The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to cut emissions by 26-28% by 2025 relative to 2005 levels, while China, the current biggest emitter, has promised to peak its emissions by no later than 2030. Some claim that while this is nice, it won't be enough to alter the global condition of our planet unless other states take similar courses of action. Do you think that deal will effect much of anything at all? Do you think that other nations will follow in this deal's footsteps?
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this a great agreement, but will it actually be possible? This is definitely a step forward for the planet, especially coming from the U.S. and China, producing the most greenhouse gases. It seems that people are finally realizing how crucial it is to lower greenhouse gas emission levels, over worrying about economic dominance. The pressure to meet these goals is definitely on, and hopefully, this will be a great success. In order to truly succeed, many more countries are going to need to take action as well; this is one step of many that can help save our planet.
ReplyDeleteThe deal was terrible. China can keep making more greenhouse gases until some point in the future. On the other hand, America has to make drastic cuts right now. Also, Global warming, though true, is incredibly exaggerated. the temperature has only risen one degree since 1880. Not 1980, 1880!
ReplyDeleteThis a great step forward and I hope that this is possible. Like Peaches said, it's great that people are realizing how important it is to lower greenhouse gas emissions levels. I completely disagree with Emmanuel however, global warming is a an issue we should be focusing on. It has been pushed aside too many times and it's finally time that we take action.
ReplyDeleteI must once again respectfully disagree with Emmanuel. While it is true that the deal only means that China will agree to peak its emission by 2030, it is a step forward from their previous position of allowing their carbon emission to continue to rise without an end. On your other point, global warming has not been exaggerated at all. It is true that the average global temperature has only risen roughly one degree since 1880. However, that is because emissions were not as high in this period as they are now and certainly are not as high as they will be in the future. This deal is a important step toward getting the rest of the world to act on global warming. If the two largest carbon emitters are taking action on this, it is a sign that this is a serious issue that the other countries of the world need to acknowledge and act on. The only way we will be able to tackle the issue of global warming is through global cooperation and this is the first step toward that.
ReplyDeleteThough I do feel that there are times that global warming is blown slightly out of proportion, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the environment. It's great the the United States want to cut their emissions, especially considering they have historically been the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. Even if only the United States and China are participating is such cuts, I do believe it will make a difference, even if it's a small one.
ReplyDeleteI think this a good step forward in protecting our environment. Like Emily said, even if only the United States and China are going to participate, it will make a difference. Change can start with the smallest spark. I don't agree with Emmanuel in that it has been exaggerated. Global warming is something that needs to be taken care of right now.
ReplyDeleteThis agreement, while good in theory, is impractical. Everyone is quick to point the finger at corporations, but let's not forget the quality of life that using greenhouse gases provides. Many of us heat our homes with oil, use cheap, fossil-fuel-powered electricity to light our homes and power our appliances, and use gasoline-powered cars to take us wherever we want to go. I am a capitalist and therefore believe it is not the government's role to regulate the economy. As long as there is a demand for fossil fuels and goods/services created through the use of fossil fuels, those that provide them should be allowed to do so, restriction-free. It is our duty as consumers to alter our demand and reliance on fossil fuels, and subsequently our lifestyles. If Americans tomorrow collectively decided to never again drive gasoline-powered cars, trust me, we would start seeing plenty of alternative options hit the market.
ReplyDeleteWhile I like that this plan has been created to address such a major problem, I agree with all the other posters that it will be extremely difficult to implement in such short time. In a society that essentially runs on fossil fuels, reduction of their emissions would require a complete shift in lifestyle for US and Chinese citizens. I'm not sure if the citizens or corporations would be willing to take the personal and financial leaps necessary. However, since this is definitely a step in the right direction, if the goal is not met in time, at least we're taking direct action to resolve this issue.
ReplyDeleteI think any step is a good step when it comes to thinking about the environment. Who cares if China doesn't immediately follow with a super awesome plan. At least we, as America have set the example. I seriously doubt China will delay too much longer, because if they do, they will just look like jerks on the world stage. Also, I am glad Australia is embarrassed. Anyone who is destroying the environment should be. We need to take steps, even if they are small, towards tackling the issue. In response to Emmanuel's post about one degree not mattering very much, I would like to respectfully say that one degree does immensely matter when you are talking about the bases of food chains within an ecosystem. For example, If you raise the temp of water too much, the photoplankton will start to die, causing some significant issues (that is just one example!).
ReplyDelete