Kyoto pact
- Thread starter silvia
- Start date
After reading all the posts here, I could be convinced that maybe there's direct relation between Global Warming and Global Atmospheric Concentration of CO2.
Yes, a vulcano could put more CO2 into the Atmosphere than all the worlds industries and cars.
But is global warming the only environmental issue we should be concerned about? Or CO2 emissions have other effects on the environment that we forgot to comment here?
In Brazil, we always read some critics say that we don't take good care of the Amazon, because the increasing devastation of that Rain Forrest could jeopardize the climate. So, what's the argument: it's okay for develloped countries to pollute, as long as we don't exploit our natural resourses? What happened to the forrest in England, in Germany and in the USA that they cannot clean the pollution they produce?
25% of our cars use alcohol (ethanol) as fuel. The alcohol is extracted out of 100% national sugar cane. More than 80% of our energy consumption comes from hidroelectric plants (zero pollution, but a lot of environmental damage).
Still, the ozone layer is much thinner in the Southern Hemisphere and we have many, many cases of skin cancer here (especially melanoma, the deadliest of cancers). And environmentallists say we cannot exploit the Amazon because the world would suffer (which is a lie, because most of the CO2 in atmosphere is cleaned by the seaweed in the oceans).
So, tell me: what is a way for development if we (unlike most developed countries nowadays) cannot exploit our natural resourses?
Yes, a vulcano could put more CO2 into the Atmosphere than all the worlds industries and cars.
But is global warming the only environmental issue we should be concerned about? Or CO2 emissions have other effects on the environment that we forgot to comment here?
In Brazil, we always read some critics say that we don't take good care of the Amazon, because the increasing devastation of that Rain Forrest could jeopardize the climate. So, what's the argument: it's okay for develloped countries to pollute, as long as we don't exploit our natural resourses? What happened to the forrest in England, in Germany and in the USA that they cannot clean the pollution they produce?
25% of our cars use alcohol (ethanol) as fuel. The alcohol is extracted out of 100% national sugar cane. More than 80% of our energy consumption comes from hidroelectric plants (zero pollution, but a lot of environmental damage).
Still, the ozone layer is much thinner in the Southern Hemisphere and we have many, many cases of skin cancer here (especially melanoma, the deadliest of cancers). And environmentallists say we cannot exploit the Amazon because the world would suffer (which is a lie, because most of the CO2 in atmosphere is cleaned by the seaweed in the oceans).
So, tell me: what is a way for development if we (unlike most developed countries nowadays) cannot exploit our natural resourses?
N
N8
Guest
I'll tell you what/who we've got to be worried about more than the USA, Europe, or anyone else. One word. China. Their increase in use of Oil, coal and energy is exponential 
N8 said:I'll tell you what/who we've got to be worried about more than the USA, Europe, or anyone else. One word. China. Their increase in use of Oil, coal and energy is exponential
If they reach the same living standard Europe and the USA have, they ought to consume more and more resources, don't you think so? It means: more expensive oil, more expensive coal, more expensive steal. With limited natural resources as the Earth has... Besides, CO2 emitions cannot be proven to be the real vilain in global warming, so I read on this thread. Increasing consumption of energy by China should be no environmental problem, or am I wrong?
So what do you suggest? Should China not grow at all? Should Chinese workers be treated as slaves so that Nike can have huge profits? They are not to be feared, they are to be respected. China has evolved as an export country, but they cannot rely on foreign markets to sustain their development, so Chinese government is now estimulating the purchase of goods by lower class population by subsidizing them with very low interest rates and very long payments. Wise decision.
Sun Tsu (The Art of War) wrote: "know your enemy better than he knows you". China is the country with more English speaking people (300 million) in the world. It means that there are more people in China that speak English than there are americans. How many of us (USA, Europe and Latin America) can speak Chinese? What is our knowledge of the Chinese culture?
1,5 billion people, nuclear power, over 3000 years tradition... Who can oppose China?
China will grow strong and fast. Brazil has already made trade aggreements with China, technology aggreements and we are strenghthening our political and economical ties. All the world should the same.
N
N8
Guest
Totally agree, China is the next world dominant power. The US will be forced aside soon,China will be top in every way.
Dual_Life said:Conrado said:
If I'm not mistaken, the deadliest cancer is Lung Cancer, with a 98% mortality rate.
Oh well, life has a 100% mortality rate
No, I dated a cancer surgeon and I posed this question: "Which cancer is the deadliest?" The straight answer was "melanoma kills you". Lung cancer is very deadly, but if diagnosed in early stages it won't. For melanoma it doesn't matter. If you have it, you might extract it, but you'll eventually die of another melanoma somewhere else in your body or from metasthasis.