Home
Can we combat climate change without damaging the economy?
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Sep 29 2007
# US President George W Bush has drawn a plan - voluntary approach - for countries to set their own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat Global Warming also echoed by China and India.
# Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions.
# President Bush once again stuck to his previous position, shunning mandatory caps in favour of clean coal, nuclear power and developing clean energy technology.
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Yes, I think it is possible, because not all options for combating climate change are expensive in nature.
Global economy has to take the beating, as there is no other way. We can either selfishly pursue our shallow enonomic goals and let our future generations suffer, or can act now and save ourselves and our future. In fact, the very possbility of there being future depends upon it. The economic cost of environmental protection is considerably high. So, there has to be a compromise of some kind.
Either industrialize or perish the nation. This is what India’s first Prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru opined during the first five year plan when the nation was in the developmental phase. In the 21st century, industrialization is the mantra for economic development. It is the lifeblood of an economy. And to speed up the industrialization process, there is an obvious confrontation between the environmentalists and industrialists. I strongly feel both are co-related to each other, and for social and economical development, we should use these two factors as catalyzers.
Yes we can, if we all decide to live based on our needs and not on our greed. For example we need a vehicle to get from one place to another. It can be a fuel-efficient small car and need not be a diesel/ petrol guzzling SUV. One car per family is good deal but affluent people want 2 sometimes even five cars per family. Isn’t this consumption. When we consume so much how do we expect this indulgence not to have any effect on the environment.
Whenever we fly a distance, try to imagine the amount of fuel we burn, the amount of heat that is released due to this combustion and the amount of poisonous gases released. We talk about economy and trading, but do we realise that due to our indulgence there will come a day when there wont be any natural resources left to indulge in???
All the great world economies will just collapse when this happens. It is time we tightened our belts and rolled up our sleeves and worked hard towards saving the only planet we have. Wake up now or it may be too late.
Whenever we fly a distance, try to imagine the amount of fuel we burn, the amount of heat that is released due to this combustion and the amount of poisonous gases released. We talk about economy and trading, but do we realise that due to our indulgence there will come a day when there wont be any natural resources left to indulge in???
All the great world economies will just collapse when this happens. It is time we tightened our belts and rolled up our sleeves and worked hard towards saving the only planet we have. Wake up now or it may be too late.
Add your Comment
Governments and corporates the world over should start factoring in environmental costs at the earliest. ”Grin and bear them if I am want to stay alive”, should be everybody’s motto.