English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

My first policy would not be environmental, because the environment is not the biggest problem of our time. In particular, global warning is not nearly as much of a problem as the fear mongers would have you think. The most recent scientific predictions are for very minor climate changes over the next 100 years, including a mere one foot sea level rise and five degrees warmer air. Compared to that, aids, cancer, terrorism, nuclear weapons, poverty, running out of oil and other factors are far more important.

But there is common ground here. We need to reduce dependence on oil BOTH because of running out of non-renewable oil AND due to global warming. Less arguing and more constructive cooperation is in order here.

2007-04-24 06:02:03 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0 1

save the ozone, end global warming. I don't care how drastic it has to be. Wow, the suns burning me a lot more than it used to...
Why do we need gas cars? Gas prices are high and it's bad for the environment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the electric car, people just didn't bother to give it a chance when it came out. We need to make those cars the only legal cars.

2007-04-24 05:59:35 · answer #2 · answered by justifythegame 2 · 0 0

Limit the human population to no more than 1 billion.

2007-04-24 05:59:37 · answer #3 · answered by lowflyer1 5 · 0 0

The planet doesn't need saving. There is NOTHING we can do to threaten it.

Even if we made 1000x more nuclear weapons and set them all off at once.. we'd barely scratch the surface.

The planet is just fine.

2007-04-24 05:58:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers