What difference to global warming will UK reaching less emmission targets but US India China still same?
Answer:
If UK sets the example, it will put pressure on other countries like the US to follow suit.
none. talk to the volcanos of the world, they emit more co2 than any country ever could.
Every little bit helps, if you believe that politically driven drivel.
If ozone from auto exhaust doesn't help the 'ozone hole', then HOW is CO2 released at ground level supposed to make the trip? If you really want to stop 'human pollution' of the stratosphere, you're going to have to stop all jet aircraft from flying. It's NOT CARS, It's jets. NOW let's see how fast the world's military, the rich, and politicians gives up THEIR toys!
Not every country will get on board at the same time or make progress at the same rate. But every country that joins the effort adds pressure on those that delay. It took a long time after Britain banned slavery for the US to do likewise, but eventually they gave in to the inevitable.
its because of size the uk is much much smaller than the u.s. and india and besides at least there trying they have a great transit system and the red buses are awesome and there is much more fuel econmony cars there too so i think the uk is at least trying, what we need here the states is a mass transit system
First of all, it will show lagging countries that it is possible, and how it can be done.
Second, every country has to contribute, even small ones. Blaming large polluters doesn't absolve anyone from responsibility.
Thirdly, it is every individuals responsibility to take care of the planet. We all consume resources, and we all need to tell our government that we want to live in a healthy environment.
Not a lot, unfortunately. It has been estimated that "The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels; primarily because our economy is the largest in the world and we meet 85 percent of our energy needs through burning fossil fuels. The U.S. is projected to lower its carbon intensity by 25 percent from 2001 to 2025, and remain below the world average (Figure 6)." Quote from the link below.
A graphic allocation of population impact on world climate put into perspective: We are less than 5% of the world's estimated population, but produce 25% of the emissions impacting our world's environment.
Isn't it time for a wake up call for us in the U. S.?
Why should the U.K. target less emissions, when they already figured out that we, as in, the United States and China, UK, know that we cannot control the temprature of the Earth. So why should they do anything about it. The Earth controls the temprature of the Earth. Mother Nature!!!!! If you, or anyone else on this Earth, think that you can control the, so called, Global Warming, then I really feel sorry for you and them.
China is now number ONE.
China has the largest "carbon footprint".
China and India are exempted from the Kyoto accords.
That just highlights the idiocy of political solutions.
Let chemists and engineers solve the problems.
Politicians are guaranteed to foul it up.
Politicians are guaranteed to use it as an opportunity to grab more money, more control of your life and more POWER for themselves.
Free enterprise will create a better economy and better jobs while carefully and logically proceeding toward workable solutions.
Politicians should limit their input to giving direction and setting goals.
What has a politician ever invented that worked?
they are making a difference
look, there are cars in Uk and most of them are not hybrid which produces CO2
Don't worry about it. The UK will not make its targets. No country will. The targets are unachievable.
Global warming is a scam ,and is causing the price of fuel to rise and there is no reason. Just hype I will not help Gore rob the poor.
Global warming is a product of a change in the energy output of the sun. Ask any astronomer and they will tell you that global warming is occuring on every planet in our solar system. What is the single factor common to them all? The sun. Look at the data on Carbon Dioxide concentration vs temperature and you will find very little correlation. compare the same data to the changes in solar output and you have a match. During the jurassic carbon dioxide levels were 30 times higher, life went on and plant and animal life flourished. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 in the philippines releasing more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than all of mankind has since before the industrial revolution. After 5 years there was no discernable impact on regional or global temperature. Even the scientist who proposed the global warming hypothesis has since backed off of the idea. People need to start doing some research on global warming and quit listening to the talking heads on tv telling them we're all gonna die unless we move back into caves. I and a lot of other scientist believe in conservation and taking care of our environment, but I do not support panic science. Wake up america, educate yourselves!
the "entire" earth will have the same problem simultaneously. They get the same sun as the rest of the earth, don't they?
You know, people talk about these targets, yet those have been calculated per capita. I think that a better way to calculate it would be per capita land area. Or better yet, per capita carbon sink area. This would better reflect our individual ability to live within the natural restrictions of the environment. I think if you did this, you might find that the US is no longer one of the "major" polluters. And I bet you that here in the States, if you were to break it down by individual states per capita land area, that the biggest polluters are the "BLUE" states.
Ironic, isn't it?
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: