Is This The Final Call For Saving Planet Earth? - Page 2

Starlah · 03-25-2009, 03:03 AM

It occurs to me that if all those globalist New World Order "Bimbos" like Henry Kissinger, Ziggy, Rahm Emmanuel among the many, and the maneuvering dangerous reptiles that have control of the CIA and the NSC would come to their senses and switch their focus to saving the Planet our species could look forward to an extraordinary Paradise in the next twenty years.
However that dream does not look imminent and we continue down the path of self destruction.
__________________________________________________ ______

http://www.naturalnews.com/025864.html

This is the Final Call for Saving Our Planet
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 by: Marianne Leigh, citizen journalist

Key concepts: BBC, Global warming and Predictions

(NaturalNews) Scientists and climate experts have been sounding the alarm on global warming for more than a decade with little result. The vast majority of people have simply rolled their eyes at predictions of widespread doom and gone about their business. But lately, a growing number are disturbed by the frequency and scale of natural catastrophes taking place. And the tide is beginning to shift towards taking predictions about global warming seriously. Today however, more than a decade later, the fear is no longer that this change might take place, but rather that it is already happening - at a faster rate than predicted. And it might already be irreversible.

It would be impossible to ignore the changes taking place around us. In recent years our news has been saturated with unprecedented levels of catastrophe, destruction and death. In fact, the number of natural disasters worldwide has quadrupled in the past two decades. And while some want to dicker over the exact cause of the seismic disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis) signs are everywhere that the predicted changes are coming to pass. From Hurricanes Katrina and Ike in 2005 and the shocking heat wave that struck Europe in 2003, to widespread flooding, severe droughts and wildfires, it's clear enough that our planet is in revolt.

Recently compiled geological and oceanographic data confirms that the situation is deteriorating at an accelerated rate. The sea is warming and its level rising; the polar ice caps and glaciers are disappearing. And even as our predictions become reality, new unlooked for factors keep appearing which make former worst-case scenarios seem mild.

All hope for positive climate change is now pinned on a much-anticipated international summit to be held in Copenhagen in December of this year. Like the famous Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012, the UN-led meeting in Copenhagen will attempt to draft a new treaty. This new treaty must define and govern international efforts to halt the current increase in greenhouse gas levels and initiate their decline within 10 to 15 years.

Climate experts warn us that reaching a substantial global consensus is the world's last chance to avoid irreversible climate change and widespread catastrophe. And if that unsettles you, know that some British experts are already saying that it's too late; there's not enough time to make the massive changes necessary. What is certain, in any case, is that while swift action is desperately needed, it's far from assured.

After a key preparatory meeting in Poznan last December, the feedback from attendees was mixed. Many feigned optimism, but the true feeling seemed to be that finding an accord in Copenhagen, though possible, was going to be difficult. And much will hinge on the level of engagement of the new American administration. Will the United States find the courage to lead unselfishly and with a true global consciousness?

Stavros Dimas, the European Union Environment Commissioner, was categorical, saying significant sacrifices will have to be made on the part of more developed nations in order to ease the transition for less developed and emerging economies. Leaders of developed nations will have to be willing to reduce their emissions by 80 to 90%, and invest heavily in clean alternative energy solutions, while providing economic incentives to facilitate the compliance of more fragile economies. "If there is no money on the table," he said, "there will be no deal."

On a somewhat positive note, international polls show world consensus that global warming is a serious threat and needs to be addressed. In fact, support for action has never been higher, particularly in the United States. So it is possible to have faith that because of the urgency of the hour and the overwhelming support, an agreement will surely be reached. But when president Bush, representing the country responsible for 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions (for only 4% of it's population), refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because of the financial strain it threatened to put on the oil and coal industries, the world was blindsided. And while other countries respected their engagements, the achievements of the protocol were greatly lessened by the abstention of the United States. It would seem then that, despite the pressing need, national leaders are still capable of ignoring obvious crises because of short-term or short-sighted goals.

And so the question remains, "What can we do besides wait and hope for the best?"

For starters, practicing daily energy conservation is the single most important step an individual can take to curb global carbon dioxide emissions. Reflect on the fact that we rely entirely too much on cooling or super-heating our interiors when simply putting on a sweater in the winter or shutting off lights and closing blinds in the summer would decrease the need. Houses similarly can be made more energy efficient by carefully choosing appliances with Energy Star ratings and insulating or replacing aging parts.

On a more public level, it is important that legislators and government officials feel sufficiently pressured to enact environmentally protective laws and allocate funds to develop non-polluting renewable energy solutions. Local activism and letter writing are ways to achieve this. And a clear message needs to be sent to businesses that you value responsibility and will only buy from those that invest in environmental protection. Corporate complacency, putting short-term profits ahead of all other considerations, is, after all, the main reason our industries are so inefficient and polluting.

So, even as we countdown to one of the most pivotal international summits of our time, consider the changes that can begin in your own homes and communities. It's possibly the best shot you have at a stable future.

For more information on the Countdown to Copenhagen, please visit the UNFCCC's website: http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Sources:

World Faces Last Chance to Avoid Fatal Warming: EU (Reuters, Feb. 27, 2009, Gergely Szakacs)
http://www.reuters.com/article/envi...

Huge Year for Natural Disasters (BBC News, published Dec. 29, 2008)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business...

Through the Climate Window (BBC News, published Feb. 2, 2007, Richard Black)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/...

At a Glance: IPCC REPORT (BBC News, published Feb. 2, 2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/...

Too Late? Why Scientists Say We Should Expect the Worst (The Guardian, Dec. 9, 2008, David Adam)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...

Mood Mixed as Climate Summit Ends (BBC News, published Dec. 13, 2008, Richard Black)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/...

30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem (W.P.O.) http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...

Global Warming Basics (NRDC, last revised Oct. 18, 2005)
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f...

The Sunday Times/Times Online U.K.

March 15/2009

Plan B: Scientists Get Radical In Bid to Halt Global Warming Catastrophe

Jonathan Leake

THE director of a Nasa space laboratory will this week lead thousands of climate change campaigners through Coventry in an extraordinary intervention in British politics.

James Hansen plans to use Thursday’s Climate Change Day of Action to put pressure on Gordon Brown to wake up to the threat of climate change - by halting the construction of new power stations and the expansion of airports, with schemes such as the third runway at Heathrow.

The move by a leading American researcher is the highest-profile example to date of the way climate change is politicising scientists.

It follows last week’s climate science summit in Copenhagen where 2,500 leading climate scientists issued a stark warning to politicians that unless they took drastic action to cut carbon emissions, the world would face “irreversible shifts in climate”.

Related Links
Global warming ‘can be controlled’
Scientists: world leaders must act on climate now
Hopes of climate change accord 'are sinking'
They warned that global temperature increases averaging more than 4C were now possible and that human-generated CO2 could also acidify the world’s oceans, wiping out life-forms ranging from tiny plankton to coral reefs.

Hansen, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he believed scientists, the people who knew most about climate change, now had a moral obligation to become politically active. He has chosen Coventry to stage Thursday’s protest because it is home to E.ON, the power company that is planning a giant new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent.

He will lead the demonstrators to a final protest on its doorstep. The protest, being organised by Christian Aid, will involve a New Orleans-style funeral march by “mourners” for future lost generations.

“We can no longer allow politicians and business to twist and ignore science,” said Hansen.

“The scientists can connect the dots and define the implications of different policy choices and we should make clear those implications.”

Hansen also launched a direct attack on the Labour government, criticising its decision to approve a new runway at Heathrow and calling the Kingsnorth proposal a “terrible idea”.

“One power plant with a lifetime of several decades will destroy the efforts of millions of citizens to reduce their emissions,” he said.

Hansen is just one of a number of leading researchers who believe that scientists must get out of their laboratories and campaign on climate change.

They say researchers have spent nearly two decades producing high-quality research demonstrating that the world risks dangerous warming - yet political inaction means CO2 emissions are rising faster than ever. Many also believe the United Nations talks aimed at a global treaty on cutting emissions are likely to fail.

They compare the anger and concern among climate researchers to that felt by physicists as they watched the massive growth in nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s.

Back then, such concerns prompted many leading scientists to become politically active in movements such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

The leaders of that movement even included Professor Peter Higgs, the theoretical physicist now best known for describing the Higgs Boson particle, which is thought to give matter its mass.

His modern counterparts include scientists such as Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow, at the Earth and Biosphere Institute at Leeds University, whose recent research on the impact of climate change on tropical forests has been published in leading journals such as Nature and Science.

Lewis believes his understanding of climate change means he is morally obliged to become a climate activist. He took part in the recent Climate Camp protests at both Kingsnorth and Heathrow.

He has also joined with other protesters to buy land outside Sipson, the village near Heathrow that would be destroyed by construction of the runway.

“If the government permits the building of new infrastruc-ture which locks us into a future of high CO2 emissions, there is a moral obligation to try to stop them,” he said.

Even the Met Office, which traditionally has been one of the government’s most conservative research institutions, has become quietly radical over climate.

It sent a team of its top climate scientists to the Copenhagen meeting - backing them with a team of publicists who lobbied journalists intensively to maximise coverage of their research.

Others have used scientific publications to make overtly political points. Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre, the government’s leading global warming research centre, recently used the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, one of the world’s most respected academic journals, to call for a “planned global recession” to cut carbon emissions.

“Emissions are rising so fast that we are heading for a world that will be 4C-5C warmer than now by 2100. That would be catastrophic,” he wrote.

“Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonisa-tion, it is difficult to foresee anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilising the climate.”

Even other climate researchers were shocked by such overtly political comments in a pure research paper but Anderson is unrepentant.

Speaking in Copenhagen last week, a meeting he attended by train and ferry to maintain his personal boycott of flights, he said: “Scientists have lost patience with carefully constructed messages being lost in the political noise. We must stand up for what we know.”

Others believe many more scientists will feel obliged to take a similar stand.

Marcus du Sautoy, professor for the public understanding of science and professor of mathematics at Oxford University, said climate change was “galvanising” the scientific community.

“The evidence and data is all there but politicians don’t seem to understand what the science is telling them, so the scientists feel they have to respond,” he said.

John Harris, professor of bioethics at Manchester University, said scientists had become more willing to get politically active after mounting successful campaigns against proposals to put legal restrictions on embryo and stem cell research.

“Scientists are increasingly aware of their public responsibilities and realise there is not much point in doing science unless your findings will be uti-lised. They now realise that if they make themselves heard on climate change then policy makers will react,” he said.

Kathy Sykes, professor of sciences and society at Bristol University, said scientists were increasingly aware that they had a duty to convey their knowledge more effectively - and that meant becoming political.

“Every now and again, when things become absolutely desperate, as it has with climate change, scientists have to become advocates,” she said.

The threat

Copenhagen climate summit - the scientist’s key findings and recommendations:

Humanity is releasing 50 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year - and this is rising by 2%-3% a year, far faster than scientists had predicted

Such emissions are already changing the climate, including an increase in the Earth’s temperature, rising sea levels and a rapid melting of the world’s glaciers

About 40% of humanity’s CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans - but these are now acidifying, threatening marine life Global temperature rises could exceed 2C by mid-century, which would cause widespread water shortages and potentially famine

Every year of delay in cutting greenhouse gas emissions makes it much harder to keep the global temperature rise below 2C

Delays also raise the risk of crossing tipping points - changes in the Earth’s dynamics that accelerate the warming effects

Developing countries are least able to cope with climate change, so millions of the world’s poorest people will suffer the worst deprivation as temperatures rise

Humanity would gain many extra benefits from cutting emissions, including new jobs, improved health and preservation of wildlife

Inaction is “inexcusable”. The world has the technology and tools needed to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.

__________________________________________________ ______
When the going gets tough, the tough get going...(Unknown)

03-25-2009, 03:03 AM	#1
Starlah Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: British Columbia, Canada Posts: 372	Is This The Final Call For Saving Planet Earth? It occurs to me that if all those globalist New World Order "Bimbos" like Henry Kissinger, Ziggy, Rahm Emmanuel among the many, and the maneuvering dangerous reptiles that have control of the CIA and the NSC would come to their senses and switch their focus to saving the Planet our species could look forward to an extraordinary Paradise in the next twenty years. However that dream does not look imminent and we continue down the path of self destruction. __________________________________________________ ______ http://www.naturalnews.com/025864.html This is the Final Call for Saving Our Planet Tuesday, March 17, 2009 by: Marianne Leigh, citizen journalist Key concepts: BBC, Global warming and Predictions (NaturalNews) Scientists and climate experts have been sounding the alarm on global warming for more than a decade with little result. The vast majority of people have simply rolled their eyes at predictions of widespread doom and gone about their business. But lately, a growing number are disturbed by the frequency and scale of natural catastrophes taking place. And the tide is beginning to shift towards taking predictions about global warming seriously. Today however, more than a decade later, the fear is no longer that this change might take place, but rather that it is already happening - at a faster rate than predicted. And it might already be irreversible. It would be impossible to ignore the changes taking place around us. In recent years our news has been saturated with unprecedented levels of catastrophe, destruction and death. In fact, the number of natural disasters worldwide has quadrupled in the past two decades. And while some want to dicker over the exact cause of the seismic disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis) signs are everywhere that the predicted changes are coming to pass. From Hurricanes Katrina and Ike in 2005 and the shocking heat wave that struck Europe in 2003, to widespread flooding, severe droughts and wildfires, it's clear enough that our planet is in revolt. Recently compiled geological and oceanographic data confirms that the situation is deteriorating at an accelerated rate. The sea is warming and its level rising; the polar ice caps and glaciers are disappearing. And even as our predictions become reality, new unlooked for factors keep appearing which make former worst-case scenarios seem mild. All hope for positive climate change is now pinned on a much-anticipated international summit to be held in Copenhagen in December of this year. Like the famous Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012, the UN-led meeting in Copenhagen will attempt to draft a new treaty. This new treaty must define and govern international efforts to halt the current increase in greenhouse gas levels and initiate their decline within 10 to 15 years. Climate experts warn us that reaching a substantial global consensus is the world's last chance to avoid irreversible climate change and widespread catastrophe. And if that unsettles you, know that some British experts are already saying that it's too late; there's not enough time to make the massive changes necessary. What is certain, in any case, is that while swift action is desperately needed, it's far from assured. After a key preparatory meeting in Poznan last December, the feedback from attendees was mixed. Many feigned optimism, but the true feeling seemed to be that finding an accord in Copenhagen, though possible, was going to be difficult. And much will hinge on the level of engagement of the new American administration. Will the United States find the courage to lead unselfishly and with a true global consciousness? Stavros Dimas, the European Union Environment Commissioner, was categorical, saying significant sacrifices will have to be made on the part of more developed nations in order to ease the transition for less developed and emerging economies. Leaders of developed nations will have to be willing to reduce their emissions by 80 to 90%, and invest heavily in clean alternative energy solutions, while providing economic incentives to facilitate the compliance of more fragile economies. "If there is no money on the table," he said, "there will be no deal." On a somewhat positive note, international polls show world consensus that global warming is a serious threat and needs to be addressed. In fact, support for action has never been higher, particularly in the United States. So it is possible to have faith that because of the urgency of the hour and the overwhelming support, an agreement will surely be reached. But when president Bush, representing the country responsible for 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions (for only 4% of it's population), refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because of the financial strain it threatened to put on the oil and coal industries, the world was blindsided. And while other countries respected their engagements, the achievements of the protocol were greatly lessened by the abstention of the United States. It would seem then that, despite the pressing need, national leaders are still capable of ignoring obvious crises because of short-term or short-sighted goals. And so the question remains, "What can we do besides wait and hope for the best?" For starters, practicing daily energy conservation is the single most important step an individual can take to curb global carbon dioxide emissions. Reflect on the fact that we rely entirely too much on cooling or super-heating our interiors when simply putting on a sweater in the winter or shutting off lights and closing blinds in the summer would decrease the need. Houses similarly can be made more energy efficient by carefully choosing appliances with Energy Star ratings and insulating or replacing aging parts. On a more public level, it is important that legislators and government officials feel sufficiently pressured to enact environmentally protective laws and allocate funds to develop non-polluting renewable energy solutions. Local activism and letter writing are ways to achieve this. And a clear message needs to be sent to businesses that you value responsibility and will only buy from those that invest in environmental protection. Corporate complacency, putting short-term profits ahead of all other considerations, is, after all, the main reason our industries are so inefficient and polluting. So, even as we countdown to one of the most pivotal international summits of our time, consider the changes that can begin in your own homes and communities. It's possibly the best shot you have at a stable future. For more information on the Countdown to Copenhagen, please visit the UNFCCC's website: http://unfccc.int/2860.php Sources: World Faces Last Chance to Avoid Fatal Warming: EU (Reuters, Feb. 27, 2009, Gergely Szakacs) http://www.reuters.com/article/envi... Huge Year for Natural Disasters (BBC News, published Dec. 29, 2008) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business... Through the Climate Window (BBC News, published Feb. 2, 2007, Richard Black) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/... At a Glance: IPCC REPORT (BBC News, published Feb. 2, 2007) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/... Too Late? Why Scientists Say We Should Expect the Worst (The Guardian, Dec. 9, 2008, David Adam) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme... Mood Mixed as Climate Summit Ends (BBC News, published Dec. 13, 2008, Richard Black) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/... 30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem (W.P.O.) http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p... Global Warming Basics (NRDC, last revised Oct. 18, 2005) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f... The Sunday Times/Times Online U.K. March 15/2009 Plan B: Scientists Get Radical In Bid to Halt Global Warming Catastrophe Jonathan Leake THE director of a Nasa space laboratory will this week lead thousands of climate change campaigners through Coventry in an extraordinary intervention in British politics. James Hansen plans to use Thursday’s Climate Change Day of Action to put pressure on Gordon Brown to wake up to the threat of climate change - by halting the construction of new power stations and the expansion of airports, with schemes such as the third runway at Heathrow. The move by a leading American researcher is the highest-profile example to date of the way climate change is politicising scientists. It follows last week’s climate science summit in Copenhagen where 2,500 leading climate scientists issued a stark warning to politicians that unless they took drastic action to cut carbon emissions, the world would face “irreversible shifts in climate”. Related Links Global warming ‘can be controlled’ Scientists: world leaders must act on climate now Hopes of climate change accord 'are sinking' They warned that global temperature increases averaging more than 4C were now possible and that human-generated CO2 could also acidify the world’s oceans, wiping out life-forms ranging from tiny plankton to coral reefs. Hansen, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he believed scientists, the people who knew most about climate change, now had a moral obligation to become politically active. He has chosen Coventry to stage Thursday’s protest because it is home to E.ON, the power company that is planning a giant new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent. He will lead the demonstrators to a final protest on its doorstep. The protest, being organised by Christian Aid, will involve a New Orleans-style funeral march by “mourners” for future lost generations. “We can no longer allow politicians and business to twist and ignore science,” said Hansen. “The scientists can connect the dots and define the implications of different policy choices and we should make clear those implications.” Hansen also launched a direct attack on the Labour government, criticising its decision to approve a new runway at Heathrow and calling the Kingsnorth proposal a “terrible idea”. “One power plant with a lifetime of several decades will destroy the efforts of millions of citizens to reduce their emissions,” he said. Hansen is just one of a number of leading researchers who believe that scientists must get out of their laboratories and campaign on climate change. They say researchers have spent nearly two decades producing high-quality research demonstrating that the world risks dangerous warming - yet political inaction means CO2 emissions are rising faster than ever. Many also believe the United Nations talks aimed at a global treaty on cutting emissions are likely to fail. They compare the anger and concern among climate researchers to that felt by physicists as they watched the massive growth in nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. Back then, such concerns prompted many leading scientists to become politically active in movements such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The leaders of that movement even included Professor Peter Higgs, the theoretical physicist now best known for describing the Higgs Boson particle, which is thought to give matter its mass. His modern counterparts include scientists such as Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow, at the Earth and Biosphere Institute at Leeds University, whose recent research on the impact of climate change on tropical forests has been published in leading journals such as Nature and Science. Lewis believes his understanding of climate change means he is morally obliged to become a climate activist. He took part in the recent Climate Camp protests at both Kingsnorth and Heathrow. He has also joined with other protesters to buy land outside Sipson, the village near Heathrow that would be destroyed by construction of the runway. “If the government permits the building of new infrastruc-ture which locks us into a future of high CO2 emissions, there is a moral obligation to try to stop them,” he said. Even the Met Office, which traditionally has been one of the government’s most conservative research institutions, has become quietly radical over climate. It sent a team of its top climate scientists to the Copenhagen meeting - backing them with a team of publicists who lobbied journalists intensively to maximise coverage of their research. Others have used scientific publications to make overtly political points. Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre, the government’s leading global warming research centre, recently used the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, one of the world’s most respected academic journals, to call for a “planned global recession” to cut carbon emissions. “Emissions are rising so fast that we are heading for a world that will be 4C-5C warmer than now by 2100. That would be catastrophic,” he wrote. “Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonisa-tion, it is difficult to foresee anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilising the climate.” Even other climate researchers were shocked by such overtly political comments in a pure research paper but Anderson is unrepentant. Speaking in Copenhagen last week, a meeting he attended by train and ferry to maintain his personal boycott of flights, he said: “Scientists have lost patience with carefully constructed messages being lost in the political noise. We must stand up for what we know.” Others believe many more scientists will feel obliged to take a similar stand. Marcus du Sautoy, professor for the public understanding of science and professor of mathematics at Oxford University, said climate change was “galvanising” the scientific community. “The evidence and data is all there but politicians don’t seem to understand what the science is telling them, so the scientists feel they have to respond,” he said. John Harris, professor of bioethics at Manchester University, said scientists had become more willing to get politically active after mounting successful campaigns against proposals to put legal restrictions on embryo and stem cell research. “Scientists are increasingly aware of their public responsibilities and realise there is not much point in doing science unless your findings will be uti-lised. They now realise that if they make themselves heard on climate change then policy makers will react,” he said. Kathy Sykes, professor of sciences and society at Bristol University, said scientists were increasingly aware that they had a duty to convey their knowledge more effectively - and that meant becoming political. “Every now and again, when things become absolutely desperate, as it has with climate change, scientists have to become advocates,” she said. The threat Copenhagen climate summit - the scientist’s key findings and recommendations: Humanity is releasing 50 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year - and this is rising by 2%-3% a year, far faster than scientists had predicted Such emissions are already changing the climate, including an increase in the Earth’s temperature, rising sea levels and a rapid melting of the world’s glaciers About 40% of humanity’s CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans - but these are now acidifying, threatening marine life Global temperature rises could exceed 2C by mid-century, which would cause widespread water shortages and potentially famine Every year of delay in cutting greenhouse gas emissions makes it much harder to keep the global temperature rise below 2C Delays also raise the risk of crossing tipping points - changes in the Earth’s dynamics that accelerate the warming effects Developing countries are least able to cope with climate change, so millions of the world’s poorest people will suffer the worst deprivation as temperatures rise Humanity would gain many extra benefits from cutting emissions, including new jobs, improved health and preservation of wildlife Inaction is “inexcusable”. The world has the technology and tools needed to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures. __________________________________________________ ______ When the going gets tough, the tough get going...(Unknown)