SHOULD THE CO2 EMISSIONs PER CAPITA BE THE SAME IN THE 1ST AND 3RD WORLD?

Question

If the predicted amount of CO2 for 2030 is confirmed, we’ll have 55% more CO2 and a 4° C / 39° F temperature increase (which is the difference of temperature we’ve had between now and the Ice Age). It would probably destroy the world economy, animal and vegetal species, and threaten mankind.
IF NOT, WHY WOULD ANY COUNTRY IN THE 3RD WORLD SIGN A TREATY TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS? WHY WOULD THEY SIGN A TREATY WITH UNEVEN CONDITIONS?
IF YES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO STOP USING YOUR CAR SO THAT YOU POLLUTE AS MUCH AS ANY CITIZEN IN THE WORLD? WILL WE HAVE TO REDESIGN OUR CITIES, CONSUMPTION STANDARDS AND LIFESTYLE?

P.S. (By the way, are you happy competing with your neighbor and friends to see who’s got the best car? Having higher consumption needs is actually making you happier?)

mjmayer188,
Enforcing a treaty wouldn't be necessary, but all countries, including the US, would want to sign an agreement in a world where all countries have to help each other in order to trade freely. Important institutions such as the UN will create an agreement that will be good for everyone. In a world under risk of extinction, all countries have to cooperate, mainly those most polluting. Does the US want to sell to other countries. Well, then cooperate with what is most important.

Wilson, OK,
Tô sabedo, mas ñ quebro a regra daqui, YR dos EUA.

Answer 1

Desculpe a pergunta meu caro Marobu, mas será que você não está no YR errado?
Tem YR Respostas também nos EUA, na Inglaterra, na Austrália, existem até mais países que falam o idioma inglês.
Desculpe ser chato mas não custa lhe lembrar que postar perguntas somente em português é uma das normas deste site.
Se houver alguma denúncia tenha a certeza que não fui eu o autor da mesma, só quis te avisar porque te considero um amigo, e você sabe como é, pros amigo tudo, pros inimigos é que é, a lei.

Answer 2

To begin with, 4 degrees C. equals 7.2 degrees F., not 39. You are correct however, that is a big increase world wide.

Why would any country sign a treaty that benefits one side more than the other? How do you enforce such a treaty?

Until the economic benefits make CO2 reduction attractive, it is not going to happen.

Until you can demonstrate a correlation between increased green gases and global warming and not the other way around, the idea of treaties is premature. No one has made the case, to my satisfaction, that global warming is man made and not the result of increased solar activity as has happened in the past.

Answer 3

Ultimately that has to be the goal. It may be appropriate to have different standards for a while, as the countries are starting from such different places, in many ways. That will be the subject of negotiation, and I don't expect it will be easy.

We don't have to give up our cars, we need to run them on something else. Some redesign of cities will occur, but that will take a very long time. Particularly in the US, where distances are long and cities were built to suit the automobile.

Your comment about consumption is well made. Study after study shows that people in the US who make more money are happier - until they get to about the average income. But people who make twice or more than the average are no happier than those who make the average. There comes a point (fairly early) at which increased consumption doesn't get you much.

The lyrics to "Richard Cory" are on point. Highly abbreviated version:

They say that Richard Corey owns 1/2 of this whole town.

I work in his factory, and I wish that I could be Richard Cory.

So my mind was filled with wonder when the evening headlines read - Richard Cory went home last night, and put a bullet through his head.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/simon+and+garfunkel/richard+cory_20124655.html

Answer 4

How do you confirm the amount of co2 for 2030 except to wait 23 years?

3rd world countries should be kept to higher standards since they are more inefficient than 1st world countries when using natural resources.

The amount of available money in Capitalist countries is used for pollution control, including reducing green house gases. This is done because the Free Markets demand it.

3rd world countries should increase their Capitalism to reduce pollution and to make better use of their resources.

Yes - I love my car, thank you.

Answer 5

Of course. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. Karl Marx wouldn't have it any other way. That goes for food, clothing, housing...

This philosophy has been tried many times so you can explore its success through history--North Korea, Eastern Europe, Russia, Castro's Cuba. If you want to try it in the USA, just elect John Edward's as president.

Answer 6

I love my Jeep, My pick up, and my suv. I will not give them up, I cant give them up. Some of us have jobs. Jobs mean you must be there to do the work. If you are so concerend why not do your part to stop the waste, by turning off your computer, like right now?

Answer 7

No, not as long as my tax dollars are flowing into the third world.

Answer 8

no because they walk around everywhere