Copenhagen climate change summit

[Mish]

The Copenhagen climate change summit, a forum of 192 countries set to decide global emission levels that will affect the future of our planet has started today [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8398510.stm[/url]

Set with the problem of the highest C02 levels our planet has seen in at least the last 800,000 years [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm[/url] the leaders of 192 countries will bring offers to the table of cutting CO2 emissions of their countries in hopes to slow down the extreme rise.

According to the polls majority of people around the world concede that climate change poses a threat to our future [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8345343.stm[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8396512.stm[/url]

But an army of skeptics has also come out of the wood works with a range of differing views to combat any change. Some of these have been refuted [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm[/url]


This issue promises to be one of the major issues of our generation, one which will either support or negate the rise of newer sustainable technologies, topple governments and industries, re-structure our daily lives and affect our environment in a positive or negative manner.

So given the gravity of this issue, what are your views on it?

[AdminOnline]

wow... you know what... Obama is attending!

[Sanctuary]

I'm one of the skeptics.

Yes, temperatures have been rising.

Yes, Co2 levels have been much higher than they have been in the past.

But correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

This issue promises to be one of the major issues of our generation, one which will either support or negate the rise of newer sustainable technologies, topple governments and industries, re-structure our daily lives and affect our environment in a positive or negative manner.

Yea, you can bet that emerging and developing economies will be screwed if they adopt greenhouse gas policies.

[Lipp]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmS_VDvMY&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[Sanctuary]

This is an argument for change and I really like the ideas presented in the article:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?em[/url]

But ultimately, I still question how necessary it is.

[doppelgaenger]

It's so ****ing cold here that I don't believe in global warming.

[lovesjoyajm]

Even if the relation between CO2 levels and global warming is correlation and not causation, I think there are a myriad of reasons to go the sustainable/alternative energy route. Although there's a possibility our planet will still be around in 30 years whether or not we keep polluting it, there are still the issues of unhealthy oil independence, conservation of the natural environment, air quality, water quality, extinction of species due to pollution, etc. So I say bring on the restructuring.

[Sanctuary]

I think there are a myriad of reasons to go the sustainable/alternative energy route.

lol I got no debate with you there

[doppelgaenger]

The only reason I use CFLs is because they lower my electricity bills and reduce lightbulb costs. Once the new energy plan is enacted, I foresee higher bills accompanying it.