Climate change conference is a farce
Whatever is decided at Copenhagen Summit is not even going to be worth the paper it is written on. Nature is very powerful. It always finds a way to balance things. The entire population of earth can't affect even one per cent of the global climate.
TODAY BEING so-called ‘environmentally friendly’ has become a fashion for big companies and celebrities and for some groups (non-government organisation) it is a full time business, a multi million dollar enterprise.
Whatever is decided at the Copenhagen Summit is not even going to be worth the paper it is written on. Nature is very powerful. It always finds a way to balance things. The entire population of the earth can’t affect even one per cent of the global climate.
NGOs are shouting hoarse over global warming and issuing apoplectic warnings over ocean levels rising. It is a simple technique, the more noise you make about it the more funds you get for ‘research’.
None of these environmentalists will ever tell you that from 1930 to 1975, the average temperature of the earth dropped by two degrees centigrade. We have weather records since last 160 years. There is a 45 year cycle in which the temperature of the oceans rise and fall by about two degrees. Since 1975, the temperature has been rising and will continue for the next 10 years or so. NGOs involved in environmental issue are making a killing of this natural pattern. And after a few years when the temperature actually starts to drop, they will simple say ‘it is because of our efforts’.
Some time back, an NGO published a report that pesticide level in soft drinks was much higher than permitted norms. What happened to that issue? It was a game – a big game. Those soft drinks are still available in the market but surprisingly everyone has forgotten about it.
Our environment minister is hell bent upon reopening a factory from where gas leaked in 1984, and killed 15,000 people. May one ask what is the interest of the minister in having the factory restarted? And when oil tanks were burning in Jaipur, what did this environment minister do to mitigate the effects of the inferno?
Western countries have been putting pressure on countries like India and China to reduce carbon emissions. Why? So that a white man sitting in Europe and America can breathe easy? Several Western universities have published studies on global warming. But has anyone noticed that in these reports, it is always the developing countries which are supposed to be affected by it. Are there no oceans in other places? People making such reports use data available on a computer and manipulate it to arrive at conclusions without ever setting foot on the places concerned. No environmentalist has been able to give me a reply to this question – when most of the green house gases are emitted in the United States and Europe (Northern hemisphere), why is the snow melting on Antarctica?
The per capita consumption of fuel, plastic and food of an American is five times that of an Indian. How about curbing that? The US, UK, France Russia and China keep almost 1,000 aircraft on the runway with their engines running with nuclear weapons on board to take off and attack the enemies at short notice. Doesn’t that contribute to global warming?
I think I should also start an NGO for protection of the environment and raise huge funds from the public and government agencies. Anyone interested to join me?
NGOs are shouting hoarse over global warming and issuing apoplectic warnings over ocean levels rising. It is a simple technique, the more noise you make about it the more funds you get for ‘research’.
None of these environmentalists will ever tell you that from 1930 to 1975, the average temperature of the earth dropped by two degrees centigrade. We have weather records since last 160 years. There is a 45 year cycle in which the temperature of the oceans rise and fall by about two degrees. Since 1975, the temperature has been rising and will continue for the next 10 years or so. NGOs involved in environmental issue are making a killing of this natural pattern. And after a few years when the temperature actually starts to drop, they will simple say ‘it is because of our efforts’.
Some time back, an NGO published a report that pesticide level in soft drinks was much higher than permitted norms. What happened to that issue? It was a game – a big game. Those soft drinks are still available in the market but surprisingly everyone has forgotten about it.
Our environment minister is hell bent upon reopening a factory from where gas leaked in 1984, and killed 15,000 people. May one ask what is the interest of the minister in having the factory restarted? And when oil tanks were burning in Jaipur, what did this environment minister do to mitigate the effects of the inferno?
Western countries have been putting pressure on countries like India and China to reduce carbon emissions. Why? So that a white man sitting in Europe and America can breathe easy? Several Western universities have published studies on global warming. But has anyone noticed that in these reports, it is always the developing countries which are supposed to be affected by it. Are there no oceans in other places? People making such reports use data available on a computer and manipulate it to arrive at conclusions without ever setting foot on the places concerned. No environmentalist has been able to give me a reply to this question – when most of the green house gases are emitted in the United States and Europe (Northern hemisphere), why is the snow melting on Antarctica?
The per capita consumption of fuel, plastic and food of an American is five times that of an Indian. How about curbing that? The US, UK, France Russia and China keep almost 1,000 aircraft on the runway with their engines running with nuclear weapons on board to take off and attack the enemies at short notice. Doesn’t that contribute to global warming?
I think I should also start an NGO for protection of the environment and raise huge funds from the public and government agencies. Anyone interested to join me?
Nature may be able to balance things, but at what risk? The accelerated and mass extinction of species due to human pollution? The excessive release of greenhouses gases into the atmosphere that threaten the ability of the atmosphere to achieve an equilibrium? I'm sure your same arguments were made about people's ability to limit chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere that were degrading the ozone layer. But now that they're banned, the concentration has gone from 1174 tonnes in 1986 to 70 in 2004. In terms of climate change, its acceleration has been human-induced, and it's not just about average global warming. It's the extreme climatic conditions that are resulting in an increased number of storms, the invasion of species, etc. Limiting emissions is not so the West can breathe easier, it's so vulnerable communities won't be affected and obliterated by changes in climate. Other issues (like consumption and nuclear warfare) are important to address as well; countries are trying to fix a problem that scientists have known about for years, and that the world is already facing the repercussions of.
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
