Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Spring 2010 ENG 101 Cross-Classroom Blog Project at JCTC.
Search This Blog
Helpful Links
- Alternative Energy News
- American Wind Energy Association
- BBC's Climate Change Site
- Ecologist Magazine
- Global Issues: The Environment
- Going Green
- Going Green with TIME Magazine
- Green Cars & Information
- Information on Alternative Fuels
- MSNBC's Green Page
- NASA Article on Deforestation
- National Geographic's Green Guide
- Organization for Solar Power
- Science Daily's Pollution Articles
- The Daily Green
- The Environmental Protection Agency
- The World Watch Institute
- World WIldlife Federation: Endangered Species
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(9)
-
▼
January
(9)
- WELCOME
- Group: Jennifer W., Fledge C., Desirae C., Rhonda ...
- Group: Jason M., Victoria R., Djulijeta M., Hanna ...
- Group: Steven P., Robert Z., Kara C., Christopher ...
- Group: Lorraine M., Laura C., Cassandra N., Joshua...
- Group: Ike S., Jacob C., Richard W., Corey C., Aun...
- Group: John C., Elizabeth I., Kevin S., Adam M., B...
- Group: Elaine C., Melissa O., Cory M., Bethany F.,...
- Group: Yusef D., Allen B., LaShay W., Jennifer N.,...
-
▼
January
(9)
Climate Summit
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60U06P
Hello,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Chris F. and I am an undecided major here at Southwest. While reading this article several questions came to my attention. For example, what is actually stated in the Copenhagen Accord? When they are talking about the 3.6 degrees F, where did they get this number and how will this help the global warming concern? If the deadline was Janurary 31st and there are so many countries on this accord, how many countries met this target and which didn’t? What are the steps that these countries are going to take to meet this 3.6 degree tempature drop? Also I saw that there were many dates that were thrown out as the end to this project, will there be a concensus of when the actual ending date will be? Also the money aspect of this project, there is talk of many billions of dollars being spent. Where will this money come from? In a ecomomy that is down as much as it is it makes the everyday worker wonder if this will affect his or her paycheck that is used to provide for their family.
Just curious,
Chris F.
Hello All,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Megan and I am a criminal justice major at JCC. After reading this article many question came to mind. I was wondering what exactly is expected of the Copenhagen Accord? Who came up with the Copenhagen Accord? The article states that the Accord’s goal of limiting warming to below 2 c, was to help lower the amount of floods, droughts, wildfires, and rising areas. The nations are promised $28 billion a year towards the Copenhagen Accord, it is expected to rise to $100 billion a year from 2020. Why is the United States not one of the nations making greater efforts to be done by the January 31st deadline? Why is the deadline flexible? A deadline is a DEADLINE! So many countries are on this accord, but slim to none have made the deadline. It is nice that these nations are trying to lower floods, droughts, and wildfires, but are we going to owe more tax dollars? Our economy is in enough ruckus. The article says that the Copenhagen Accord will set the world towards a 3.5 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures, not 2. Will this really make a significant difference? I mean is it really worth billions and billions of dollars? Just wondering. The Copenhagen Accord really needs to be thought out, the time and money spent needs to be ensured that it is well worth it.
Megan S.
Hello All,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article on the Copenhagen Accord, I am concerned about the amount of efforts some countries are putting toward preserving our planet. The goal of the Accord is to decrease greenhouse gas emission by only 2 degrees Celsius over a 10-year period. That, to me, doesn’t seem unreasonable, especially with the efforts already being made in the U.S. to help the environment prior to this agreement. But why, then, is our promise only to decrease our emission by 17 percent since 2005? If decreasing our emission by 17 percent from 2005 is only decreasing it 4 percent from 1990, that means that our output of greenhouse gas ballooned by 13 percent in the 90’s and now we’re just trying to get it back down to where it was before. That’s kind of lame, considering the U.S. is a world leader and loves a good challenge. I completely agree with the U.N. about countries not putting enough effort into this issue. In December when all these countries agreed upon this, they knew they were putting themselves on a deadline for 2020. The article says that based on the amounts promised by all countries involved, we will fall short of our first half-century goal by 16 years! That’s just discouraging.
But maybe countries like the U.S. don’t seem so motivated because of the political aspect. The Accord does promise billions of dollars to developing countries to help with their emissions, and the U.S.’s track record with developing countries has been more about occupying them than financially helping them succeed… Hopefully we will rethink our goal for 2020 and go big like we like to!
-Kara C.
When first reading the Copenhagen Accord I was very confused about a lot of things that it was talking about but after reading a little more into it courtesy of Time.com, some of my questions have been answered. For example, I found that Barack Obama was the one that was trying to push this through the most with other world leaders. And that even after several hours of debate they were still not able to come to an agreement on the accord. China was one of the main countries being hassled to come to an agreement seeing how they are the biggest emitter of carbon gases. One agreement that they did come to was that, globally we should cut back on deforestation seeing as how that accounts for 15% of carbon emissions. So even though so much time has been put into this accord a final decision has not be reached. Chris F.
ReplyDeleteThe actual text of the Copenhagen Accord is just as vague as the article we read on the issue. I first wanted to know where these billions of dollars of incentive money to developing countries were going to come from. In paragraph eight of the Accord, it states that the developed countries have committed to fund developing countries “from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.” I’m sure there is a possibility of a slight tax increase because of this in America, but hopefully it won’t be a substantial increase.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I wanted to look into was where the committee came up with the number of degrees increase they want to hold global warming to for the next decade (2 degrees Celsius). All the document says is that they came to the decision based on equity and science, but it doesn’t cite the information from any person or group.
Also, I thought that the Accord would be a bit more outlined than it was. It seems as though everyone in our group was wondering what exactly was stated and what they hoped to accomplish through this, and the only thing that I picked up as absolute from the whole document was the fact that the more developed countries were to help the less developed countries financially, and that the goal of the Accord was to hold the increase in global warming to 2 degrees Celsius until 2020.
After reading the article on the Copenhagen Accord I had many questions. I was more curious and concerned about the money issue towards the Copenhagen Accord. I agree with pickup man about the economy being down and all these countries spending billions of dollars on the Copenhagen Accord. This website (http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf), explains many of my questions and also gives me more questions to ask. It states that they plan to have an assessment for the accord by 2015. Shouldn’t that already have been taken care of when the deadline was made? The website explains that we have to try and stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, to prevent hazardous or dangerous interference with the climate system. I am still curious as to where they came up with 2 degrees Celsius, I mean why that number? Kara I believe there will be more than just a slight increase in our tax deductions, this is America and America isn't to worried about their people. And billions of dollars are planned to be spent on the Copenhagen Accord, each year! Why is all this time and money being put into this issue??
ReplyDeleteMegan S
Hello all, I agree with Kara that the Copenhagen Accord is very vague and seems that through the long meeting’s that they were having there was just a lot of finger pointing back and forth to what the other countries were going to do. It is very concerning that with that whole group of world leader’s and the time they spent they could not come up with a clear consensus of what the accord should actually state.
ReplyDeleteTo answer, or somewhat answer, a question brought up by Megan about why they chose the number of degrees to reduce by can be found at this site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490935.stm) where it states that to ensure the survival of islands the temperature cannot rise another 1.5C. In other words to make sure that these certain island will not disappear we need to make sure that we work on lowering it.
Also in this article, that I found very interesting, it goes on to compare this to the Munich Agreement that in the past was a failure. The Munich was an agreement between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy in 1938 where these countries came to an agreement of a no war agreement with Adolf Hitler. But shortly after Hitler broke this agreement and the German Army seized Czechoslovakia and the rest is history. Now I don’t think this is as monumental as that but people are comparing this to that. Regards Chris F.