Global Warming?
Answer:
I agree completely. Why don't they just put a sock in it?
uh, ok. Yeah
Yes War is a major contributor to pollution. Negotiation not confrontation is the answer. The world governments have got to put politics aside to come up with solutions to the earths problems. Taliban and Al Queda are also pollution that must be stopped. We need religious and political peace and then we must tackle the pollution problem. We only have a few years to do this. But in the mean time I am doing my part to live green.
Most scientists agree that is order to stop Global Warming we would need to cut carbon dioxide emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today, world wide.
We would need to shut down all of the world's economies to accomplish that. Even if all war stopped yesterday.
This is not realistic.
Even if we could persuade the Taliban and Al Qaida to stop their terrorist activity you cannot get enough of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to make a significant difference.
Fortunately we can mitigate the effects of Global Warming at reasonable cost.
The sea levels will rise. We can protect the low lying countries with dike systems similar to those in Holland.
Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent. We will need to help the poor countries with upgrades to their disaster preparedness systems.
Droughts will become more frequent. We will need to help the poor countries with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.
We cannot prevent Global Warming, but we can mitigate the effects of Global Warming at reasonable cost.
No, waging war on the scale that it is being waged right now is not a large contributor of pollution. Just a few of the thousands of large coal-burning plants would produce more pollution than the entire deployed US Army. One plant can power over 400-500 thousand homes. Also, while the participants may not drive jeeps, hummers, and tanks at home, they would still be driving vehicles if they weren't there. And probably many more miles on our highways than through the streets of Iraq.
BTW, the decision to go to war is much larger than whether it will create any additional pollution. The reason to go to war should be so compelling that we would enter the war regardless. What if we would have told England back in 1941 that we would love to help them but were afraid of the pollution and damage to future generations?
The politicians use (gw) global warming as a political issue because there is no real science that proves gw.
The real science in fact contradicts it.
unlike the gw climate models the real science models not were able to predict past climate issues, but are able to show that we in fact not have 'gw' extreme issues and that
we in fact are in the latest cycle of warming trends that we have had for thousands of years.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: