Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set a new tone Saturday for U.S. relations with China, saying the two nations would join a common battle against global warming even as they look for ways to pull the world out of economic turmoil and recession.
Clinton cited the "tremendous opportunity" before Washington and Beijing as they unite on "one of the most important issues that has ever, ever faced humanity."
She side stepped the "tremendous opportunity" before Washington and Beijing to unite on an even more important issue that has ever, ever faced humanity.
What can you expect from a politician. Money and economics always wins out over human rights. There just isn’t enough money to be made in human rights.
To the apparent relief of China, Clinton downplayed issues of human rights and religious freedom, saying they were raised in her meetings but that the administration of President Barack Obama saw advantage to working with Beijing on areas of greater agreement.
Several human rights groups decried Clinton's suggestion that human rights would not be a priority in U.S. engagement with China. Amnesty International said it was "shocked and extremely disappointed."
Another advocacy group, China Human Rights Defenders, said police confined some dissidents to their homes during Clinton's weekend visit to Beijing.
Among those under lockdown was constitutional scholar Zhang Zuhua, one of hundreds of dissidents who late last year signed Charter 08, which calls for greater civil rights and political reforms.
Thankfully, human rights groups will not allow China’s continued human rights violations to go unnoticed, even when ‘our leaders’ will.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Global Warming is Real, Mr. Klaus
The annual world economic forum of global leaders was held in Davos, Switzerland this past week, and Czech President Vaclav Klaus used this forum to verbally attack Al Gore over his stance on global warming.
"I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that."
Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.
"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."
Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, he said that he was more worried about the reaction to the perceived dangers than the consequences.
"I'm afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world," he said.
"I'm more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself."
I agree that people tend to become alarmed over perceived dangers, that is after all what warnings are meant to do, if they are taken seriously. This climate threat has been ‘perceived’ by climatologists for many years and those early predictions are beginning to take shape. The non-scientific community needs only observe the changes in weather patterns and the resulting destruction of wildlife habitat to see this is true.
You cannot dismiss the fact that polar ice sheets are melting at a record pace. You cannot ignore the fact that navigable routes have opened through the arctic, about 30 years ahead of predictions.
Nor can you ignore the fact that the planets surface is warming up.
The greatest debate over causal factors is whether these changes are the result of a natural cycle or are they man-made.
The burning of fossil fuels has certainly taken its toll, not only on human health but also on the health of the atmosphere as a result of excavating earths resources, burning those resources and releasing the resulting gases into the atmosphere. The resultant greenhouse gases increase the planets temperature. Not alarmist theory, scientific fact.
Earth’s climate is a closed system. Everything that exists in this system, stays in this system. The melting of polar ice caps produces evaporation and the increased atmospheric moisture results in increased rainfall which then leads to increased severity of hurricanes. A side effect of this increased hurricane intensity is the associated low pressure sucks more moisture away from the drier climates of the world creating more severe droughts. As a result, agricultural patterns worldwide are being affected.
Polar ice cap melt also increases sea levels which could result in future category 2 and 3 storms causing much more severe flooding than anticipated otherwise, in low-lying coastal areas.
As the planet grows ever warmer, and former cold zones give way to rising temperatures, plant and animal species are loosing their habitat and dying off thereby decreasing biodiversity. This does not bode well for planets inhabitants, for man and beast.
Are these the ramblings of ‘alarmists’ for the purpose of “radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy”? It seems Mr. Klaus, and by association all other naysayers, is more concerned with the health of the market system than with the health of our planet. And this perfectly illustrates the very reason why we are in this mess today.
We dismiss scientific findings at our own peril. This has proven itself many times throughout history. Taking heed of this lesson is of the utmost importance to prevent a predicted global calamity.
It is a widespread fact that species and their habitats are on the decrease while chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing. This cannot be merely brushed aside as ‘alarmist’.
Sources:
Science Daily, Sep 22, 2005
Global Issues, Jan 1, 2009
Climate Change Weather Patterns
"I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that."
Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.
"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."
Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, he said that he was more worried about the reaction to the perceived dangers than the consequences.
"I'm afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world," he said.
"I'm more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself."
I agree that people tend to become alarmed over perceived dangers, that is after all what warnings are meant to do, if they are taken seriously. This climate threat has been ‘perceived’ by climatologists for many years and those early predictions are beginning to take shape. The non-scientific community needs only observe the changes in weather patterns and the resulting destruction of wildlife habitat to see this is true.
You cannot dismiss the fact that polar ice sheets are melting at a record pace. You cannot ignore the fact that navigable routes have opened through the arctic, about 30 years ahead of predictions.
Nor can you ignore the fact that the planets surface is warming up.
The greatest debate over causal factors is whether these changes are the result of a natural cycle or are they man-made.
The burning of fossil fuels has certainly taken its toll, not only on human health but also on the health of the atmosphere as a result of excavating earths resources, burning those resources and releasing the resulting gases into the atmosphere. The resultant greenhouse gases increase the planets temperature. Not alarmist theory, scientific fact.
Earth’s climate is a closed system. Everything that exists in this system, stays in this system. The melting of polar ice caps produces evaporation and the increased atmospheric moisture results in increased rainfall which then leads to increased severity of hurricanes. A side effect of this increased hurricane intensity is the associated low pressure sucks more moisture away from the drier climates of the world creating more severe droughts. As a result, agricultural patterns worldwide are being affected.
Polar ice cap melt also increases sea levels which could result in future category 2 and 3 storms causing much more severe flooding than anticipated otherwise, in low-lying coastal areas.
As the planet grows ever warmer, and former cold zones give way to rising temperatures, plant and animal species are loosing their habitat and dying off thereby decreasing biodiversity. This does not bode well for planets inhabitants, for man and beast.
Are these the ramblings of ‘alarmists’ for the purpose of “radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy”? It seems Mr. Klaus, and by association all other naysayers, is more concerned with the health of the market system than with the health of our planet. And this perfectly illustrates the very reason why we are in this mess today.
We dismiss scientific findings at our own peril. This has proven itself many times throughout history. Taking heed of this lesson is of the utmost importance to prevent a predicted global calamity.
It is a widespread fact that species and their habitats are on the decrease while chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing. This cannot be merely brushed aside as ‘alarmist’.
Sources:
Science Daily, Sep 22, 2005
Global Issues, Jan 1, 2009
Climate Change Weather Patterns
Monday, July 7, 2008
Another G8 Conference
Still making plans after all these years.
The goal of the G8 is to discuss workable (profitable) solutions to world problems has produced little substance.
In their first meeting in 1977, then known as the Library Group, they set a lofty goal for themselves to "…work to increase the flow of aid and other real resources from the industrial to developing countries, particularly to the 800 million people who now live in absolute poverty; and to improve the effectiveness of aid." The World Bank was going to help improve "access to international finance" for poor countries. In other words, not so much as giving money (aid) but lending money (debt).
Over the course of subsequent annual meetings the group has repeatedly declared its “concern” and an “overriding priority to improve the plight of the world’s poor.”
Today, this group represents 65% of the Gross World Product, the majority of the global military power and 96-99% of the world’s active nuclear weapons and yet they have only followed through with less than 10% of their total pledge. In 2005 they had pledged $25B in aid to Africa and have only given $3B.
Just how meaningful is it for leaders of the world’s eight richest nations to take a break from their regular duties to meet in various locales around the globe just to discuss lofty goals and pledge money that never actually gets followed up on?
One of their topics of discussion will be high fuel prices. Since they collectively use two-thirds of the worlds oil, perhaps they should consider cutting back on its usage. They could provide better incentives for industries within their own borders to clean up their air polluting factories and develop cleaner fuel sources. They could also force the production of more fuel efficient automobiles without driving up food prices.
While we are on the topic of fuel conservation one suggestion that comes up would be to stop traveling all over the world to these meetings. Just how much fuel is consumed to fly these people and their entourage all over the world? Especially when there is seemingly no real benefit to doing so. We now have a technology called teleconferencing that should fit into these people’s schedules quite nicely thereby saving a lot of time, money, and fuel. Maybe they can give themselves carbon credits.
Since China and India are quickly becoming such economic powerhouses and consuming a much larger share of the oil supply to do so shouldn’t they have a seat at the table? Shouldn’t this group be the G10?
And what about Saudi Arabia? They hold a large share of the world’s oil production so shouldn’t they have a seat at the table? This would make it the G11.
High food prices will certainly be on the agenda. And since this exclusive club of eight produces 41% of the world’s wheat and 48% of the world’s corn (the number increase to 58% and 68% respectively if you include China) and consumes most of it, they should be able to come up with a better method of storage and distribution to help feed those countries that are not blessed with the excesses that the U.S. and Europe have. In fact, we have so much in the U.S. that its farmers are paid not to plant crops. Why can’t those unused fields be used to grow grains for the starving people of the world?
Then there is the problem of climate change, another ‘key’ topic for these leaders of the world’s richest and most polluting nations. This topic was discussed in some detail at last year’s summit in Germany where the only thing to come out of it was they would ‘seriously consider’ a global goal of cutting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by half by the year 2050. More talk, little action.
Africa is going to be a major focus this time again due to it’s ongoing problems with poverty, starvation, diseases and another dictator who is making a joke of democracy.
What they need to discuss foremost is gathering up the political courage to actually do more than just talk about these very pressing and mounting problems. And until they do these meetings are nothing more than chat groups.
The goal of the G8 is to discuss workable (profitable) solutions to world problems has produced little substance.
In their first meeting in 1977, then known as the Library Group, they set a lofty goal for themselves to "…work to increase the flow of aid and other real resources from the industrial to developing countries, particularly to the 800 million people who now live in absolute poverty; and to improve the effectiveness of aid." The World Bank was going to help improve "access to international finance" for poor countries. In other words, not so much as giving money (aid) but lending money (debt).
Over the course of subsequent annual meetings the group has repeatedly declared its “concern” and an “overriding priority to improve the plight of the world’s poor.”
Today, this group represents 65% of the Gross World Product, the majority of the global military power and 96-99% of the world’s active nuclear weapons and yet they have only followed through with less than 10% of their total pledge. In 2005 they had pledged $25B in aid to Africa and have only given $3B.
Just how meaningful is it for leaders of the world’s eight richest nations to take a break from their regular duties to meet in various locales around the globe just to discuss lofty goals and pledge money that never actually gets followed up on?
One of their topics of discussion will be high fuel prices. Since they collectively use two-thirds of the worlds oil, perhaps they should consider cutting back on its usage. They could provide better incentives for industries within their own borders to clean up their air polluting factories and develop cleaner fuel sources. They could also force the production of more fuel efficient automobiles without driving up food prices.
While we are on the topic of fuel conservation one suggestion that comes up would be to stop traveling all over the world to these meetings. Just how much fuel is consumed to fly these people and their entourage all over the world? Especially when there is seemingly no real benefit to doing so. We now have a technology called teleconferencing that should fit into these people’s schedules quite nicely thereby saving a lot of time, money, and fuel. Maybe they can give themselves carbon credits.
Since China and India are quickly becoming such economic powerhouses and consuming a much larger share of the oil supply to do so shouldn’t they have a seat at the table? Shouldn’t this group be the G10?
And what about Saudi Arabia? They hold a large share of the world’s oil production so shouldn’t they have a seat at the table? This would make it the G11.
High food prices will certainly be on the agenda. And since this exclusive club of eight produces 41% of the world’s wheat and 48% of the world’s corn (the number increase to 58% and 68% respectively if you include China) and consumes most of it, they should be able to come up with a better method of storage and distribution to help feed those countries that are not blessed with the excesses that the U.S. and Europe have. In fact, we have so much in the U.S. that its farmers are paid not to plant crops. Why can’t those unused fields be used to grow grains for the starving people of the world?
Then there is the problem of climate change, another ‘key’ topic for these leaders of the world’s richest and most polluting nations. This topic was discussed in some detail at last year’s summit in Germany where the only thing to come out of it was they would ‘seriously consider’ a global goal of cutting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by half by the year 2050. More talk, little action.
Africa is going to be a major focus this time again due to it’s ongoing problems with poverty, starvation, diseases and another dictator who is making a joke of democracy.
What they need to discuss foremost is gathering up the political courage to actually do more than just talk about these very pressing and mounting problems. And until they do these meetings are nothing more than chat groups.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
White House paints rosy picture to protect us?
On October 23, 2007 Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Atlanta-based CDC told a Senate hearing that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans."
Her intention was to give the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee details of the effects that climate change could have on the spread of disease. But, the White House Office of Management and Budget severely edited her testimony removing specific scientific references to these potential health risks. The editing was so severe that her testimony was cut from 14 pages to just 4.
Why would the White House suppress findings from its own premier disease monitoring agency? What is the White House covering up? The very fact that the White House did remove finding from the report tells us that they are covering up something.
What was struck from the report was the broad range of health problems that could result from climate change which includes fatalities from heat stress and heart failure, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes; more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution; an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, and increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus; and mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress.
She tried to paint a very depressing picture of the negative effects of global warming. She is trying to give us the worst case scenario without exaggerating. Finding out what we are facing is a very necessary factor in tackling a very serious problem. But George doesn’t want to face this problem. He would rather stick his head in the sand and pretend the problem is not real. He wants the problem to wait for the next president.
George has been denying the severity of climate change and he doesn’t want anyone to contradict him.
Doesn’t this sound like business as usual? If you are not going to tell him what he wants to hear then he doesn’t want anyone to hear it. He did the same thing with our military leadership, going through top generals until he found one who will mimic his rosy view of how the Iraq War is progressing. He reminds me of Nero fiddling away while Rome burns.
He is living in a fantasy world trying his best to ignore any and all negativity and surrounding himself with yes men who will tell him only what he wants to hear.
This choice of lifestyle is not healthy. In his position, this lifestyle choice is extremely unhealthy for the country.
I’ve written before about how Dubya doesn’t follow scientific studies because he doesn’t understand science speculating about how he was a failed science student in school. I now think the problem goes deeper and is much more sinister than this. In his mind he is an Emperor, a little Napoleon, if you will, who wants to decide what his public will hear and believe. He wants us to see only a rosy view of our world as long as it suits him. He will even go so far as to edit out scientific facts from a report that is attempting to prepare us for what our future holds so he doesn’t have to face the fact that it is taking place under his leadership.
Her intention was to give the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee details of the effects that climate change could have on the spread of disease. But, the White House Office of Management and Budget severely edited her testimony removing specific scientific references to these potential health risks. The editing was so severe that her testimony was cut from 14 pages to just 4.
Why would the White House suppress findings from its own premier disease monitoring agency? What is the White House covering up? The very fact that the White House did remove finding from the report tells us that they are covering up something.
What was struck from the report was the broad range of health problems that could result from climate change which includes fatalities from heat stress and heart failure, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes; more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution; an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, and increases in vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus; and mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress.
She tried to paint a very depressing picture of the negative effects of global warming. She is trying to give us the worst case scenario without exaggerating. Finding out what we are facing is a very necessary factor in tackling a very serious problem. But George doesn’t want to face this problem. He would rather stick his head in the sand and pretend the problem is not real. He wants the problem to wait for the next president.
George has been denying the severity of climate change and he doesn’t want anyone to contradict him.
Doesn’t this sound like business as usual? If you are not going to tell him what he wants to hear then he doesn’t want anyone to hear it. He did the same thing with our military leadership, going through top generals until he found one who will mimic his rosy view of how the Iraq War is progressing. He reminds me of Nero fiddling away while Rome burns.
He is living in a fantasy world trying his best to ignore any and all negativity and surrounding himself with yes men who will tell him only what he wants to hear.
This choice of lifestyle is not healthy. In his position, this lifestyle choice is extremely unhealthy for the country.
I’ve written before about how Dubya doesn’t follow scientific studies because he doesn’t understand science speculating about how he was a failed science student in school. I now think the problem goes deeper and is much more sinister than this. In his mind he is an Emperor, a little Napoleon, if you will, who wants to decide what his public will hear and believe. He wants us to see only a rosy view of our world as long as it suits him. He will even go so far as to edit out scientific facts from a report that is attempting to prepare us for what our future holds so he doesn’t have to face the fact that it is taking place under his leadership.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New oceanfront property
One of the worst effects of global warming is nearer than we think. The world’s coastlines are going to change in as little as a few years. We have been hearing this cry for so long that most of us have become numb to the warnings. We think this change will happen so far in the future, certainly not in our lifetimes, that we don’t need to take the warnings seriously. Chicken Little ran around crying ‘the sky is falling’ and no one believed. Scientists have been telling us that global warming is real and no one believes.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published predictions this year that sea level rise will drastically alter coastlines around the world. Their predictions, based on data that was two years old, said the sea rise could total 20 to 60 centimeters, and we want to believe it won’t happen in our lifetimes. This estimate has turned out to be conservative. The Bush administration dismisses scientific conclusions as the stuff of science fiction stories and ‘blue-sky’ voodoo. This way he doesn’t have to deal with it. These scientists know their stuff. They are not given to exaggeration and hysteria. The rest of us cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand any longer.
On a recent visit to the Greenland ice cap in September of this year, scientists were shocked to learn that ice is melting at a far faster rate than previously thought. It seems that what we have been told, that it would take centuries of ice melt to change the worlds coastlines, needs to be adjusted to taking only decades or years.
If you have ever witnessed a large sheet of ice melting in the sun, either on a lake or in your backyard, you undoubtedly have noticed that it doesn’t just melt around the edges. Holes also form across the surface of the ice that allows melted water to flow down through the ice to the ground below. As enough water flows down those holes and underneath the ice sheet it acts as a lubricant to allow the ice sheet to move. The Greenland ice sheet has already developed thousands of these holes and it is moving. With an ice sheet that large you can imagine that the amount of water flowing down those holes have become very large waterfalls. Several are as big as Niagara Falls.
The front of this glacier is five kilometers long and 1,500 meters deep. Robert Correll, chairman of the Artic Climate Impact Assessment, tries to put it into perspective this way, “That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one day to provide drinking water for a city the size of New York or London for a year." And this glacier is currently moving at three times the rate it did 10 years ago. This is very significant indeed.
As the glacier moves, chunks of ice, the size of small mountains, are breaking off and causing small earthquakes and creating waves that can sink small ships if they happen to wander too close.
Add the melting effects of this one glacier to all the other glaciers around the world such as Antarctic, the glaciers of Alaska, the Rockies, the Himalayas, or the ocean water itself expanding as it warms, and the magnitude should become clear. Hurricane surges, as we saw during Katrina, will be even more devastating as flood waters will reach even further inland. Whole cities and towns could be wiped from the face of the earth.
Bush can be decisive in using the military to take Iraq for his profit but he can’t use military might to stop climate change, therefore he is totally lost as to what to do. Too bad none of his cronies are scientists, then, maybe, he would believe them. Too bad there is no profit to be made for him to take global warming seriously, then we would stand a better chance at seeing some action taken to stop or slow down global warning.
All he has done so far is spout rhetoric in front of 16 of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in Washington last month about how, along with terrorism, climate change is the biggest threat to the earth. But when it comes down to demanding something be done about it, he would rather put it off onto the next president by suggesting voluntary cuts in emissions. Since when does any corporation or nation do anything voluntary that will cost them money even if it is to help save our species?
America is the biggest user of fossil fuel in the world and creates more greenhouse gas emissions than anyone else. Therefore, we need to lead the way in curbing these emissions. Bush will not demand anything be done, because implementing the necessary policies to force his cronies corporations to clean up their act would damage his political party’s standings. Again, it would not be profitable enough for him to do anything, even if it means the very survival of our species.
Science tells us we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% if we are to stave off catastrophic climate change, Bush doesn’t understand science and so he chooses not to give it any importance. This way, by his narrow, feeble minded thinking, if it isn’t real it can’t hurt him.
He puts more faith in creationism than in science and his narrow view-point is once again endangering us all. He cannot hide from facts behind his faith. This threat of dramatic sea level rise is as real as he is blind to it.
So all of you who are living on the coastlines better trade in your homes for what will certainly become the new oceanfront property.
To learn more about climate change click here.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published predictions this year that sea level rise will drastically alter coastlines around the world. Their predictions, based on data that was two years old, said the sea rise could total 20 to 60 centimeters, and we want to believe it won’t happen in our lifetimes. This estimate has turned out to be conservative. The Bush administration dismisses scientific conclusions as the stuff of science fiction stories and ‘blue-sky’ voodoo. This way he doesn’t have to deal with it. These scientists know their stuff. They are not given to exaggeration and hysteria. The rest of us cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand any longer.
On a recent visit to the Greenland ice cap in September of this year, scientists were shocked to learn that ice is melting at a far faster rate than previously thought. It seems that what we have been told, that it would take centuries of ice melt to change the worlds coastlines, needs to be adjusted to taking only decades or years.
If you have ever witnessed a large sheet of ice melting in the sun, either on a lake or in your backyard, you undoubtedly have noticed that it doesn’t just melt around the edges. Holes also form across the surface of the ice that allows melted water to flow down through the ice to the ground below. As enough water flows down those holes and underneath the ice sheet it acts as a lubricant to allow the ice sheet to move. The Greenland ice sheet has already developed thousands of these holes and it is moving. With an ice sheet that large you can imagine that the amount of water flowing down those holes have become very large waterfalls. Several are as big as Niagara Falls.
The front of this glacier is five kilometers long and 1,500 meters deep. Robert Correll, chairman of the Artic Climate Impact Assessment, tries to put it into perspective this way, “That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one day to provide drinking water for a city the size of New York or London for a year." And this glacier is currently moving at three times the rate it did 10 years ago. This is very significant indeed.
As the glacier moves, chunks of ice, the size of small mountains, are breaking off and causing small earthquakes and creating waves that can sink small ships if they happen to wander too close.
Add the melting effects of this one glacier to all the other glaciers around the world such as Antarctic, the glaciers of Alaska, the Rockies, the Himalayas, or the ocean water itself expanding as it warms, and the magnitude should become clear. Hurricane surges, as we saw during Katrina, will be even more devastating as flood waters will reach even further inland. Whole cities and towns could be wiped from the face of the earth.
Bush can be decisive in using the military to take Iraq for his profit but he can’t use military might to stop climate change, therefore he is totally lost as to what to do. Too bad none of his cronies are scientists, then, maybe, he would believe them. Too bad there is no profit to be made for him to take global warming seriously, then we would stand a better chance at seeing some action taken to stop or slow down global warning.
All he has done so far is spout rhetoric in front of 16 of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in Washington last month about how, along with terrorism, climate change is the biggest threat to the earth. But when it comes down to demanding something be done about it, he would rather put it off onto the next president by suggesting voluntary cuts in emissions. Since when does any corporation or nation do anything voluntary that will cost them money even if it is to help save our species?
America is the biggest user of fossil fuel in the world and creates more greenhouse gas emissions than anyone else. Therefore, we need to lead the way in curbing these emissions. Bush will not demand anything be done, because implementing the necessary policies to force his cronies corporations to clean up their act would damage his political party’s standings. Again, it would not be profitable enough for him to do anything, even if it means the very survival of our species.
Science tells us we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% if we are to stave off catastrophic climate change, Bush doesn’t understand science and so he chooses not to give it any importance. This way, by his narrow, feeble minded thinking, if it isn’t real it can’t hurt him.
He puts more faith in creationism than in science and his narrow view-point is once again endangering us all. He cannot hide from facts behind his faith. This threat of dramatic sea level rise is as real as he is blind to it.
So all of you who are living on the coastlines better trade in your homes for what will certainly become the new oceanfront property.
To learn more about climate change click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)