Do you know that Egypt will be the most country that get harmed due to global warming?

Question

is there any solutions?

Answer 1

Dry and hot as well as low lying countries are expected to suffer the most from global warming. What I think is sad and unfair is that the most affected countries often are among those with low emissions of greenhouse gases. That makes them very much dependent on what people in the rich world decide to do about the problem.

Egypt must address this problem with other nations and express their concern about the problem. Also, they have to be very restrict in how they use their water and make sure they don't pollute the water that can be used as drinking water. If possible, supporting project for reforestation in Africa could also help as trees not only absorbs carbon but helps create clouds and moisture. Investments in solar power could also be a possibility for the sunny Egypt.

Answer 2

Nobody knows the cause of global climate shift ( which includes global warming and global cooling ).

Nobody knows what the ultimate impact will be.

Nobody knows what countries will suffer the most, but some surely will as has always happened before.

Nobody knows what countries will benefit the most, but some surely will as has always happened before.

All we've got is a lot of hype by people with something to gain from fueling the hype even more..

Answer 3

In spite of some say, even if we were to limit the burning of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, any difference it might make would be in the margin of error. Alamists typically don't provide real solutions, they just provide things to do which might make them feel like they are doing something. Egypt is in a desert that is primarily fed by the Nile. There should be very little effect on Egypt. Perhaps it might be 111 instead of 110 in the summer but no one can say for certain.

Answer 4

I'm afraid warming (even magic non existent warming) does not make countries sink, that is caused over long time periods by geological actions.

Answer 5

There is a plan to reduce global warming and avoid the worst effects. It was developed by hundreds of scientists and economists working together. It is practical and affordable:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

By the way, Bangladesh might differ with you over who would get hurt worst. But it would be utter disaster for both countries, as well as most of the world.

Answer 6

Sadly, the most harm to come to us from GW will be in the form of global wallet content reduction for the working class.

Answer 7

LOL everyone ignores it until it affects them personally. I notice you aren't worried about the droughts, forest fires and floods happening anywhere else.

A real sign of the self absorption that will doom us all in the end

Answer 8

With projected rises in sea level between 20 and sixty metres, I don't have a suggestion. Wish I did.

Answer 9

With respect to the solutions to Global Warming.

According to the best estimates in the peer reviewed scientific literature, if we are to have any chance of stopping Global Warming we must cut the world wide carbon dioxide emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today.

That will be very difficult to do without shutting down the economies of the world.

The only way that we can achieve those kinds of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions is to replace the electrical generating capacity that is based on fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas with a source that is cost competitive with fossil fuels but does not use fossil fuels or result in the emission of carbon dioxide gas.

The only two energy sources that we have that do not have carbon emissions and are cost competitive with fossil fuels are wind energy and nuclear energy.

The cost of production of electricity generated by wind energy is approximately 4 cents per kilowatt hour. The cost of production of electricity generated by nuclear energy is approximately 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour(1)

Solar photovoltaics do not result in the emission of carbon dioxide, but the cost of production of electricity is so high using solar photovoltaics that they are not cost competitive with fossil fuels and will not be accepted by the general public for that reason.

If we can replace our electrical generating capacity with electricity that does not result in the emission of carbon dioxide then the use of electric cars has the benefit that they do not result in the addition of carbon dioxide gases to the atmosphere.

If we replaced our electrical generating capacity with energy sources that do not produce carbon dioxide gas, and if we replaced our cars with electrics we could reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to approximately one fourth of what they are today.

That still will not get you down to the goal of one tenth of what they are today, but it is close.


If we want to have any chance of reducing our carbon dioxide emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today we must replace our electrical generating caopacity with sources that do not produce carbon dioxide gas and we must replace our cars with electrics. If we do that we will be very close to our goal of reducing our carbon dioxide emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today.

Answer 10

maybe they should sell now, before the neighborhood gets worse.