World Peace discussion

1 view
Global Warming

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:36PM) (new)

Héctor A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding – is now "very unlikely" to be avoided, the world's leading climate scientists said yesterday. The latest study from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world – in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic – are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes. For more than a decade, EU countries led by Britain have set a rise of two degrees centigrade or less in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels as the benchmark after which the effects of climate become devastating, with crop failures, water shortages, sea-level rises, species extinctions and increased disease. Two years ago, an authoritative study predicted there could be as little as 10 years before this "tipping point" for global warming was reached, adding a rise of 0.8 degrees had already been reached with further rises already locked in because of the time lag in the way carbon dioxide – the principal greenhouse gas – is absorbed into the atmosphere. The IPCC said yesterday that the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world. In its latest assessment of the progress of climate change, the body said: "If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade, which will require the strongest mitigation efforts, and currently looks very unlikely to be achieved, the substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding." Under the scale of risk used by IPCC, the words "very unlikely" mean there is just a one to 10 per cent chance of limiting the global temperature rise to two degrees centigrade or less. Professor Martin Parry, a senior Met Office scientist and co-chairman of the IPCC committee which produced the report, said he believed it would now be "very difficult" to achieve the target and that governments need to combine efforts to "mitigate" climate change by reducing CO2 emissions with "adaptation" to tackle active consequences such as crop failure and flooding.

'Too late to avoid global warming,' say scientists by Cahal Milmo in: http://environment.independent.co.uk/...


message 2: by Suvi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:37PM) (new)

Suvi (orpheusbooks) I have to say I agree in that global warming can't be stopped entirely. It's likely to happen but we can slow it down by making choices.


message 3: by Dewi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Dewi | 5 comments My friend said to me that today's issues is how to find a renewable energy. Of course it is related to global warming, but the main objective is to lessen the oil consumptions. This oil issue recently leads human to race on a war.

In the end, is not a miss universe that really cares about world peace, it's the scientists. O.. so why do we still need a politicians then? (:


message 4: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Héctor The science is slave, sadly...


message 5: by Dewi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Dewi | 5 comments Aha.. i cannot disagree with that ;)


message 6: by Renni (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Renni | 3 comments It's not too late to avoid global warming. Don't say it's too late..

Global warming slow down..;
~Use an non aerosol hairspray
~Don't drink soda(or at least be minimise), coke etc it's bad for earth and it's bad for your body too. Better drink green tea, as it's slow down the radiation/cancer in your body.
~Plant a tree or small plant on your apartemen.

If this go on where will our children lives next?


message 7: by Enespaniol (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Enespaniol | 23 comments I understand, Renni, that it is happening now and we only can mitigate its effects. It seems an alert call.


message 8: by Renni (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Renni | 3 comments Yes, alert call :)
do you know how to global warming mitigate effects? please share to me please :)


message 9: by Enespaniol (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Enespaniol | 23 comments Yeeesss. Here, Mr. Gore, recommend ten things to do: http://www.climatecrisis.net/pdf/10th...


message 10: by Farzan (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:46PM) (new)

Farzan (persianguy1983) Global Warming is kind of warning for all people around the world , we should take care of our world because next generation will need it and we have to keep it as well as we can.


message 11: by yusar (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:46PM) (new)

yusar  mikail | 4 comments Let stop worying about being too late to stop global warming.
Let's begin to feel that life is so beautiful and let start fill our head with hopes and act to start recovering this world from our own back yard such as our own body and family.
There are so many generation whom we can share about this beautiful life and not destroying it and ruin it.


message 12: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:50PM) (new)

Héctor George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change. Although the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never been as wide as yesterday. Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed. The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved. A senior European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December. "It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."

Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade' by Ewen MacAskill in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...


message 13: by Enespaniol (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:51PM) (new)

Enespaniol | 23 comments Ufffffffffff!!!!!!


message 14: by yusar (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:52PM) (new)

yusar  mikail | 4 comments I think there are so many cowards. Those european leaders know how bad is mr bush. But they just stand and doing nothing.
Maybe we should suggest them to gathered in a small lakes in Africa or somewhere else to taste the water and to feel how hard this life is with no good climate.
Lets take care of our chldren and give them more light so they are stronger and have more mercy and generousity.
Don't worry my friend. mr bush will not stay long enough in this world.
Our job is to share with new leader of USA and direct them to have more awarness of this global warming. And also to all new generation in this world.Let them know that this world is too beautiful to be destructed.


message 15: by Enespaniol (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:52PM) (new)

Enespaniol | 23 comments Perhaps...


message 16: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:54PM) (new)

Héctor As global warming melts the Arctic, the United States's biggest banks are investing billions of dollars in as many as 150 new coal-fired power plants around the country. The obvious climatic and fiscal stupidity of such investments is staggering, say environmentalists. "What are they (the banks) thinking?" asked Leslie Lowe, energy and environment programme director at the Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility.
Carbon regulations are coming, and profiting from the destruction of nature and communities is immoral in any case, Lowe told IPS at a press conference. "It is folly to build new coal-fired plants," she said. And yet that is just what Bank of America and Citi (formerly Citigroup) are doing, according to the new report "Banks, Climate Change & the New Coal Rush" by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN). Electricity generation from coal is the biggest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world -- larger than deforestation or the transportation sector, says Rebecca Tarbotton, director of RAN's Global Finance Campaign. The 150 proposed new plants would add 600 million to 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon annually into the atmosphere, Tarbotton said in an interview. Total global emissions of carbon are currently about 8 billion tonnes. "There is no hope of averting climate catastrophe if a significant number of those plants are built," said Bill McKibben, author and founder of Step It Up, the largest demonstration against global warming in history. "Climate change is already happening much faster than anyone expected," McKibben told IPS. In the past two weeks, reports that the Arctic ice cap shrank dramatically this summer have left scientists shocked at the speed and extent of the melting. The Arctic Ocean may well go from white to blue in less than a decade, some believe. The ramifications of an ice-free Arctic on the world's weather system and the local ecology have yet to be determined. Coal currently supplies approximately half of the U.S.'s electricity and produces 80 percent of the sector's CO2 emissions. Building new coal-fired plants -- which have projected lifespans of 50 years -- would undo virtually any and all domestic efforts to reduce carbon emissions, notes McKibben. RAN and the coalition of environmental and faith-based groups, as well as Al Gore, Senators John Edwards and John Kerry, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are calling for a moratorium on all new coal-fired plants.

CLIMATE CHANGE: U.S. Moving Backwards by Stephen Leahy in: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnew...


message 17: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:57PM) (new)

Héctor The World Bank encouraged foreign companies to destructively log the world's second largest forest, endangering the lives of thousands of Congolese Pygmies, according to a report on an internal investigation by senior bank staff and outside experts. The report by the independent inspection panel, seen by the Guardian, also accuses the bank of misleading Congo's government about the value of its forests and of breaking its own rules. Congo's rainforests are the second largest in the world after the Amazon, locking nearly 8% of the planet's carbon and having some of its richest biodiversity. Nearly 40 million people depend on the forests for medicines, shelter, timber and food. The report into the bank's activities in Democratic Republic of Congo since 2002 follows complaints made two years ago by an alliance of 12 Pygmy groups. The groups claimed that the bank-backed system of awarding vast logging concessions to companies to exploit the forests was causing "irreversible harm". It will be discussed at board level in the World Bank within weeks and may lead to a complete rethink of how forestry in the DRC is practised. It is particularly embarrassing for the British government, which is a development partner of the bank and its third largest financial contributor. It encouraged the bank to intervene in the Congo forests with export-driven industrial logging and has earmarked £50m for further Congo basin forestry aid. When the bank moved back into Congo in 2002, after years of war which cost up to 4 million lives, it said industrial forestry could contribute most strongly to the country's recovery. In its rush to reform the economy it devised new forestry laws, divided the county into zones and aimed to create a favourable climate for industrial logging. But although the bank is legally committed to protecting the environment, and trying to alleviate poverty, the panel found that the policies it imposed on the Congo were having the opposite social and environmental effects:
· An area of 600,000 square kilometres (232,000 square miles) of forest was earmarked for logging companies.
· The bank failed to address critical social and environmental issues.
· It ignored between 250,000 and 600,000 Pygmies believed to be living in the Congolese forests, even though their presence was well known and documented.
· It put the Pygmies in serious potential harm.

World Bank accused of razing Congo forests by John Vidal in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...


message 18: by Enespaniol (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:05PM) (new)

Enespaniol | 23 comments Congratulations to Mr. Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the Nobel award obtained.


message 19: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:07PM) (new)

Héctor Congratulations to the scientists of life and peace.


message 20: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:44PM) (new)

Héctor It's naive to think corporations can or will sacrifice profits to fight climate change. Firms that go green to improve their public relations, or cut their costs are being smart -- not virtuous. Al Gore's campaign against global warming, for which he just received the Nobel Peace Prize, has encouraged many corporations to "go green" and become environmentally friendly. But do these companies deserve to be praised? And can we rely on corporations to lead the way on global warming? The answer is: No and no. Gore deserves kudos, but it's absurd to praise the corporations that are going green. Consider British Petroleum, which a few years ago shortened its name to BP and has promoted itself with a $200 million ad campaign as the environmentally friendly oil company that will go "Beyond Petroleum." So far, though, it's invested a tiny fraction of its oil profits in non-fossil based fuels, and caused the worst oil spill in the history of Alaska's fragile north slope. Going green for public relations might help the bottom line, but it doesn't help the environment. Other companies are going green because they can save money that way. By using new cleaner technologies, for example, Dow Chemical lowers its energy costs and reduces carbon emissions. By packaging its fresh produce in plastics made from corn sugar instead of petroleum, Wal-Mart also cuts costs. Alcoa saves some hundred million dollars a year by reducing its energy use, thereby helping the environment. I think it's great these and other companies are cutting their costs and increasing profits, but this is what companies are supposed to do. It's called good management. Some investment banks and private-equity firms are going green because they anticipate regulations that will make green pay off and reduce returns from companies that don't go green. Goldman Sachs recently pushed TXU, a big Texas power company, to cut the number of coal-fired plants it was going to build because Goldman anticipates stricter regulations of coal-fired plants. Goldman isn't praiseworthy; it's just watching its money. Under super-competitive capitalism -- what I've termed "supercapitalism," it's naive to think corporations can or will sacrifice profits and shareholder returns in order to fight global warming. Firms that go green to improve their public relations, or cut their costs, or anticipate regulations are being smart -- not virtuous. So don't expect corporations to lead the charge on global warming. That's government's job. And next time you hear a company boast about how environmentally friendly it is, hold the applause.

In Corporations Won't Lead the Way on Solving Global Warming by Robert B. Reich


back to top