On Friday, December 18th, the climate talks taking place in Copenhagen drew to a close. It was a meeting between 192 nations on the best ways for them to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions in their respective countries, and combat the effects of global warming.
There were a lot of high hopes riding on this conference, and it seems to have concluded in a good place but not exactly where officials were hoping. During this conference there were many setbacks and disagreements, as would be expected with a conference involving this many different nations. Among them were issues of financial support from developed countries for countries still in the developing stage. Also was the problem of verification of progress made in developed countries.
In an effort to boost the talks, the United States agreed to a $100 billion per year contribution to poor nations. This came with two conditions: one being there must be some sort of agreement reached before the talks concluded, the second that all nations must agree to a system of verification for the funding to continue.
By the conclusion of the talks, an agreement had been drawn up regarding greenhouse gas emissions for both developed and developing nations. The draft stated that developed nations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and developing nations would work on their emissions, with reports on their progress. To verify this progress would be a panel, establishing progress and also the financial support of developed countries.
Although this is simply a draft to be finalized at a later date, all the countries involved see it as a huge step towards fighting global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
There is a strong controversy over the efficiency and cleanliness of nuclear power. While some suggest that it is the cleanest type of energy production, others state its disadvantages from its byproducts. Nuclear energy is the only type of large energy production that does not produce carbon emissions. The reduction of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions is key to saving our environment and keeping our planet cool. At the moment with our planet increasing in temperature drastically, nuclear power is the only answer to making massive amounts of energy while cooling our planet down.
The nuclear waste created however is very dangerous and detrimental to our world. There is no safe way of disposing of the waste, and the potential health threats it risks are very dangerous. Not only are the health risks to the radioactive materials outstanding, but the idea of nuclear weapons produced from waste fuel is frightening. Having many nuclear plants creates security issues. If they are not secured properly, the wrong people could have their hands on very dangerous materials. Although it is very hard to make weapons from waste fuel, it is still possible.
Our planet’s biggest threat is the increase in temperature. Nuclear power, although very dangerous is the only viable option for creating massive amounts of energy without producing CO2. There are benefits and consequences to using other types of power. Creating more nuclear power seems to be the only immediate action to take in order to save our environment. Although wind and solar power do not produce CO2, they do not produce nearly as much energy as nuclear power, and cannot support our world. Similar to other answers to our environmental problems, we face detrimental long-term effects. Having this mindset of “fixing our problems on the surface and worrying about the long term effect later” is not ideal, but currently it appears to be our only option. Nuclear power could destroy a city, or make an entire state uninhabitable. However it is the choice between two evils, one that could destroy a city, and one that could destroy a world.