They make up less than 2% (you didn't finish the sentence so I will here) ... in the Earth's atmosphere, not greenhouse gases (let us provide links if we will dispute numbers further). Proportion does not mean anything. The majority of any person's body mass is water but put a whole pound of rat poison down their throat and they will be overkilled about 30 times. Proportion of something does not mean it is not harmful.
Carbon emissions are not the only things trying to be cut down but they are the most commonly known. Water vapor has no eroding affect on anything so there was no point in naming that.
You mean to tell me that the climate levels and holes in the ozone (in the most simple examples) rise exponentially in the past century and it humans only play a small part in this?
Industrial revolution just happened to pop @ around the same time. Coincidence indeed.
Originally posted by inimalist
Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 329,787,380,712 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003420017 °C by the year 2050.Malaria cost US$ 288,940,905,099 in lost GDP and 5,936,172 lives over the same period.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
sure its a little biased, but still
Bad stat because it doesn't say what the parameters are for the saved money/status quo. Is it saying if everyone continues to emit? But that is impossible to know for certain because you do not know how much other nation states will be emitting. What is the situation given for the stat? It does not say.
That money cost is going towards all the nations who agreed. We are talking about 140 some odd countries I believe, so that is an odd stat to just say outright.
The link you provided mentions alternative energy but why do nations not focus there? Greedy bastards. Use oil but we running out so pay 3x as much as you did seven years ago or you can't do shit!
Originally posted by Starhawk
WHAT??? Where did you hear that? Please prove that.
Since Chlorofluorocarbon (and other chlorines) production/use has been severely regulated, the ozone is doing what it does naturally, repair itself. Rather slowly though, since CFC's linger for some time in the atmosphere.
As noted though, is the topic "Global Warming" or "Ozone Depletion"?
Originally posted by Starhawk
I smell a conservative. Whats unreasonable is letting the environment crash and burn in order to make the country richer. There are things we can do to absorb the cost. Reduce government salaries, cut expense accounts to politicians. Increase the taxes to the super rich and cut out the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying taxes.
That's ****ing ridiculous, taxes should be adjusted fairly, not arbitrarily raised against only the rich.
That and Canada is already outlawing the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, that alone will do so much.
Obviously there's more to be done but it's a start.
Originally posted by silver_tears
That's ****ing ridiculous, taxes should be adjusted fairly, not arbitrarily raised against only the rich.That and Canada is already outlawing the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, that alone will do so much.
Obviously there's more to be done but it's a start.
No it's not, it will only reduce emissions by 2 percent, and the bulbs they are selling cannot be thrown out in the trash due to the liquid magnesium in them. CBC did a whole report on this.
And yes, the rich can afford to help more and will not be severely effected by a tax increase the way the poor would.
Originally posted by silver_tears
That's ****ing ridiculous, taxes should be adjusted fairly, not arbitrarily raised against only the rich.That and Canada is already outlawing the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, that alone will do so much.
Obviously there's more to be done but it's a start.
And yet you should not impose proportional tax to the rich and the poor. Sales tax are a perfect example.