Do you believe the USA should be a leader in eliminating greenhouse gases?

Question

It might cost some corporations a few bucks to get started in their plants elimination of greenhouse gases, but after that their plants would be running much more efficient, and we'd all be able to breath cleaner air. We also need much more efficient cars and trucks that run on other things besides fossil fuels.

Answer 1

Yes, the US must lead the way. But, I want to help clarify a few things.

It's not that we need more efficient cars/trucks, we need fewer of them. And, be careful of alternatives to fossil fuels. Ethanol and biodiesel, for example, generate about as much carbon dioxide as do gasoline powered vehicles. We need vehicles that don't derive their energy from carbon-based fuels. You even have to be careful of electric vehicles, because the electricity comes from somewhere. In the US, most electricity comes from coal-fired or petroleum-fired power plants, and it there is really no benefit to using electric cars from this source of electricity.

So, do your research, and be careful of the hype you hear in the media. Again, we need to think "non-carbon" fuels, and not simply "non-fossil" fuels. Nuclear, solar, wind, electricity produced from nuclear, etc. are all non-carbon fuels. Oil, coal, biodiesel, ethanol, oil shale, natural gas, wood, etc. are all carbon-based. When we can't avoid carbon-based fuels, we have to conserve until it hurts.

Answer 2

The US is by far the greatest producer of greenhouse gases. They consume more fossil fuels and produce more CO2 than other countries. This has not decreased in the past 10 years. On the contrary, statistics show that this continues to increase. The US is one of the countries that still has not ratified the global warming proposals. It stands to lose money trying to eliminate greenhouse gases (initially). I do not believe that the financial strain should be a deterent. For a country that likes to pass laws and influence other nations, it really should take the initiative in this matter. US reluctance to take the initiative and try to better the environment for everyone suggests that there are other things more important. There is progess in the alternative forms of energy section, but realistically, using solar power, the majority of this would be solved. We have the ability currently to meet all of the earth's energy needs with solar power.

Answer 3

Back in the 1970s, the United States took the lead in banning CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) when we discovered how they were destroying the ozone layer. At the time, the Europeans thought we were absolutely crazy, but by the mid 1980s, there was a global ban on CFCs.

If the United States took the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I have no doubt the rest of the world would jump on the bandwagon and progress would be made faster than anyone could hope for.

As it is though, the US is seriously lagging behind, and it is hurting us. If you want proof of this, just look at the automobile industry. Foreign car companies produce more fuel efficient cars and domestic car companies are losing tons of money in both foreign and domestic markets.

Answer 4

Well, USA considers itself a leader in most fields and since this is a global moral one, shouldn't the US take the lead there as well? If the US truly believes that it is the leader of the free world?

Also since the US is the largest producer of greenhouse gases it would stand to reason that a certain larger degree of responsability should be accepted about this.

Answer 5

maximum skeptics say that worldwide warming is a organic fluctuation and guy has little or no result on it. The earth does fluctuate in temperature for sure (in the time of component of the dinosaur era, there have been no ice caps), yet guy is having a severe result and rushing up the approach. The skeptics tend to return from 2 camps (or the two): - The earth replaced into positioned right here via God for guy to do what we elect, so he will fix the concern - To curtail greenhouse emissions might harm our economic device and does not make experience until China and India conform to the two one among those contain fake (God and the theory that we ought to constantly no longer do something until definitely everybody does).

Answer 6

its an eternal blame game. nobody wants to take the risk of reducing co2 at the cost of economy.
USA produces 25% co2 with 300million population.China with 1+ billion produces 15-18%.
Do you see any difference between an american hummer and a chinese cycle ? still americans(the politicians) believe china should start reduction first.
i'm surprised to see that many people believe that global warming is a big joke. if people can change then govt will.
i don't see bush doing anything serious about global warming.

Answer 7

In addition to everything you list, the US also could make a lot of money developing technologies to reduce (not "eliminate")) greenhouse gases, and selling them to other countries.

Answer 8

The USA *IS* a leader in emission reduction.
Between 2000 and 2003, USA emissions went down 0.22% while China went up 16.74%, France went up 2.35% and the UK went up 2.51%. China will be the #1 emitter by 2010.

Answer 9

We are the single largest cause of the problem so of course we have the single largest responsibility for cleaning it up.

Answer 10

Most definitely.