Friday, February 17, 2012

Black carbon initiative: A Black out in leadership!

Pics curtsy: Whats up with that?(WUWT)
United State is looked up on as a world's leader among the countries. But, is it a leadership when the country steps back and tries to engage in excuses like “black carbon initiative” when the globe needs a world leader to help out with Carbon (CO2) reduction.

A small country like Bhutan is, committed and doing as much as it can in helping the mother earth regain its natural status from CO2 invasion. But US is trying to fool the world with the” black carbon” initiative.
“Now they have developed a plan that shifts the focus to others - developing countries in particular. While support for poorer countries is important, their primary responsibility should be to cut their own emissions and address the global challenges posed by climate change,” WWF's Phil states.
Truly the suppose to be world leader is trying to shift the focus in their own interest because the substances highlighted in the initiative – black carbon or soot, methane and hydrofluorocarbons – are known as short-lived climate forcers since they do not stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2.
What good can this be for the worlds major thread from environmental pollution. Why would US not step in and lead fighting environmental challenges like they lead wars to stabilize peace.
World should know that, this initiative should not cover the CO2 reduction initiative states the Phil Dickie from WWF.
“While short-lived forcers provide a window of opportunity it should not distract us from addressing the biggest cause of climate change: CO2 emissions.


  1. Hi Saamy,

    While I admire your concern for protecting nature, I am afraid your focus on CO2 is misplaced. Take a look at this hearing to see what I mean:

    Tom Harris
    ICSC, Canada

    1. yes Tom, i see this in the hearing...

      "Unlike such air pollutants as sulphur dioxide and particulates, which Canada has been very successful in reducing, CO2 is not easy to capture. Once captured, there is no obvious way to dispose of it. There 'appears' to be no way to cut CO2 emissions on a large scale without cutting energy consumption and impeding economic activity." I quote Professor Ross McKitrick. It there says "it appears to"

      I thought the country's are after money, and let CO2 get its way through. Countries love city and not forest.... because it 'impends economic activity'

      I am not sure but if CO2 is the major concern, why shift for those minors...?

      Thank you for the comment, but forgive me if i really am wrong..