For the US and the world, what's more important, reducing green house gas emissions?

Question

or allowing corporations an even more humungus profit? Just wondering.

Answer 1

obviously, you answered your own question. Sadly, if corporations would consider the long term picture instead of short term profits they would see that by stepping up to the plate and reducing greenhouse emissions would work for their benefit and help to product more profits long term. But these dinasours only see what is good for the shareholders today; not what will benefit the world those shareholders live in, forever.

Answer 2

Reducing greenhouse emissions is good for the economy, and the environment, so it is a good pursuit.

Although the U.S., (because of George W. Bush), is way behind on the Kyoto Protocol, nations such as Europe and Asia have already accepted it.


Corporations like Enron and BP, take a humongous profit by stealing tax payers' monies and not having a stipend for the environment, at the cost of consumer's health and payouts.

BP was the cause of the Bhopal incident.

Chernobl caused leukemia and hundreds of cancer related deaths, due to the radiation at the plant in Russia.

So, yes, corporations steal from the public to put up a front to "cheat" the government in global greenhouse reduction emissions.



[e-mail]

Answer 3

I agree that CO2 is not our biggest problem. The air around you is only 0.04% carbon dioxide. So you can double that and still only have a tiny amount. The problem is, now, we take carbon that was stored underground for millions of years, in crude oil, and release 1 million years of carbon in 100 years. Try using something like ethanol or biodiesel. Growing crops takes carbon dioxide out of the air, and burning the fuel only puts a small fraction back into the air, since you do not burn the whole plant in you car. Look at an entire corn stalk. A single corn stalk may take 10 pounds of CO2 out of the air, but the fuel from the corn kernals may only make 1 pound of carbon dioxide. Thus, in one growing season, you have taken 9 pounds out of the air, and put 1 back into the air. The ocean funnel is a cool idea, but not technically feasible on a global scale. You could do a few here and a few there, but that's about it. The U.S. alone grows about 120 billion pounds of corn a year ( just the kernels ) and if you consider all the leafy stalks, this is about 1.20 TRILLION pounds of carbon dioxide removed from the air each year. And that's just corn. Look at all the other plants and trees that are possible.

Answer 4

Accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. That means realizing that the solution isn't as simple as it seems. Millions of people working for corporations and many corporations would like and are trying to find ways to reduce green house gas emissions. Just answering.

Answer 5

Septembersong:

Your question is loaded and terribly bias, if you truly want a wide variety of responses you must learn to ask a question in a method which doesn't spur reactionary responses...

I support reduction of GHG, I also support free enterprise. I think the problem is that many individuals, companies, and governments fail to realize that investing in conservation and the environment benefits all parties, not just "the planet."

Take energy conservation for example, if we reduce our energy consumption, less CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the air quality near the power plant is better due to less coal being burned, AND the company saves money, which translates into higher dividends/earnings. Everyone benefits.

What about online only statements? This eliminates paper, ink, and energy needed to produce the statements, and less fossil fuel is used to transport those statements... Customers get an electronic copy of their statement, the company saves money in production costs, and a bunch of trees are saved in the process. Again all around everyone ends up happy.

The great thing about the US is our innovation, all across the country companies are finding new ways to reduce, reuse, recycle, and still maintain or increase profit.

We still have a LONG way to go, but at least most of our companies are moving in the right direction, look at Bank of America, Wal-Mart, News Corp, Citi Financial and other huge American power houses going green they have done it in a way which is complimentary to the environment as well as their share holders.

Respectfully,

JL

Answer 6

Neither. We don't have to to do either of those things.

What we DO have to do is develop energy sources other than coal, oil and natural gas, because when those things run out, the economy of the world will totally collapse. And they will run out in 100 to 500 years. 100 years for oil and 500 years for coal.

Answer 7

for the US "people", we want to live

for the corporations, like a flame in a wax candle at the end of it's fuel, seeks only to stay lit even if it means burning down your home

even churches are forced to incorporate and in so doing letting it "fail" or become a write off is like killing a "thing" or entity, which most who created and become it's parents do not want this, neither do it's members so they do things, even un ethical to stay alive, even if costs the health and well being of itself and others to stay in existence

Answer 8

Just wondering-some of us work for nasty old corporations, and they need a profit to survive. Perhaps the questioner is in a tax-supported job?

Answer 9

reducing green house gas emissions.

Answer 10

If the policies of the last 8 years continue, the latter would be correct.