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

The EU, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and New Zealand in particular said that they would jointly pay developing countries 410 million dollars each year from 2005-2008 under the terms of the Climate Adaptation Agreement made at a UN meeting in 2001 at Bonn, Germany. So far, only 177 million of the 1.2 billion due by the end of 2007 has been paid into the funds. Another 106 million has been pledged by specific countries, but has not yet been paid.

These country are the biggest complainers that "something" be done, yet when it comes to take action, they sit back only to complain that the US should do more.

Does anyone want to take bets that the governments already collected the taxes from the people, and are just too greedy to give the money as promised?

Why don't these countrys help the poorer countries with global warming if they believe that this is an issue that will doom all of man kind? Is it just simple greed?

2007-11-27 01:56:23 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Environment Global Warming

6 answers

Easy, Doc.

They want to maintain their viable economies.

And if you look at the attached article, you'll notice that the US is doing better at reducing carbon output than many of the signatories...

But in the Environ-Mental movement, it's all about the outward appearance of caring, not action.

2007-11-27 04:00:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

Regardless of how much money is given and where, there are simple ways to reduce pollution affecting global
climate. Yet, they will never be implemented because of the hudge profits generated from doing nothing.

(1) Drive Thrus: Edmonton's Drive-Thrus contribute
9000 tons of Green House Gases into the air in one YEAR alone. Calculate 115 cities, same population, same drive thrus and you have 1 MILLION TONS of Green House Gases released into the air we breath in one year alone.

Yet, they plan on building more drive-thrus involving 7-eleven stores, Taco Bell, fast food rest etc. Now how can this reduce pollution and global warming caused from it?
It doesn't.

(2) Factory farms housing 50 billion animals produce more waste and pollution then all other industries combined.
That is shocking.
Where does waste from 50 billion animals end up?
And what is robbed to feed them. Where do all the dead
animals end up?
Just by society eating meat alone we produce more waste, disease and pollution then all other combined industries.

This however won't change as long as we eat meat. Furthermore, the profits from factory farming and its filth is far too great.
View video on the facts of the actual pollution factory farming is causing worldwide.
http://www.discovery-health.org

2007-11-27 09:18:22 · answer #2 · answered by Brenda Jones 1 · 1 1

can provide are particularly non everlasting and crammed with expectancies / assumptions approximately organic bypass of environment. usually it happens that our surroundings as assumed did not take place satisfactorily, and we blame a promise not stored. whether we promise to ourselves for something assuming some clearly going on factors,might bypass incorrect in time. to vow subsequently isn't an uncomplicated element.that's certainly an extremely annoying determination consistent with multiple factors to be fulfilled. that's suggested that in the process user-friendly terms courageous human beings can promise somewhat keeping as much as one's dedication is an extremely staggering deed as factors usually at the instant are not favorable. A promiser generally are defied with the help of things clearly happened until eventually finally date, yet performed away with with the help of a few motives uncontrolled of the promiser. .

2016-10-02 04:44:57 · answer #3 · answered by demosthenis 4 · 0 0

Canadians make it foreign policy now to point fingers at the States like the spoiled second child. (that's only half facetious)

I could point out that there's a different government in office now than there was in 2001 in Canada at least, and their attitude to climate change is somewhat different from that of the previous government. The current Canadian government gets a lot of grief for the change in policy. Sounds to me like they're kinda running their own agenda.

Of course, I really only watch parliamentary debate when I need a really good nap and "The Joy of Painting" isn't on...

2007-11-27 03:01:43 · answer #4 · answered by Heather 4 · 1 2

I think there is an element of we want everyone to stop using so much oil to bring the price down a bit. Even Al Gore is feeling that one every time he pays the fuel bill for the lear jet.

2007-11-27 06:37:48 · answer #5 · answered by Ben O 6 · 3 1

they all have already committed to reducing emissions that's allot more them America is doing. as far as i know they have all stuck to any commitments they have made.

2007-11-27 02:54:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers