2007-10-21 14:06:16 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
No. Because that would cause harm. The cure would be worse than the disease.
2007-10-21 16:18:36 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's not the line that I personally favour. If you force people to do things through legislation it invariably leads to bitterness and resentment. Further, if we were to implement measures stringent enough to avoid global warming we'd effectively be resigning ourselves to living in the 19th century. The cuts we need to make in greenhouse gas emissions are so substantial that we'd virtually have no transport systems, no power, no communications etc.
In the long term we can avoid future global warming by better technology, developing alternative fuels and generally living a lower impact lifestyle. This isn't going to be feasible for many years, I would guess at least 50. In the mean time that leaves us with a serious problem that needs addressing and I beleive the way forward is through science.
Already, many schemes have been developed that will remove greenhouse gases from the atmopshere, one of them even turns the gas into synthetic gasoline which means we can kill three birds with one stone - remove CO2, produce gasoline and run a profit. There is hurdles to overcome and for now, all such schemes are in their early stages and need to be developed further and tested fully before being implemented.
In the immediate term we can all take steps to reduce our carbon footprint through simple measures such as reducing our fuel and electricity consumption and buying local produce. We can recycle where possible and consider planting trees etc. These simple steps needn't cost anything and I beleive that education is a better policy than legislation.
2007-10-21 21:27:21 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
For many years we have accepted that there are many pollutants that we should control to prevent contamination of air, water or land where there is any risk to human health and increasingly to animals and their habitat. Comparatively recently it has become the overwhelmingly predominant view of science is that man's activities are causing an increase in greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) which is causing global warming. It is thought that this is a grave risk to humans in various parts of the world and to the diversity of species. With this backdrop it would seem prudent to take all the measures which can reasonably be taken without destroying the economies of nations which could cause even worse problems.
2007-10-21 21:44:41 · answer #3 · answered by Robert A 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what you consider radical.
If we do nothing, society will undergo radical changes, by any standards. Coastal flooding and damage to agriculture will cost hundreds of billions to deal with.
Here's a practical and affordable plan to reduce (not eliminate) global warming. It was developed by hundreds of scientists and economists from around the world working together.
Compared to the alternative of doing nothing, it is far from radical. As a fringe benefit, it will dramatically reduce many countries utter dependence on imported oil.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
2007-10-21 21:22:56 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe we can stop global warming but I DO believe we need to fight pollution , acid rain, water shortages, and extinctions . I also believe it is our duty to be good custodians of this wonderful planet and we DO need to take immediate and meaningful action to do so. There is NO DOUBT that we are polluting our environment and overusing our resources. It is the DECENT AND RESPONSIBLE thing to manage our use more carefully and to try to replace and or mend that which we have been destroying.
2007-10-21 21:17:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yea radical changes are required - as a previous poster stated it is not just global warming - it is pollution - light pollution, air pollution and water pollutions - if one doesn't kill you the other ones will.
it is a fight for life and will require changes from everyone - waiting for leadership is waiting too long - we must all do what we can now.
2007-10-21 22:57:55 · answer #6 · answered by cosmicwindwalker 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, because radical measures inflict more hardships on people with no assurance that radical measures will do anything to alleviate anything.
2007-10-21 21:14:55 · answer #7 · answered by prusa1237 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. But we made a mess and we need to clean it up. Check out CoolingEarth.org. Just do your part. help others do there part. Enjoy life-fun saves energy
2007-10-22 00:19:26 · answer #8 · answered by LMurray 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes .
would you rather take radical measures
OR
die!!!
something to think about =] lol
but seriously we have to do something
2007-10-22 08:25:47 · answer #9 · answered by twilight is the best 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you should stop paluting the air to stop it
2007-10-21 21:51:27 · answer #10 · answered by Espeon Uchiha 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋