In "Looking to Cities, in Search of Global Warming’s Silver Lining", Gugliotta says that many researcher found out positive impact of increased heat and pollutant air; for example,carbon dioxide, ozone and nitrogen oxide, on plants growing; however, some researchers warn that it doesn't confirm ,in the future, the plants to survive trough drought or windstorms.
This news is surprised me that global warming isn't always bad. In the media, there are a lot bad impact of global warming; such as, a news, an advertise, a campaign. Many people, including me, think that global warming is seriously dangerous. After read the article, I have to reconsider about it. It's a good start of the research that try to find the way to deal with global warming. If the scientists improve the plant to absorb more carbon dioxide, it will decrease amount of pollutant gas.
But I agree to many campaign that try to decrease the emission rate of pollutant gases, because they is the cause of global warming. I think that it's not easy to do without cooperation worldwide, particularly developed countries. This is our world, so it is our responsibility to look after the world.
By the ways, if global warming is character, it may be "Megamind". That is, everyone evaluate that he's bad. But who make him bad? Himself? or You?
 |
| Is he bad? |
Gugliotta, G. (2012, November 26). Looking to Cities, in Search of Global Warming’s Silver Lining. The New Yorks Times: Environmental Space&Cosmos. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/science/studying-cities-to-find-global-warmings-benefits.html
Megamind. (2013, January 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:30, January 16, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megamind&oldid=532577961
"Particularly developed countries" must, according to Mo, lead in cooperating to tackle the problem of human caused global warming, but is this right?
ReplyDeleteWhich countries are contributing most to the problem: China and India, or the US and Australia, the developing or the developed?
The first idea came to my mind is that the success to cope this problem relies on cooperation from all countries not only the biggest one. According to Global Emissions repoted by EPA, in the Emissions by Country, it showed that although the largest portion (23%) of carbon dioxide emission is from China, the combination potion from other countries is 29%. It is better if all countries helps to relieve the problems. However, since it is easier to conduct any restrictions, measures or campaigns in each country than using same ways in various countries owing to their different background, high carbon dioxide emitting countries - China, USA and European Union (all are developed country)- play an important role in handling the world's problem.
DeleteChina have many foreign enterprise that invest there. Not surprised that China is in the first ranking. Who come to do business in China? Are they developed countries or developing countries?
DeleteI've read the news about water pollutants from battery company in Thailand. This company is ignoring to recycle water before release to outside because Thailand don't have strict rules to control.
Why it happen like this? Thailand isn't their mother land, so it's not important to care the environment. Although, this county is in a world we live.
Your topic reminds me insistence that natural changes are the cause of global warming, not human-made gas emission. According to the assertion, we are in mordern warm period on the earth's climate time-line. I like this kinds of opinions because the thought we are spoiling the earth is horroble as like I'm destroying my house without vision.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing comoing in my mind is the Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Some developed countries don't like it. I remember that The US and Canada are still outside the Protocol.
Thanks Katie for your reply. It save me; you''re my hero today.^^
DeleteI wrote in the blog because I've read the news about Kyoto protocol that the U.S. didn't sign the contract like the others. But I'm not sure now thanks the U.S. have change their mind or not. I'll find out the answer tonight when I'm back home after working.
I used to be sceptical of global warming, but, as the evidence and scientific consensus kept mounting up, I decided a couple of years ago that I had been wrong.
DeleteLike Katie, even after changing my mind about the reality of global warming, I was unsure whether humans were contributing to that to any significant extent, but I've now changed my mind on that, too. We might not be the only cause, but I'm pretty sure we are contributing to it.
But what I'm very unsure about is how we should best respond. If we agree that the facts are that we human beings are now a major influence on the climate, and that we are changing it in the direction of greater heat, that does not automatically determine the best response. And I think that the solutions being suggested, that we try to simply undo the causal factors, such as spewing carbon into the atmosphere, might not be sensible solutions at all.
For example, even if it were certain to be effective, does that make something like the Kyoto Protocol a sensible response to global warming?
To give a more extreme example of my worry here: If drunk car drivers were immediately shot through the head (legally executed) by police when the test returned a positive reading for alcohol, or any other drug, the rate of drunk driving and subsequent road deaths would almost certainly go down very quickly. This would certainly be a very effective policy, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to actually make it a policy. It would be as seriously harmful and immoral as the policy of making drugs like heroin, yaa baa, cocaine and so on illegal even if, as in Singapore, the laws are so harshly draconian that they might be effective in reducing some drug use.
Mo, please be careful! I think a situation that some kind of plants grow more when the earth faces global warming does not mean that global warming has a positive effect because we are not sure that those plants are good or bad for an environment; even though those plants are good, I think they are only a result of side-effect from the earth's adaptation to the new balance; in the other words, we actually receives net negative impacts from global warming phenomenon that created by ourselve.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many suggestions that we need coordination and cooperation from every country around the world to solve (or, at least, reduce) this phenomena. Now, this world does not need only one person or country to be a hero, but it needs all of us to be heroes to save and retain our world together.
Thanks for your suggestion, P'soup. But in this blog, I mean that everything is not totally bad; there is some good point of it, like technology that we use now. Nothing stay the same forever, no matter how hard we try. Please don't think that I disagree to solve global warming. Maybe it's better to find the way to live with our world that has changed from the past than stick with the destroy that isn't easy to become the same.
DeleteMany plants adapt to live properly with the woold that don't stop to change. What's about us? it's good to try to stop to suffer more from global warming. But if you read in the article, the researchers avoid to say "good" and "best".
Delete