EU MEMBERS AGREE TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS BY 40% (UK GROUP 2)

by aframoaa on October 27, 2014 - 5:11am

 This is the link ; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/24/eu-leaders-agree-to-cut-gre...

 

 

 40% CUT OF GREENHOUSE GAS FROM EU MEMBERS BY 2030

Many at times people doubt the facts about the global warming in the world today. Reading an article published in the Guardian after the EU summit meeting of which they concluded of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, it gave me a confirmation to my understanding that the issue about global warming is now taken seriously, no matter how John Coleman a member of the NIPCC (Taylor, 2014) continue to disagree with the issues about global warming stating that the activities of man has nothing to do with global warming.

EU members have finally been able to agree on cutting their greenhouse gas emission by 40% by the year 2030 (Nelsen, 2014) to reduce the global warming of the atmosphere even though Poland which is one of the highest production of the carbon dioxide due to their energy coal plant was able to come into agreement. This indicate that of a truth if nothing is done, we will all suffer the consequences. The 27% total cut on the EU members as a whole by 2030 is Very important. To reach this fair decision said Herman Van Rompuy the president of European Council (Taylor, 2014) (Nelsen, 2014) has sent a message to the world especially to all those countries who thinks about the economic growth only, rather than the environment and the people living in it to start doing their part to bring down the percentage rate of the carbon dioxide emission in the atmosphere.

Nowadays the growth of technology has made shale gas extraction cheaper therefore renewable energy must be the priority to all nations as Julia Michalak the spokewoman for Climate Action Network Europe (Nelsen, 2014)stated concerning the Poland energy plant that EU has agreed to allow it still to be operating. Her concern is important because renewable energy is affordable solution for cutting pollution since the public health and environmental cost of other energy source are accounted for, using EU fund must be used for building renewable energy Plant not to work on old energy plants because of the cost involved. Placing wind turbine on land can generate not only power but public opinion which diverge from one group to another, an idea of the public opposing wind energy. It can be because of culture or spearheaded by environmental groups forgetting the benefits renewable energy power can bring into the nation.

Job opportunities for the local people and contractors, reduction of carbon dioxide in nation, piece of landscape for bigger power production etc. Therefore we agree on the decision made by the EU members as it will edge all nation to put the idea into practise by reducing their carbon emission into the atmosphere. As the public are involved in all the project of the renewable energy planting they can work together with the project managers and engineers to come in agreement on the locations that will be good for both the people and the environment to make opposing it impossible. Renewable energy initiative is one of the best solution to reduce global warming as long as carbon emission is concern.

REFERENCING

Nelsen, A., 2014. The Guardian. [Online]
Available at: The Guardian .co.uk
[Accessed 24th 10 2014].

Taylor, J., 2014. The Guardian. [Online]
Available at: The guardian.co.uk
[Accessed 24th 10 2014].

Comments

What did you discuss with the US students about this article? How does this compare to approaches to carbon trading in the USA? Please add a brief summary of your conversation with the US students on this article.

About the author

Hi All,