The USA is the biggest roadblock to international action against global warming at the moment.
In 2009 we will have a president who acknowledges that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and that we need to do something about it. Every Democratic nominee has said so, as have Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. The only other nominee with a remote shot at winning is Thompson, who's basically a fence-sitter on the issue (as he is with most issues).
Once we elect a president who acknowledges this reality, do you think the USA will finally lead the way in forming an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases? Or do you think we'll continue to pay the issue lipservice while failing to take any kind of meaningful action?
2007-11-20 08:31:33 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The Kyoto protocol is on shaky ground,the US will eventually find the political will to eventually lead the rest of the World on reducing green house gasses,Kyoto or no Kyoto.
2007-11-20 09:33:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The recent Supreme Court decision stated that the EPA currently has the authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2. Some in the U.S. Industry are pushing for a deal in Congress before the 2008 Presidential elections. They feel that they can maybe get a better deal now under Bush than under a more liberal administration after 2008. Time is running out, however. If they can't get something proposed by mid-2008, there's no way a bill will get passed before the elections.
2007-11-20 10:43:42 · answer #2 · answered by kusheng 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would hope that something gets done but who knows?
Louey Lefty: I haven't seen Al Gores film so I'm not going to make any statements about it. But, I have seen and/or heard other accts as to those who have traveled north and say, w/o a doubt, that there is GW. The Pres. even admitted it, even if he is so nuts as to not do much about it.
The 1934 temp recording was based solely on southern American area whereas the 1998 temp recording was based on ALL countries/land masses globally.
There have been civilizations in the past that out supplied their demand once they reached the million mark (population-wise). I'm near Dallas and it alone, has a population over 2 million so I really can not comprehend that anyone would think there's not a problem.
Oh, BTW, the scare about Global Cooling?-It was a media scare based on a cold snap. No tests were done, unlike now, where globally, scientists have conducted scientific tests and taken measurements of not only temperature but water levels and atmospheric levels, too.
2007-11-20 10:38:15 · answer #3 · answered by strpenta 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's really the way to lose national sovereignty, and a great way to promote Agenda 21. Global warming might be real, but these are not real solutions, even a person worried about it can see that.
Follow the motives, follow the money, they aren't usually pushing these types of treaties for altruism, but they are duping people who are altruistic to the point of not thinking things through.
2007-11-20 12:09:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The biggest problem with global warming as an election issue is providing a solution that doesn't come down people giving up their standard of living. People want to help so long as it doesn't hurt them too much. Cut into their ability to do what they want, eat what they want, drive what they want and how much they want and you will alienate them pretty quickly.
2007-11-20 08:50:25 · answer #5 · answered by Rick S 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hillary will make a huge deal about global warming, like she is some savior... but she won't get anything done... I don't think it's the governments job to force us to be more environmental... I think it's up to the people... why do we need a government to tell us what to do, when we know what we want to do??
God, we are SOOO lazy, and we look at our government like they are our teachers... god help me if I go through life listening to the advice of politicians.
2007-11-20 08:43:06 · answer #6 · answered by AckDuScheisse!! 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Get real. We are not the cause of global warming.
You do realise that just thirty years ago the scientists were all worrying about a new ice age.
The temperature changes. We have no control over it.
2007-11-20 08:39:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
i am not saying there is no problem 30 years ago it was the ice age i am still waiting gas shortage was about the same time and we are still dealing with it and don't you know according to our many sinites depending on witch one you want to listen to this week cows make the most greenhouse gases so kill the cows
2007-11-20 08:48:50 · answer #8 · answered by butterfly 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I guess it depends on if we decide that it's more fashionable to talk about how it's our fault that another ice age is coming or if we decide to wait a couple more years for that trend.
2007-11-20 08:35:22 · answer #9 · answered by G-gal 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
All the candidates acknowledge the environmental concerns everyone has and they all have plans regarding it.
Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that wouldn't do much about the environment. But that's just from looking at his voting record.
2007-11-20 08:37:15 · answer #10 · answered by TBEau 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋