To meet the new guidelines in California for Co2 reduction, the following methods would NOT be enough: Remove all automobiles from the highways and park them. Remove all trucks from the highways and park them. Close all businesses down. The fact is that California is nearly as 'Green' as green can be. But the news now point to California as a cuplrit in global warming. Yes we put out 1% of worldwide Co2. So what do all these global warming scientists expect? A few more fluorescent light bulbs? What do they expect can reasonably be done?
2007-12-05 06:39:01 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
They want the world to stop for an unproven science. After, of course, they've sucked it and our pocketbooks dry.
2007-12-05 06:44:40 · answer #1 · answered by Splitters 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ban automatic transmissions! Takes 1/2 the cars and drivers off the road and increases the average MPG by 30 %....
Seriously; we have to balance the global warming problem with maintaining a civilization.
2007-12-05 06:42:35 · answer #2 · answered by wizjp 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Exxon is only attempting to play the finished field. Exxon additionally money study that is going against claims of world warming. you will see commercials on television approximately how Exxon, and all the different oil companies, are going eco-friendly and attempting to cut back CO2 emissions. that's by means of fact even with what's real, human beings have faith for and against man made worldwide warming. Exxon ought to probable care much less what you have faith, see you later because it makes money on the top of the day.
2016-10-10 08:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can be done, and it's actually not that difficult.
Replace fossil fuel power plants with nuclear, solar, and wind. Replace fossil fueled vehicles with biofuels (at first), electric, and hydrogen power.
Those are the key things. It would take 40-50 years (the proposed timeline) but we can do it. More details of the plan here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
DPJ5 - If you think this is costly, the costs of unreduced global warming would make it seem cheap.
And, if the United States, with it's technological machine, was to mount an effort to develop the technologies to do this, we could make about a zillion dollars.
2007-12-05 06:51:00 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sure. Why this spamming with hundreds of global warming questions? Read the thousands of proposals in this forum ...
2007-12-07 00:02:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
global warming is just like the name , global warming, it is a global tragedy, everyone must take part not only california, everyone must reduce or eliminate unnecessary waste and co2 gases.
there are many program that promote, vanpool, rideshare, local programs.
I hope that readers will look into local programs, and hopefully reduce the emissions and help the earth be there for our children.
Thank you
2007-12-05 06:52:20 · answer #6 · answered by newingtonnewington 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The probl.is "POWER & CONTROL", not solving the green house efect. Europe/Asia has more cars and industry then USA. So, is not our probl.;,; "BUT", oil Co. don't want to be put out of business; that's way they push into building biger cars, house farther from the work place, more traffic, etc., etc.
The answer is more nuclear enery; it is clean, efficient, cheap, the more we will use the better and cleaner will be. A 'Nuclear-Submarin" runs for 18yrs. w/o refueling.
2007-12-05 07:13:19 · answer #7 · answered by SANTINEL 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well I guess you could kill half of your Happy Cows. :*(
Which would make me very sad, because I love animals.
2007-12-05 06:51:40 · answer #8 · answered by Mikira 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Face it - You are not suffering enough. You need to suffer more. That way you will be more dependent on the same politicians that put you in your misery to save you from your miserable state of existence.
2007-12-05 07:10:45 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋