Hey guys. I’m a student at the University of Rhode Island and am currently doing a research project on global warming policies. I am very interested to know how people feel about the current environmental policies in place to combat global warming. Here’s a quick survey to help me better understand how the public feels; filling it out would be a tremendous help. All you have to do is answer yes or no to the following questions. Thanks! 1) Are you familiar with the Kyoto Protocol? 2) If yes, do you think it is an effective policy? 3) Do you believe that countries should have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage to combat global warming? 4) Do you think that the Bush Administration’s effort to combat global warming is sufficient? 5) Should developing new technologies that are environment-friendly be a focal point for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
1. No 3. yes 4. No 5. Yes, b/c petroleum products not only release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but it is also non-renewable and we will run out of it soon (w/in 50 years), so other energy sources must be utilized and it must be cleaner than oil and coal. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources need to be in place before oil runs out. If these and other energy sources are not ready when oil runs out, the oil based infrastructure will collapse completely. Not really a scenario I want my children or grandchildren to face. Peace and love
1. Yes 2. No, becuase a. No country (esp. the US) is going to accept the economic losses associated with CO2 reduction (and, in reality, no nation that hasn't undergone a severe recession has kept their promises here) b. The "third-world loophole" exempts developing nations, which is where the majority of emmissions growth would come c. Kyoto WOULDN'T SLOVE GLOBAL WARMING! we'd have to reduce CO2 production 94% or more to reach balance--effectively, we'd have to repeal the Industrial Revolution. All Kyoto would do is cause global warming to progress somewhat more slowly. 3. Considering (form above) that global warming WILL happen, regardless, I think the world's resources would be best spent in a "harm-reduction" strategy: moving low-lying cities, compensating farmers for lost productivity, etc. 4. No, and the longer a strategy is put off, the more costly it will likely be. The current policy is a short-sighted, cynical payback to corporate interests. I'm convinced that the Right DOES know global warming's real, they just spin the "global warming myth" to placate some of the less-sophisticated voters. 5. Yes, absolutely, as the alternative is a huge reduction in standard of living to reduce CO2. I really think that nuclear should be revisited: for all its faults, it produces energy w/o CO2. Also, it'd be interesting to see if "carbon-sequestering" technology is anything more than fantasy.
