English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Innocents of the Developing Countries are targted by the Contributors from the Rich Nations

2007-09-01 18:25:10 · 15 answers · asked by Ramesh J 1 in Environment Global Warming

15 answers

We're all contributors, including developing nations because they have even more lax restrictions then we do. India and China are some of the largest contributors due to cars and air conditioners. Of course the US is at the top of the list too.

Maybe some tribes in Africa or in the Rain Forest could be considered innocent but that's about it. Actually, the Amish are pretty innocent too.

2007-09-01 18:40:39 · answer #1 · answered by samsona 3 · 4 3

Go outside on a sunny day around noon-time. Look straight up. That shiny ball of light up there is called the "SUN". It is a variable star and is called that because it's temperature and energy output fluctuates, thereby causing the temperatures and climates of it's orbiting satellites (planets and moons) to also fluctuate. Sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler.

Do a Google-search on volcanoes. One volcanic eruption can emit more "greenhouse" or toxic gases than the combined output of the entire industrial age of man, from beginning to present day. There are approximately 60 volcanic eruptions world-wide each year. Some short, some long.

If you want to blame man-kind ... well, go ahead. Not that it's going to do any good. Modern, industrialized nations have the technology to deal with pollution and have made great strides in controlling the emissions of their power plants and factories and transportation systems.

Countries like China and India and Mexico pump out more CO2 than all other nations combined, but nothing is said about controlling their emissions in such balderdash agreements like the Kyoto Accords.

But, what the hell? Let's all go ballistic about something that we can't do anything about and let the politicians pass their inane laws that do nothing but suck the money out of your wallet and standard of living and pump it into their own pockets or the pockets of those scientists who see the fatted cow and try to promote the farce to keep their grants coming.

Or - let's cut out the middle-man altogether and send your check directly to "Carbon Credits" c/o Al Gore and disciples.

2007-09-02 09:31:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Every one of us is a contributor but some contribute significantly more than others.

The main sources of greenhouse gases are power generation, industry, fuels for transportation, agriculture
and deforestation.

As a rough rule of thumb it's the rich nations that contribute most to global warming. Luxembourg is the richest country on the planet and produces 22,000 kg of CO2 emissions per inhabitant, contrast this with the poorest country in the world, Burundi, which has just 30kg of emissions per person.

The finger of blame is often pointed at countries including China and India. These are the two most populous countries in the world and when the contribution to global warming is averaged out across the population (per capita) then the contribution each citizen of these countries makes is a small one, considerably less than the global average.

In recent years we've effectively seen an export of polluting industries from the developed world to the developing world. Much of the economic growth of China and India is being driven by the demand for goods coming from the developed countries. Basically we're still the problem but have exported the mess elsewhere, and are now blaming those countries for our mess.

2007-09-02 04:28:55 · answer #3 · answered by Trevor 7 · 3 4

maximum of Canada is supported by very deep permafrost. because of the fact the permafrost melts, not basically will they launch far extra methane and CO2 than guy's contributions however the land would give way. that's particularly plausible for lots of Canada to return to the shallow in land sea it as quickly as grew to become into. particular, Canada would desire to agonize because of the fact it won't basically be warmer climate. Canada opted out of Kyoto because of the fact with the pine beetles surviving various heat winters devoid of a die off, 80% of the BC pine forests have been killed, the rotting timber are actually freeing 5 situations the CO2 produced by all Canadian automobiles. What grew to become into as quickly as a credit to Canada under Kyoto grew to become a great penalty which might would desire to be made up by savings in industry, this made the Kyoto contract impossible for Canada to fulfill.

2016-12-16 09:06:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Cows and volcanoes. A pasture of dairy cows produce more toxic gases in a day than any major interstate in any major city. And volcanoes, well, they speak for themselves-quite loudly.
And why do we still call it fossil fuels? Scientist, about a decade ago, found out oil is not broken down dino bones, it's the waste product of a specific bacteria.

2007-09-02 02:45:52 · answer #5 · answered by crknapp79 5 · 2 1

The overwhelming main contributors are volcanic emissions, variation in the solar radiation levels, forest fires and other natural phenomenae. As far as human contributions, China has become the predominant contributor - Western nations are becomming insignifiant in comparison to Asia..... But even we ain't going to stop the volcanos and cool down the sun..... so get used to it.... In spite of all the rock concerts it's going to happen.

2007-09-01 21:25:11 · answer #6 · answered by squeezie_1999 7 · 1 3

It would depend on which era you talk about that is effected by global warming, try;
the sun, orbital variations of our planet, volcanic out gassing (though that could actually cool things down, too), the large number of creatures which produce methane, possibly to a lesser extent, excess CO2 production over the last 200+ years, by the human race, in it's endeavours to rise above the muck.(this part is disputable)

2007-09-01 21:00:37 · answer #7 · answered by fyzer 4 · 1 2

We all need to pull together on this one. One idea I've heard that sounds appealing is for all countries to have the same goals, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per person.

Rich nations have to reduce, poor ones have to not make the same mistakes the rich countries did in their development.

2007-09-01 18:58:55 · answer #8 · answered by Bob 7 · 2 3

Oprah Winfree and Dr Phil

2007-09-01 20:22:26 · answer #9 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 1 2

squeezie: get your facts straight. Do you want me to send you my calculations to prove you that the CO2 increase is the result of the fossil fuels ?

I have one page of calculation and it shows how silly your opinion is !!!

2007-09-02 00:00:10 · answer #10 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers