Climate Change Conference a Huge Success in Disguise
20 Dec 2009
We should not consider the Climate Change Conference as a failure. It was in fact a huge success, even without reaching an anonymous agreement.
We now have a better understanding of who the major climate polluters are and what as well as who to focus on to make a difference.
If all foreign aid is coupled to some climate change initiative, much good can still be done.
We now know that, for most countries, short-term finance is more important than the survival of life on earth.
We could use this knowledge intelligently to achieve our climate change goals.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Africa and Global Warming
African country leaders no longer have the unchallenged ruler-ship.
They are responsible to the people who voted them into power.
If the majority in a country see no further than the food they can bring to the table today, we should not blame the leaders for rejecting global warming policies that will only further the poverty gap between first and third world nations.
The amount of emissions that need to be reduced should be mathematically calculated, taking into account the current abuse of fossil fuels and the population among other considerations.
It stands to reason that a country that spews 8 measuring units of CO2 into the air should reduce its output more than a developing country that spews 3 units.
There are other considerations like the amount of trees and other carbon neutralizing factors that influence the atmosphere.
In the long run we should aim to keep the air clean, using a variety of methods, like for each industry, there should be natural ways to neutralize the poisoning impact on the environment.
A power plant must be balanced by a forest for example.
No industry should have the right to poison the land, air or water.
Without the earth to live on there is no life.
Original Post
They are responsible to the people who voted them into power.
If the majority in a country see no further than the food they can bring to the table today, we should not blame the leaders for rejecting global warming policies that will only further the poverty gap between first and third world nations.
The amount of emissions that need to be reduced should be mathematically calculated, taking into account the current abuse of fossil fuels and the population among other considerations.
It stands to reason that a country that spews 8 measuring units of CO2 into the air should reduce its output more than a developing country that spews 3 units.
There are other considerations like the amount of trees and other carbon neutralizing factors that influence the atmosphere.
In the long run we should aim to keep the air clean, using a variety of methods, like for each industry, there should be natural ways to neutralize the poisoning impact on the environment.
A power plant must be balanced by a forest for example.
No industry should have the right to poison the land, air or water.
Without the earth to live on there is no life.
Original Post
Monday, December 14, 2009
Scientific carbon reduction
The percentage of carbon reduction from countries should be scientifically
calculated across the board and not be based on empty promises.
The calculation should use the following criteria:
* Population,
* population growth,
* deforestation,
* air polution,
* water polution and
* the total current carbon footprint of the country.
Links to other websites:
* http://en.cop15.dk/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference_2009
* http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/
Original post from :http://sites.google.com/site/unityinafrica/the-responsibility-of-all-nations-to-reduce-the-carbon-footprint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)