Environment Or Technology?
The United States rejected the Kyoto treaty, an international pledge to cut carbon emissions that went into effect last month, because the quotas assigned to the country were "unreasonable," a government official said. Instead, the United States government plans to focus on technology, he added. What do you guys think?
8 Comments:
Given that our government wants to drill for oil in Alaska, I'm wondering how serious that comment on technology was. I know that's not related, but it seems as though all I'm hearing lately is how much damage we're causing with little being done along the lines of preservation or restoration. Does anybody know of anything or government is doing that's definitly helpful for the future? I've been looking, but so far I haven't had any luck. In this blog alone I've read about that Alaska thing, this breaking of a treaty, and some import/export garbage thing. The world's looking a little bleak these days.
I suppose you could start the the government's Department of Energy website:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ENERGYEFFICIENCY
I think that the government should focus some more on environmental issues. I had never heard of that treaty before, so I thought it was interesting. What technology did they want to focus more on?
I would have to agree with the previous posts. Environmental issues, I believe, are more important today than they ever have been. If the government keeps pushing for technology instead of focusing on the environment, the only outcome will be negative.
Can we do multiple things at once? Can complex organizations like government bureaucracies multi-task, pursue both new technologies and protect the environment? Or is it one or the other?
I think that possibly the only way to help the environment, at this point is to develop better technology. I agree that our current government seems to care about as little for the environment as possible so it is time that something else is done. Maybe private companies can do something, but it is quite difficult for them to compete with monster industries. Obviously no one is going to be giving up luxuries that they have come to expect (cars, specifically individual transport) so we need to find a way to make these things better. From what I understand, we shot down the Kyoto because we felt it would hurt us too much. But as the only major industrialized country to shoot it down, shouldn’t we at least try to come up with a better alternative? Maybe we already have, I just haven’t heard about it yet. There is going to be a huge global market for alternative fuels, so why don’t we take if not the moral road, or if nothing else the economic road, and get these technologies going.
I think that possibly the only way to help the environment, at this point is to develop better technology. I agree that our current government seems to care about as little for the environment as possible so it is time that something else is done. Maybe private companies can do something, but it is quite difficult for them to compete with monster industries. Obviously no one is going to be giving up luxuries that they have come to expect (cars, specifically individual transport) so we need to find a way to make these things better. From what I understand, we shot down the Kyoto because we felt it would hurt us too much. But as the only major industrialized country to shoot it down, shouldn’t we at least try to come up with a better alternative? Maybe we already have, I just haven’t heard about it yet. There is going to be a huge global market for alternative fuels, so why don’t we take if not the moral road, or if nothing else the economic road, and get these technologies going.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home