Saving the world from the disastrous effects of climate change is above all the responsibility of heavily industrialised countries that put out the most of carbon emissions. Pressure should also be put on economically emerging nations like If a small country working hard for clean environment neighbouring a big country making no effort for the same purposes, its efforts will be futile. As long as the effort isn’t carried out globally, individual actions will be just symbolic.
For California being innovative in reducing its carbon dioxide emission will be just a token gesture if not all American states don’t do the same. This means
As long as there are economic concerns around the world, the priority will be given to production even at the cost of the environment. In developing countries, mainly in
It will be unthinkable to persuade economically emerging countries to draw the least profit from their products for the sake of the environment when GNI per capita is the barometer of economic success or failure.
1 comment:
Hello Abdelilah,
I always like energy conservation, but think that California is good at creating an image while avoiding the substance. For example, much of our population must drive 200km per day for work due to the urban sprawl. Mass transit for the vast majority of workers isn't feasible, because housing and work sites are too spread out. Poor people are compelled to live in inland, desert like areas where energy usage for cooling and heating are automatically higher. Again, this is mainly a function of state and local government regulations.
When I lived in a condominium, I got a nasty letter for hanging my clothes outside to dry. This was against the rules. We are required to dry them in the house, most likely with an electric clothes drying machine that burns a huge amount of power. Usually people think to improve the environment by increasing regulations, but cutting them is also a good way.
Post a Comment