Your comment shall answer these two questions:
What did the Copenhagen Climate Conference tell us?
Pretend you're a senator, what law would you write which would help solve the climate crisis?
Copenhagen and the world's future
Meeting place: Copenhagen, Denmark
Purpose: To produce a new and binding climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto treaty
Participants: Representatives from 192 nations
Dates: December 7-December 18, 2009
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels to prevent the worst results of global warming. This would, they project, limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Would the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen meet this goal? The future of planet Earth hangs upon the answer to this question.
The Climate Change Conference resulted in an agreement called the "Copenhagen Accord." But it did not result in a legal, enforceable international treaty. As Reuters reported, "It set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times -- seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more floods, droughts, mudslides, sandstorms and rising seas. But it failed to say how this would be achieved." (www.reuters.com, 12/19/09)
Four questions
The executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, has declared that answers to four questions will determine the extent and worth of any international agreement. (www.en.cop15.dk)
1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?
According to a New York Times report on a UN meeting in September 2009, none of the larger nations "want to take the lead in fighting for significant international emissions reduction targets, lest they be accused at home of selling out future jobs and economic growth." (9/20/09) The same problem hampered the Kyoto negotiators 12 years ago. Industrialized nations have so far pledged roughly half of the IPCC target.
The Accord does not commit any nation to specific targets for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but leaves it up to each industrialized and developing nation to make its own target.
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit their emissions?
President Hu Jintao of China promised at the UN meeting to reduce the growth of his country's carbon dioxide emissions by "a notable margin" between now and 2020-but did not explain further. India's environmental minister, Jairam Ramesh, said that India's demands for an international accord were unchanged: India wants industrialized nations to agree to significant emissions reductions by 2020 and also provide financial and technical assistance to the developing world." (New York Times,10/4/09) China produces roughly 23 percent of all global emissions, India less than 5 percent. Other developing nations have agreed that they must cut emissions but have rejected mandatory limits and, like India, demand help.
Under the Copenhagen Accord, the position of the developing countries is essentially unchanged.
3. How will we pay for the help developing countries need to reduce their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change?
One example of this dilemma: Many developing countries are cutting down their forests, both for lumber and to open up pasture and farmland. According to William Laurance, the former president of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation (www.news.mongbay.com), the destruction of tropical forests spews 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, accounting for 20 percent of global emissions. (www.climateforestscommission.org). But if these countries are forced to limit deforestation, how will they be compensated for the economic loss?
The text of the Copenhagen Accord says: "Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries." The developed countries accepted a goal, again not a legally binding one, of providing $100 billion a year by 2020 to help the developing countries.
The accord recognized "the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests." The developed world agrees to provide "positive incentives" to fund such action.
4. How is the money going to be managed?
The accord did not include an agreement on supervision of financial help.
Reactions to the Copenhagen Accord
World leaders:
President Obama: "Today we've made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen. For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change…. We've come a long way, but we have much further to go."
"Finally we sealed a deal," UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said. "The 'Copenhagen Accord' may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this ... is an important beginning."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "The decision has been very difficult for me. We have done one step, we have hoped for several more."
Leaders of developing nations:
Sergio Serra, Brazil's climate change ambassador: "We have a big job ahead to avoid climate change through effective emissions reduction targets, and this was not done here."
Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, Sudanese delegate who represented the Group of 77 developing nations: "The developed countries have decided that damage to developing countries is acceptable….[The 2-degree target] will result in massive devastation to Africa and small island states." (Most of the developing countries want a 1.5 degree target.)
Environmental leaders:
Bill McKibben, a 350.org leader: "Our leaders have been a disappointment, and the talks have ended without any kind of fair, ambitious, or legally binding global agreement. It's unclear whether the weak 'accord' which emerged early this morning will provide a platform strong enough to deliver the kind of action we'll need in 2010 and beyond.
Nicole Granacki, chief organizer for Greenpeace: "The job of world leaders is not done. Today they failed to avert catastrophic climate change. The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight....World leaders had a once in a generation chance to change the world for good, to avert catastrophic climate change. In the end they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through."
Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club: "The world's nations have come together and concluded a historic--if incomplete--agreement to begin tackling global warming….It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible."
Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth US: This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one. It's just repackaging old positions and pretending they're new."
US government action
For the first time the United States government is now seriously considering actions to limit global warming.
1) On June 26, 2009, the House passed legislation to curb emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases through a cap-and-trade system. This would establish a limit, or cap, on how much pollution a particular company can emit per year. Permits would be issued to the company based on the level of greenhouse gases it has been authorized to emit.
Companies that exceed their limit would be allowed to purchase permits from companies that are in compliance--this is what the "trade" part of "cap-and-trade" refers to. Companies will be able to purchase someone else's emission reductions rather than reduce their own. For example, rather than cutting emissions at its US refinery, ExxonMobil could purchase "offsets" from an Indonesian farmer who plants trees. (Public Citizen News, July-August, 2009) Tightening the cap on emissions would push such polluters to meet targets by limiting their own emissions.
Some environmental organizations argue that the House bill would cut US emissions by only a fraction of what is necessary. Others support the cap-and-trade bill as a step in the right direction. Business and industrial groups are also divided. The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers oppose the House bill. But Pacific Gas and Electric, a major California utility, supports the legislation, and withdrew its membership from the Chamber of Commerce as a result. The Senate is considering its own bill.
2) On September 30, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is preparing new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. The regulations would require these facilities to provide proof that they are using the best technology to curb emissions, or else suffer penalties. The rule would apply only to facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Such companies are reportedly responsible for nearly 70 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the New York Times, major industries and utilities are working closely with Congress to ensure that a climate bill would circumvent such EPA regulations by substituting the cap-and-trade system.
President Obama said earlier that he prefers "a comprehensive legislative approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a piecemeal application of rules." But he has authorized the proposed new EPA regulation because it "could goad lawmakers into reaching an agreement. It could also provide evidence of the United States' seriousness as negotiators prepare for United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December…." (New York Times, 10/1/09)
Before you answer the two questions think about the following questions to organize your thinking:
1. What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?
2. Did the Copenhagen Climate Conference achieve its stated purpose? Why or why not? Whatever your answer, how do you explain such very different assessments of the conference as that by the president, who called it a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough, " by Carl Pope, who hailed it as "a historic--if incomplete--agreement, and Nicole Granacki, who called Copenhagen "a climate crime scene"?
3. Why do you think that the world leaders at Copenhagen did not achieve a binding agreement? What specific evidence can you cite for your opinion?
4. What actions are the US Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency proposing? What concerns do American industries have about these actions? Environmental groups?
further research:
The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to take a step in solving global warming. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25-40 percent from levels in 1990. This would prevent the worst results of global warming. The Copenhagen Climate Conference’s goal was to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Some major developing countries such as China will try to limit their emissions. China’s President says by “a notable margin” between now and 2020. If I were a senator, the law I would write to help solve climate crisis would be aimed at major U.S. manufacturers. Large Companies and producers must switch from using fossil fuels to clean energy such as wind energy and solar energy. The law would allow manufacturers to switch over to the cleaner energy sources in stages. They will get tax advantages for meeting deadlines, though. They would be given at least five years for the change, considering it would take a lot of time and money to switch over. Companies who didn’t follow this law would be fined, or even shut down depending on how much fossil fuels they were still using. This would make a huge difference, and would help tremendously in the fight to save our planet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Conference told everyone that we need to take action if we want to solve and stop global warming. The UN’s Panel on Climate Change explained that by the year 2020 global emissions are going to fall 25-40 percent from levels in 1990. This would decrease the worst outcomes of global warming. The Copenhagen Conference’s goal was to decrease warming to about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Some major developing countries such as China will try to decrease their emissions too to help stop Global Warming. If I were a senator, the law I would write to help solve climate crisis would be to make the big and expensive companies to stop burning fossil fuels. I read in a book that these fuels are what are causing global warming and it is not helping our environment either. If these companies would just switch to healthier and smarter techniques of making energy we wouldn’t have these problems. Some ways to make energy besides burning these gases would be solar energy. It would take a lot less time using the solar energy then burning fossil fuels. Yes it will take a long time for the companies to switch there energy building ways but, it will be worth it because it is one step closer to stopping global warming. This is a very important law to make even if I weren’t senator it is a touch down for earth if this law was passed.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to help the environment from global warming and that we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to this issue. The UN had a meeting about this and there the leaders agreed on the rule that global emissions must fall 25-40% from its levels in 1990. The Copenhagen Climate Conference also agreed on that large countries cutting down on their emissions so that global warming doesn’t harm the planet any further. That would prevent the increase in temperatures all around the world and other natural disasters such as mudslides, rising sea levels, etc. If I was a senator dealing with the emissions of greenhouse gases in the US then I would present a law that would limit emissions for large industries to about ten to twenty thousand lbs. of greenhouse gas emissions a year. The law would also fine the industries that don’t comply with the law. The law would fine industries somewhere around ten thousand dollars per each ten lbs. over the limit. The money collected from these fines would help go towards the economy or to other large industries that don’t have the money to even pay the fines so that they can change their operating systems so that they have a smaller carbon footprint, and a more cleaner and efficient way of manufacturing goods.
ReplyDelete1. I believe the Copenhagen conference told us that we have to start taking action and reduce our carbon emissions. By 2020, emissions from industries, cars ,and other things that produce emissions must decrease by 25-40% to prevent dangerous changes such as higher sea levels, flooding, mudslides, and other disasters. Hu Jintao, the president of China said that he would lower carbon emission by "a notable margin" by 2020". Notice that he didn't explain further. Of course, he is lying. He would never reduce carbon emissions when he knows that he is putting future jobs and his county's economy at risk.
ReplyDelete2. If I were a senator, I would make a law that required all businesses to switch to hydro energy(meaning energy from water)or clean nuclear energy. Business who refuse to switch will have to pay a fine of $100,000. Car manufacturers will have to start making all of their cars hybrids. And electricity companies will use solar power to make the electricity they provide. It will cost a lot of money, but it will save our planet.
The climate conference told us that we need to take action quickly to prevent the worst. If we want to stop the worst, we have to reduce our emissions from 25-40 percent by the year 2020. It must fall 25- 40 percent from levels in 1990. They think it can limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. We have a goal but no way to reach it. If I were a senator, and I made one law to help stop global warming, I would help cut down energy use. In the winter, if somebody went over 40kwh a day they would get a small fine. In the summer if somebody went over 100kwh a day they would get an even bigger fine. In the spring and fall the limit would be 70kwh a day. You would still get a fine for going over, but it would not be small or big. I hope my law can lower total emissions that are let out in the air each day.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to do something to help solve and stop global warming. The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels. This would decrease the worst outcomes about global warming. They are limit to two degrees Celsius or three point sixth degrees Fahrenheit. Some developing countries such as China will try to decrease their emissions too to help stop Global Warming. President Hu Jintao of China promised at the UN meeting to help reduce the growth of his country's carbon dioxide emissions by "a notable margin" between now and 2020-but did not explain further more. The India's environmental minister, Jairam Ramesh, said that India's demands for an international accord were unchanged: India wants industrialized nations to agree to significant emissions reductions by 2020 and also provide financial and technical assistance to the developing world. If I was a senator, I would write a law that would limit emissions for large industries to couple of thousand pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year. The law would also help the economy. The people cannot complain about it. If they do they will be charged. Plus it would charge the industries a lot more money than them. 1,000-2,000 dollars each person in the industry. The charges would go to places that don’t have enough money. So then the industries would not emit more carbon dioxide.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Conference told us that some action should be taken if we are to stop or at least slow down the effects and consequences of global warming. Global warming, as I have come to understand, is itself a consequence and therefore should be prevented by not triggering it.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a senator, I would pass a bill stating that we should open facilities for studying and preventing global warming, if a solution is to be found.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that a solution to global warming has yet to be found. Without the larger industrialized countries willing to take the first step and reduce their green house gas emissions, how much progress we’re going to make remains to be seen. Industrialized countries have pledged only half of the IPCC’s target. China produces about 23% of all global emissions, yet, like other developing nations, have rejected mandatory emission limits and demanded help.
ReplyDeleteDeforestation accounts for 20% of global emissions, but it also provides lumber and land for pastures and farmlands. If limits are set, how will we be compensated for the economic loss? Developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries, though whether this will be enough is unclear.
House passed legislation to curb emissions. This will limit the amount of pollution companies can emit per year.
If I was a senator, I would write a law that forced each state to use 80% solar and wind energy. This way, the state’s emissions would significantly be reduced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that they are trying to make a new climate treaty to replace the old one. They are hoping to lower the temperature by maximum 3 degrees Fahrenheit to stop Global Warming from releasing its harmful effects.
ReplyDelete2. If I was a senator, this is what law I would try to enforce to stop Global Warming. I would enforce the law of people not being allowed to use their car, unless they have to travel more than 1.5 miles to get to their destination. I would also enforce that people stop burning fossil fuels to generate our energy. If your city has a large enough river, like the Hudson River, people could use it to start a hydro power plant, that would provide the city with its electricity
1. The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that they are trying to make a new climate treaty to replace the old one. They are hoping to lower the temperature by maximum 3 degrees Fahrenheit to stop Global Warming from releasing its harmful effects.
ReplyDelete2. If I was a senator, this is what law I would try to enforce to stop Global Warming. I would enforce the law of people not being allowed to use their car, unless they have to travel more than 1.5 miles to get to their destination. I would also enforce that people stop burning fossil fuels to generate our energy. If your city has a large enough river, like the Hudson River, people could use it to start a hydro power plant, that would provide the city with its electricity
The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to take action to reduce global warming.The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels to prevent the worst results of global warming. They say that this would limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. If I were a senator I would pass down a law demanding that we should have labs to research more about global warming and how we should prevent it.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen climate conference has told us that getting global emissions to fall 20 through 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 will be very difficult. This will have to happen though, to prevent the worst of global warming from happening. The Copenhagen climate conference also told us that every country would have to participate in this. The major developing countries and the leading countries would also have to limit their carbon dioxide emissions between now and 2020.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a senator the law I would write in order to help this climate crisis would be based on the factories. The factories burn a lot of fossil fuel which then changes into carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is released into the air and is very bad for our health. Carbon dioxide is also the main cause for the green house effect. My law would be that factories should lower their use of fossil fuels and start using solar energy, which isn’t as harmful to the air. My law would help the environment and hopefully lower the green house effect.
1. The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to take action toward solving global warming. We have 11 years to protect the Earth from the worst results of global warming. The Earth’s temperature needs to drop 25-40 percent from the level in 1990. They project limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The future of planet Earth is depending on this one question. Would the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen meet this goal? The Copenhagen Climate Conference resulted a concurrence called the "Copenhagen Accord." It did not result in a legal enforceable international treaty. "It set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times -- seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more floods, droughts, mudslides, sandstorms and rising seas. It failed to say how this would be achieved." It also answered four questions that Yvo de Boer believes will establish the extent and worth of any international government. By China and India agreeing to cut their admissions it will help stop global warming. The Copenhagen Climate Conference also told us President Barack Obama’s reaction to the Copenhagen Accord and the U.S. Government action. We have to take many more steps than just that one if we want to save the Earth by 2012.
ReplyDelete2. If I was a senator the law I would write is if you cut down a tree you MUST plant another one in another spot. If not you will be punished!!!! People cut down trees for lumber, to open up pasture and farmland. By planting another tree in a different spot you can get the use of the tree and still protect the Earth. If you cut down trees your releasing 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. That causes 20 percent of global emissions. Please protect the Earth we live in.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we must take a large step to stop global warming in its tracks. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels. We would need to do this in order to prevent the worst results of global warming. The goal of the Copenhagen Climate Conference was to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to meet this goal, some major production countries would have to reduce their emissions. The president of China promised to reduce the growth of China’s emissions by “a notable margin” between now and 2020, and did not explain further. Since this is not a legal treaty, the countries have to set their own targets. If I were a senator, the law that I would create to help stop the climate crisis would be directed mostly at large production companies. The law would be that the large companies are limited to burning five thousand pounds of fossil fuels per year. If they don’t stay within the margin, the companies will be fined a large sum of money. There are many other healthier forms of energy that the companies can use instead of burning fossil fuels. One option is solar energy. Sure, it would take a lot of time and money to make the switch, but it would be worth it, and there is plenty of time. You might think that only the large production companies contribute to global warming and climate change. But, even you can take steps to save our planet. Remember to shut off the lights when you leave the room, and put your computer on sleep mode at night instead of keeping it on. That wastes 90% less energy than leaving it on all night. All of these easy tasks will add up to the big picture in the fight to save our planet.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to get moving to solve global warming. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mentioned that the global emissions must drop to 25-40 percent by 2010 from levels in 1990. If this happens, the worst results of global warming will be prevented. The goal of the Copenhagen Climate Conference’s goal was to limit the warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Some major developing countries, such as China will try to limit their emissions. If I were a senator, the law I would write to assist solving climate crisis would be limiting the use of fossil fuels or switching to using solar energy or other natural energies. I wish this would go on for at least the next 3-7 years, considering the amount of time and money to be switched. If anyone go against this law should be fined, or even worse depending how much fossil fuels they used. If all companies and producers follow this, it would help a lot in saving our planet.
ReplyDeleteCopenhagen Climate Conference has told us that more countries are deciding to change and fight against global warming. Some countries are finding difficulties to try and do more work against global warming. They try. Some countries can’t try to stop some stuff since it is affecting the economy.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a senator, the laws I will write to help solve the crisis is by all states have to recycle and now you have to recycle plastic. If you do not recycle plastic, or throw in the recycle bin, you get a penalty of $500. That will encourage people. It will help try and slow down the biggest consequences of global warming.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference said that we really need to do something to try and stop global warming. If we don’t try, it won’t fix itself. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent by 2020 from the levels in 1990. This will try and prevent the worst results of global warming. UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wanted to limit warming to 2 degrees celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The President of China promised to reduce the growth of China’s carbon dioxide emissions from now to the year 2020. In India, their environmental minister said India’s demands for an international accord were unchanged.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a senator, the law I would write to help solve the climate crisis would be mainly for large companies. The law would be that they cannot burn fossil fuels any longer. That is a big part of global warming and if they stop burning fossil fuel it can help the Earth a lot. There are better ways instead of using fossil fuel. They will have time to stop burning the fossil fuel and switch to the better ways, but if they don’t switch in a certain amount of time, they will suffer the consequences. This may be difficult but it will help a whole lot and will pay off. Big companies aren’t the only things effecting the planet though. You might not know it but a lot of people are hurting the earth. Keep in mind to turn off the lights and the television when there are not in use and maybe you can try and stop using hairspray because that is a chemical effecting the earth. Also don’t throw garbage in the ocean because that can kill animals and also is a part of global warming. No matter who you are, you should do these things for our planet.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to take a step in solving global warming and take action if we want to solve and stop global warming, they think it can limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. If I was a senator, the law that I would make that would help solve the climate crisis is reduced or use less energy so it would help the environment and try to research more about what global warming can do to us and earth.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us we need to do something in order to stop global warming. The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40% from 1990 levels to prevent the worst results of global warming. The Copenhagen Conference’s goal was to decrease warming to about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit. We have our goal but we don’t know if it is possible to accomplish. If I was the senator, I would make the law where everybody uses less energy which makes less pollution that cause global warming to increase. If they don’t I would even pay them to use less energy. I know it sounds like a lot of money but it would help stop global warming which would help and save the earth.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we must strive to prevent the atrocious effects of global warming because it is a dangerous and serious matter that will affect our future if we do not take action quickly. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels to help prevent the repercussion of global warming. The Climate Change Conference resulted in an agreement called the “Copenhagen Accord “where it set a target of limiting global warming but failed to say how they were to achieve their goal.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a senator, the law I would write to help solve the climate crisis would be directed mostly to heating and cooling in our homes. Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling alone. Everybody would have to move their thermostat down two degrees in the winter and up two degrees in the summer. This simple adjustment would save us about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we must act now to prevent the treacherous effects of global warming because it can cause the world to be in deep disasters. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels to help prevent the repercussion of global warming.The Copenhagen Conference’s goal was to decrease warming to about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Some major developing countries such as China will try to decrease their emissions too to help stop Global Warming.
ReplyDeleteIf I were senator, the law I would write to help solve the climate crisis would be directed mostly to the chemicals that are let into our air. It would basically be green house gases. A lot of our products we use today let out chemical gases that cause pollution and damaged the air we live in. Cars are a big pollution to our Earth. To make the matter better, most people can start carpooling to work or school. And the chemicals that are in our products that we use everyday such as hairspray, cleaning products etc., all contain deadly chemicals. To make matters better, we can make products that instead of toxins, there is natural resources to replace it. This simple change would save us about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference taught us that we are in deeper trouble then we thought when coming to global warming.Due to the conference it has shown us that we have to give into back breaking work for the global emissions to fall 25%--40%.This will drop the tempurature of warming to 2 degrees celsius(3.6 degrees fahrenheit).An agreement has been settled,but is not legally "inforced".A very well thought idea was made ,but a point could not be made for this goal to be achieved.The idea was that if this goal was reached it would stop many danger ous changes such as floods, droughts, mudslides, sandstorms and rising seas.
ReplyDeleteThe Copenhagen Climate Conference told us that we need to take a step in solving global warming. The global temperature must drop 3.6degree Fahrenheit. To developing countries the goal of 2 degrees Celsius will be devastating. These countries need to export in order to develop into developed countries. If I were a senator the law I would pass is: All developing countries shall be financed a quarter of their total federal money per year by certain developed countries. Canada and America for example shall donate around 5 billion dollars in a span of 3 years. This will provide developing countries with money to export goods. When a country hits 750 million to 1 billion dollars in federal money in a span of 4 years it must donate money to developing countries in 2 years.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnswer for question #1- From what the Copenhagen Climate Conference told we can concur that they are trying to create new climate treaty to replace the old one. They are hoping to lower the temperature by maximum 3 degrees Fahrenheit so they can put a stop Global Warming from releasing its harmful effects, and to do that we need to start making a effort to stop the causes of global warming that we are causing at this very moment.
ReplyDeleteAnswer for question #2- If I was a senator, I would make two laws to help this environmental disaster this is global warming. The first law would be to make a law that people can’t use cars unless giving a good reason. The second law would be to close down all of the unnecessary factories in the areas. The amount carbon dioxide is not only harmful to the environment(its actually the #1 cause for the green health effect which is the cause of global warming) but it is also harmful to our lungs and can cause asthma. My law would help put an end to global warming and would hopefully make the world a more safe place to live in.
The Copenhagen Climate conference said that “by 2020 global emissions must fall twenty five to forty percent from 1990 level to prevent the worst results of global warming”. This tells us that we need to make a change and it needs to be fast. The Earth is warming and the worst is yet to come if we do not make a difference in global emissions. If I were a senator I would write a law saying all cars should use ethanol fuel. This fuel burns cleaner and produces less greenhouse gases.
ReplyDeleteMs. Sherpa said that if she were a senator she would lower the green house effect. She would make factories use solar energy. Where would the United States get this money? We are already 12 trillion dollars in debt! Where would we put solar appliances? Ms. Sherpa also said “… lower the use of fossil fuels…” fossil fuels make the carbon dioxide levels rise. Our goal is to lower the levels 20 to 40 percent. The factories have to stop and convert completely. I thought her statement could work well if I had the answers to these questions.
ReplyDelete