I noticed that Nancy Pelosi is concerned about Global Warming. Is she concerned about nuclear fallout from an Israeli-Iran nuclear war after we withdraw from Iraq as all the Democrat politicians want? Is she concerned about the mass destruction of human life after we leave Iraq? Is she concerned about ethics by allowing a corrupt polictician in her party to have an important position in Congress?
2007-06-10 06:24:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
In regards to global warming politics, I'm not as worried about Iran as I am China and India, both of which have a nuclear arsenal. The US economy is fairly solid, its infrastructure is well developed. The same can be said of Europe. Western industries are better suited to handle the restrictions required by current global warming bureaucrats.
The emerging economies of India and Asia are another thing altogether. Over-regulation tends to stunt growth to begin with - it could choke or over-burden emerging economies. The government of these countries could see such policies as a deliberate attempt to limit or harm their economies - a way to get an unfair competitive advantage.
The US refused to sell oil and steel to Japan in the late 30s and 40s. Japan responded by attacking Pearl Harbor. How will India and China respond if we refuse them the freedoms necessary to grow their young economies?
2007-06-10 07:40:27 · answer #1 · answered by 3DM 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nice to see some one care so much. After we are out of this war it will continue regardless of ou presence or not. As for nuclear fall, that is a small concern, for as soon as the first one goes off anywhere there will be about 3 days left for us in this world.
2007-06-10 06:35:49 · answer #2 · answered by kevrigger 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because of the fact the Democrats are unable to arising with any genuine rules so as a substitute they latch directly to the main recent fad. Believing the likes of Pelosi and Al Gore on international warming is like taking the whole perception equipment from somebody like Dr. Phil. I admire scientists, yet like numerous different profession, some are incredibly extra perfect than others. And for each medical thought a scientist proposes, there will be basically as many scientists who will say the right opposite. the climate will certainly be changing yet nature has a unusual habit of doing that. And for absolutely everyone who believes that international warming is the main drawing close threat to our life basically has to return and stay in Canada for a pair of winters. they'd substitute their minds.
2016-11-10 00:26:34 · answer #3 · answered by dieng 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question
the only way is if the illuminati evaporated
and they wont .so we are most likely gonna get it
their hunger for Global control is very old and strong .
they said in 1998 that their Agenda demanded a cut in the world population by 60%
and a nuclear war is the fastest way to achieve this
This threat is far more serious or immenent as global warming.
And it does qualify as an Environmental question because most of Nature will be destroyed if or when it happens
2007-06-10 06:30:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Nuclear war will be the grand orgasm for people like G. BUSH.
2007-06-10 09:17:38 · answer #5 · answered by spinzaar 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO she is not and she thinks that President Bush propagated 911. So there is no tarriest.
2007-06-10 09:30:02 · answer #6 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not to mention the fact that we couldn't contact ehr directly even though yahoo would be a great way to get out to people.
2007-06-11 07:45:44 · answer #7 · answered by Ty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This section is for science, not politics.
2007-06-10 06:30:03 · answer #8 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋