Global warming : Are we doing enough?
A 200-metre thick Antarctic ice shelf larger than the American state of Rhode Island and weighing 500 billion tonnes has broken apart in less than two months.
Experts say that this might be an indication of a strong climate change in the Antarctic.
In 1998, researchers from the British Antarctic Survey predicted that several ice shelves were doomed because of rising temperatures in the region - but the pace with which events are developing has shocked them.
Some experts say that this was a "purely natural phenomenon". Others suggest that the break-off might have been caused by global warming and warn that if the Kyoto agreement is not implemented, more similar events could be expected in the future.
Kyoto protocol on combating global warming nearly collapsed last year when the US decided
to pull out of it.
is increasingly worrying in general that the paradox between human development and
environmental degradation continues. It is true that CO2 levels during warmer climatic
stages have been higher, but global warming and its influences must be considered with
respect to how it affects different areas, ie. global warming has a relative effect.
Moreover, it must be recognised that the earth as a whole undergoes cyclic climatic
changes, which include warm and cold stages. It might be time that humans realised that
the earth has a more significant, independent role to play in climate change, as
quaternary studies have shown.
there is Global warming. And USA as a World economic power house needs to relax it
economic interest and reduce its emission of greenhouse gas to 7% below its 1990 level as
provided by the Kyoto protocol. Because the future effects of Global Warming are far more
dangerous and colossal than the present economic gain by a few wealthy nations like
America, Japan, and others G-7 members who emit huge greenhouse gases.
is no doubt that global warming must be happening to some extent, due to us burning fossil
fuels and destroying forests. There is also no doubt that so far our attempts to steer our
habits away from this, and towards renewables, are feeble by comparison to what is needed.
when I'm at my college, I see cars with the engines running and nobody sitting in them!
Doubtless this is because the occupant(s) have "just popped in" for one reason
another, but that's beside the point. Point is that it (that practice) creates unnecessary
pollution. Needless to say, when I see this, I want to jump into the offending car, and
turn off the ignition, but the driver of this car would think I was trying to steal it!!
was in Tokyo today to enjoy the annual cherry blossom festival. However, this year the
blossoms arrived much earlier than it had ever been recorded in history. I believe that
the story of the ice land breaking off is unrelated to this. Nature's response is very
honest, and only does what it thinks is appropriate given the environment it exists in.
The experience today was mind-boggling.
doesn't really matter whether either side of the arguments is correct. Why on earth do
people think that producing toxic waste of any kind is better than a cleaner
alternative.... global warming or no global warming. I don't get it...do these people
we are warming the earth, maybe not. Either way we know that fossil fuels are poisonous
and finite. Where do you live? Do you ever see a blue sky? We were blessed with one in
Melbourne today but Australia should follow Kyoto and more to preserve what so many have
leaders discussing global warming? It's a lot of hot air.
don't care whether there's a proven link between human activity and global warming. I
don't care whether there's any proof that global warming is even occurring. Surely, if
there is even a small chance that we are influencing global climate, it makes total sense
to take prudent action in terms of reducing output of greenhouse gasses.
simple fact is that everyone wants everyone else to change their ways or what they do to
damage the environment, but no-one wants to do it themselves. For example, people talk
about traffic reduction, but everyone is hoping everyone else will do it so they can get
around in their own cars more easily. Unfortunately, due to political wrangling and
excessive over-the-top lobbying by extremists, most people have become confused about the
realities of global warming. It was earlier this year, for instance, that I heard a report
saying we had slowed global warming by man to a standstill - which appears to not be true,
or is it? That's what we really need to know - the facts, unmarred by bias or extremists -
maybe a good Panorama?
Warming you say? If it means that I don't have to fly to Lanzarote to get some sun in ten
years, then I'm all for it!
waste our tax on the weapons and wars! Let us improve our environment!
fear that individuals neither have the capacity nor the motivation to alter their
lifestyles to alleviate the dangers of global warming. In order to have any kind of
effect, the governments of the world have to "force", if needs be, their polices
which would go some way in tackling this global problem. Asking someone not to throw their
old refrigerator on the city dump or refrain from using anti-persperant is a waste of
reckon that if global warming is to stop, the activities of the multinational corporations
should be regulated. They are so blind that they cannot see that their activities are not
only destroying the poor peoples' resources but they are inimical to fauna and flora, let
alone their own lives. This is absolutely absurd. If this is a result of capitalist
intoxication then we need an alternative system that can take into consideration the
environment and all its occupants. I therefore propose that socialism is the panacea for
my view the question has the wrong focus indicating that we can actually stop climate
change if we take action. Although it is desirable to reduce emissions, it is unlikely
that we can actually slow down the trend considerably. Indeed as the IPCC confirms, we are
locked into a certain degree of climate change regardless of what action we take now. We
place too much focus on reducing emissions and too little focus on how we may adapt to
change. Take the Kyoto protocol - a vastly expensive process which will reduce emissions
by around 5% on 1990 levels from developed countries by around 2010 - 2012. This will have
no impact on climate change, although it is important from a symbolic perspective. If only
half the money were put into assessing how such change will affect, where this change will
be greatest, and how we can adapt and plan for the future we would be in a much better
position to face an inevitable future threat.
the fracturing of the Antarctic ice shelves is speeding up at 'shocking speed'! What's
next? The Ronne ice shelf? God prevent that! Warm air starts pushing towards the glaciers
of the continent proper. Scientists once calculated the melting speed of ice in relation
to their entire volume (during the short Antarctic summers). Which gave us some time to
act upon. Now they have discovered that pools of melting water on top of the ice sheets
act like wedges that cleave the sheets at tremendous speed. What once was believed to take
tens or hundreds of years now happens in less than three months. Surprise, surprise!
Mother Earth starts acting like a mediocre science-fiction novel, right under our own
eyes. A new warning that we will probably will continue to ignore, since there are so much
more important matters like the tariffs on steel import and our annual pay rise.
prevent global warming will cost money" someone argues. Please explain what is the
cost of driving a sensible fuel-efficient car instead of a gas guzzling 4-wheel drive
truck? There are plenty of other ways in which saving energy saves money, so please lets
stop this pretence that we can't afford to cut CO2 emissions.
long as money is a factor and the economy of a country is priority over a doomed
environment (take note US), we are doomed as a race. And perhaps that is not a bad thing.
Since our very existence we have been like a cancer to this planet. Who cares as long as
the rich get richer?
concerns me about a number of US responses is the way they stick their head in the sand in
response to criticism from other people. Well no country is perfect and when it comes to
oil use yes the US is probably the least efficient user of the stuff. This doesn't equate
to us hating the US and thinking all problems in the world are the fault of the US. We are
merely trying to draw attention to the fact that it might be in all our interests to start
using less fossil fuels and as the US uses the most per head of any country in the world
then don't you think it would serve the US to start using less - what happens when
supplies start to run out? I bet 18MPG SUV's will not be considered that cool then. No
country is perfect but the point is we all have to try to reduce fossil fuel use.
is nothing that we can do which will affect global warming. It is due to the activity of
the sun reducing cloud cover. In the past massive changes in temperature - global rises of
+10°C within the space of five years! - have taken place with no humans in sight, all due
to the variability of the sun.
Mother Nature has had enough she will get rid of us period. Blame the US, scream to god
for help, but it won't matter. When the lady sings our last song, we are through.
the people on this site who claim the effect of man on the environment is negligible the
same people who claim smoking does not cause lung cancer?
important to remember that the Kyoto Protocol is only talking about a miniscule reduction
of 1990 greenhouse gas levels - about 5%, compared to scientific community's
recommendations of 60-80% reductions. To make matters worse, some countries have also
"rotted" the whole concept of "carbon sequestration" - i.e. planting
trees to "offset" increased emissions, and then selling those sequestered carbon
"credits" with polluters. In Australia for example, old growth forest in
Tasmania is being cut down and replaced with "carbon credit" plantations! Whilst
the international community that supports Kyoto will find this concept ethically
unsustainable, it is still happening in Australia and others countries who have and will
sign up to the so-called "Bush Plan" for non-Kyoto related actions.
is no issue where there is a greater disconnect between perception and reality. I see some
comments that indicate that companies like Enron are hindering efforts to confront global
warming. In reality Enron lobbied heavily in favour of the Kyoto protocol because as an
energy trader they concluded that they could profit from emission credit trading. They
were also part of the campaign to smear scientists who disagree with the greenhouse
theory. That is probably not front-page news in most places, but neither is the Oregon
Petition where 18,000 climate experts challenge the scientific basis for Kyoto. They point
out that satellites and weather balloons show no atmospheric warming in last twenty years,
that the models used by the IPCC are flawed and sensitive to CO2, our lack of knowledge of
cloud physics, and the general political nature of the Kyoto debate. However, their voices
are muted. Instead we are spoon fed by the media that all scientists are greenhouse
proponents and that all corporations, not scientific uncertainty, are the dissenting
forces in the greenhouse debate. Hysteria rules, and the objective pursuit of scientific
fact falls by the wayside.
is nothing that we can do which will affect global warming. It is due to the activity of
the sun reducing cloud cover. In the past, massive changes in temperature - global rises
of +10°C within the space five years! - have taken place, with no humans in sight, all
due to the variability of the sun.
as a geologist, the Earth's climate has changed fluctuated many times in the past 600
million years, and we are still in what is regarded as a 'cool' era for the Earth. I think
people and governments need to spend more time on true risks to the global population
rather than the 'trendy' global warming mantra: namely the effect on ground waters of
pollution--we can restrict greenhouse gas emissions all we like to no proved effect but it
is next to impossible to clean up an aquifer especially as many do not get replenished for
tens of thousands of years. So perhaps a radical change around in landfill usage and more
enforced recycling perhaps?
suspect that future generations will be baffled that we did not reduce greenhouse gasses
by making more use of nuclear power. Nuclear power produces much less greenhouse
emissions, doesn't use up our precious fossil fuel resources, and is as cheap or cheaper
than power produced from coal or oil.
hole above the Ozone layer has increased by over 500% since the industrial revolution in
the late 1800's. I don't think that can be attributed to natural phenomenon.
damage to the environment is a very widespread topic. As it can be looked on a very local
aspect and a worldwide problem. I feel the main problem is that we don't know what is
damaging the environment until it is too late. For example DDT this was tested and found
to kill only pests like flies etc. As soon as it was used in the environment it caused
wide spread damage and lasting effects. By the time it was realised the damage was already
a 17-year-old student, studying geography at A2 level, and taking on a geography degree in
the coming October, global warming is a huge issue. We know that fluctuations in
temperature have occurred in the past, and this may be a reason contributing to
"global warming". However, it is reasonable to blame human activity. People did
not know the effects that their actions may have had on the planet when they started
burning fossil fuels, and when they were developing (which many still are).
is normal temperature? 700 years ago there were vineyards as far north a Yorkshire. 300
years ago there were frost fairs on the frozen Thames. Climate change happens despite what
we do not necessarily because of what we do.
I for one welcome the idea that this planet might warm up a little. It's been freezing
here for months, and I'm fed up with it.
is understood that with the economical growth that the human civilization is going
through, it has to pay a price in return, which in this case is global warming. Being a
student of chemistry, I strongly believe that predicting environmental trends in science
is a process mired in imprecision and uncertainty. Scientific tradition, when applied to
an issue like global warming blocks a person from understanding it in greater depths. We
can predict something, but we can never be sure how the environment will react for it to
happen. I am sure in this world of limitless hopes, global warming will not turn out as
bad as the scientists suggest. I hope that our mother nature will adapt itself to the
changing climate. However I would say that human's dominion on this planet has disrupted
the laws of the nature.
am not a sophisticated geologist or climatologist, but I have lived long enough to know
that it has been getting hotter and hotter in the tropics of Africa in the last two
decades or so. As it gets hotter, people are clamouring for cheaper air-conditioners.
Cheap imports and local varieties of questionable engineering appear as if from hot air.
With the polluting nations not setting a good example, I think unscrupulous manufacturers
in the new countries are using non-ozone friendly coolant gases. We cant stop killing each
other, lets at least stop killing our lovely blue home.
fact is that to reduce CO2 emissions will mean a lot of people making a lot of changes,
and not just those who have to travel. Household heating creates more than twice as much
CO2 as transport does. Which is more important to you? To live in a warm house or to
travel to work? It seems that the Government would rather we have warm houses than have us
travelling to work, seeing that they only put a paltry 5% tax on heating fuel.
of these save the earth plans will simply postpone the problem for a few generations. In
the future, humanity will either engineer solutions to cool the earth such as ozone layer
generation and deflectors to reduce the sun's energy reaching earth or dredge the oceans
to raise land above sea level. This latter option has been accomplished is cities such as
Singapore and Boston already. If this doesn't work, the human body will evolve to the new
conditions, larger lungs, webbed feet etc. Go out and enjoy the sunshine.
not selfish; I'm just not doing anything because no one else is!
on earth are scales too huge for humans to fully understand. No scientists would assert
that global warming has been proven true, while each citizen on this planet should instead
be humbler to Nature
you really want to do something about global warming, instead of using your polluting car,
use a train, bus, plane, and bicycle or walk instead. Or better still; avoid the need to
travel at all if you can (e.g. work/shop from home). Most people put their own well-being
in front of the Planet Earth they live on.
can we possibly be doing enough? We haven't even conclusively proven that global warming
is a manmade phenomenon. It wasn't very long ago we were being told of another impending
around 0.035% of the earth's atmosphere is CO2, and around 3% of CO2 emissions are from
man made sources, do you really think we can have a great effect? Most of the polar ice
caps are getting colder. Over the past 23 years during which we have had accurate
temperature records, global temperatures have been largely stable. The only real solution
anyone seems to have in the UK is to blame the USA and tell people to take the bus. As
buses are barely more energy than cars such ideas show peoples real reasons for supporting
the global warming industry.
this problem is due to non-renewable energy consumption. There is significant progress
being made in terms of providing what western democracies would consider to be the
'optimum solution' i.e. market based through carbon trading and the increasing
availability of a range of renewable energy technologies. However, most of the
ineffectiveness behind the tackling of these issues stems from the fragmentation of
environmental policy making. Should the global community now be considering as a matter of
urgency the establishment of a substantially resourced, scientifically focussed Global
Environment Organisation? Such an environmental 'structure of governance' could be housed
within the UN, superseding the role of UNEP and may indeed be the only way that climate
change and other forms of trans-boundary pollution will ever receive the recognition it
warming is a current problem. A lot of measures are already taken, but the problem has not
been solved yet. We do not think there is a perfect solution, but we can pay more
attention to not making the greenhouse effect worse. Factories could, for example, take
extra measures, to avoid an environmental disaster and we could try to use our car less.
The government can give subsidies to factories which wanted to do extra effort to help
solve the problem. The government also can raise the taxes on petrol. Nobody can give us
the guarantee that these measures will help, but it is a good start.
again mankind is acting like a fool. We still don't seem to realise what we are doing to
the world. The only thing that matters to us is money. As long as we have to sacrifice
personal happiness for a better world, nobody is willing to take the challenge. That is
what is happening with global warming. We need new technology, less polluting cars and
industry, etc. to face this big problem. We have always been screwing our planet,
therefore, in the future; we'd better give something in return. The problem is inside of
are now meant to be so much aware of the Earth and more intelligent than before yet we
ignore all of our own Worlds illnesses. Why not just treat the Earth like it was our own
child? It is basically our parent, nevermind child.
The potential economic benefits alone of policies for reducing CO2 emissions should spur us into action. For instance, reducing private car use alone could lead to:
· a fitter population which walks and cycles more (less expenditure on treatment of obesity-related disease, and millions of lost workdays avoided);
· reductions in air pollution (up to 24,000 lives/year saved);
· reductions in deaths and injuries on the roads (every fatal accident costs the economy around £1.2 million, and every serious accident £175,000 - Surrey CC estimate)
· elimination of congestion (up to £19 billion/year saved);
· a reduced need to own a car (£3,500/year to run a small car - RAC estimate);
· increased property values (estate agents say that traffic calming can boost house prices by up to 10%);
· increased patronage of public transport (increased revenue to invest).
all these local and visible benefits, who CARES whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it spewed into the air more 'Greenhouse' gasses than have
ever been produced by mankind in our entire history. Whilst I'm happy to agree that we
should make smarter use of our natural resources, destroying national economies in a bid
to stop the unstoppable is just foolish. By the way... whilst complaining about the US
consuming 25% of the world's resources (who counted?), let's remember they also create
over 33% of the world's wealth. Before the bearded bicycle brigade jumps on it... wealth
isn't just rich people with fancy cars. It's food on the table of millions, it's research
into disease that kills countless people in the world, and it's clean water, a stable
infrastructure.... So give the Yanks a break already and come up with ideas rather than
think anyone who's asking for scientific unanimity on this point doesn't understand the
nature of science. I'm sure I could dig up a 'scientist' somewhere who still believes the
earth is flat. Because science, unlike politics or business, is rigorous, it is almost
impossible to definitively prove something is true; the best one can do is pay attention
to overwhelming evidence. It's interesting that most of the money is on the side of those
denying human-induced climate change, & yet the majority voice is still suggesting
it's going on. Even with large amounts of money to inflate their seeming authority, the
"no global warming" camp are a small minority within the scientific community.
can't believe how ignorant people are. Most of the comments on this page come straight out
of the environmental lobbyist's book of claptrap. The environmentalists have fed you so
many doom and gloom stories over the years that you now actually believe in them. Why
don't you wake up and face the fact that not everything an environmental group says is
true! To all you guys in the USA, not all of us Europeans are against you.
is no solid evidence that global warming is a result of our carelessness and
ignorance...." and many comments similar to this are very disheartening. There is
also no solid evidence that God exists, however we still have billions of people on this
planet who will argue his existence on much less evidence. If only we could mix religion
and stewardship of our planet together...
we doing enough to counter "global warming"? I think we are being very arrogant
to believe that we can defy or amend the way the earth evolves and changes. We are simply
a flash, a very small and irrelevant part of the earth's history. We should aim to counter
or solve problems that can be tackled by human beings, no use wasting our time speculating
what the earth will be like and how we are going to help the mighty earth survive!!
polar caps on Mars are also shrinking. It's the sun changing. The evidence that Mankind is
"to blame" for natural climate change is circumstantial, but the issue has been
hijacked for political ends. Whatever we do will not be enough if the sun changes too
much; but what we are doing does nothing but damage the economy.
very sad to see that the most sensible of the living beings are doing the most insensible
things. We as people never think of our environment, but when it comes to criticing
somebody we yell our best. Kyoto was supposed to be a landmark for reducing the pollution
levels in the air, but selfish interests prevailed over interests of living beings. The
people (the developed countries) who have done most of the damage are not ready to take
the responsibility to cleaning the mess. Still they are living on false hope like closing
on Enron will help and other rubbish viewpoints. Developing & underdeveloped are not
having resources to combat this problem. Technical solutions to the problem are futile
unless we develop common feeling of belongingness to mother nature. Developed countries
should first prove their commitment leaving aside their myopic thinking and set an example
people can manage to care about the environment we all live in without feeling the need to
abandon all modern conveniences. The planet can cope with a lot as is proven by the fact
that we are still here at all but what is worrying is the accelerated rate at which
emissions, deforestation and pollution are now occurring due to increased demands because
of a rapidly growing population. The idea of "everything in moderation" needs to
be applied but people don't seem to think like that. This selfish attitude that it's
always someone else's problem goes nowhere to helping to preserve this unique system which
supports the only life forms that we are aware of. On the recurring point of cars being a
problem, a point which was highlighted to me in the recent "fuel crisis" here in
the UK, although people were so concerned by the possible lack of fuel most cars were
still seen carrying just one passenger and, even worse, mums on the school run were just
carrying one child. If parents cannot even be bothered to arrange a pool, which have been
very popular with kids who have tried them out, then there is very little that can be
expected from those who intend not to have children and therefore have no interest in what
happens here after they have gone. We need to create an attitude where you are not
punished or ridiculed for enjoying the modern world or for wanting to protect it. We are
lucky, we need to remember that.
requires a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 emissions. The
significance of this cannot be understated; it is stopping the increase in emissions, to
move towards economic growth without increasing emissions. No country has yet ratified the
protocol, however most European nations are in the process of doing so. The UK has begun
to cut its emissions and is on course to ratify the treaty, and the intention of the UK
government is to go beyond the requirements of Kyoto and cut emissions by 11 or 12%. It's
something like that. The US on the other hand has decided that it has no intention of ever
ratifying the treaty, because it will hurt its economy (oil and energy companies, and stop
them from driving excessively big cars). Since Kyoto, the US has continued to increase its
emissions, by about 10% I think. Mostly this was under Clinton, who at least could blame
the Republican senate holding him back. Bush has no such excuse. The man is an Idiot.
cares if a few million drown in the flood? The important thing is to keep chasing the pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow.
That's all that matters to people. Until there is a financial reason for doing anything,
I'm sad to say I don't think anything will be done about global warming or any other
important environmental or social issues. Pity humans aren't particularly thoughtful.
question is far less if we are doing enough against global warming. It is all about the
blindfolds behind which we humans live. We are taught that we have the right to kill those
that threaten our happiness, slay the animals that act with their natural instincts and
torture and poison our seas, fish, cows and most of all nature, for we are taught that we
are the grander race, that we only know how to think and act rationally.
these comments still show the splits between the US and the rest of the world when it
comes to the environment. While it is true that the Kyoto agreement has not been ratified
by many countries in Europe it is also true that many of them have already begun to
implement the changes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We already use more efficient
cars and generally produce far less CO2 per individual than the US. However, this is
beside the point, as I don't think that even the Europeans are doing enough. We need to
develop public transport, put down car use and look for efficiency savings wherever we
we doing enough?? Are we doing anything?
global warming is simply not happening, there is no need to discuss it. There have been no
changes in climate that do not fall within normal variation. The climate was much warmer
in the early Middle Ages and in the Roman period. Presumably the cause was the exhaust
fumes from all those chariots!
Athens, Greece puts forth a good example. I would like to suggest another: People come in
a room and find a dead man, mangled and half chewed. One of them says 'This looks
suspiciously like the other cases of dead people we have seen over 14 years, only this
time there is a tiger in the room licking himself in contempt.' That means the tiger is to
blame, but wait a minute, the tiger has only been around a year. When this has been
occurring for years without tigers around, why should I believe it is the tigers fault
this time? Global warming and global cooling are cycles that have been going on for
billions of years. When it occurred before man put all those pollutants in the air, water
and land (which I strongly agree is not good), when it occurred before man even existed,
why should I believe that is the cause of global warming this time?
like "We can't really be sure", "there is not enough data", "It's
just an issue of politics" really make me mad. Is the planet getting warmer? Yes. Is
the evidence of this overwhelming? Yes. Are we emitting huge amounts of warming agents
into the atmosphere? Yes. Is there a hole in the ozone layer? Yes. For goodness sake, what
is the conclusion? This whole debate is like the following situation: People come in a
room, and find a dead man, mangled and half chewed. Next to him there is a tiger, licking
himself in contempt. People start wondering. "What might have killed him?"
"Hmmm, he was probably struck by an asteroid" "You think so? No, I think he
committed suicide". "No, that can't be, I think somebody electrocuted him".
Then somebody suggests, "Um, maybe the tiger killed him?" Then all the others
answer in outrage "The Tiger? How can that be? Just by the fact that he is mangled
and chewed? And which tiger, anyway? I don't see a tiger anywhere!"
the ice continues to melt the danger is it will slow down the Atlantic conveyor belt. If
this happens then we are in for a major climate change. We are on the same latitude as
northern Canada. But we have the belt to keep the UK warmer. In the past it has stopped. I
think it's all too late as the wheels are already in motion.
are only just beginning to understand just how complex our climate system is. In the past
small, natural fluctuations have given rise to massive climate changes. The worrying thing
is, is that the actions of mankind are effecting the climate, and we still have no idea
how close, or indeed far away, we are from causing a cataclysmic breakdown of our
atmospheric system. Until we know, we must be cautious and try and reduce the effect we
scientific debate about global warming is legitimate, but much of the policy debate about
what to do once the phenomenon is proven is pointless. Opponents of CO2 regulation claim
it violates the free market, whereas proponents say the free market is inadequate for our
survival. Common sense: Since when does the free market entitle a BMW owner in Los Angeles
to cause pollution that melts the glaciers in the Swiss Alps with impunity? Capitalism has
laws to protect us from harm to our property or health as the result of pollution. CO2 was
once benign, but if it has reached a threshold in our atmosphere where it triggers climate
change, it has now become a pollutant. We cannot pollute with impunity, so we'll have to
develop alternative technologies in a free market context. Put the lawyers to work,
they've been asleep on this one!
else can be done that isn't already? It may only be sci-fi, but if there was a way to make
ozone and replenish the layer, maybe that would help.
not in your backyard, but in our backyards the signs of global warming are already
visible. We have to built our dikes higher and higher.
know that we are destroying our environment; why are we wasting time arguing about the
signs and symptoms (e.g. global warming). We can each make a difference in our own
lifestyle to improve things for everyone, in the same way that our choice of lifestyle is
creating the problems.
Wallace continues the myth that these ice shelves do not add to sea levels since they are
already in the water. The fact is that they are linked to the landmass, and hence they
fall downwards when they break off.
changes have been taking place at varying speeds since long before humans arrived. To
imagine we can modify the shift we are observing at the moment is an extremely arrogant
and conceited idea. So what if things change? Since when did humanity have any
"special privileges" to have an environment to suit them alone? Life will roll
on with or without humanity. As far as ice-melt is concerned, only the ice on land will
have any impact on sea levels. All sea ice already displaces its own mass and break-up of
this ice shelf recently has no impact on sea levels.
fear for the future of this planet, not because of the obvious damage that we as humans
do. My fear lies in the fact that we all know exactly what's going on, yet multi-national
corporations have free reign to continue their pollution and devastation of lands which do
not belong to them. Until we remove our reliance on such industries, we are doomed. Who
can actually stop the forest destruction, chemical pollution, and excessive consuming
practised by such a small percentage of the global population? I wish I could.
are being told about the effects to global warming by the overuse of fossil fuels and the
emissions of certain industrial waste to atmosphere. While these contribute to the overall
effect of global warming, why are there no questions regarding the overuse of electricity,
which is by far the main cause of global warming? Whenever an electrical appliance is
switched on there is an effect to the earth's magnetic field. We can seen this happening
on our TVs which pick up a signal whenever the fridge's thermostat starts the cooling
process, even when we use a hairdryer, on the car engine starts etc. etc. Although we
understand how to use electricity, we do not know what it is.
is still a great deal of uncertainty concerning global warming. No-one really knows
whether or not human activity is responsible for current situation or not. However, it is
possible for countries throughout the world to do a lot more than they are doing at the
moment. The use of fossil fuels could be ended tomorrow if we really wanted to.
Unfortunately, that will not happen for many years yet. The main reason why we will not
stop using fossil fuels is because almost all of the world's economies are based on oil
and gas production and their by-products. To stop production overnight would cause
tremendous poverty throughout the world including in Europe. Also, to replace oil or gas
fired power stations with wind or wave-generating machines would incur an extremely high
cost to the taxpayer. Realistically, I don't think this will happen for many years yet.
are teetering to the brink of our demise. It is obvious that as a people we are not doing
enough. The internal combustion engine is probably the worst technological breakthrough of
our time. As long as nature is perceived as material and without divine will, we will
continue to plunder its resources without any regard to the ensuing consequences. Since
America is the greatest polluter of the planet (25% of world pollution for a 5% world
population) the brunt of the blame should rest on its shoulders. Unfortunately, America is
intensifying its crusade to squeeze the last drops of our planet's milk.