I’d like to begin with the fact that with respect to protection of the ozone layer, Reagan was an environmentalist hero. Reagan’s economists found that the costs of phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals were a lot lower than the costs of not doing so. That’s why we can single out that the issue was pretty clear. I think the most important lesson is a good model that is provided by rules from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, widely supported by the automobile industry. Another idea, liked with the electricity sector is responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions, to modernize power plants. All in all, I guess that alteration of natural processes is highly dangerous and people all over the world should act to protect einvironment.
The most important thing for me is the fact that we all know the reasons of all environmental issues and the way to cope with all these problems. Ronald Reagan is the good example of how the president should care not only for the political and economical situation in the country, but also about its environment. The best proof of it is the fact that under his leadership, the United States became the prime mover behind the Montreal Protocol, which required the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals. The most important lesson I have found here is that it doesn't matter whether you are Americans or Russians, republicans or conservatives, we should do all our best in improving the environmental situation not in the particular country, but in the world. (Easier said than done unfortunately!)We should develop ideas about the protection of our planet and the reducing of air pollution, even if to make some profit! For example, for the United States, some of the best recent steps serve to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution. All in all, all people are responsible for what is going on with our planet, and for preventing the further grievous development of the situation, we should turn our disadvantages in out advantages. (For instance the electricity sector is responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. On the other hand, smart initiatives from the United States may be directed in the right way)
Very good! Slips.: ... A good example of how the president should TAKE care not only OF ... ... do all our best TO improvE the environmental situation ... ... and the reducTION of air pollution ...
Having read this article, I found some important lessons. One of them is that cost-effective reductions from different countries can help to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution. In the USA, for example, such model will eventually save consumers more than $1.7 trillion, cut United States oil consumption by 12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons — more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010. The monetary benefits of these rules exceed the monetary costs by billions of dollars annually. Besides, an effective response to climate change requires many nations to act. For instance, China is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet, and it must become a leader in international negotiations, not an obstacle. In this case different countries should start their negotiations for finding best ideas and solutions to the problems of pollution and climate change (e.g. smart initiatives from the United States may well be an indispensable precondition for international efforts). All in all, I think that climate change is the result of scientific and technological progress. So, everything has a connection and now we pay the price for the increased human activity. I think we should realize it and start doing something to prevent and restrain the effects of climate change (e.g. cost-effective reductions from the United States would help, both in themselves and because they should spur technological changes and regulatory initiatives from other nations; moreover, we can use alternative energy, plant trees, fly less (though it is very difficult) and even eat more vegetarian food). It is better to do something than not at all.
The environmental problems are very important and it is very good that someone understood it. Ronald Reagan gave us some lessons how to care about the nature and I chose the most important ones for me. The fuel economy rules will eventually save consumers more than $1.7 trillion, cut United States oil consumption by 12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons — more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010. The monetary benefits of these rules exceed the monetary costs by billions of dollars annually. It is a good example of Reagan’s participation in this problem. The Reagan administration was generally skeptical about costly environmental rules, but with respect to protection of the ozone layer, he was an environmentalist hero. Under his leadership, the United States became the prime mover behind the Montreal Protocol, which required the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals. Ronald Reagan is a great man for the world in its environmental sphere that could combine political problems with environmental. As for me, I appove of his attempts to make the Earth better because it is in awful conditions which are getting worse and worse. We should stop destroying the planet and Reagan should be an example for us
So, I've read the article and come to the conclusion that this article is very similar to which I've done as "rendering week 9". We may say that it may make my work easier, but any article has its private items and secrets. This is not an exception of the rule.
It's clear to us that the USA takes significant steps to reduce the risks associated with climate change. And Ronald Reagan's second term can be interpreted as the positive answer. The Montreal Protocol has been made to protect of the ozone layer, reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time it's the best recent step to save money and promote energy security. As we managed to see from the article: the fuel economy rules will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion
All in all we are to say that we can fight with such a serious problem of our days not only by making clean products and something like that, but also to publish "correct" laws to protect our environment from pollution.
p.s. Our duty to the whole, Including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations. Theodore Roosevelt
Of course, there are significant steps to reduce the risks associated with climate change and they are possible. And first of all it needs to reduce the electricity consumption, and it refers not only to such countries as the US and China (which are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet), but also to others. But we should not forget that, for example, in China, everything is based on industry. So to reduce the energy consumption, they will have to rebuild all their industrial system (using more natural resources, which will cause certain consequences) that will result in billions of dollars. But what's more important is that this process will take not even a year or two, but dozens of years; during this time much water will flow under the bridge... The Second step is to reduce air pollution, which is caused by machines. But since the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have been in the atmosphere for decades, from which corresponding conclusions can be made. I don't mean that we don't need to take any actions, but mankind just should understand that it is not able to cure nature, because all the actions that we take, injure her.
I’d like to begin with the fact that with respect to protection of the ozone layer, Reagan was an environmentalist hero. Reagan’s economists found that the costs of phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals were a lot lower than the costs of not doing so. That’s why we can single out that the issue was pretty clear. I think the most important lesson is a good model that is provided by rules from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, widely supported by the automobile industry. Another idea, liked with the electricity sector is responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions, to modernize power plants. All in all, I guess that alteration of natural processes is highly dangerous and people all over the world should act to protect einvironment.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing for me is the fact that we all know the reasons of all environmental issues and the way to cope with all these problems. Ronald Reagan is the good example of how the president should care not only for the political and economical situation in the country, but also about its environment. The best proof of it is the fact that under his leadership, the United States became the prime mover behind the Montreal Protocol, which required the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals. The most important lesson I have found here is that it doesn't matter whether you are Americans or Russians, republicans or conservatives, we should do all our best in improving the environmental situation not in the particular country, but in the world. (Easier said than done unfortunately!)We should develop ideas about the protection of our planet and the reducing of air pollution, even if to make some profit! For example, for the United States, some of the best recent steps serve to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, all people are responsible for what is going on with our planet, and for preventing the further grievous development of the situation, we should turn our disadvantages in out advantages. (For instance the electricity sector is responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. On the other hand, smart initiatives from the United States may be directed in the right way)
Very good!
DeleteSlips.:
... A good example of how the president should TAKE care not only OF ...
... do all our best TO improvE the environmental situation ...
... and the reducTION of air pollution ...
Having read this article, I found some important lessons. One of them is that cost-effective reductions from different countries can help to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution. In the USA, for example, such model will eventually save consumers more than $1.7 trillion, cut United States oil consumption by 12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons — more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010. The monetary benefits of these rules exceed the monetary costs by billions of dollars annually. Besides, an effective response to climate change requires many nations to act. For instance, China is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet, and it must become a leader in international negotiations, not an obstacle. In this case different countries should start their negotiations for finding best ideas and solutions to the problems of pollution and climate change (e.g. smart initiatives from the United States may well be an indispensable precondition for international efforts). All in all, I think that climate change is the result of scientific and technological progress. So, everything has a connection and now we pay the price for the increased human activity. I think we should realize it and start doing something to prevent and restrain the effects of climate change (e.g. cost-effective reductions from the United States would help, both in themselves and because they should spur technological changes and regulatory initiatives from other nations; moreover, we can use alternative energy, plant trees, fly less (though it is very difficult) and even eat more vegetarian food). It is better to do something than not at all.
ReplyDeleteExcellent!
DeleteSlips:
... negotiations TO find THE best ideas ...
... is A result (the is possible but limitingthe debate ..
The environmental problems are very important and it is very good that someone understood it. Ronald Reagan gave us some lessons how to care about the nature and I chose the most important ones for me. The fuel economy rules will eventually save consumers more than $1.7 trillion, cut United States oil consumption by 12 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons — more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010. The monetary benefits of these rules exceed the monetary costs by billions of dollars annually. It is a good example of Reagan’s participation in this problem. The Reagan administration was generally skeptical about costly environmental rules, but with respect to protection of the ozone layer, he was an environmentalist hero. Under his leadership, the United States became the prime mover behind the Montreal Protocol, which required the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals. Ronald Reagan is a great man for the world in its environmental sphere that could combine political problems with environmental.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I appove of his attempts to make the Earth better because it is in awful conditions which are getting worse and worse. We should stop destroying the planet and Reagan should be an example for us
Excellent!
DeleteSlips:
... how to take care OF nature ...
So, I've read the article and come to the conclusion that this article is very similar to which I've done as "rendering week 9". We may say that it may make my work easier, but any article has its private items and secrets. This is not an exception of the rule.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear to us that the USA takes significant steps to reduce the risks associated with climate change. And Ronald Reagan's second term can be interpreted as the positive answer. The Montreal Protocol has been made to protect of the ozone layer, reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time it's the best recent step to save money and promote energy security. As we managed to see from the article: the fuel economy rules will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion
All in all we are to say that we can fight with such a serious problem of our days not only by making clean products and something like that, but also to publish "correct" laws to protect our environment from pollution.
p.s.
Our duty to the whole, Including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations.
Theodore Roosevelt
Well done!
DeleteSlips:
... to THE ONE which I've done...
... to protect (no 'of') the ozone layer ...
No more comments!
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Of course, there are significant steps to reduce the risks associated with climate change and they are possible. And first of all it needs to reduce the electricity consumption, and it refers not only to such countries as the US and China (which are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet), but also to others. But we should not forget that, for example, in China, everything is based on industry. So to reduce the energy consumption, they will have to rebuild all their industrial system (using more natural resources, which will cause certain consequences) that will result in billions of dollars. But what's more important is that this process will take not even a year or two, but dozens of years; during this time much water will flow under the bridge... The Second step is to reduce air pollution, which is caused by machines. But since the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have been in the atmosphere for decades, from which corresponding conclusions can be made. I don't mean that we don't need to take any actions, but mankind just should understand that it is not able to cure nature, because all the actions that we take, injure her.
ReplyDeleteDasha, perfect timing!!!
DeleteLOL
Slips:
it IS neCESSARY to reduce ...
... SHOULD just UNDERSTAND ...
This IS the END!
ReplyDelete