global warming...?

Question

if the planet is being destroyed beacuse of global warming then why don't all the world leaders join forces to come up with a solution?
is money seriously what's stopping them?
also instead of spending millions on weapons and looking for aliens they could be using that money on feeding the hungry and providing people with a better education so we could come up with solutions to the world's problems don't you think?

Answer 1

Because the planet isn't being destroyed. We are in fine shape. There are some that are trying to scare you out of your hard earned money, but then there have always been opportunist who try to sell you snake oil.

Wait a couple of years. The climate will change on it's own and start getting cooler on it's own.

Answer 2

Well, that is a pretty darn good exposition of the simplistic and unbelieveably naive view of The World as I've ever read. (And there were quite a few hippies back in "my day" writing similar themes.)

1. It's not 100% sure that the world is "being destroyed" by global warming. Yes, there are definitie signs that the globe is warming in serious and possibly even dangerous ways. But it is quite possible that the globe goes through cooling and warming cycles and it is in a (maybe even an early) stage of warming. And things are probably even likely to have major negative affects on everyone's lives.

2. It is near impossible to get even two groups of people (including "leaders" - whatever that means, exactly) to come to agreement on even simple issues, let alone one where people mght be asked to give up things they think they are entitled to. Yes, economics is an important reason why agreements are hard to come by, but it is people's lilves, not just "money" at stake in those disagreements.

3. Even the U.S. spends way more on "entitlement" programs (the stuff like feeding the hungry and providing education) than on military activities, which (BTW) was one of the original main purpose for the U.S. government. And I don't think the U.S. spends ANY money on "looking for aliens."

So, yes, I think it would be nice if everyone could "just learn to love each other", but LIFE is just not that way, my dear. Your heart is in the right place, I'd say; now if you could just practice trying to engage your brain a bit more, you might really have something.

Answer 3

Im not surprised that people are asking this question. With all the messages going out to the public about the dangers of climate change (al gore,day after tomorrow etc) lots of people are getting curious as to why the leaders of the world havn't made just as big a fuss about it as the media.

I think that the underlying reason for this is the 'touchy-touchy' nature of politics. Politicians are very reluctant to swing into a major change and prefer slow and gradual change so that they can see, report and evaluate what they are doing to check if the change is for better or for worse and see if they can pull out, if its going dangerously wrong.

There are only two instances where politicians have been designed to change something drastically; war and now very recently climate change. Politicians can appear all to eager to rush into a war to "save lives" but not for climate change. I believe that this is because climate change and global warming isn't as tangible and far less abstract than war. Politicians certainly have the money but not the confidence and i think the only thing that would spring them into action is if they seriously felt the consequences, which begs the question; 'Surely we shoud be safe than sorry?'

Answer 4

The things that are destroying the planet were obviously harmful when we started doing them, and people protested. But the businesses that profited from dangerous and polluting activities, were more powerful than the protestors.

Industrialised agriculture, imperial trading practices (now called 'globalisation'), and mechanised transport were all invented as ways of maximising business profits.

Politicians are still being persuaded by business leaders (as they were when the UK fought with France, Spain and Holland over land and minerals that were being violently 'discovered' in the New World) that the economic interests of powerful companies are more important than human suffering.

Plenty of food is produced; more than enough to feed everybody on the planet. However, most of it is sold as luxury products in the west (and thrown out as 'leftovers', which rot down in landfill sites).

There is also plenty of money to build hospitals across the third world, providing training and employment for basic-level medics and health educators. However, this investment would produce very slow returns (better quality of life for millions would mean a larger number of customers for basic foodstuffs, for example). Economically, a warhead makes much more sense; the expensive product is destroyed as soon as it is used, generating replacement orders. Each missile that is used will make the other side want a better missile, too. This develops into an 'arms race', which is the most profitable process imaginable.

Business leaders are successful because they are profiteers, and because they compete against other profiteers. If they were more interested in co-operation than in competition, then poverty, hunger, and most diseases could be erased within weeks.

However, any business leader would be too frightened of being tricked by other competitive people, to try co-operating properly with them.

Trickery is often used in big business (as demonstrated by the recent trouble that British Airways got into), so any large-scale attempt to 'cure' poverty would be more likely to be a profit-making trick than a genuine humanitarian project.

The World Bank claims that its lending programmes are designed to help poorer nations to become richer, but conditions attached to the loans make sure that the bank is profiting, even if the country it is 'helping' gets poorer.

This is a bit like the adverts on TV that tell you to get more and more 'credit' (they mean debt), so that they can profit from the interest they charge AND the extra charges they can make if you end up with more debt than you can manage.

Money seriously IS what's stopping them, because you can make more money by tricking people and fighting with them, than you can from helping them to survive.

Answer 5

In game theory its called the "Prisoners Dilemma". Basically, every country would be better off if every other country reduced production of greenhouse gassed and they did not. So, it becomes very difficult to agree to a formula.

If we cut gasses and China does not, then we gain little and lose financially. But with America's refusal to take the lead due to short term losses in profits, the world is dragging our collective feat.

BTW, it is no longer a controversy. Those who tell you that the greenhouse effect is not real are not reading the experts. The model was predicted in the late 1960s and the evidence continues to pour in as predicted. It is not really possible to determine exactly what portion of the problem is caused my mankind but it is significant and the ramifications will be terrible if we do not act. The principal of "overshoot", meaning things will continue to get worse long after corrections are made, is in the model.

Answer 6

why is it we have to provide people with a better education? can't they work toward a better education by studying instead of partying?Just do it for yourself! And remember the world has been getting warmer for ever! Remember the Ice Age It came and went before cars planes etc! get it? It is natural occurrence so just conserve and maybe we can slow it down, but don't be naive enough to think you can prevent it!

Answer 7

If Al Gore really believed in what he says about Global Warming, then would he be living in a mansion that consumes 20 times the amount of energy as a regular house? Would he be driving a fleet of big cars and traveling in a private jet?

If Al Gore believed in what he says about Global Warming then shouldn't he run for President? After all he is at the height of his popularity, he has a cause, and he can make a real difference. Who else has the ability to make the changes if he won't do it?

Answer 8

Well global warming isn't a major issue worldwide. There are a lot of people who opposes the idea and therefore no solution.

Answer 9

Wake up again !!!

Why do you think the entire world is so frustrated at the US for the last 8 years !!!

Other governments might also be enslaved to some lobbying groups but no country is an OILigarchy like the US.

Answer 10

There was an ice age that ended11,550 years ago. The earth's been naturally heating since then. I reckon we're headed for mass climate change whether Man tries to change it or not...

Answer 11

yea its true i think they should and some people are joining forces to come up with solutions but i dont know wen theyll come up with the solution people should also help stop