Global Warming

Kilimanjaro's ice set to linger

2007-04-27T19:23:00.000-07:00

Recent concerns that climate warming would rob Mount Kilimanjaro of all its glaciers within 20 years are overly pessimistic, say Austrian scientists. Their weather station data and modelling work indicate the tropical ice should last until at least 2040. This seems like a big plus for all of the people who are doubting global warming. However, when our children, children are born don't we want them to have a place to live thus they won't be able to survive. Some scientist say that Kilimanjaro in Africa was a pillar for the "myth of global warming. They think that their findings about the tallest mountain peek in Africa lasting until at least 2040, is a marvelous finding to refute global warming. It seems as if they don't realize that we are in 2007. So that means that the mountain will only last for about 37 years. THIRTY-SEVEN years is a very long time LOL!!!!! The majority of my generation will be alive in thirty seven years. Maybe even some to the baby-boomers would be alive in 37 years. So we have established that the projected great 37 years don't prove that global warming doesn't exist. Some scientist seem to be hanging on to a myth that global warming does not exist but they need to let it go because in order for us not to be like the, "frog who is put in luke warm water", we need to change and we need to change fast before its to late.

Are planting trees the answer to global warming in snowy forest?

2007-04-27T19:12:00.000-07:00

Planting trees in snowy areas may worsen global warming as their canopies absorb sunlight which would otherwise be reflected by the snow. Only tropical forests effectively cool the earth by absorbing carbon dioxide and creating clouds. However scientist stress they are not telling people to chopping down trees because they are a valuable resource and remain vital for bio-diversity, providing a home for animals and plants. Scientist have been debating for a long time about whether planting trees will help to reduce global warming because the trees absorb carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen. However, trees also absorb water from the ground, helping to form clouds that shield the earth from sunlight. Some computer models produced by the report's authors suggested deforestation in higher latitudes could reduce global warming. Report in US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says the pine forests of Europe, Siberia and Canada may contribute to warming.

Carbon Gas Is Explored as a Source of Ethanol

2007-04-27T18:29:00.000-07:00

A New Zealand company said that it had secured financing from an investor in Silicon Valley to produce ethanol from an untapped source, carbon monoxide gas. This is a good idea because it will reduce our dependence on oil. Ethanol as a fuel has its detractors. Some plastics and rubber materials commonly used in fuel lines are degraded by ethanol, and depending on the blend of ethanol and gasoline, ethanol may raise levels of nitrogen oxides produced. Ethanol also contains less energy than an equivalent amount of gasoline, so mileage may be reduced. If Ethanol can be refined so that these problems are fixed or made better in some way the benefits of Ethanol will greatly overshadow the benefits of oil. This will also decrease foreign tensions because there would be no need to exploit developing countries for their resources. Using Ethanol will not only decrease the effects of Global warming it would also make the people of the world more able to get along and live in harmony. This is important because all of the nations of the world need to band together to stop exploiting the earth. Reducing our dependence on oil will greatly help the nations live more united.

Have all of the people in Washington gone crazy or have they sat down collectively to stick to one story that is not true?

2007-04-27T18:05:00.000-07:00

Al Gore is making more efforts to get lawmakers to take action on the global warming crisis. However it seems as if his efforts and pleas are falling on deaf ears. It seems as if all or the lawmakers and the people who could make a meaningful change are all sticking to one story. Only the problem is that they weren't very inventive in their story. Instead of answering questions they just give vague answers and avoid setting time lines on any subject that involves global warming. After Al Gore's Oscar winning movie ``An Inconvenient Truth'' , lawmakers seem very angry that the public has noticed that they are completely avoiding the subject of global warming. The popular media seemed to add skepticism to the "theory" that global warming is a serious problem. The fact that the media was doing this worked in the governments favor. Now that the public knows that global warming is putting the planet in grave and eminent danger, the government is still trying desperately to restore some of the myths they created about global warming. However their efforts are falling short because the public is demanding answers and the government will eventually be forced to answer those questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-climate-un-gore.html

China and its fight on pollution; America should jump on the BANDWAGON

2007-04-27T16:27:00.000-07:00

China finally takes some action to reduce pollution in their country. Previously the factories and big business have gone unchecked. The pollute the cities and are virtually the cause of the demise of the people of China. Although the businesses and factories were hurting the people of China, the factories were being helped by the government of China. China was helping them by rewarding them with tax cuts for destroying the city. China has decided to take action because they are one of the worlds largest producers of coal so they feel that they should carry the burden of reducing the polluting emissions caused by coal. Before this new action China was forecast to pass the United States green house gas emissions by the year 2010. However, because china has experienced some rapid economic growth those forecast are being pushed forward.

Although China has taken the first step they still have a long way to go before they can truly have a non-polluting efficient economy and lifestyle. The United States of America, being the worlds largest polluters while still having one of the worlds smallest population, needs to follow China's example and take some real action in the fight against global warming. China has committed itself to cutting 20 percent of its energy use for every unit of gross domestic product by 2010. And America needs to commit itself to some sort of plan to combat global warming.

Lets talk about rank; Is the Environmental Protection Agency allowed to disregard a ruling of the United States Supreme Court?!!!!

2007-04-27T10:51:00.000-07:00

Congress ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency is required, under Clean Air Act, to regulate CO2 emissions. However, the Environmental Protection Agency seems to lack urgency in their plans needed to regulate emissions. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency refused to say how long it would take the EPA to take some serious action to reduce carbon emissions. When appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the head of the EPA was asked repeatedly to provide a timetable for responding to the April 2nd Supreme Court decisions. The court said the Clean Air Act makes clear the agency must regulate carbon dioxide if it's found that it endangers public health. This was actually a milestone in combating global warming because it admitted that global warming is an immediate problem thus giving the world the green light to start taking action. Although the world may have the green light the Environmental Protection Agency feels that they are exempt from the world.

The sad thing is that if everyone thought that they were exempt from global warming the world would be headed to an inevitable doom. The head of the EPA states that he is unwilling to make snap decisions. However every time we put gas in our car, or cut down a tree to build a house, or dump raw sewage into the ocean, or continue to use more resource than we need, we are making snap decisions without even thinking about their consequences. So the EPA needs to ask itself, are they willing to make "snap" decision about something that could possible ruin life as we know it. However the decision isn't really a "snap" decision because we know what will happen to the earth if we continue to live in the way in which we do. Everyone who lives on earth needs to stop playing the "pass the buck" game and start taking some action before our children and children end up with no planet to live on.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Global-Warming.html

If EVERYONE lived like YOU, how many EARTH'S would we NEED?

2007-03-09T21:22:00.000-08:00

Everyone needs to take a part in protecting our planet. Global warming is not only the only thing threatening our environment. The way in which we live especially in developed countries is also harming our environment. Most people in developed countries use two, three, or even four time amount of resources as a person in a developing country would. This is because people in developed countries are used to living a comfortable life where they sometimes waste a lot of things. In developing countries there is a shortage of resource so the people living in these counties don't waste their goods.

Even I am a culprit of overusing resources. If you want to see if your responsible, take this short quiz on your ecological foot print to see how many earths we would need if everyone lived as you do. GO TO http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp AND SELECT YOUR REGION. THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF ABOUT 10 QUESTIONS AND THEY WILL SHOW YOU HOW MANY EARTHS YOU WOULD NEED.

If everyone lived as I do we would need three planets. Now that I know this I will try my best to conserve resources by taking small steps towards progress. Some might say that if I am the only one who changes my living habits things won't change much. But as I say it only takes one person to spark change.

Middle Stance Emerges In Debate Over Climate

2007-03-09T21:07:00.000-08:00

This article is about the middle ground in the quest to control global warming. They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat trapping smokestack gases pose a momentous environmental challenge but some say that the appropriate response is more equal to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an irreplaceable house(earth) than to fighting a fire already raging.

I agree with this article because I understand where it is coming from. We only have one earth and we will only ever have one earth so instead of finding solutions for the future we need to fix the problems that we have now to ensure that there will be a future for earth.

http://www.geoscience-online.com/images/0514_climate2.jpg

Warning Issued on Sensors Tracking Climate

2007-03-09T20:26:00.000-08:00

The nation's ability to track retreating polar ice, shifting patterns of drought winds and rainfall and other environmental changes is being put "at great risk" by faltering efforts to replace aging satellite-borne sensors. This is according to a panel convened by the country's leading scientific advisory group.

Honestly I believe that our laxed position on the grave condition of global warming, will lead our planet into total demise. It is a sad fact that we have enough money to build bombs that can potentially kill everyone on earth but we don't have enough money to fix satellites that can save the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/science/space/15cnd-nasa.html?ex=1173589200&en=f29587a1f6ceb8d1&ei=5070

Supreme Courts Ruling on CO2 Emissions

2007-03-09T19:15:00.000-08:00

"...the EPA, the U.S. federal agency whose mission is to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment." The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States.
The Environmental Protection Agency, a government agency, who's sole purpose is to protect the environment hence their name refuses to regulate harmful carbon emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency claims that by regulating carbon emissions in the United States they won't really be helping the problems of Global Warming. However, I believe that every little bit helps. "Rome wasn't built in a day" America believes that they are the leaders of the free world but when it becomes time to take action on a issue of eminent concern America seems to be running scared. It is time for the leaders of America to realize that if they start something good for the world, others will follow.

The supreme court has gotten involved in this debate. However they seem like they are unwilling to make an unpopular decision. The decision won't be unpopular with the citizens of the United States but I will be unpopular with some high ranking government officials. Officials who think that if the planet is no longer able to sustain life their money and their figure head titles will keep them alive. Supreme court justices are appointed for life so there is no pressure for getting reelected so why is it that they are so worried about being unpopular.

This article is mainly about the supreme courts deliberations on whether the Clean Air Act applies to carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gasses. The Environmental Protection Agency feels that it doesn't have to regulate these emissions. The justices of the supreme court seem deeply divided on the issue.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F12F83A5A0C738FDDA80994DE404482

Divided on the fight for a greener earth

2007-03-09T18:04:00.000-08:00

Europe has taken the first steps in solving the global warming crisis. The European government seems to be clear about their method of action for protecting our environment. European leaders are expected to approve plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 as part of an effort to reduce the bloc’s dependency on oil and gas exports. Europe seems to be totally clear on what they want to do but other countries who are considered world leaders can't seem to make up their minds on the right course of action.

My belief is that the major world leaders like the United States have a hidden agenda for their lack of attention paid to global warming. This is because the Government, whose main objective should be to protect its people, is caught in a conflict of interest. Some of the people with the highest power in the United States don't see it as a conflict of interest to own large amount of shares in companies who emit the most greenhouse gasses. This is a conflict of interest because if you own a company you are not going to impose regulations that might cause that company to loose money. So to avoid this conflict, the government completely ignores global warming thus in their minds eliminating the problem.

Does the first amendment apply to scientist?

2007-03-09T16:38:00.000-08:00

It seems as if scientist are at their wits end when it comes to combating global warming. It seems as if people don't understand that there is only one planet and once we have exhausted all of its resources we will have nowhere else to go. Right now scientist predict that the earth is in eminent danger. However, countries like the United States, Russia, Europe, and China, some of the biggest contributors of green house gasses, and its government, operate on a "if its not broken don't fix it" policy is responding very slow to this problem. Most scientist understand the worlds policy and yet they still try to encourage laws that protect the environment. They do this because they have a genuine interest in protecting the only planet that we have. However, on there quest for survival it gets frustrating and almost discouraging when the government, of whose people you are trying to protect, tries to limit your speech for the fear of looking bad. This is exactly what happened when scientist attempted to attend international meetings on the Arctic. The meetings were focused on polar bears. They attempted to find an explanation for the recent frequency for polar bears being found near the villages of the Chukchi. Scientist openly expressed that the reason that the polar bears are becoming so bold and coming around people is because their migrations have shifted as warming trends alter the sea ice. However when news broke about the reasons for the polar bears unusual behaviors Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Services appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so. They did this because if they admit that the Arctic ice is melting, Global Warming will become real and they will have to regulate CO2 admissions, which will not be profitable to them. However it will save the planet and I think that that is a small price to pay for a slight economic loss. World leaders need to realize that if they don't have a planet to live on all of the money that they fought for will be useless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08polar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/09polar.html?ref=science