We have to cut CO2 emissions by 25-40% over the next 10 years to significantly affect the projected path of climate change. The U.S. will not agree with the figures...what do you think? Will this influence your vote next year for President? It will mine.
2007-12-13 14:51:38 · 7 answers · asked by MO 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I could do without my air conditioning for the good of the masses.
How can you still deny global warming? Seriously?!?!
2007-12-13 15:05:37 · update #1
Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real is basically a full-blown knuckle dragger.
There is no excuse for being this uninformed in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Just because you refuse to read it and study it doesn't make it false.
The truth is the truth whether a person believes it or not.
PS: Nuclear power advocates never tell you that the world's supply of plutonium suitable for reactors will be gone in about 70 years.
2007-12-13 15:03:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
A lot of expense, a lot of additional pollution, a big waste of time for something that UN scientists have determined to already beyond the point of no return. The East Asian group (US, Japan, China, Australia, Korea, India, and others) at least has more then 50% of the polluters present but nobody ever hears about this Bush initiative. Really, nothing will happen if it is not pragmatic and the time would be better spent planning on how to deal with it.
2007-12-13 15:10:58 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a bunch of self-important people and closet Communists designing how to take away your freedom and money.
Joe T, Tsk, tsk, tsk. You people on the left are always touting dire predictions which have no basis in fact. The sky is not falling.
Plutonium is not mined from Mother earth. It is manufactured in nuclear reactors by bombarding very plentiful Uranium-238 or even much more plentiful Thorium-232 with neutrons. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of uranium-238 for use in power plants. In fact, breeder reactors are designed to generate more fissile Plutonium than is consumed in the reactor fissile process. Consequently there is an unlimited supply of it, just as there is an unlimited supply of iPods or anything else that can be manufactured.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm
2007-12-13 15:15:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This issue - but not the specific event of which you speak - has already impacted my decision.
Democrat - preferalbly Obama or Edwards.
Philip McCrevice - while we are producing 4-5 times the output per capita of many countries - how can you possibly argue that they should cut back from those small levels?
Why should countries who's impact is far smaller than the average (or the desired average outcome) shoulder the burden as well?
2007-12-13 14:57:24 · answer #4 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good idea to reduce pollution locally.
No global effort necessary because global warming is a joke (unproven at least).
In other words, I am for cleaning up my neighborhood voluntarily. I am not willing to give up my freedom for an unproven political lie.
2007-12-13 14:55:39 · answer #5 · answered by Freedom Guy 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I will agree to the US signing some reduction treaty if EVERY other country does it too.
ALL of them.
And we should quadruple the number of nuclear power plants in America.
2007-12-13 14:56:21 · answer #6 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
"USA got it's a*s kicked by Al Gore for not caring about it's responsibility for a better environment."
2007-12-13 14:56:35 · answer #7 · answered by Din2600 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋