Define each part of the Toulmin Model. List an example and explain how each one meets the definition

EDITORIAL: Drones over America

Domestic spying portends surveillance society

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Big Sis is watching. Aerial surveillance drones designed to protect the nation's borders and fight terrorists overseas are turning their electronic eyes on Americans here at home. While gathering intelligence on the activities of suspected lawbreakers, Uncle Sam risks invading the privacy of the law-abiding. A bright line must be drawn between surveillance for legitimate law enforcement purposes and illicit spying that violates Americans' constitutional right to be left alone.

The threat comes from Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security, which is deploying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or drones, to assist local authorities with airborne surveillance. It's also doling out millions in grant cash to encourage small-town cops to buy drones, whether they serve a purpose or not.

In February, lawmakers on Capitol Hill passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which instructs the Federal Aviation Administration to compile rules allowing more drones to take to the skies, including for commercial purposes. The agency has forecast there could be as many as 30,000 airborne spies by 2020. The devices frequently carry high-resolution cameras capable of reading license plates, which, in combination with facial-recognition software, could recognize and track individuals, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

Such tracking made sense when use was confined to keeping tabs on our enemies in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Use of this battlefield technology on American soil is a recent phenomenon, and there are few restrictions in place. That's something that needs to change. Drone manufacturers are only concerned with one thing: They're rushing to grab a piece of the UAV market lucre, projected to double to $11.4 billion within a decade. They're not particularly worried about pausing to consider whether this is a good idea. In November, an industry coalition sent a letter to the FAA urging the agency to "remain focused on safety rather than privacy issues, where the FAA has no statutory standing or technical expertise."

Fortunately, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum aren't waiting for Washington to halt threats to their privacy. In Alameda County, Calif., Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern announced plans earlier this year to purchase a drone for use in "emergencies." In response, the American Civil Liberties Union teamed up with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to pressure the county board of supervisors on Dec. 4 to table approval of $31,646 for the UAV purchase. In Florida, Republican State Sen. Joe Negron has filed a drone-surveillance bill that would prohibit the use of UAVs above the state except when the secretary of homeland security determines there is "high risk" of a terrorist attack.

Congress also should step in and assist Americans in defending against this latest form of government intrusion. In June, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, introduced the Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require authorities to procure a warrant before spying on someone from above. Exceptions would include patrols of national borders, "imminent dangers to life" and terror threats. Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, has filed a similar bill in the House.

If national security were the true goal, there should be no opposition to the idea of ensuring third-party judicial oversight of these powerful devices. That's why lawmakers should act sooner rather than later to ensure the bad ideas don't get off the ground.

BEIJING, Feb. 6 — China said Tuesday that wealthier countries must take the lead in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and refused to say whether it would agree to any mandatory emissions limits that might hamper its booming economy.

Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, said China was willing to contribute to an international effort to combat global warming but placed the primary responsibility on richer, developed nations that have been polluting for much longer.

“It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per capita emissions,” she said, adding that developed countries have responsibilities for global warming “that cannot be shirked.”

Ms. Jiang’s comments, combined with another briefing on Tuesday by the country’s leading climate expert, represented China’s first official response to a landmark report issued last week by a United Nations panel of scientists that declared global warming is “unequivocal” and warned that immediate action must be taken to prevent harmful consequences.

China is the world’s second largest emitter of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, trailing only the United States. Last November, the International Energy Agency in Paris predicted that China would pass the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2009. China had been expected to surpass the United States as late as 2020, but its soaring consumption of coal has rapidly increased the country’s emissions.” (Jim Yardley, New York Times).

Contention Two: We are approaching the point of no return, climate change will soon be uncontrollable

Hansen 8 (James, directs NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studies, Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near ,) JGC

Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer. More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive. Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years. The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper 2 I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

Contention Three: Global Warming causes crazy weather - unique challenges to infrastructure

NWF 11 (National Wildlife Federation is the nation’s largest member-supported conservation organization. “Most Extreme Weather and U.S. Energy Infrastructure” http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Extreme-Weather/Final_NWF_EnergyInfrastructureReport_4-8-11.ashx md)

The destructive potential of tropical storms in the North Atlantic has increased by about 50 percent since the 1970s. 10 This increase, which primarily reflects longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities, is correlated with an increase of 0.9 to 1.3°F in sea-surface temperatures in the main development area for tropical storms in the North Atlantic. 11 If carbon pollution continues unabated over the next century, tropical sea surface temperatures could increase another 3°F —– three times the warming to date. 12 If this happens, tropical storms are likely to have wind speeds that are 2 to 13 percent greater —– enough to bump a hurricane up to the next more severe category —– and to have 10 to 31 percent more precipitation. Rising sea level will further compound the risk to coastal communities from hurricanes. If the world follows higher emissions scenarios, sea level is expected to rise by 3 to 4 feet by 2100. 14 To put this in perspective, a two-foot rise in sea level would mean regular inundation for 2,200 miles of major roads and 900 miles of railroads in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and the District of Columbia. 15 When a tropical storm hits, higher sea-level translates into bigger storm surges that can cause flooding further inland. In addition, the heights of big waves —– those higher than about 10 feet that are likely to be present during strong storms —– have already increased by 20 percent along the eastern United States during hurricane season since the late 1970s, 16 a trend that is likely to continue and pose challenges for offshore infrastructure.

Warming causes more severe water shortages more often – 3 warrants

NWF 11 (National Wildlife Federation is the nation’s largest member-supported conservation organization. “Most Extreme Weather and U.S. Energy Infrastructure” http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Extreme-Weather/Final_NWF_EnergyInfrastructureReport_4-8-11.ashx md)

Naturally arid locations, like the southwestern United States, are prone to drought because they rely on a few rainfall events each year to supply moisture. 27 Future temperature increases and the corresponding increases in evaporation mean that many land areas will become drier in the coming decades, especially if emissions follow a higher scenario. 28 Indeed, climate projections indicate that the Southwest may transition to a more arid climate on a permanent basis over the next century and beyond. 29 Several climate trends point to an even drier Southwest in the coming decades: • As global temperatures have increased over the last few decades, so has evaporation, increasing the fraction of land area considered dry from 15 percent to 25 percent of the globe. 30 • Climate change is modifying the global circulation patterns of the atmosphere, resulting in a pole-ward expansion of dry belts. 31 This expansion is likely causing areas just adjacent to deserts, such as much of the Southwest, to become drier. • Snow pack has been shrinking, as more precipitation falls as rain instead of snow. 32 At the same time, snow pack is melting earlier in the year. 33 Both of these trends can cause major water shortages in late summer and fall.

Contention Four: Global Warming Causes Disease

Associated Press 6 ("Global warming causing diseases to rise" MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15717706/ns/health-health_care/t/global-warming-causing-disease-rise/#.T-xcarUynw5) BSB

“Climate affects some of the most important diseases afflicting the world,” said Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of the World Health Organization. “The impacts may already be significant.” Kristie L. Ebi, an American public health consultant for the agency, warned “climate change could overwhelm public health services.” The specialists laid out recent findings as the two-week U.N. climate conference entered its final four days, grappling with technical issues concerning operation of the Kyoto Protocol, and trying to set a course for future controls on global greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists attribute at least some of the past century’s 1-degree rise in global temperatures to the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel-burning sources. A warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world, health experts reported Tuesday, citing surges in Kenya, China and Europe of such diseases as malaria, heart ailments and dengue fever.

Disease causes extinction

Yu 09 [Victoria, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,” Dartmouth Journal of Undergraduate Science, May 22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate]

In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus.  It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system.  However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).
Con Case

Con

My partner and I negate the resolution that Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. First we will give definitions as to how we should interpret the resolution.

Effect: something that is produced by an agency or cause (Dictionary.com).

Mitigate: to make less severe (Dictionary.com)

Contention One: There is no possible way to mitigate the effects of climate change. Global Warming is inevitable even with a complete reduction in emissions.

In “Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse gases” Susan Solomon and a host of other scientists found in 2010 that

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases increased over the course of the 20th century due to human activities. The human-caused increases in these gases are the primary forcing that accounts for much of the global warming of the past fifty years, with carbon dioxide being the most important single radiative forcing agent (1). Recent studies have shown that the human-caused warming linked to carbon dioxide is nearly irreversible for more than 1,000 y, even if emissions of the gas were to cease entirely (2–5). The importance of the ocean in taking up heat and slowing the response of the climate system to radiative forcing changes has been noted in many studies (e.g., refs. 6 and 7). The key role of the ocean’s thermal lag has also been highlighted by recent approaches to proposed metrics for comparing the warming of different greenhouse gases (8, 9). Among the observations attesting to the importance of these effects are those showing that climate changes caused by transient volcanic aerosol loading persist for more than 5 y (7, 10), and a portion can be expected to last more than a century in the ocean (11–13); clearly these signals persist far longer than the radiative forcing decay timescale of about 12–18 mo for the volcanic aerosol (14, 15). Thus the observed climate response to volcanic events suggests that some persistence of climate change should be expected even for quite short-lived radiative forcing perturbations. It follows that the climate changes induced by short-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as methane or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) may not decrease in concert with decreases in concentration if the anthropogenic emissions of those gases were to be eliminated. In this paper, our primary goal is to show how different processes and timescales contribute to determining how long the climate changes due to various greenhouse gases could be expected to remain if anthropogenic emissions were to cease. Advances in modeling have led to improved AtmosphereOcean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) as well as to Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs). Although a detailed representation of the climate system changes on regional scales can only be provided by AOGCMs, the simpler EMICs have been shown to be useful, particularly to examine phenomena on a global average basis. In this work, we use the Bern 2.5CC EMIC (see Materials and Methods and SI Text), which has been extensively intercompared to other EMICs and to complex AOGCMs (3, 4). It should be noted that, although the Bern 2.5CC EMIC includes a representation of the surface and deep ocean, it does not include processes such as ice sheet losses or changes in the Earth’s albedo linked to evolution of vegetation. However, it is noteworthy that this EMIC, although parameterized and simplified, includes 14 levels in the ocean; further, its global ocean heat uptake and climate sensitivity are near the mean of available complex models, and its computed timescales for uptake of tracers into the ocean have been shown to compare well to observations (16). A recent study (17) explored the response of one AOGCM to a sudden stop of all forcing, and the Bern 2.5CC EMIC shows broad similarities in computed warming to that study (see Fig. S1), although there are also differences in detail. The climate sensitivity (which characterizes the long-term absolute warming response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) is 3 °C for the model used here. Our results should be considered illustrative and exploratory rather than fully quantitative given the limitations of the EMIC and the uncertainties in climate sensitivity. Results One Illustrative Scenario to 2050. In the absence of mitigation policy, concentrations of the three major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide can be expected to increase in this century. If emissions were to cease, anthropogenic CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere by a series of processes operating at different timescales (18). Over timescales of decades, both the land and upper ocean are important sinks. Over centuries to millennia, deep oceanic processes become dominant and are controlled by relatively well-understood physics and chemistry that provide broad consistency across models (see, for example, Fig. S2 showing how the removal of a pulse of carbon compares across a range of models). About 20% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years (with a range across models including the Bern 2.5CC model being about 19 4% at year 1000 after a pulse emission; see ref. 19), until much slower weathering processes affect the carbonate balance in the ocean (e.g., ref. 18). Models with stronger carbon/climate feedbacks than the one considered here could display larger and more persistent warmings due to both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases, through reduced land and ocean uptake of carbon in a warmer world. Here our focus is not on the strength of carbon/climate feedbacks that can lead to differences in the carbon concentration decay, but rather on the factors that control the climate response to a given decay. The removal processes of other anthropogenic gases including methane and nitrous oxide are much more simply described by exponential decay constants of about 10 and 114 y, respectively (1), due mainly to known chemical reactions in the atmosphere. In this illustrative study, we do not include the feedback of changes in methane upon its own lifetime (20). We also do not account for potential interactions between CO2 and other gases, such as the production of carbon dioxide from methane oxidation (21), or changes to the carbon cycle through, e.g., methane/ozone chemistry (22). Fig. 1 shows the computed future global warming contributions for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide for a midrange scenario (23) of projected future anthropogenic emissions of these gases to 2050. Radiative forcings for all three of these gases, and their spectral overlaps, are represented in this work using the expressions assessed in ref. 24. In 2050, the anthropogenic emissions are stopped entirely for illustration purposes. The figure shows nearly irreversible warming for at least 1,000 y due to the imposed carbon dioxide increases, as in previous work. All published studies to date, which use multiple EMICs and one AOGCM, show largely irreversible warming due to future carbon dioxide increases (to within about 0.5 °C) on a timescale of at least 1,000 y (3–5, 25, 26). Fig. 1 shows that the calculated future warmings due to anthropogenic CH4 and N2O also persist notably longer than the lifetimes of these gases. The figure illustrates that emissions of key non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as CH4 or N2O could lead to warming that both temporarily exceeds a given stabilization target (e.g., 2 °C as proposed by the G8 group of nations and in the Copenhagen goals) and remains present longer than the gas lifetimes even if emissions were to cease. A number of recent studies have underscored the important point that reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are an approach that can indeed reverse some past climate changes (e.g., ref. 27). Understanding how quickly such reversal could happen and why is an important policy and science question. Fig. 1 implies that the use of policy measures to reduce emissions of short-lived gases will be less effective as a rapid climate mitigation strategy than would be thought if based only upon the gas lifetime. Fig. 2 illustrates the factors influencing the warming contributions of each gas for the test case in Fig. 1 in more detail, by showing normalized values (relative to one at their peaks) of the warming along with the radiative forcings and concentrations of CO2 , N2O, and CH4 . For example, about two-thirds of the calculated warming due to N2O is still present 114 y (one atmospheric lifetime) after emissions are halted, despite the fact that its excess concentration and associated radiative forcing at that time has dropped to about one-third of the peak value.

Wired Magazine reported in 2009 that,

In the waning weeks of 2009, planeloads of scientists, politicians, and assorted climate wonks from 192 countries will blow through a few million tons of CO² to jet to Copenhagen, one of the world’s most carbon-conscious cities. The occasion is the much-awaited United Nations Climate Change Conference, aka Kyoto 2. Speeches will be made. Goals and targets will be hammered out. Limited victory will be declared. Set a Google News alert for “Last Chance to Stop Global Warming.” There’s just one problem. As many of the participants—certainly the scientists—are only too aware, the global war on carbon has not gone well for the atmosphere. The really inconvenient truth: We’re toast. Fried. Steamed. Poached. More so than even many hand-wringing carbonistas admit. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, C0² that’s already in the air or in the pipeline will stoke “irreversible” warming for the next 1,000 years. Any scheme cobbled together in Copenhagen for slowing—forget reversing—the growth of greenhouse gases will be way too little, way too late. In the apt jargon of industry, a hotter planet is already “baked in.” James Lovelock, the British chemist who redubbed Mother Earth as “Gaia,” tells the ungilded truth: Can we hit a carbon Undo button? “Not a hope in hell.” Now here’s some good news: We can still come out OK. Because by one of those strokes of luck that seem to follow the most charmed species on earth, climate change arrives just at the moment when we have—or have in sight—an array of tools for adapting and extending human civilization to any and every environment. Homo sapiens now splash golf courses across deserts, joyride in outer space, update their Facebook profiles from the South Pole. And technological change is accelerating. By 2050—zero hour for many warming scenarios—the 2010s will look as primitive as the buggy-whipped 1890s do today. But won’t the transition to a warmer world be painful? The honest answer is that we don’t know. It depends on the resources we can bring to bear, technological and otherwise. There’s plenty of reason to be optimistic, though. While the West writhes in recession, China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world continue to clock annual GDP growth rates as high as 8 percent. Avowedly or not, they’re gunning their economies precisely because they see technology and the wealth it creates as the best (in fact, the only) insurance against a homicidal Mother Nature. Coastal communities, for example, will survive not because the world will somehow unite to stop sea levels from rising (it won’t). They’ll survive because they’ll learn to adapt—much as the Dutch have done since the Middle Ages. Ditto the other supposed horsemen of the climate apocalypse. Drought? Check out Perth, on the edge of the Great Australian Desert, where more than a million people keep hydrated with seawater that’s been desalinated by wind power. Famine? Talk to the biotech wizards designing postindustrial crops for every microclimate (and, yes, palate). Plague? Getting real health care to the several billion people who lack it will be much better insurance against illness than wishful thinking about a Goldilocks climate. None of these are complete solutions—it’s the sum of all progress that will get us through. It’s worth keeping in mind that the planet we inhabit has always been fundamentally out of control, driven by fantastically complex, chaotic systems we scarcely understand. With or without our help, dear Mother Earth is capable of producing circumstances highly inimical to human life. Pick whatever black swan you like—how about the next asteroid or an avian superplague or that Yellowstone volcano? Climate change could end up being just a side note. There are lots of reasons to avoid shifting the focus to adaptation. For starters, “We’re toast” is nobody’s idea of a call to arms. But in fact, an honest accounting of where we stand ought to be the jumping-off place for a more important (and way more interesting) discussion. The real question is not how we can keep things the way they are but how we’ll survive, and maybe even thrive, on a hotter planet. Yes, we should still work on cutting carbon. But we need to be realistic about what that can accomplish and what it can’t. At the risk of sounding horrifically flip, change is good. Really. Without the challenges inflicted by our volatile environment, starting with some nasty 80 percent-plus species extinctions, Earth would still be the planet of the trilobites. We just need to find a way to do what we’ve always done: adapt and—dare I say—evolve. And then start getting ready for the next ice age.

No matter what climate change will affect us and there is no way for us to significantly reduce these effects.

Contention Two: Developed countries do not have a moral obligation to mitigate the effect. This utilitarian viewpoint is flawed because it sacrifices the human dignity of the individual.

The utilitarian viewpoint is flawed. It is impossible for society to be viewed as a single

entity without sacrificing the human dignity of the individual.

Will Kymlicka, 1988 (Prof. of Philosophy at Queen’s U, Press, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 3., pp. 172-190, ‘Rawls on Technology and Deontology” JSTOR)

According to Rawls, then, the debate over distribution is essentially a debate over whether we should or

should not define the right as maximizing the good. But is this an accurate characterization of the debate?

Utilitarians do, of course, believe that the right act maximizes happiness, under some description of that good. And that requirement does have potentially abhorrent consequences. But do utilitarians believe that it is right because it maximizes happiness? Do they hold that the maximization of the good defines the right, as teleological theories are said to do? Let us see why Rawls believes they do. Rawls says that utilitarianism is teleological (that is, defines the right as the maximization of the good) because it generalizes from what is rational in the one-person case to what is rational in many-person cases. Since it is rational for me to sacrifice my present happiness to increase my later happiness if doing so will maximize my happiness overall, it is rational for society to sacrifice my current happiness to increase someone else's happiness if doing so maximizes social welfare overall. For utilitarians, utility-maximizing acts are right because they are maximizing. It is because they are maximizing that they are rational. Rawls objects to this generalization from the one-person to the many person case because he believes that it ignores the separateness of persons. Although it is right and proper that I sacrifice my present happiness for my later happiness if doing so will increase my overall happiness, it is wrong to demand that I sacrifice my present happiness to increase someone else's happiness. In the first case, the trade-off occurs within one person's life, and the later happiness compensates for my current sacrifice. In the second case, the trade-off occurs across lives, and I am not compensated for my sacrifice by the fact that someone else benefits. My good has simply been sacrificed, and I have been used as a means to someone else's 2. John Rawls, A Theory ofJz~stice(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, rg71), p. 31 3. Ibid., p. 27.

Philosophy G Public Affairs happiness. Trade-offs that make sense within a life are wrong and unfair across lives. Utilitarians obscure this point by ignoring the fact that separate people are involved. They treat

society as though it were an individual, as a single organism, with its own interests, so that

trade-offs between one person and another appear as legitimate trade-offs within the social

organism.

Cont 3 Solving or trying to greatly decrease global warming is an expensive and unrealistic goal.

http://www.streetdirectory.com/etoday/kyoto-protocol-pros-and-cons-cjauop.html

“In terms of the Protocol, in a short period of five years from January 2008 to December 2012, the countries are required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to at least 5% below their 1990 levels. It is not an easy task. The production of the gases would have increased already from 1990 to 2007 and to roll it back seventeen years and further reduce by 5% is going to be very difficult to achieve”

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 61.5 Kb.

Share with your friends: