h1

A quick response to Global Warming

Jpm2000000pmThu, 01 Feb 2007 16:27:20 +000007 23, 2007

Reading through Bjorn Lomborg’s argument about global warming and the need to solve a few issues.  A few things came to mind that I wanted to note.  His argument is fairly interesting and quite thought provoking, however the idea that we can put global warming on the back burning doesn’t resonate well with many (including myself).

First of all, he mentions that the a century from now the LDCs are going to be so much richer than we are now.  But what he forgot to mention is that the developing world will produce at least twice as much pollution several years from now, than the developing world.  Since we are acknowledging the fact that Global Warming is an issue, the industrialized world should set the example and begin curbing our CO2 emissions and pollution in general, and warm the developing world. 

While policy makers need to produce new initiatives and take action to stop malpractice in the
United States, many of the companies and corporations should take the same steps on their own.  Currently, the way in which coal is used is rather dirty and inefficient and most of all is a high polluter.  If the government or the coal industry spent enough money to improve the technology, not only would it cut emissions, but in the long run probably save money.  Also, and most importantly, fossil fuels are not an infinite resource.  Despite the fact they are not going to run out during our lifetime, they eventually will.  Therefore, the need for alternative energy is obvious.

check out his article…

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bjorn_lomborg/2007/02/get_your_priorities_straight.html

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. I would like to criticize your proposed solution of using new technologies instead of coal as an energy source. You have simplified your argument so much as to say, all the government has to do is “improve the technology” thus cutting emissions and “probably” saving money. I see little support for that claim in your blog entry, and I find it difficult to believe that such a technological transition would be so easy. Would you mind expanding on your argument by perhaps detailing the technological options that are available and the possible reasons why governments have not taken steps towards embracing those technologies.


  2. While, I do not know the exact technology, I am aware that there is cleaner tech that what is being used in many cases. Here, are some quotes from text I have in another class. I’ll keep looking for more to give you in the meantime.

    “A clause in America’s Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from complying with current emissions rules, so much of America’s electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing this loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give those dirty old clunkers a new lease on life.”

    “Environmnet enemy no. 1.” In Annual Editions geography 06/07. McGraw Hill. pg 40
    –reprinted from The Economist, July 6, 2002.

    “Dupont has cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by %65 since 1990, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.”

    Carey, John. “Global Warming.” In Annual Editions geography 06/07. McGraw Hill.
    — a reprint from Business Week, August 16, 2004



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: