If 10% of the funds currently invested into the neo-religion of Global Warming were instead spent to feed the hungry, how many lives could be saved?
2007-05-23 05:32:40 · 11 answers · asked by geronrocks1 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
That' another problem that is miss managed is funds to feed the hungry. I do not think this will help anything. It just divert one problem to another problem and nothing gets done right.
2007-05-26 04:02:07 · answer #1 · answered by rodney r 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, for one thing, I don't think I would call global warming a "neo-religion". I'm willing to bet that many of the people who do contribute to interest groups interested in halting global warming or other related causes donate to humanitarian funds as well.
Also, I suppose you just want us to give free food to poor countries. While this may save lives now, it is only a temporary solution. How can you expect the country to get back on its feet if no one is willing to buy anything from local farmers or other vendors (Hmm, free food, or food that costs money, I wonder which one they'll choose)? The country can never restabilize if we steal the business of the poor people we are trying to save. This is not an insult to the people of these countries or to your certainly altruistic intentions, it is a serious dilemma, and one that cannot be ignored.
While I'm sure this will not change your mind in the least, I just felt I would tell you. So, why don't you go back to bemoaning the loss of DDT?
2007-05-23 05:47:27 · answer #2 · answered by MinaMay 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
How many lives will be saved if global warming is real and the agriculture lands that won't be destroyed by the famines that will be induced by the massive crop failures never happen? Nobel Prize winners believe global warming is real - please tell them that you know better than they do. This isn't a political issue, its science, and if politics gets to decide science, then science isn't science anymore.
One thing I don't get is why the "anti's" in the debate don't understand that this could also be an enormous business opportunity - anytime there is a change new businesses will spring up, and the smart ones will make a profit serving the consume with what they want and need (hint!).
2007-05-23 05:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How many lives would be saved if 10% of the "war on terror" budget was put toward feeding the hungry?
How about....education? health care? etc. etc.
And there is no global warming budget. There is a science budget...which is around $60billion. By the way, that includes defense research too....
2007-05-23 07:49:03 · answer #4 · answered by Captain Algae 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What global warming funds? A lot of the things you can do to reduce CO2 emissions will actually save money, such as driving less, buying more fuel efficient cars, turning down your thermostat, and replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent.
Also one of the best ways to feed the hungry would be to make sure that farmlands do not turn into deserts.
2007-05-23 06:18:28 · answer #5 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The earth is having trouble feeding everybody. Global warming will increase production in some countries, but overall there will be food production decline due to drought in some places and flooding in others. For instance, India relies on the Monsoon for farming, but too much or too little will decrease the arable land.
2007-05-23 05:39:03 · answer #6 · answered by russ m 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
None because it is an economic problem not a FEEDING problem. It would actually make things worse, since it will make it into a Feeding problem due to the extrem weather climate change brings, more harsher longer droughts and more bigger floods will soon make shortages on food supply a reality around the world.
2007-05-23 14:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by Am 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
None. First, there is no "global warming fund." Second, if we do not curb global warming, there is no doubt in any serious scientist's mind that there will be massive deaths, both human and otherwise, due to a lack of water (desertification), more powerful tropical storms and hurricanes, possible flooding.
2007-05-23 05:36:34 · answer #8 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There are no global warming funds.
And if there were and the money would be transferred to feed the hungry, it would dissapear into the bottomless pit of corruption.
2007-05-23 05:39:30 · answer #9 · answered by mgerben 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How many lives could be saved with the money that Big Oil is profiting off the backs of the average American?
2007-05-23 06:07:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋