Are nations incapable of taking the necessary actions to stop global warming?

Question

China and India want the economic development. The people of the USA want their gas-guzzling cars. How bad would climate change have to get before action was taken

Answer 1

The nations HAVE actually taken measures to reduce global warming and its impact.

Look at what they've done in the mitigation of global warming!
The Kyoto Protocol, public education and awareness about this (look how many questions there are on YA about GW), restrictions on carbon emissions, the use of renewable energy, energy efficient products and solar power, etc.

Governments have to take in consideration the impact of these actions on the nation's society and community. Sometimes these measures cost a whole lot of money (esp. the energy-efficient products), and a country may not have the finances or technology to do so.

Also, in reference to your question, if the US were to pass some kind of law that really restricts the amount of "gas-guzzling cars" on the road, how do you think the members of the public would respond to this change? Would they take it lightly? Would some simply ignore such restrictions? Not all of them feel the same way as you do. Therefore would it be at all efficient in reducing carbon emissions?

Basically, don't be so quick to down the nations in ignoring this problem; actions have been taken with careful consideration. Do your own research about the issue before you accuse.

Answer 2

The short answer is yes, nations are incapable.
That is why people like Al Gore are WAY over hyping the problem, to spur the population into to taking some action. But getting the whole world to agree on a course of action is nearly impossible. We cannot even agree on what language to speak with, much less how to run the energy systems and economy of the whole world!

Answer 3

Some facts for you:

"Globally annual military expenditure stands at $780 billion. The total amount required to provide global health care, eliminate starvation and malnutrition, provide clean water and shelter for all, remove landmines, eliminate nuclear weapons, stop deforestation, prevent global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain, retire the paralysing debt of developing nations, prevent soil erosion, produce safe, clean energy, stop over-population and eliminate illiteracy is only one-third that, among - 237.5 billion."

There are 358 billionaires in the world today, even if they only had one billion each that would be enough.

Obviously the money is there and in order to come up with a figure like that they must know some way of doing it so that means the resources are there. The problem lies in our priorities.

Happy Questioning!

[add]
To be perfectly honest I don't believe global warming is anything other than a cycle of weather. But I hope that answers your question.

Answer 4

assume for basically a 2nd or 3... that the international warming this is supposedly occurring interior the final 2 a protracted time, (reason in accordance to the comparable scientists, we've been working headlong into an iceage for the period of the late 70's early 80's) is extremely a organic fluctuation of radiant warmth from the solar.... what precisely do you propose to do approximately it? this would be a living environment that we are in.. and its not a closed one. something from everywhere can replace your comfortable little international in a moments notice. Dont beleive me? Ask the Dinosaurs. What we do in it makes little difference interior the long-term. All issues stability out interior the tip. If that balancing calls for a mass extinction, as has happend many cases earlier, there is not something TO be achieved approximately it. This planet will renew itself, and yet another speicies will like cream, upward thrust to the appropriate and proceed on...

Answer 5

Yes, they can. The key is to start using more modern and cost-effective technologies taht are available. Coal and oil are expensive, obsolete technologies developed in the 19th century. Yet people seem to thing these relatively primative methods are the be-all ad end-all of enrgy production.

The US is going to end up being the leader--not through the so-called "sacrifice" that the oil companies keep harping on as a scare tactic, but by implementing advanced technology that is nnot only clean, but lower in cost--solar, wind, nuclear,etc. Countries like China are going to find their pell-mell rush to fossil fuels has only consigned them to second-rate status; they will have to scrap their new enrgy industry simply to be competative.

Nations can change the way they produce enrgy. What's stopping them isn't havig better alternatives. Its the propaganda, bribery, and other obstructuionist tactics of special interests.

You repeated one of theis special interest myths yourself without realizing it: the "Americans wanttheir gas-guzzling cars." True--Americans want their cars. But NO ONE in the USparticularly likes payingforall that gas. We can--NOW--buildcars that either use no gas (such as electrics) or far less gas. The auto companies, under pressure frm the oil industry, has refused to build more efficient cars--the average fuel efficiency has not improved in 25 years! So--all that "gas guzzling?" without meaning too, you blamed the victim--the American consumer--and nodt the real culprit--special interests who deliberately withold technology that is better and cheaper.

Answer 6

Are nations incapable of taking the necessary actions to stop global warming?

absolutely. Because global warming is a scam to introduce a worldwide tax . Period. If you havent figured that out , then you don't pay any taxes to begin with so it doesn't bother you. YET.

Answer 7

All they really want to do is talk about it and make appropriate noises. While Airports are expanding, Fossill Fuel burning in the emerging nations ( India China) is galloping out of control, poiliticians et al jetting round the world to important conferences and junkets, the great and good powers that be want me to use bl**dy inefficient light bulbs, and turn off my standby on the TV! How many of these will need to be used in order to offset the super casino.

Answer 8

Stop believing the propaganda. Volcanoes do 99% more to cause global warming than all of humankind put together.

About 800 years ago there were vineyards in Scotland, because of an earth warm at that time. We didn't have cars then.

Answer 9

its not nations that have the power people do but so long as fossils fuels are a major part of any economy there will be a problem with global warming. big business in petroleum products, automotive industry and industrial production

Answer 10

Yes I think nations are capable of taking control..if they let go of the fear of big giants like us, trying to rule th whole world by doing wat suits them best. Like in the recent summit in bali, how was it fair to ask countries like india and pakistan to reduce their carbon emission..which was already low? I mean half the country doesnt have power for gods sake!!!..

I think countries should stop being politically correct and try to be ethically and morally correct and try to realise wat is best for their future than to compete at this stage. Development can be put on hold and the climate change ordinances shud be take seriously..we shud adapt to it..depending on our countires circumstances..rather than drafting a proposal for the entire world..regardless of where the country stands.. and adapt their own proposals..which would not put into trouble the future of their country ... So, if countries like the US..stop trying to rule the entire world.. it wud do a looot of gud!!