All developed and developing nations over the world have key roles to check climate change by checking their economic growth rate. In view of alarming global warming and depletion of natural resources, why they will not be asked to bring down their planned economic growth rate for a better future?
You should have read all entries that dr Kenneth Towe already mad on this subject here at ResearchGate before you ask a question
Because they must bring down their population & life quality growth first. Would you agree to live worser and worser? Government would never say it.
Hello Radhashyam Muduli, I believe that every govt favors development that brings a positive growth rate of the economy. Citizens would expect development to meet the needs of the expanding population. Perhaps the effective thing is to have a negative population growth, but this is not always successful (although Singapore has achieved this in the past).
The challenge is to have a wise, balanced development, yet keeping the green lungs. Again, Singapore has tried its best and managed. Otherwise we have the concrete jungles and the climate change, soaring temperatures, that remind us of our errors. Perhaps, most govt. departments would not humbly accept even well meant advice.
http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/a7fac49f-9c96-4030-8709-ce160c58d15c
Dear Miranda Yeoh,
We also appreciate positive growth. As we spend money seeing the balance/stocks available with us, similar is the case the minerals present in earth's crust, it is also limited not unlimited and nothing is getting added to the existing stocks. We should plan in advance to preserve these scarce resources against rainy days ahead.In like manner the supply of electric power, we can get power till it is generated,when there is no source, we can not get power. For all these, individuals have to take little pains to save our environment and natural resources.High rate of economic development has brought all these woes to the mankind. Hence all governments should have to plan to achieve a balance growth rate first tilting towards negative zone, in order to save our breathing atmosphere. This is right time to think upon this burning issues for everyone.Even a zero growth rate at this point will also cause further damage to existing conditions.Hence governments to decide to where to move?
You should have read all entries that dr Kenneth Towe already mad on this subject here at ResearchGate before you ask a question
“Economic research on climate impacts has long revealed that only a limited fraction of the market economy is vulnerable to climate change: agriculture, coastal resources, energy, forestry, tourism, and water. These sectors make up about 5 percent of the global economy and their share is expected to shrink over time. Consequently, even if climate change turns out to be large, there is a limit to how much damage climate can do to the economy.
Most sectors of the global economy are not climate sensitive. Of course, the economies of some countries are more vulnerable to climate change than the global average. Developing countries in general have a larger share of their economies in agriculture and forestry. They also tend to be in the low latitudes where the impacts to these sectors will be the most severe. The low latitudes tend to be too hot for the most profitable agricultural activities and any further warming will further reduce productivity. Up to 80 percent of the damages from climate change may be concentrated in low‐latitude countries.”
https://environment.yale.edu/files/biblio/YaleFES-00000397.pdf
Dear Florian Glodeanu, thank you for your idea on global warming and growth rate. You have presented a detailed sector wise warming agents.Though health,insurance and agricultural sectors are not culprits in this issue, their associated functions are indirectly adding fuel to the fire This is only a brain storming session and every concerned departments responsible for global warming will come forward with their experts to take appropriate action within their domain for this noble cause.
Respected Harry Ten Brink,
You are too much optimistic over the burning issue. It is just not what is advocated in their write ups, rather it is much more grave and needs attention from everyone. All individuals have to share their pains and comforts to break the wall of uncertainty earlier rather than to fight a big battle.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change