Why aim to cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 when environmental experts say it needs to be at least 30%?

Question

It needs to be at least 30% by 2020 in order to combat global warming according to environmental experts.

Answer 1

The environmental "experts" are talking pure nonsence. Man generated CO2 has no bearing on climate change. Climate change is a product of sun spot activity and carbon levels follw this after hundreds of years as it takes the oceans that long to respond. The oceans contain most of the CO2 and liberate when they warm and absorb it when they cool. It makes not a whit of difference how much or how little CO2 man generates. It is insignificant in atmospheric terms in comparison to natural CO2. The only merit in cutting CO2 emissions is to prolong the duration of the fossil fuel supply.

Answer 2

The answer is quite simple, just ask the guy on Pennsylvania Avenue.

We all know the U.S.A. is the world's greatest contributor to CO2 emissions; they don't want to upset themselves by needing to rely on renewable or nuclear sources. Consequently, their power-hungry grids (along with their power-hungry president) are fossil-fuel powered. If we aimed to reduce the CO2 emissions by 30%, the U.S.A. would have to make cultural movements which would be politically unacceptable to themselves (despite the fact the rest of the world needs it all to happen).

Did you know that the air conditioning units alone in some individual cities such as Denver & Las Vegas consume more power than the whole of Belgium?

Therein, I believe, rests the answer to your question. George W will not allow his people to be under-powered; even if it means sending the Earth ever closer to the 'tipping pont' beyond which global warming will become a runaway disaster. Perhaps somebody should tell him the American Empire will stand for nothing when there are no longer any people left alive to go under American command.

Answer 3

is that this not extra evidence that every person which is in simple terms political? I advise, how do they be certain precisely how quite some that evil co2 they could decrease to "save the planet"? they're gonna decrease 20% of emissions and that's sufficient for their imaginary disaster. i don't be attentive to, yet 20% would not sound like that plenty. exceedingly once you think approximately that Europe is enormously stagnant with little or no innovation; so they gained't decrease their emissions by recent technologies, yet by carbon taxes. EDIT: Now that i think of of it, they're probable no longer even going to have the potential to fulfill that "purpose". EDIT: precisely Eric, whether I did have self belief that the international replaced into ending because of the fact of AGW, i could nonetheless be against those caps because of the fact a number of the main important manufacturers like India and China won't shop on with. EDIT: Richard E, what i think of James E replaced into attempting to assert is that reducing 20% of no longer something (lower back interior the roman age) could be actually achieved as unfavorable to be attentive to.

Answer 4

Because if you set your goal too high it becomes unachievable and then no one will even try to attain the unattainable. Setting the goal at a level which is attainable, yet high, is a better goal than one which cannot be reached. If we achieve 19% reductions, based on the current goal, we will have achieved 95% of the goal. That is good. If we use 30% as the standard, then we only achieve 63% of the goal, which makes any new goal seem all that more unachievable. We are dealing with 6 Billion people, many of whom this whole aurguement means absolutely nothing to. Try telling Chine that it must cut its emisions and they will send you to the Gobie Desert to live. In defining the goal, you must also define how to get their. I set and maintain Quality standards for a living. To tell people that everything must be perfect 100% of the time is not realistic. To tell people that they must adhere to 99% perfection will work IF YOU TELL THEM HOW TO ACHIEVE IT. What is needed is clear ways to achieve these goals and not more pie in the sky ideas from idealists.

Answer 5

Even if the experts really were experts, even 20% is not possible.

To achieve 20% would rerquire a massive shift in the way society and industry works, and 30% would be as bad as the Black Death to ordinary people.

It's just not going to happen.

Answer 6

because in the world there is a good collection of idiots governing entire countries and until some major catastrophe happens that can be blatantly connected to pollution none of them will make a proper effort to improve the carbon emission of the countries

Answer 7

30% ?

The same experts have said man only make 4% of all the co2 made most is made by the earth.

So what is that a decease of 1% of co2


This stuff is so full of holes any one can see thew it. Why do you think Al Gore has not changed his life.

Answer 8

It is better goal than INCREASING our dependence on fossil fuels.

Also, there are ways to increase carbon uptake by the environment, such as planting trees.

Answer 9

because going green costs money. Leaders do not want their economies to be too badly damaged to do so. And they do not really care since they will be dead when the worst of it comes

Answer 10

because people are lazy, stupid, and don't have the vision.