As I bring up my web browser, msn.com comes up and on their front page they are discussing how much money will be left in our economy for the environment. Most people by now are aware of the 70 billion dollar bailout plan which was recently passed. Although in the past three presidential debates moderators have asked the candidates what they intend to cut back on due to our economic woes, neither have given a straight answer. However one area that will most likely lose funding is environmental spending.
John McCain has promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions 60% by 2050, Obama is even bolder, promising an 80% reduction. It's very unlikely that we'll see those reductions if our economy continues to weaken. The most popular remedy for global warming as mentioned by msn is to have a cap-and-trade system. However placing limitations on industries would seriously hurt the possibility of any economic growth.
The obvious implication of delaying efforts to improve the conditions of the environment is that by 2050 many environmental goals will not be reached. As a result, many scientists are predicting Greenland as well as the west Artic will lose its ice sheets and thus we'll have a dangerous rise in sea levels. This would be detrimental to the habitats of many animals, plants and of course humans. The time to act is now and we need a leader who will recognize that althouhg the economy must come first, the environment is not something that can be tossed to the side.
How to take care of your hair this winter
6 years ago
1 comment:
I agree we need a leader who will look at these valid environmental concerns. More so we need a leader who doesn't shoot down past environmental legislations. However, 2050 is still a good amount of time away. The economic crisis will put a large hamper on environmental concerns, but that should not be used as a argument against doing things for the environment.
Post a Comment