nearly 30,000 MW are needed in the USA and Mexico over the next 30 years. This opens the door to new electric cars, new construction vital to our way of life, new bullet trains, and these industries produce new high paying jobs. From small scale solar generators on malls, to 2000 acre collector sights, these systems are viable and ready for production. The Federal Government must give up some land, money and have less regulation to help save the planet from disaster.
Al, spreading the message that we can help ourselves is a key to the development of these businesses. Washington can help: the businesses need grants, patents, land and regulations. Congress must create a pollution surcharge. From gas, coal, diesel, wood to cooling towers, from cattle, other ranches to cigarettes, from agriculture burning to airplane passengers, this surcharge can fund parts of these projects and many stationary pollution control devices in general.
Your personal support is very important to getting the atmosphere cleanup started and developing sights for solar generators.
Sincerely,
2007-02-25 21:21:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by RayM 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Again, global warming and ozone depletion are two entirely different phenomenas. However, to answer your question, I think people who think that if we stop releasing greenhouse gases into the troposphere than our economies will be destroyed are not well educated in economics. If we seek new ways of using energy more efficiently and seek other forms of energy, our economy will skyrocket. It is a simple economic law, as technology goes up, the economy grows. We, as moral humans, need to realize and face the truth. Global warming is a huge problem and is now melting the glaciers in Greenland, South America, Antarctica, etc. This WILL cause the ocean levels to rise and destroy lands and have other huge impacts. Also, the melting of glaciers will cause the temperature to go up more, since glaciers reflect solar energy back to space. I can go on and on with all of the other impact but I think I will bore everyone.
2007-02-25 20:50:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by tutorgirl 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Even though I am 45 yrs old and hopefully will not see any serious impact it scares the crap out of me to even think about it.
I believe world is terribly overpopulated and that every country has to mandate max of 2 kids or less per family or woman.
We need to recylce everything possible; make it a law or place a deposit on everything that can be recylced; those who don't want their deposit back can continue to pollute.
And obviously have to develope alternate forms of energy such as wind towers, solar and even nuclear is better than burning coal and oil.
I would vote for anyone at any level of office who shares my views and will do something, anything as soon as possible.
2007-02-25 21:27:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by nova 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
ozone layer is growing back again because we found the problem, and we took the measures needed on time. We can do the same with global warming. Stars with ourselves. this is most important than anything else, dotn you think?
Can u imagine how it would be seing most of coastal american cities underwater, trillion of dollars lost, most of europe's main cities lost too. and over 500 million of refugees.
This scenario would be worst than a world war, and we would change our way of life dramatically, for worst.
Is important to research, and know what we can do about it.
2007-02-25 20:01:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gonzalo Tello 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
some general observations
some solutions
and a good source for reference
Is global warming a man-made menace?
not all there are natural cycles in the planets life
but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms
some home truths
politicians and scientists who work for politicians have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many people income,and most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.
in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification
in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days
in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,the globe where they were got to hot for them .
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,and they will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result
(are you seeing more Chinese around interested in agricultural lands ,we do here in Mexico)
,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.
collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,
as far as the food production is concerned, Global warming or some of its effects are serious,rising seas result in landloss
each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss
more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,
and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing
RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.
Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,
At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.
SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to reverse the destructive processes
reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.
the capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.
the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia
Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.
the protection of existing forrests.
stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.
education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.
education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´populaion
Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.
more environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks
,more dams.regulations and control for public behaviour
alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine
recicling wastes,limit water use
i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico
http://spaces.msn.com/byderule
Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.
2007-02-27 02:06:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
HOW RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA BY KEEPING THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IN THE DARK AGES - THEY SAY THAT THE PRIMITIVE LIVING CONDITIONS OF THESE POVERTY-STRICKEN PEOPLE ARE "QUAINT"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wth_p4p0rfY
http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/
THE MYTH OF OVERPOPULATION
http://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml
http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/sperlazzo/bs_opm1010903.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14186
HOW RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS CAUSED THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE, INCLUDING THE UNBORN
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
http://www.junkscience.com
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths
Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.
Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.
Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?
Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many ... for so little.
9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.
Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).
8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.
7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.
Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.
6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!
For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?
5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.
Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?
4. The glaciers are melting!
As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.
3. Climate was stable until man came along.
Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).
What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.
Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.
1. It’s hot in here!
In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.
The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.
2007-02-25 22:12:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋