Do you think attempts to reduce global warming should be made by all nations?

Question

Meaning, should undeveloped countries also have a role in reducing carbon emission? I mean with their lack of financial capability and such, should the international community push for these nations to help? Or should the burden of fixing be with developed nations. This is all assuming that countries such as China, India, USA, and Australia oblige to reduce carbon emission

Answer 1

I think that we should listen to the scientific community. The way they are talking .... this is a nearly an environmental crisis.
When that many scientist get nervous.... i pay attention.
They have overwhelming evidence to support their position. If this were the O.J. trial, he would be behind bars already.
If it were one or two isolated things.... I wouldn't be concerned at all, but this is actually a global red flag.
I don't know what it will take to change the minds of the skeptics.... but I don't think we have time to wait for them to jump on board the change train. We need to start making changes NOW.

Answer 2

well yes even if it means working with forgien countrys
we need to fix wat is happing, the world these days is driven by money and greed if we were to let go of that we could fix almost any problme in the world all nations need to work together in order to make things happen for the better. I will tell u i have see way too much change in the way we live now and how we lived back then. Nations such as germany are already taking steps to make their controbution and to make a difference, if we could do that (america) then surley others will follow america is the center of attion in the world any move we make shines on the whole world. Any country such as china would surley make an effort to make it so that it looks like not only we care, WE ALL NEED TO CARE ABOUT THE ENVIROMENT not matter what

Answer 3

Undeveloped countries generally don't produce mass amounts of carbon emissions. The countries producing emissions should be the ones to find a solution on reducing them.

Answer 4

No. What all nations should do is adapt. Let me explain.

Greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to increase despite CO2 cuts in developed countries. The reason: Fast-growing countries that do not have to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol—such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Indonesia—will account for as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in the next two decades.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE: ADAPTATION IS THE NAME OF THE GAME

Will Cutting CO2 Emissions Reduce the harms to which warming contributes?

The most reasonable thing to do is Focused Adaptation. Focus Adaptation means taking steps now to adapt to warmer conditions such as:

1) Using pesticides to kill malaria-bearing mosquitoes,

2) Improving farming practices and

3) Ending subsidies to coastal development.

These measures could virtually eliminate the threat of coastal flooding and cut in half the number of people projected to be at risk from malaria and hunger.

Adapting to climate change would be better than trying to prevent it. At a cost of less than $10 billion annually, focused adaptation is relatively cheap, compared to trying to stabilize CO2, which would cost trillions of dollars per year.

Finally, the following should also be taken into account:

1) In just 30 years, people in the United States have reduced the energy required to produce one unit of gross domestic product by almost half.

2) Though th world’s population has quadrupled in the past century, the number of food calories available per person has actually increased.

3) Americans grow corn in climates from Alabama to North Dakota.

4) Clever people will develop cheaper ways to create energy with less carbon. Wealthy countries can afford to search for these new sources of energy. One should hope that governments would encourage research into new technologies that, when proven, will will be naturally adopted by the marketplace.

5) Limiting carbon-based energy production to levels adopted in the Kyoto Protocol will make an imperceptible difference in global temperatures and an undetectable difference in weather. If achieved, it would reduce the standard of living for millions-and by extension, billions-of people. The poorest are the most vulnerable to such edicts by proponents of such efforts at centralized planning. Wind and solar energy are not yet cheap and viable enough. Wind mills or turbines are very expensive and take huge amounts of space. When the wind is not blowing, there is no production of energy. That is one of the main reasons poorer countries need to start with the cheapest way to produce energy (coal and natural gas) and then start depending less and less on these sources of energy.

Answer 5

All countries should take REASONABLE measures to reduce it. For poor countries that will be very little. For rich countries it will be investing billions in alternative energy projects. Some day coal and oil will run out, then we will be forced to rely only on alternatives, even if there were no global warming. So we better be ready and global warming is as good an excuse as any to start getting ready now.

Answer 6

The wealthy countries are already working on reducing CO2 and pollution. The developing nations will do what ever they can afford to do and some may even consider their emissions.

Answer 7

Everyone has to work together. The developing countries need assistance and technology support to grow their economies without making things worse. But they have to participate.

The burden of fixing this needs to be shared, it can't all be on the developed nations, or the solutions won't work. The undeveloped countries can't do as much, but they can't overuse fossil fuels either.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Answer 8

According to the IPCC reports ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) if we are to have any chance at all of stopping Global Warming we must reduce world wide Carbon dioxide emissions to less than 10% of what they are today.

Unfortunately if the Undeveloped Countries do not also reduce their Carbon Dioxide emissions by that amount, it will be physically impossible to stop Global Warming.

Even in the developed countries that target will be impossible to meet unless we make a dramatic change in the way that energy is produced and consumed.

Now matter how good our conservation efforts are, we cannot meet the target of less than one tenth of what our Carbon Dioxide emissions are today unles we make a very large change in the way that we produce energy.

We must stop the use of fossil fuels for all energy production.

To achieve widespread acceptance of alternate energy sources the cost to the consumer must be close to the cost of energy generated by the use of fossil fuels.

That puts some very tight limits on the types of alternate energy sources that can be used.

Currently the only alternate source of energy that has a cost of production that is close to the cost of production of energy through the use of fossil fuels is wind power that is used to generate electricity.

Currently the cost of production of electricity by the use of wind power is approximately 4 cents per kilowatt hour(1)

If we are to have any chance at all of meeting the target of Carbon Dioxide emissions less than on tenth of what they are today, we must replace all of our fossil fuel electrical generation capacity with generation capacity that does not produce Carbon Dioxide emissions, such as wind power.

Next, we must replace our automobiles with a form of transpotation that does not produce Carbon dioxide emissions, such as electric cars that are recharged by electricity produced by wind power.

The early electric cars had batteries that were not safe enough for use in automobiles and had ranges that were too short to make them competitive.

It appears that a number of new designs for electric batteries are much safer and have much longer ranges before they need to be recharged.

It appears very likely that in the near future we will be able to replace a substantial portion of our automobile fleet with electric cars, rather than cars that use gasoline or diesel fuels.

If we and all of the other countries on our planet earth are willing to make those changes we can achieve the target of world wide Carbon Dioxide emissions in the future to be less than one tenth of what they are today.

Persuading all of the countries on the face of our earth to make those changes will be an enormous challenge.

Answer 9

There is no question of attempts. They should and should take measures to reduce it or else we all will have to face the music. We all will become the part of the parcel

Answer 10

U R right - we are all equal partners in the destruction taking place at such a fast pace. But developed countries do not want to accept that their CO2 contribution is far greater than the other countries that do not have sufficient energy even to meet their daily needs. One who preaches should practice. USA and Russia are the biggest culprits. If USA agrees to cut 10-15% of its industrial emissions, then by 2012, its GDP would have come down and there is bound to be recession.
Notwithstanding all these controversies, misuse of costly energy for lighting purpose even during the day time when bright solar light is available just across our windows should be stopped and it should become a people's movement. Even burning bulbs are contributing CO2. Have a look at the following:
U-SEE - We must save the world from over-exploitation of natural resources
Knowingly or unknowingly we are all partners in misusing of costly electricity for our lighting purpose during day time when the solar light is available just outside our windows. Why can't bring home the sunshine?
Yes. This has been successfully adopted by a number of people in Bangalore, India. This innovative but simple method of bringing home the sunshine was suggested to the World Bank as a Grassroots Initiative for Preservation of Natural Resourcs during IDM-2007 competition - Project U-SEE (Unlimited Savings of Electrical Energy). U-SEE does not involve any nano technology nor does it requires billions of dollars for implementation. Moreover, U-SEE you get free lighting for life. No charges.
The World Bank honored this initiative and has created a permanent blog on the World Bank URL at http://dmblog.worldbank.org/mirrors-can-bring-light-rural-homes.
How is it implemented? U need a house hold mirror of 12"X18" and a pillow. Identify where u can get maximum sunshine just outside the windows with clear glass or on the balcony, keep the pillow on a stool or chair and place the mirror on the pillow, go on nudging the mirror till the solar light is deflected from the mirror, through the window and on to the white ceiling inside your home. U will be surprised to find the light spreading from the ceiling - it can be 40 to 60 watts (see the picture above - notice tube light and table lamp in the corner are not burning but there is enough light). If u can keep a bigger mirror, u will get more bright light. U can control the light just by covering a portion of the mirror.
Earth moves on its latitude. When u find that the deflected solar light is moving elsewhere, just go to the mirror, nudge a little and u can get back your light as before. THIS IS THE BASIC IDEA and once u have done it, u be the Innovator of your light requirements for your home and U-SEE PROVIDES YOU FREE LIGHTING FOR LIFE. Many homes/huts in rural areas in developing countries do not have proper lighting and people are living in dark, damp and dingy environs but urbanites living in concrete jungles in cities with tinted glasses are misusing electricity for their lighting purpose even during day time.
U-SEE the Benefits: ONE incandescent bulb/tubelight burning for 6 hours during day time consumes 7 units of electricity in a month. If half the world can adopt U-SEE and switch off one bulb for 6 hours during day time, how much of electricity can be saved? Your guess is as good as mine + saves cost of fossil fuels, coal, water+saves cost incurred for machineries and equipments+saves overhead charges+saves transmission loss charges+saves the world from global warming (burning bulbs/CO2 etc) with n'th value+ U GET FREE LIGHTING FOR LIFE with n'th value. The savings that accrue can off set the load on our productive requirements like A/c, refrigerators, mixies, fans etc.
Solar light will be available at least for about 200 days in a year and it is infinite and why should we let it go waste? We are not harnessing this infinite energy. U-SEE is ssoo simple.
First adopt this method, innovate solutions if u face small problems. U be the winner. U-SEE It is a win win situation for all of us. Need clarifications, mail: [e-mail] U-SEE - The author's ambition is to spread this friendly initiative to one and all. No charges!!
Vasanthkumar Mysoremath, Bangalore, India