1. What is the most recent developments in Climate change?
2. How is the Obama administration different from the Bush administration?
3. What is your opinion regarding the political responses to climate change. What should be done?
These answers will require a little thought and more than a one sentence "get the points" response. Since this is posting on Sunday, you will have until Monday at 11:59pm to respond. As always, I am flexible.
Here's the link to just one of the articles. There are hundreds more.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06zeller.html?_r=1
1. Well we have always wanted to limit the use of fossil fuels and torching the forests, since more people think that it harms the environment. But in reality we can't afford such extravigant plans. It would help, because can you really put a price on your children's future lives? Europe wants to go in the direction of reusable resources, which would help. I mean using evergy over and over again.
ReplyDelete2. I find that Obama has at least tried to help the environment more than Bush. I honestly, don't remember much of him; but Obama has tried to find a way to help the environment.
3. My opinon is to help the environment. I like recycling because I do it all the time. I have a composter in my backyard. I always make sure that my family is being efficient with energy and all that crazy junk. I even plug all the appliances after I am finished using them. I think that the environment should be something we all should care about, and not be forced to do anything--because I can't stand it when the government is in my life, telling me what to do.
Tahi Khan (charlie the unicorn is hilarious)
ReplyDelete1. as tish-tash said, we can't afford to help the climate. The conservatives say it's not anything alarming...of course. The European Union for the most part is working together to cutback on our emmissions. The international compact to reduce greenhouse emmissions is a good idea, and i'm hoping that it'll be a success...odds are it won't work out too well.
2. For one difference, the obama administration can pronounce 'nuclear' correctly. Bush didn't do much with the environment. i think that Obama (by not doing much his first year of presidency) will in the future do a lit bit more to help the environment.
3. Well, i'm in a pretty liberal family so we're really eco-friendly. we avoid the dishwasher as much as possible, recycle, and own two hybrids, and unplug everything. i really think we should be aware that the climate will continue to get worse so we should follow procedures and TAKE ACTION for everything we say we'll do. In that article hoover said, i think every country should pitch in, the developing nations should also be limited in the amount of emmissions they produce. and what is up with that cabinet meeting underwater???
@ Tish-tash
your right, we can't afford it.
@ Hoov,
i really like this blog :]
1. They way i see it is that it's mostly liberals who give a hoot about what's going on. I frankly think that it's not getting worse, it's probably even getting better. The earth goes through periods of different climate change, i mean look at the ice age. This idea for being prepared is somewhat reasonable, but going full out and spending billions of dollars is out of the quesiton. It's probably never going to happen. Take a school for example, we have evacuation procedures and precautions for fires, but when is it really going to happen? There's not a big change, and we don't spend a lot of money at the same time.
ReplyDelete2. The obama administration consisting of mostly democrats of course have been more concerned about the environment. We need to be able to have the ability to frolick with butterflies and dangerous species. But i believe he's a realist when it comes to global warming in the sense that he realizes that it's not going to happen tomorrow.
3. Honestly, the only thing that should be done is minimal precautionaries (i have no idea if that's spelled right). Why spend loads of money if things never end up getting terrible and deathly? Then what do we do? What if things get cold? Because that'd be awfully ironic.
tish-tash- your environmental ideas are very nice, and it costing too much money when it could be spent on other vital things it true
butthead - i'm glad you conserve energy :)
Nicole Lucas Pd. 4
ReplyDelete1. Some countries are taking notice more to how the earth is changing in climate, noticing that water levels are rising, and more people are starting to care and do something about it. Some countries like the United States and Europe are setting new goals to decrease their releases of greenhouse gases. Starting today until December 18, there is a conference in Copenhagen with representatives from 192 nations to discuss matters about global warming. A goal of this conference is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help countries that are threatened by the rising sea levels and increase in temperature. The goal of the nations is to have a binding treaty by 2010 to know what to do about global warming and how to try to fix it. I think the conference is a wonderful idea, because who knows, we could be causing global warming or the earth could just be going through a heating and cooling stage.
2. Well the Obama administration is going to start focusing more on global warming, so more will get accomplished with global warming during Obama's presidency than it did during Bush's. Obama wants this conference to be successful and for it to have a good outcome. He has already discussed the matter with world leaders from Britain, France, Germany and Australia. Most likely during Obama's presidency they will have made a treaty that states new laws and regulations on things to reduce global warming.
3.I think the political responses to the climate change is a good thing. If we are causing this rapid change in temperatures then we need to do something about it. It's better to be cautious than not do anything at all. It's good that our worlds leaders are starting to care more about the situation. I think that by the end of 2010 they should have some sort of plan to help slow down global warming. We should just be more eco-friendly.
@ tahi
The rich elites are putting together a budget now of what countries will pay what amounts. Since world leaders are getting more concerned with global warming, they'll find a way to pay for the plans that are put in place. Some countries are already noticing the effects of global warming like Haiti, by water levels rising. I don't think I'd want PA to be under water just because we didn't wanna find a way to pay for the plans.
@ idonthavegoodideas
I agree that only minimal precautions should be taken for now.
@idonthavegoodideas
ReplyDeletei don't think that it's a waste of green. take new orleans for example, they're s.o.l. so taking precautions wouldn't be a waste of money. and developing new ideas for reducing less emissions is better for the world because it sets a precedent for the future
Katelyn Owens, pd. 4
ReplyDeleteI look at the article on http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=climate%20change&st=cse#
1. Global warming is the biggest development in climate change. It is a very complicated issue though. The scientific evidence is becoming more obvious that global warming is becoming a very really and serious thing. It’s mostly caused by burning fossil fuels and forests.
2. On November 15 President Obama said that no formal treaty could be produced anytime soon over the global warming issue. As an alternative, leaders pledged to reach an agreement on a reduction in emissions and increase aid to help developing nations adapt to the changing climate. They will also help in getting them non-polluting energy options. They are looking for a global agreement in 2010 on total emission targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts to help poorer countries.
3. I believe that the government is doing a good job at trying to publicize the severity of global warming. I believe people should really take into consideration on what might happen. I believe the more repeated publicity on it the more people will want to know more about it and what the big deal is about.
@ everyone.
ReplyDeletewe've been saying that we need to take precautions and bla bla bla for the past decade, and obviously we haven't gone far, i say we do take action instead of saying we will. with the obama adminsitration, there will be more action than freaking bush (who put forth more energy in avoiding a shoe than avoiding global warming).
@ nicole
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how it's better to be cautious rather than to not do anything at all. That would get us nowhere at all.
@ tahi
I agree with you on how everyone should take part in cutting down on how much fossil fuels we use daily. But in order to make a difference we need to get more people involved! The only way to do that is make the issue more publicized.
Jeff Harman Period 4
ReplyDelete1. So now it appears to most people that we do have a problem with global warming and we must do something about it. This may seem simple but there are many issues holding up the negotiations for any deal. There are many issues that mostly put the large, rich, powerful nations against the small, poor, and weak nations. Neither side wants to give up any groud so it appears nothing will be done at this moment.
2. The Obama administration is treating the climate change about the complete opposite as President Bush would have handled it. Obama is willing to put so time and more controversially money into the making of a plan and then putting the plan into effect. Bush, as a conservative, does not believe in global warming and would be hesitant in wasting his time.
3. I personally believe that there is not enough scientifical backing in the subject of global climate change. There have been many temperature changes throughout the history of the world. I really don't think that it is worth it to waste our money on this when we have enough economic problems as it is.
@ Katelyn
I don't know if it is worth our money to go out on a limp for something that hasn't been proven a fact.
@ Tahi
I agree that Bush didn't do anything for the enviroment and that he maybe could have done more.
1. During the global meeting, officials talked about the most polluting countries, one being the united states and the other being china, cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. They also talked about commitments from rich countries to give poorer countries the billions of dollars they need in order to deal with the climate problems they didn't have much to do with in the first place. Countries settled on their own personal positive climate goals since the meeting.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Obama is more involved than Bush is. For example, President Obama is one out of the 100 leaders involved in trying to curb emissions and helping poor countries. Obama is taking it more seriously Bush would have. I think Bush would have tried to blow it off as almost nothing really important.
3. I think the global meeting was a very positive upbringing. It brought out some goals and things to accomplish by each country. I think it makes each country a little relieved because now we all have our own little part in doing something instead of just the U.S. or just China, for example. I also think it will make people more aware of not just buying " green " products, but more aware of what they are doing and how they are an impact.
@Jeff: I kind of feel like your #3 is a little ignorant to the fact of whats going on. I mean yeah, we all shouldn't panic and freak out, but think of your children and your grandchilden, etc. They are the people who will have to deal with this if it EVEN is a big deal. I'm not really sure myself if i believe in the whole lets be "green" because of global warming, but if it means saving my kids and grandchildren from the trouble, i'm willing to put in the effort and money.
@ katelyn: I definitly agree with your number three. The more media, the more people are going to be aware.
oh yeah, sorry. i forgot this:
ReplyDeletemariah snyder period 4
Zachary Hivner pd1
ReplyDelete1.The newest thing in the climate debate is the coopenhagan meeting. The leaders of many countries are gathering here to discuss what should be done about climate change. The two most important countries in this debate are china and USA. They are the biggest polluters.
The biggest difference in this meeting compared to others is that the USA is now more on bored with these talks and are more willing to help delay climate change.
2. Climate change has become an issue that being brought to the forefront in politics. The president has begun to try and pass new policies on carbon emmissions. President Obama is trying to take a more active role in the situation. He is trying to work with the other major countries at this conference to create a international legislation that everyone will obey.
3. I personally think it is just our generations "the end is nigh" excuse. In our parents generation it was nuclear war, our grand parents ww2 and so on. Regardless of that i believe just in case we should slowly work on limiting our CO2 emmisions. I think if we do it to quickly we will destabilize regions like the middle East that rely on oil as a main source of income. It should be a gradual change over the next century or so simply to keep the economy fairly balanced. If there is some crisis that arises with this i think we should then achange our plans abruptly and work on counter measures for it. Until then we should just be patient. Most likley nothing will Come of it.
@idonthavegoodideas
I agree with you that everyone over reacts to this. I don't understand how a group of people can change from global cooling to global warming within a twenty year span. What's next Global Milding.
@Tish-tash
I respect your views on the environment even if i don't completely agree with them but i completely agree with your statement about how it should be up to us and not the government. WE don't need big brother involved in everything.
Annelise Williams, P. 4
ReplyDelete1. Shouldn't it be "What ARE the most recent developments...?" ;D
Finicky Grammar Nerd aside, reducing greenhouse gasses is one of the main goals. Emissions from cars/ power plants/ etc are one of the leading causes of holes in the ozone layer, so obviously we need to minimize this. However, reducing the use of these comes at a cost of needing to develop new energy sources and spending lots of money, so chaos ensues.
2. The Obama Administration is doing a lot more than the Bush Administration on this subject, mainly because it's doing something. Throughout Bush's presidential career, he never really said anything about the environment. Slowing the onslaught of Global Warming was one of Obama's campaign messages (as in, one that wasn't a slogan), and he's been pretty vocal about it. Sorry, I'm admittedly a tree-hugger.
3. Try to make nations greener? Make sure that what goes into recycling bins is actually recycled, charge for the use of plastic or paper bags, use biodegradable substances in products... the list goes on. If things like this don't get the people moving towards environment protection, than maybe there should be large taxes for environmentally unfriendly things. People don't like spending extra money, so if all else fails and they have to be prodded into being environmentally safe, so be it.
...Oh wow, I think my alignment just switched to 'Lawful Evil' there. Eeek!
@The lot of you- I am physically pained to read some of your posts. You're in an AP class, so type like an AP student! Sentence starters, proper nouns, and the word 'I' should always be capitalized. 'Your' means an object belonging to someone (ex. "Don't forget your purse!"), while 'You're' is a contraction of the words 'you' and 'are', and should be used when the two words could also be used (ex- "You're an idiot"). I think that you should also become acquainted with our good friend, the comma.
...Wow, I'm angry tonight and I don't know why! I'm so sorry.
@IDHGI- You don't get it, do you? The main reason why Global Warming is becoming such a major problem is due to the rapid rate at which it's occurring. Yes, the earth does go through periodic extremes in terms of temperature, but it shouldn't be happening this quickly. Also, dangerous species are needed to keep the environment in balance. It's not "Oh, let's save the poisonous spider because it's a beautiful creation of nature that needs to be protected and cherished like our own child!", it's "Save the poisonous spider because it keeps the fruit fly population down, which in turn protects the fruit in the area from being scarce.". Aim a little better before casting a stone next time, okay?
...Oh wow, I just said 'poisonous' spider. It should be 'venomous', sorry!
ReplyDeleteAlex Hamm Pd. 1
ReplyDelete1. All that much has not changed recently in the area of climate change besides the justice league meeting in Denmark in regards to it. It seems like a good idea to most to try and prevent climate change and reduce emissions, however, the prospect of spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to fund such agreements and programs seems less attractive. It is highly unlikely that a major agreement will be reached soon, after all when you pack a room full of major world leaders, things tend to get a bit sticky in regards to money, especially with the world in a sort of an economic downturn.
2. Being hardcore democrats, it is a stereotype that the Obama administration will focus more on the environment. However, the president has done little to deliver on his campaign promises in regards to the environment in the first year of his presidency. However, if the current administration does deliver on its promises, it will have done more that the Bush administration. Bush acknowledged the fact that things such as foreign policy were more important to the country than the environment. Bush never promised much in regards to the environment, so therefore why should he deliver a lot of hoopla?
3. I believe that America has turned a scientific issue into a political one. Also, Americans seem so willing to accept evidence in support of climate change, however, they are less than willing to even take into account research attempting to disprove it. I believe that where some form of warming is quite evident, it has been greatly exaggerated by some notable people. Not allowing both points of view is junk science, so why are we saying that other research is bull puckie?
@ Jeff
Agreed in regards to the rich powerful nations mentioned in number one.
@ Tasha Karl
What is more important, spending billions on aid for the environment that we do not have or using those billions to help rehabilitate our country's economy?
Danni Barlow
ReplyDeletePd 1
1. Well come one really can we afford to spend sooo much money on this one thing?? Lowering our dependence on fossil fuels and what not is the main goal. They solve this by reducing the emmisons of cars and etc.
2. It seems that the Obama andministration is actually trying. I dont pay much attention to politics and all that but if you look back at it the Bush administration was a lot of talk and no action.
3. Personally, i say help the environment no matter the cost. I mean why not just do it? you are helping the earth for the generations to come to see and love and by not helping we are just destroying it
Shawn Vincent pd. 1
ReplyDelete1. ok, so after reading about the Coopenhagen meeting, it appears the delegates have now become ultimately fed up with the looming despair over global warming, and are now ready to take action because of their frustrations. This means cutting down greenhouse gas emissions from countries like U.S and China, and helping to finance poorer countries who didn't have much of a hand in effing up the environment in the first place. Through all this the main goal is to keep the climate change temperature at within 2 degrees celsius, which at the moment is attainable but will take work.
2.Well, it's clear that Obama has the environment higher on his priority list then Bush did. But he's going about it very cautiously and very strategically, while bush probably wouldve just declared war. With the sun. Also, Obama is more keen on helping the poor countries deal with the environment much more than bush did. But bush was the greatest president of all time.
3. Rome wasn't built in a day. A Clockwork Orange wasn't filmed in a day. this problem can't be solved in a day and i think politicians recognize this. They are more brainstorming ideas that will build for the future and contain us from getting any worse. It's time others recognize global warming is a serious problem.
@ jeff- i intellectually disagree and will see you when the world is flooded and i'll adapt because i'm on the swim team
ReplyDelete@ shawn- really great post, have you thought about getting into politics?
Nathan Flory pd. 4
ReplyDelete1. Countries around the world want to lower the omissions standards and go green. I think that it’s great that so many countries want to lower carbon emissions. Although, I believe that the monumental mountain for these countries to climb is to get China, India, and the United States to agree to deals that will cut their emissions enough to make an impact. The OPEC countries could easily be a thorn in the side of deal to reduce carbon emissions. They don’t want to lose more money and for that reason they will fight to destroy this agreement. The major reason being that the oil found in their country makes them globally important and if that goes away they will go back to being third world countries.
2. I believe that once the health care bill is passed or denied Obama will start to focus on more of his socialist agenda. One being the environment. Bush would do very little to support the environment, considering he appointed Christine Witman as head of the EPA. The change Obama will bring is needed as we only have one earth. So far….
3. I don’t believe that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. There is still not enough evidence that the earth is not going through a natural heating process. I agree with many others that the environment should be taken care of. More green laws will make our environment cleaner and better for our children and theirs. I know that we will have to pay out of pocket to do so unfortunately.
@ Zach
Why wouldn’t you want big brother involved? With the government involved it means we don’t have to do anything but pay taxes. With health care you know that everyone is going to have to pay more in taxes so why would a little more hurt. As long we don’t become England that pays over 50% of their pay check to the government I believe we can manage.
I say that there is also no reason to change gradually, Capitalism is all about let the strong survive and the regions like the Middle East and Venezuela are already screwed up enough now that it doesn’t really matter.
I will agree with you that they are too quick to say that global warming is going to affect us to the point that New Jersey is under water. If the seventies are any indicator in a few decades the earth is going to become a snowball.
@ Hamm
I agree that this issue has become too political. Too many have taken the word of Al Gore the greatest scientist in the world. I’ve also noticed that so many refuse to believe for a second that there might be another reason as to why the temperature is rising. The liberals use the carbon-rising temperature theory as a way to get the population to support environmental legislation.
magilton period one
ReplyDelete1. the most recent ways that we are trying to 'go green' is by using reusable stuff. for example reusable canvase bags instead of plastic ones, plastic washable cups instead of paper ones, recycled paper and other stuff. also there are the new cars that are fuel efficient.
2. well bush's idea of what to do during an environmental crisis was shown during katrina when he hid! obviously he didnt do anything for global warming. he beat out gore in the election, he's not going to be for the environment. i think obama will do more for the environment. soon. i guess. maybe.
3. i really dont believe in global warming. i agree we need to make less trash and such but the earth becoming too hot? no. its freezing out. when we can wear shorts everyday in dec and jan. then i might get a little concerned. or that might be nice. and having a beach front is nice too like hoover says.
@ annelise - i dont even know you but chill son. haha. oh and i didnt capitalize anything there... but i do agree that obama is doing more than bush did.
@hivner - yeah i guess global warming is our generation of what to blame. but the earth will end in 2012 so we dont have to worry about global warming.
Posting from the best corner ever:
ReplyDelete- Hmm... why are they calling it climate change now instead of "warming?" Is it not warming anymore or what? In any case, they (there's the royal They again) say that this warming trend is caused by fossil fuel burning and cutting down forests and slaughtering spotted owls and such. Didn't these guys think the world was cooling down not 30 years ago...?
- The Obama administration is different from the Bush administration... well, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, really... But that rambling is for another time. I've got a feeling that these limpwristed liberals have some sort of plan in mind for saving the planet (for the children, of course). Being liberal, they'll insist on convincing everyone beforehand... But seriously, the Feds have actually taken steps towards doing something about global climate warming change stuff, with the climate change task force and all.
- Well, I'm likely going to be tarred and feathered for this, but I'll say it anyway. Sorry people, but Mother Earth is NOT a Lexus we can all climb into and set the temperature to a nice 72 degrees. It doesn't work that way; there are probably a gazillion or so variables to consider with an entire planet. There was a global COOLING scare back in the 70s or so, everybody. What if we had spent much time and effort back then on precautionary measures against cooling? My point is, how can we be sure and how can we know what will happen?
~Heather "get a haircut hippie" Williams
Thomas Boyer pd 1
ReplyDelete1. Well of course the most significant development is that in the past it was a choice of how much everyone wanted to cut emissions and most countries were set up or already relied on mostly all fossil fuels. Plus more people started talking about it and then there are the Copenhagen talks etc. that we got that article on today which denotes having them specifically handle the issues and maybe do something like cap-and-trade with I myself completely despise.
2. This is more of a partisan issue as other people have said. George Bush is clearly a money spending republican who holds to his values and Obama is clearly a nationalized democrat who thinks he is saving the world and of course Global Warming is just one medium that he wants to do this through, whether everyone likes it or not.
3. Hmmm, My opinion.... Well I Think that global warming is blown completely out of proportion. "Oh hey! I am doing research on the effects of global warming on squirrels, YAY 2 million dollers for research!!!" Most of the money is directed to those who can show how much effect it pulls on us as this lets countries show their weight when discussing things. I believe a cap on emissions is preposterous seeing as many countries(developing mostly) need fossil fuels to continue on and the effects of global warming just aren't showing everywhere, and trends of cooling and heating are normal.... while greenhouse effects are just a small part. Plus the Sun has been low on sunspots if you use your ham-radio you would know that!!!
DANG IT!!! I was 2 seconds too late, I forgot about the word recognition thing... I wanted to turn it in at exactly 11:59:59
ReplyDeleteJamie Orchard period 4
ReplyDelete1. The fact that everyone is now concerned and getting knowledge in Global Warming is as Katelyn said the biggest development. But yet it isn't reallly a new development because we have been working to fix this problem for quite some time now. However, this still seems to be the greatest development in climate change. There are many different things that we are trying to do in order to steer away from Global Warming. Yet, I'd have to say that from the way everyone makes it sound...we're STILL making it seem as though everyhing is as bad as it was when Global Warming was the major pressing issue...not to say that it isn't still important and that we shouldn't be doing things to help our climates but...look around...many places all around the United States and the world itself have made an effort to change..and therefore if anything this whole issue has gotten better. I belive that the climate control is being..well taken care of.
2. Don't quote me if I'm wrong but I am pretty sure that the Bush administration did not do hardly anything involving the environment issues especially that regarding climate and Global Warming. If he did, then it was not significant enough for me to remember. However, I think that the Obama Administration is more into the environmental fixation. This might be just because at this point in time and in his place as the President the people are more interested in environment then before and therefore he would be silly not to be working on the climate/environment. Therefore, that's probably one of the major differences between the two...the time periods and what the public expect from them.
3. That's the thing about climage change...everyone has their own opinions. Meaning that everyone of us is going to answer this question differently. With that being said you have to think about what was well actually said. I cannot really give an opinion about the politcal repsonses regarding climage change because everyone has their own opinion. Therefore the political figures may be doing what they think is right, even if what I or anyone else thinks is different. But I can tell you my opinion. I think that we could be doing more but not just leaving it up to political figures. We see how good of a job leaving things to authority figues by themselves do. Just take a look at our school..I truly believe that our student body could figure things out in a more efficient way then maybe the headest authority figure. Not on all things of course. However, back to the point, little steps should be taken by everyone everywhere. Recycling is an easy way to help out as well as saving electricity by turning off lights and such. The little things that political figures aren't going to actually enforce..should be up to the public. Yet, I do feel that the political figures should try to get some plans in order to help fix this problem...but I can't say how because everyone goes about this situation differently.
Tasha,
I will agree on your full second point. I don't remember really anything about the Bush administration. However, I wans't a hermit so I still heard things. I agree though, I don't think that they did really anything and if so it wasn't much at all. Yet with that being said...so far Obama hasn't either..he just has the potential.
Hoover,
I'm going to have to agree with Tahi. I like the blogs to begin with but I liked this one a lot. I think its because this one, especially the last question, was keyed more on what we think rather than just actual facts.
Abria Donato pd 4
ReplyDelete1. The environment and global warming have been a great focus of attention for a really long time. People debate about how much global warming is affecting us, but the general consensus seems to be that the earth should be protected, and who doesn’t want a greener earth? Conservatives’ only beef with the whole thing is its cost to people and businesses. Leaders from around the world are currently meeting to discuss the affects of climate change and what can be done about it or (as some would argue) if anything should be done about it. Truth be told, not much else is new with the Global Warming issue. We’ve all seen the pictures of the cute polar bears and penguins whose homes are melting away to nothing. This issue has been around for years with people on both sides of the argument trying to make their points.
2. The environment was in no way very high on the Bush administration’s list of things to do, but the Obama administration seems as though it will act on the issue of global warming. We can expect him to because he’s considered to be liberal.
3. I think that the earth should be taken care of, but that should not take precedent over more immediately important issues, such as the war we’re currently fighting.
Grant Brown, pd. 1
ReplyDelete1.) I believe that the newest development in climate change/global warming is the Coopenhagen meeting that’s going on. I believe that this is a good idea to try and get everyone on the same page, and pool money to better prepare everyone, but I think that like the Dutch are doing, prepping our cities to be buoyant and able to float away I think is a bit extreme, at least at this point. For all the scientific models that suggest a catastrophic global event, there is one that says the exact opposite. Now I’m not saying that nothing will happen, but I highly doubt that a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario is going to occur. I think that all the fuss is mainly because only the horrifically bad outcomes are being backed by celebrities and other people of high influence.
2.) In theory, Obama’s administration is more proactive than Bush’s, however as Alex said he hasn’t really done anything yet. Although him planning to attend the conference is a step up, that is the extent of fulfilling his promises and goals, at least that I’m aware of.
3.) As Alex said earlier, I think global warming/climate change has become more of a political issue than a scientific one. As I stated earlier, I think that the Coopenhagen meeting is a good idea, but I think that taking on the Dutch “lets prepare for the worst” mindset is a bit too extreme to implement now. After all, if you see someone getting into a car, do you call 911 because there might be an accident? No, that’d be stupid. You’d wait and see and then take action when you have more than a slight possibility. I think that we should try and stop our large dependency on fossil fuels (what ever happened to electric cars?) and the nations that provide them just because we’ll be stuck when we run out, or the prices sky rocket even more, but taking any extreme action to prepare for the “inevitable” is silly at this point.
Lastly, if world leaders are working to pool their money to help poor countries (I forget the politically correct name the article used) why don’t we use it for problems that we have now since we know they are going on now, like poverty and hunger? I find it interesting that climate change is a big enough issue to gather about, but others aren’t even though they are causing death too. If I was really into this I’d gather statistics on projected deaths if we do nothing about climate change vs. the numbers of people dying of AIDS and hunger, but I’m not that into this. Just something I thought was interesting, our choices on getting involved in select issues.
@ Alex – I agree with everything you said. Jolly good job sir.
@ Angst who was @ IDHGI- The main reason climate change is “becoming such a major problem” is because of the media attention that it is getting; Tiger Woods right now is getting more media attention than global warming, which goes to show how good of a judge the media is when it comes to what is important and what isn’t. I’m not saying it isn’t an issue, but I believe it is being blown out of proportion to some degree. Secondly, out of sheer curiosity, how do you know how quickly the earth should warm and cool? I do not doubt the validity of what you said, but I’m curious how you became so knowledgeable in this particular area.
Lastly, for someone who chastises others for casting stones, you certainly let loose on Jenny. If you’re that diehard about climate change, I’ve got nothing against you, but yelling at people on a blog isn’t going to change anything when most people only do this to get the 25 points.
Just my two cents.
Yetter pd. 4
ReplyDelete1. Reducing greenhouse gasses from burning fossil fuels and such has always been a big issue, and a touchy one at that. Bigger more developed countries can afford to cut back, but small and underdevelop-I mean emerging countries can’t as they are dependent on fossil fuels for further… Emergence. It’s a great idea to cut back, but it’s very, very difficult to come to an agreement that all countries involved can consider agreeing on, and one that won't damage countries.
2. Obama’s seems to be trying to do more for the environment than Bush was, with his plans to reduce greenhouse gasses. I can’t remember much about Bush’s policy, then again back then I didn’t care what was going on with the government. But Obama is taking steps to help the environment.
3. I think we should be conscientious of the environment, and not just global warming. Yeah, the Earth is constantly changing, but our interaction with it has to be doing something. We’re putting things into the air that the Earth had put under the ground, and I stress that were not in the air before: and they’re not called nonrenewable resources for nothing. We need to move to something that is more renewable, and not take something and put it where it shouldn’t be. I just think we should be responsible for what we do to the environment. Use it, don’t abuse it.
Kyle Huntsberry PD. 4
ReplyDelete1. Burning Fossil fuels have always been an issue. Many countries couldnt afford to not use fossil fuels. We need to come up with another idea to get rid of greenhouse gasses and global warming. Getting rid of fossil fuels will just damage us even more.
2. It appears that Obama is more worried about the environment than Bush ever was. Obama knows that there is global warming, and i think he is finally realizing that something needs to be done. On the other hand, Bush was too worried about dodging that shoe!
3. I honestly dont think we are doing enough as a country to stop global warming. I think that more people need to start walking instead of driving! There we go, we can kill to birds with one stone! We'll reduce greenhouse gasses AND make all the fat people exercise! Boy, am i brilliant!
@Tasha
Nice points you made.
@Jeff
I really like your answer for #3. I feel the same way because i dont know whether to believe in global warming or not. Way to back yourself up there buddy. You're right! There have been MANY climate changes over the years. Well said Jeff, well said.
Robert Schmuck, Pd. 4
ReplyDeleteThe biggest developments in climate change seem to be the lack there of. I mean, other than the whole Copenhagen thing, of course. But still, it seems that this issue hasn't gone any further than politicians talking about what they're going to do. It's just that now they're talking even more. But is it really any real development? So everyone says that they're going to make a difference and change what they're doing to save the environment, but didn't we already go through this before? Like with the Kyoto Protocol or whatever? It seems that we're still in the same situation: everyone's talking about helping the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and such, but they never seem to live up to their promises.
The biggest difference between the Obama and Bush administrations is that the Obama administration is coming from a liberal standpoint, where as Bush was coming from a conservative standpoint. But in the end, due to the very nature of the presidency, they are/were both fairly moderate, as Hoover has pointed out. What this means is that neither one has or will get too terribly much done in this policy are because they don't want to make everyone mad. But at the same time, Obama, coming from a liberal standpoint, is obligated in a way to do something about the climate, even if it is just talk about it. Whether anything more substantial actually gets done is yet to be seen.
In regards to this area, I feel much the same way as Alex does. A lot is being done and a lot of money is being thrown around for something that still isn't entirely certain. I'm not trying to discredit global warming in any way, but nonetheless, it still is true that no one seems to be willing to look at the other side of the argument. There are arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, but it seems that many different factors like celebrity endorsement has made everyone a little biased. I hate to break it to you, but just because Oprah says that the world is going to cease to exist as we know it if everyone doesn't go out and buy fluorescent light bulbs right now doesn't mean that the world is going to cease to exist as we know it if everyone doesn't go out and buy fluorescent light bulbs right now. Personally, I'm not willing to take up a definite position on this issue without thoroughly hearing all aspects or evidence. However, I don't object to any subtle moves to help the environment because, even if it has nothing to do with global warming, cutting down on fossil fuels and other particularly un-environmental things can only be a good thing. We could all use a little less pollution.
@ Nicole
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points about not wanting PA going underwater. I honestly don't want anything to happen to our other states either.
@ Abria
I love that you are being a hippie. : )
Corey Pool Pd.4
ReplyDelete1. It seems to me that there really isn’t too much development in climate change. All the world leaders can’t agree on anything, which just leads to nothing getting done. I mean look what already happened to the plans about greenhouse gases. They are being pushed back.
2. I guess a major difference between the two administrations would be that Obama is actually trying to reduce emissions, as where Bush had wanted nothing to do with it.
3. I think that the government is on the right track for preparing and dealing with climate change. I think this because we still don’t know for a hundred percent on what’s actually going to happen and when. I’m not saying that it isn’t happening but what if it doesn’t and we spent trillions of dollars on preparing.
@ idonthavegoodideas
I agree with you about spending money on something that could never happen.
@Zach
Your right about the generation thing. Global warming is just another one of the things that everyone is afraid of because we really don’t know what’s happening. It just happened to be global warming. If war broke out we would drop everything dealing with climate change and be worried and afraid about the war.
@ Jenny
ReplyDeleteI agree. Whether they want to admit it or not, people who stand so firmly by global warming have no real case to prove their position. They have no more evidence than the next guy. So before they start supporting the government throwing money at stuff they don't even know is gonna happen, they should think about if they actually know it's gonna happen.
@ Annelise
For an AP student, perhaps you should consider proofreading your own post before so vehemently critiquing others. First of all, 'Earth' should be capitalized when referring to the planet itself. It's only 'earth' when you are referring to the ground or soil. 'Gases' is spelled with two s's, not 'gasses'. Abbreviations should have periods at the end, such as etc. or anything else. Perhaps you should become acquainted with the semicolon. Your friend the comma isn't always the best thing to use, such as when there are two independent thoughts in your sentence. It should be 'environmental protection' not 'environment protection'- 'environment' is not an adjective. Before quotations within a sentence, you should use a ,or perhaps a :, not simply going right into the quotation with only ". Lastly, there is a difference between 'then' and 'than'. 'Than' is a comparison of two things, whereas 'then' is used to denote that one event took place or will take place after another. I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't be so critical of people's grammatical errors. It's a blog post, not a research paper. The content of what a person writes is more important than the grammatical correctness of it. And besides, for all you know, someone could be typing their blog as fast as they can with no regard to grammar because they could instead be doing something productive, like recycling their plastic bottles. Perhaps you should consider aiming a little better before casting a stone next time.
Abby Eldredge pd. 1
ReplyDelete1. Alrighty, basically there hasn't been much progress on the climate changing system. The nations and people are all divided because some even believe there is no such thing as global warming. The people trying to make progress have given up for now because no one can come to an agreement. Many cities that will soon be under water are pushing hard to get improvements such as the floating communities or building levies. Mainly the greatest change is limiting fossil fuel emmisions coming from factories.
2. Well basically the talk of helping the environment shows the difference. Obama is trying to help out by getting things moved along. He is for helping the environment. Tree huggers are usually more liberal which is why the liberal obama is trying to go green. Bush didn't really do much because he was more for saving the economy by not changing big businesses like the factories by reducing emmisions because it would cost them more money and make the economy worse.
3. Personally, I think some people should wake up! there is no way we can't tell that our environment is going down the drain. Even if we aren't going to die from the hole in the atmosphere we should still want to live and breathe in a clean environment. It is distgusting to see the smog forming and the litter everywhere. The animals were here first so at least give the little land they have left some cleanliness. I think we should do something as little as even cleaning up after ourselves. I was very surprised that so many people are against keeping our planet clean. As hoover said it's because it doesn't directly benefit us meaning that we are way to selfish!!
@ robert
you definitely seem to take a more conservative view not seeming to care much because it's gonna cost u money!
@ kyle
sorry kyle wouldn't say your brilliant cuz you didn't come up with that idea! but anywho at you should at least have some faith in our nation that we could actually help! haha
Drew Holtzapple Period 4
ReplyDelete1. Well nations are trying to decide what we should do about Global Warming. China and the U.S. are reluctant to change because a large profit margin comes from the selling of fossil fuels. Others like Europe are trying to figure out how to implement renewable energy such as wind and biofuel. Also an idea about cap-n-trade was mentioned at the end of the second page which states that each business will have a limit on the number of emissions they may release and if they go over the limit they must buy a higher limit. Those that are under may sell their remaining limit. I thought that if it they initiate that and enforce it the right way that it has a chance to be effective. Or we could blast reflective sea-water into space.
2. Well, the Obama administration is different from the Bush administration in that Obama's cares about the environment. During Bush's terms he just denied that global warming existed. (Which I believe was just to avoid being pressured to deal with it). Obama's is more active just in the fact that he is taking action. It will also raise his popularity among green people.
3. I do think that something needs to be done. Just, what it is, we don't know yet. Nations will never agree about cutting fossil fuels, trying to switch to alternative energy, blasting sea-water, or anything proposed yet. I agree with the article when it said that the ingenuity of humanity will figure out a global solution to this problem. Although I did really like the cap-n-trade idea, but chances are it wouldn't stop people because it would be exploited.
@Robert: LOL schmuck just got REAL! 10/10
@Abria: I totally agree with you about our war matters being more important than the earth as of now. Guess I'm a hippy too.
@Hoover: I like the opinion blogs, that aren't totally politically driven. This one was very interesting, I read the whole article!
Brook Warren Pd.1
ReplyDelete1. There are a lot of new things coming up with the issue of climate change. The one thing we discussed in class was the Copenhagen conference. This where different world leaders are gathering together in order to gain more knowledge on the subject of climate change. This is way they can gain more information on the topic.
2. There are definite differences between the two presidencies on the topic. Obama has taken a very strong stance on the issue. Bush however decided to take care of matters that were presently there instead of worrying about an issue that may not take place for years. Both of them have very different opinions.
3. In my opinion I’m really not terribly concerned about the climate change and I don’t think there is global warming, at least not what it’s made into. I do think that we emit gases into the atmosphere that aren’t good for out environment, but the world does go through heating and cooling stages. I think the media and politicians are making it into a much bigger deal than it actually is. I’m not opposed to going green and trying to clean up our environment but I don’t think we need to become extremists on the issue.
@ Abby – you bet it’ll cost money, another reason to not really go for it. Why should we spend billions of dollars on a issue that isn’t even present.
@ Robert- you’re pretty much awesome, and I definitely like the smack down comment!
Casie Strausbaugh pd. 4
ReplyDelete1. I think that recently more people have become aware of global warming and climate changes. This includes leaders of nations, so they are starting to take initiatives towards improving the atmosphere. This can include putting more money aside for research and using products other then fossil fuels. However, there are still many people that believe global warming isnt a problem so nations are divided on how to handle the situation.
2. They're different because Obama has atleast made an effort to address climate change and work with other nations on some ways of fixing it, or at best decreasing the chances of it. Unfortunately, not much progress has been made so far.
3. My opinion is that politicians and leaders need to take initiative, because they're basically the only ones that can make a big enough difference and get their opinions heard. I think it is also part of their responsibility, because the safety of future generations is on the line.
Casie Strausbaugh pd. 4
ReplyDelete@ Kyle
I hate to say this, but i actually agree with you :) i think we don't do enough as a country and changes need to be made
@ Tahi
I think its awesome you and your family do all that stuff, and yes we all need to start doing the same thing
Rachael Paules Period 4
ReplyDeleteThe most recent change in climate itself is obviously the global warming issue. However, there are so many split opinions - its real, its not real, its going to cause such a change that it could end the earth as we know it, or it is simply just a phase that happens over time (those just being some of the opinions ive heard over time). However, the gas emissions we are putting into the air are def not good for the environment.
My initial response when i read the question was to say that the Obama administration is democrat and that democrats tend to be more sensitive and concerned about the environment and take more initiative to help protect it. This leading to the fact that Bush's administration was republican and they tend to be less concerned with the environment. Not saying he wasn't, but that he didnt go out of his way to try and improve it any.
I think that we all should try to be more eco-friendly. I'm not saying we should all go completely green with everything we do - making composts in our backyard, installing solar panels in our homes, getting energy efficient light bulbs and cars - but how hard is it really to recycle or unplug you cell phone charger from the wall? There are so many things we could do to just make the slightest difference. And if everyone did it, it would definitely help.
Savannah Gilmore pd. 4
ReplyDeleteAs with most problems, global warming was ignored for as long as possible. Only now is it sinking in that the environment is suffering from so many fossil fuels, emissions and what not. The Copenhagen meeting symbolizes the entire world cooperating with one another to improve conditions.
When Bush was in office there was no United States representatives at world meetings like the one at Copenhagen. Obama has been very supportive of the fight against global warming. Seeing as the United States is one of the larger contributors of global warming, it's a big step.
In my opinion, it's impossible that the environment is not being destroyed. It seems irresponsible that for so long nothing was done about the incessant pumping of fossiel fuels into the air. As more and more people populated the planet and more and more fossil fuels were used up, obviously there were going to be negative effects. Yes, finding a solution to global warming will be costly, but also altogether necessary.
@ Abby
Yeah I agree that we should take responsbility and help undo some damage.
@ Robert
Hah, I enjoyed your take on the necessity of proper grammar, albeit I take it she was simply having a bad day.
Kenneth Wisman Pd 1
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Dude, Schmuck totally pwned Annelise, and she thought she was a nerd....how very pathetic. Making fun of other AP students for our grammer when yours isnt any better. BWAHAHAHA!!! It makes me feel so happy when someone else is totally and utterly torn down and destroyed. Heh heh heh heh.......she must feel like a total ass. I like it when people suffer......but only the idiots. Ugh....now I feel all mad.....grrrrrr, what a queer little turn of events. Bah, anyways, time to get to work....
1. I think the main turn of events about climate change is the Coopenhagan meeting, which is the meeting of 190 some nations to discuss the down turn of events of the Earth's climate, but some nations are still reluctant to try and change because they make profit off of fossil fuels. Otherwise, there arent that many changes to report except the screaming people at the Capital building. "Save the rainforests!" "Save the Oceans!" WOOHOO!!! Go Political Interest Groups, Go!!!
2. The main reason I think that the Obama administration is different from the Bush administration is because Obama's administration are democrats, and they just LOVE to help the environment. Also Obama said that he would attend the Coopenhagan meeting near the end, which shows his support for it. this way, Obama will become more popular with the overall population of the US and it shows that the US may not be far behind in going more green.
3. I strongly agree that everyone in the world should come together on a plan that will cut the fossil fuel emissions for good and we should somehow come up with a way to decrease the toxic gases in the ozone layer. How all of this will be done, I dont know, but most of the population should agree with me in saying that air pollution sucks and it needs to change.
@Robert
Good job Robert! You told her whats what. No one can push us AP kids and not get the good end of the stick. HAHAHA!!! At least thats what I like to think anyway....
@Drew
Your responses I think were really informative and since your close to the bottem, I didnt want to scroll that far up to read the others so.....BWAHAHAHA!!!!
Posting from the desk:
ReplyDelete@Hivner and I think Tash as well:
*high fives* I agree totally with you guys when you say that environmental stuff is OUR responsibility. Government needs to seriously back the fsck off when it comes to this kinda thing.
@Schmuck
But... but... don't you realize... Throwing more money at the problem ALWAYS helps in politics!
Claire Bleecker Period 1
ReplyDelete1. I think that a recent devolopment on climate change is the idea that the developed countries will pay the less developed countries an astonishing amount to take actions to reduce their emissions, etc. Also the conference in Copenhagen seems to be a big step towards reaching better global warming policies. I think it's a good idea to have many of the contries collectively come together to make national policies regarding climate change more consistent.
2. A very obvious difference between Bush and Obama is simple, Bush was not very active in attempting to reduce climate change and Obama is heavily active in efforts to reduce climate change.
3. I think that the Copenhagen conference is an amazingly effective step when you take the bureaucratic process and the considerable amount of people that don't believe that global warming exists into account. The ideas that the article said were to be proposed at the conference, if actually implemented, would seem to me some great solutions to the problems we are facing. I think however drastic or expensive the proposed measures seem, they are obviously necessary.
@Grant,
I agree with your statements about Copenhagen being a good idea! But don't try to pawn off what Roland Emmerich turns into a film, as to what people consider global warming.
@Robert,
You can't deny that there are inarguable examples that our world has been getting much worse since we've been living on it. It's a fairytale to believe that nothing would happen if we continued destroying Earth (I capitalized it! :) ) at the rate we are now...whether we call it global warming or not.
Alex Cost 4
ReplyDelete1. I really don't think the most recent development in climate change is any new sophisticated solar panel or some device that turns ozone into water but an awareness among people that we do need to help the earth out. Also i think there are a lot of people who have realized that "green" doesn't just mean the earth, it also means money. Saving energy saves you money, florescent bulbs, recycling, hypermileing, etc...
2. I think Obama has really raised awareness, but not really much else. I think in the future years (possibly after the health care shadow disappears) however, environmental policy will become a really big issue.
3. My personal opinion is that this is very very important for every single person to start practicing habits that not only help our earth but help their wallet as a side effect. Some examples that we practice in my house, florescent bulbs, solar panels, geo-thermal heating, no plastic bags, recycling, hybrids and half my household is vegetarian (at least a gallant effort to try to be one). Now i know we're almost eco-nuts so all you robert schmuckers out there don't think this is a valid argument, but if you look into my dad's life, who claims to go out of his way to leave as big a carbon footprint as he possibly can so people know he was here, you will see a lot of green living for the sake of money. My dad saves by using florescent bulbs in his house, he recycles, he drives an eco-friendly car to save gas money, and unplugs things when they aren't in use (computer, tv). Now he does these things, not to save the planet, but to save some cash. But whatever your viewpoint, green living makes sense.
@the anti global warming people. ***cough brook warren cough cough** We all know the Earth goes through phases, but that's not a valid argument. We have sped up the natural heating of our earth to almost double the speed. It's obvious what we do has an impact, what's so hard about changing the way you live just a tiny bit?
@ Roberts comment to jenny...even if this is the case how will we know for sure unless we put more money into it, or we could just wait for the earth to die. You pick.
1. Climate change. yay environment and ecology. I think all of this "new" information is just old information being put into new words. Reuse & Recycle. Don't waste water. Global warming is going to kill everyone. etc. The government may say that it's trying and doing all of these things, but to me nothing is different.
ReplyDelete2.Obama created that taskforce thing, but i think it was just to keep democrats happy. Obama has more important and urgent things to worry about. Bush was just dodging shoes.
3. I think we should be active with climate change, but maybe not as crazy as the dutch are. It's affecting them the most right now, so they have to try to work on changing and adapting. Unless we all move to New Orleans, I think we'll be doing okay for now. Hopefully we'll find out if this stuff is real or not before it's too late. (or not.)
@Robert- you are my hero now. ha. and i don't really agree with you and jenny but thats just my opinion. (Don't shut me down)
@mariah. yay you shut jeff down. :)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLamar Lehman pd 1
ReplyDelete1. The most recent development in Climate change is that summit at Copenhagen that is going on right now. Many nations are trying to develop a plan to try and reverse or slow the efffects of global warming. Other developments are people and businesses going "Green" in an effort to help out the environment. Global warming is obviously an issue.
2. Obama is different first of all because he's black and a democrat and he's also much more aware about the environment and seems to care about it. Obama seems to be trying to take the steps to help prevent global warming while Bush was hesitant to accept global warming and other environmental issues.
3. I think that we should do a little bit about climate change. We have to accept, however, that it is a naturally thing that has always happened throughout the history of the world. We can try to prevent certain things, but in the end in a battle of man vs nature, nature will always win. It does make sense to try and cut back on things like pollution though.
@taylor
what are you talking about in number 1 lol
@brook
i too am not really that concerned about climate change
Stewart pd 1.
ReplyDelete1. well the site says that theyre trying to develop an international compact to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. but i guess the most recent thing with climate would be global warming. i mean its a big issue right now dealing with climate, but i dont think theres anything you can do about it. like development wise. if it happens you cant really stop it.
2. i really dont think bush thought about the envirnment much. like the time wasnt taken out to really acknoledge the environment as obama is trying to do. but then again nobody really thought about the environment then. now days everythings GO GREEN.
3. I really cant be one to decide what should be done because i really dont have a clue. some people are real all about the environment, some arent, and im in the middle. so i dont really have an opinion. either way the earth isnt clean and isnt going to stay clean. thats my straight forward opinion.
goodnight
OMFG! Why does it have to NOT POST when i have a BELLY ACHE >:/
ReplyDeleteNikki "Very Angry" Elicker
Period One
1. As i already typed before (but you wouldn't know that b/c it didn't post) But right now all were doing is talking about sending money to other, smaller, countries, but nothing's been done yet. But don't worry, Obama will find some way to spend our tax payers money. I have no doubt. I think this is going to take a lot more time to go into effect than we think; it's not gonna happen overnight.
2. Honestly Bush was more of a "Killer War-Lord" while Obama is a "Tree-Hugging Fairy Princess". Why can't we have a president that is a "Tree Hugging-War Lord"? On the news all you heard while Bush was in office was about the war in the middle east, while now since obama is in office, all you hear about is healthcare and going green. I could follow the war, just by watching the news previews while watching House, but I can honestly say now that Obama is in office, i have no idea what's going on in the middle east.
3. Well until grocery stores pull bottled water off the shelves, replace all the regular light bulbs with the curly ones, and make all the plastic bags cost a dollar and turn green (and not plastic) people aren't going to stop. Although one person may not drink bottled water...millions of others do. Not everyone is going to go "green" no matter what the governmnt says.
Now i'm going to bed! Goodnight again.
Thomas Boyer pd 1.
ReplyDelete@ Drew, it isn't that they don't agree, they just don't want to use the money and redirect their current economy. Most of the countries in that region agree with going against climate change.
@Nikki, they won't pull bottled waters off the shelves.... it is hard to find such clean water in many regions, except for random cheap bottled water that turns out to be radioactive :P
tilley pd. 1
ReplyDelete1. nobody likes climate change, so we need to develop new things to battle global warming. So far, amsterdam is the most futuristic in battling climate change by building floating communities to rise with the changing sea level.
2. i believe that they did mostly nothing to help with climate change, but if i had to choose, i think obama is doing more, by attending conferences. I think he is lowering emissions, a first step to changing our environment.
3. global warming wont be a big deal for a while, but it will be when that time comes. Sea level is rising, and temperatures are rising too, but it wont be a big deal for at least another 50 years.
@ shawn and kenny- its copenhagen, and very valid points, i agree, without all of the laughing kenny does.
@ schmuck- awesome last comment, and great blog