Apart from Kyoto, UNCFFF and WWF (?), what action is being taken to reduce climate change on a GLOBAL scale?
819503
GREENPEACE the international NGO is working onissues concerning earth mainly focusing on Global warming.Infact GREENPEACE was the organisation that lobbyed a lot and which is still working with world organisations ,groups and countries
810600
Many possible solutions have been proposed to stave off global warming, should it actually be occurring. Some are very practical, while others are grandiose, to say the least. What is certain is that as the world's population continues to grow and developing nations develop, the world's need for space and energy will continue to grow. The need for space will accelerate deforestation. The need for energy will almost certainly increase the rate of fossil fuel burning. Listed below are a number of proposed "solutions" to combat global warming.\n\nThe simplest solution is an old one: conservation. Each gallon of gasoline releases 8.64 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere (source USEPA). Each kilowatt of electricity generated by a coal-fired plant produces about 1.4 kg of CO2 (source USEPA). Use less = emit less. The USEPA estimates that energy-saving appliance standards in the U.S. will have reduced national electricity consumption by 3% by the year 2000. This reduction will offset the need for 31 large power plants. A 625 MW coal-fired plant (serves about 425,000 homes) emits 1 million tons of carbon each year. The best part about conservation is it also saves you money. Again, the USEPA estimates that consumers will save more than $140 billion by the year 2030 with energy-saving appliances.\n\nPlant a tree. Forests cover 10 billion acres worldwide and sequester 1 trillion tons of carbon. The IPCC estimates that 850 million acres could be made available for planting trees. These trees would take up 60 to 90 billion tons of carbon by the year 2050. Unfortunately, this is only 12 to 15% of projected emissions during this period. Moreover, trees mature and stop rapidly consuming carbon. They are cut down, burned, or decay, which releases their stored CO2. So trees are a temporary partial solution at best. However, if these trees were used for lumber or paper products, their carbon would be stored for much longer periods of time. This might give the next solution time to work.\n\nThe oceans. The oceans already hold 36 trillion tons of carbon and absorb an additional 10 GtC from the ocean surface components each year (see Carbon Cycle). The ocean surface currently absorbs 2.5 GtC from the atmosphere, or roughly 40% of anthropogenic emissions. Given time, the oceans will probably absorb human-induced emissions, just not as fast as we are currently producing them. Proposals have been made to pump power plant emissions directly into the deep ocean. It would probably work, but would be extremely expensive
126475
What about the Kyoto protocol? \nHere's links to both sides of the issue:\nhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/kyoto-protocol-becomes-law\nhttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/
597044
No sense in trying to stop it. We as humans have pissed mother earth off big time and now she is protecting herself. The earth will out last us. We do things to the earth and think nothing of it, it can be as simple as someone throwing a cigarette out the window, what if everyone did that? what would it look like? I go to secluded lakes and find fishing line that birds and other animals can get caught in, 6 pack rings that are deadly to our wildlife, hooks an innocent person or animal could step on, booze bottles, trash everywhere, it is sickening and we are losing land every day. No respect for her why should she care what happens to us. The only way to stop global warming is to start respecting the earth and every living thing on it, we as humans have not grasped that simple concept, no it may not happen in my life time or even yours but doom is eminent unless we smarten up, we do not own the earth we are just fortunate enough to stay here. Sadly we are ignorant souls and don't give a hoot. How sad is that?
595901
Just a couple of ideas..\n\n(1) reform the UN\nhttp://heal-the-earth.org\n\n(2) institute unions representing each major region\nhttp://americas-union.org\nhttp://arabian-union.org\nhttp://asia-union.org\nhttp://africans-union.org\nhttp://oceanic-union.org\nhttp://euro-union.org\n\n(3) developing a 25 yr plan for the planet\nhttp://u-s-m.org
1082703
1.) Reduce pollution emissions from factories and vehicles. Country standards can replace high polluting processes with less pollution. These only work if there are inspections and fines.\na - Filters and electrostatic scrubbers can be used to remove harmful pollutants from smoke. \nb - High temperature combustion produces fewer carcinogens and polutants. \nc - The use of low sulpher coals and oils also reduces pollution\nd - Catalytic converters and lead free fuels reduce pollution\ne -  the replacement of fossil fuels with nuclear energy and hydrogen fules that don't produce pollution.\nf -  the safe mechanical recycling of items like glass, tyres and plastics that produce pollution if the are burned\ng - The stopping of production of CFC, freon and other harmful gases that were used in aerosols and fridges.\n\n2.) The creation of Carbon Dioxide "sinks" to remove Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. The planting of trees and shrubs, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Large scale experiments with tankers that dropped iron ore to grow alage that would take in carbon dioxide and then sink to the bottom of the ocean have not been succesful.  \n\n3.) Efficiencies in energy distribution. People who burn coal and gas (fossil fuels) create smog. An electricity grid that produces clean power from hydro electric, solar, wind, wave or nuclear power will reduce air pollution. Renewable energy sources like wood, ethanol from plant crops, fermenting manure (biogas) etc. Do not add to the pollution burden in the atmosphere. Public transport is less polluting than one commuter in one car.\n\n4.) Reduction in cattle and sheep stocks reduces the amount of methane that is released. Using human and animal manure for biogas also reduces the amount of free methane produced.
371905
Global warming is a term used to describe the trend of increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans that has been observed in recent decades. The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report in 2001 and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations in 2005, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1]. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 33 °C warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make that planet's surface warmer.\n\nObservational sensitivity studies [2] [3] and climate models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.\n\nThe range of uncertainty results in large part from not knowing the volume of future carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, there is uncertainty about the accuracy of the underlying climate models.\n\nThe increase in global temperatures is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Such changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, change agricultural yields, cause glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, or contribute to biological extinctions. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect any particular event to global warming.\n\nAlthough most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming would be expected to continue past then, since CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime [4]. Also, Climate commitment studies indicate that there is a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C — already committed but not yet realised.There are only a few scientists that contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. However, uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly-contested political and public debate exists over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences.
565197
One of the main reasons for global warming is an increase in greenhouse gases, such as CO2.  With less greenery and forest, the air does not have a chance to clean itself, since plants absorb CO2 and release O2, which we need to survive.  The urbanisation of rainforests means that they are being cut down, exacerbating this effect.
929342
Reducing greenhouse gasses is the primary goal in reversing the effects of global warming\n\nThe introduction of hydrogen fuel cells into cars may help reduce green house gas emissions. much research is going into this.\n\nUtilisation of coal seam methane for energy as opposed to burning it is reducing emissions.\n\nusing nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric power sources as opposed to fossil fuels.\n\nResearch is also being undertaken to further understand the problem of global warming and possible solutions - the problem cannot be treated successfully if it is not understood.
79230
Global warming.  It is killing all the frogs too!\n\nIf the frogs get eliminated...what's next!
342379
Global warming is a term used to describe the trend of increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans that has been observed in recent decades. The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report in 2001 and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations in 2005, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1]. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 33 °C warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make that planet's surface warmer.\n\nObservational sensitivity studies [2] [3] and climate models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.\n\nThe range of uncertainty results in large part from not knowing the volume of future carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, there is uncertainty about the accuracy of the underlying climate models.\n\nThe increase in global temperatures is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Such changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, change agricultural yields, cause glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, or contribute to biological extinctions. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect any particular event to global warming.\n\nAlthough most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming would be expected to continue past then, since CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime [4]. Also, Climate commitment studies indicate that there is a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C — already committed but not yet realized.\n \nThere are only a few scientists that contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. However, uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly-contested political and public debate exists over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences.
89233
There is enough evidence as it is. It is happening, and the reasons may be natural (interglacials, etc) or man-made (which would be, ultimately, "natural" too), but that doesn't matter because the effects are altering the world right now. \nI think the people who always advocate for "more evidence" and "further consideration" instead of real action about pollution issues are those interested in their immediate benefits. I guess they want to buy more time to continue earning their profits, or maybe they think that anything we can do is useless. \nThe Kyoto protocol has been around for a while now, and guess which countries have been refusing to compromise?
283596
This is such a confused issue. \n\nThe short answer is: maybe, but we really do not know. \n\nThe greenhouse gases that are in the earth's atmosphere now keep its temperature warmer by about 60 degrees F. These gases include water vapor (the most important), carbon dioxide, methane, and a few others.\n\nHow might humans increase the net number of greenhouse gases?\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\n\nBurning fossil fuels like coal and natural gas and oil results in the introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Burning wood also does so. Deforestation might reduce carbon dioxide sinks. Ocean pollution might also reduce carbon dioxide sinks by killing phytoplankton. Eutrophication (fertilizer in the water) creating algal blooms might also reduce carbon dioxide sinks (at least in the long run when they die and then rot, releasing more carbon dioxide). \n\nRaising cattle and growing rice can increase the greenhouse gas methane. CFCs and HCFCs are greenhouse gases produced by man. Ozone produced in our cities is also a greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide produced by agriculture and industry is another greenhouse gas.\n\nDoes this have anything to do with global warming?\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nWe do not really know if the global warming we have observed in the last 100 years is natural, or due to human intervention. It might be some other process, like change in solar output. We really do not know, to be honest.  \n\nSo there are a lot of uncertainties. We just do not know, to be honest.
66638
The previous answer is incorrect that there is no relation between the two problems. UNEP reports that global climate change may be slowing the healing process of the ozone layer. Warming of the atmosphere near the earth's surface actually causes cooling of the stratosphere and the cooler temperatures accelerate the chemical reactions that destroy ozone molecules.  Further, the US EPA reports that increased levels of ultraviolet-B radiation can be expected to worsen global warming by reduction of plant and phytoplankton populations. The two problems are tied in complex ways that involve feedback from both systems affecting the other. \nHere is the US EPA booklet:\nhttp://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/stratoz.pdf\n\nThe UN formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that resulted in the controversial Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  The UN has an excellent website that gives details on the history, the text of the protocol, some of the science, and status. \nhttp://unfccc.int/2860.php\n\nThe UN is also involved in trying to solve ozone depletion. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed by international parties. They agreed to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform usage which all cause ozone depletion in the atmosphere. These chemicals are used in dry cleaning, fire extinguishers, and in refrigeration. Many of these chemicals had begun phase out in the United States prior to the protocol due to EPA regulations. The UN's World Meteoroligal Organization and UNEP sponsor assessments of the ozone hole regularly. \n\n\n\nWhile the Montreal Protocol produced positive results during the late 1990's the problem has recently gotten worse- and then improved again!. Here is a NOAA graph showing that:\nhttp://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png\n\nThe US EPA has an impressive list of links to ozone depletion information. \nhttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/#specinfo
248420
I think these can help:\n\nwww.wwf.org\nwww.greenpeace.org\nwww.nationalgeographic.com
1087203
reduce greenhouse gases.
544753
it's really interesting.. the 12% answer is correct as a close approximation.\nThe interesting thing to note is that we are supposed to be causing globabl warming. This figure puts makind really into a good global perspective.\nThe next thing to do is see how much smoke and gas volcanos and thermal springs pump into the world every year. \nThen add in all the gases caused by animal excrement (include human in the numbers), and all the plantlife on the planet (including photosynthesising plants and animals in the oceans) and you start to build a very good picture that mankind is not causing global warmnig.