World faces 'climate tragedy' - Kerry

[missbishi]

Things certainly need to change - OK, the world probably won't explode tomorrow but action is still imperative. I second the idea of the UN helping poorer, less developed countries reduce pollution - after all, the current levels produced affect the whole world. In fact, making the shift towards renewables might just be what some of these countries need to get the economy going - if jobs were created and a fair wage was paid.

 

[Gelsemium]

No one can deny this situation I think, only some "research" paid by someone with interests in that area denies the global warming and all the horrible consequences coming from there. In fact, those researches are powerful enough to keep the US population divided on this topic, incredibly enough.

 

[cyberpinoy]

Emissions per capita in India and China for 2008 was 1.4 and 5.3 respectively, whereas for the US it was at 18.5. It is nothing short of a complete fabrication to say that a poor country like India, or one where the average person is only emerging out of poverty like China contribute more to global pollution. These countries contribute more simply because a larger portion of humanity lives in them, but in proportion to actual population size, the US and most of the developed world fairs far worse. Developing countries undergoing industrialization have no choice but to depend on fossil fuels for their energy, as rich countries once did.

you are correct in the judgmental part of your statement, to judge pollution by a countries wealth is wrong. I am an american I grew up there and I now live in the Philippines, the pollution here is caused by the lack of emissions control enforcement. They have emissions places just like we do in america the problem is for a few extra pesos you get the sticker no matter how bad your vehicle runs. and the fact that 99% of the vehicles are diesel. Over worked, undermaintained diesel engines blowing nothing but black smoke all day long. I think it is more a matter of Discipline rather than how wealthy a country is.

 

[DeltaForce103]

you are correct in the judgmental part of your statement, to judge pollution by a countries wealth is wrong. I am an american I grew up there and I now live in the Philippines, the pollution here is caused by the lack of emissions control enforcement. They have emissions places just like we do in america the problem is for a few extra pesos you get the sticker no matter how bad your vehicle runs. and the fact that 99% of the vehicles are diesel. Over worked, undermaintained diesel engines blowing nothing but black smoke all day long. I think it is more a matter of Discipline rather than how wealthy a country is.

Actually, it has a lot to deal with wealth. Consider a wealthy scandinavian country like Norway where the Tesla Model S is apparently the most selling car. Here's Why The Tesla Model S Is The #1 Selling Car In Norway The average person in a rich country has the disposable income to afford a completely green and electric vehicle, the lower population density and size of the country allows for the government to provide steep subsidies and deploy infrastructure like charging stations quickly.

Whereas for anyone living in a developing country, using fossil fuels is simply a lot cheaper and requires no special infrastructure, even more so now, with the recent drop in crude oil prices. A cheap source of energy is crucial for any country looking to pull its population out of poverty and/or bring fast development. While there might be corruption involved, the reason people resort to it is because they can afford to bribe a government officer but can't afford to buy the newest and most energy efficient Mercedes every few years.

 

[Charity]

I find it quite funny, as I sit in below zero weather right now, that they are still debating climate change, which used to be called global warming. I know the change in name is because it was found the planet was not warming up as much, but still this is a funny topic. The planet is a living thing and it is constantly changing, so why not just call it normal like it used to be?

 

[galmal]

Asia has got poor emission control indeed. I've been there last year in Manila and my goodness, it took me a while to recover from my cough until I eventually went back to the US. The problem there is, is not just their economy but an utterly disgusting corruption. It would be hard to jumpstart an economy when the government itself are stealing from their own people.

I agree, in most developing countries, the corruption and self interest of the people in charge is what's killing their economy. I don't know how you overcome that. Any help that the first world countries give these developing countries is gobbled up by those in power and little of the help actually goes to helping the needy or solving these types of issues.

 

[galmal]

I find it quite funny, as I sit in below zero weather right now, that they are still debating climate change, which used to be called global warming. I know the change in name is because it was found the planet was not warming up as much, but still this is a funny topic. The planet is a living thing and it is constantly changing, so why not just call it normal like it used to be?

I have to agree with you, I'm not sure whether "climate change" (or whatever you call it) actually exists or if this is a normal climate cycle. However, I do know that pollution isn't good for the ecology. We need to stop arguing about whether climate change exists or not, and start doing something to clean up the environment.

 

[thomas pendrake]

Emissions per capita in India and China for 2008 was 1.4 and 5.3 respectively, whereas for the US it was at 18.5. It is nothing short of a complete fabrication to say that a poor country like India, or one where the average person is only emerging out of poverty like China contribute more to global pollution. These countries contribute more simply because a larger portion of humanity lives in them, but in proportion to actual population size, the US and most of the developed world fairs far worse. Developing countries undergoing industrialization have no choice but to depend on fossil fuels for their energy, as rich countries once did.

We all have viable options that do not depend on non-renewable power sources. To develop using those options makes more sense, considering that they are ultimately cheaper and will not have to be replaced. And modern power sources will not leave us with uninhabitable, barren land. Don't start with bad ideas, build on good ones. Solar cooking and heating in India can save their forests.

 

[thomas pendrake]

We need to slowly shift to alternative energy sources. The oil will run out one day and we will have nothing left to power our machines.

We need to rapidly shift. Burning oil, or even coal, is a foolish waste of these resources. Save them for better uses, and get our power from solar energy, or other energy sources such as wind (which is ultimately solar).
This was recommended by Alexander Graham Bell in 1917, when he coined the term "global warming" to describe the predicted effect of reliance on carbon-based fuel.

 

[Ahmed JO]

Climate change is a fact btw, it's already settled by the vast majority of scientists and I trust them more than people who are emotionally motivated. The planet is in fact warming over all which results in colder climate in some places and warmer climate in others. The point is that the excess of greenhouse gasses is melting the ice caps at an alarming rate and all that frozen water will now flood a lot of places, it doesn't mean you won't have colder weather in certain places. The name was changed from global warming to climate change because the first one mislead a lot of people about what it actually is.

 

[thomas pendrake]

The Flat-Earther global-warming deniers jump on one cold spell in one small area and neglect the over-all AVERAGE warming of the Earth. They ignore the over-all decrease of the Antartic ice pack and leap on the increase in the area of a thin ocean ice pack surrounding the Antartic continent, caused by the outflow of fresh water over the frigid Antartic Ocean. Salt water freezes at a much lower temperature than fresh water, allowing the melt water to freeze when over the frigid ocean. While Boston was getting record snow levels, Alaska was having a record warm winter, and had to move the Iditarod to an alternate, more Northern route due to the lack of snow in the traditional route.