free hit counter
klimaschutz / Beitraege und Berichte
 | 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Beitraege und Berichte

This version was saved 13 years, 3 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by PBworks
on April 4, 2008 at 9:24:00 pm
 

 Hier findet ihr Beitraege von Wiki-Lesern, und Berichte, die von anderen Quellen kommen, die zum Nachdenken und Diskutieren anregen koennen. 

 

Spezialseite: Maiken's Blog Beitraege (vom CO2Blogger)

 

Spezialseite: Maiken's adventures on her trip through Germany Jan- Feb 2008

 

1.4.2008.  The manufacture of Uncertainty. Chris Mooney


31.3.2008. Interview with Al Gore on 60 minutes.


23.3.2008. Rampant Negativity. By James Hansen


20.3.2008. James Hansen, Climate change, and you. Chasing Clean Air


12.3.2006. Written testimony of Bill Gates before the Committee on Science and Technology


6.3.2008.  Remember this: 350 parts per million. Washington Post


1.3.2008.  Enjoy life while you can. The Guardian


24.2.2008.  We'll save the planet only when we are forced to.  The Independent, UK

What steps do we REALLY need to do? The importance of political activism.  Please read and discuss at: How will we save the world?.


14.2.2008.  Auf was warten wir noch? Interview mit Franz Alt


25.1.2008. Two Energy Futures - Ein Statement von Jeroen van der Veer, dem CEO von Royal Dutch Shell über die Zukunft der Energiewirtschaft (von der Seite aus kann auch eine deutsche Version als PDF geöffnet werden)


23.1.2008.  Was wir wirklich fuer den Klimaschutz tun muessen. Die Gruenen


14.1.2008.  Es ist alles meine Schuld! Eine persoenliche CO2 Bilanz. Sueddeutsche


13.1.2008.  Ways for green transportation. NYTimes


7.1.2008.  Zum Neuen Jahr. Gedanken von Adolf Moninger, NABU Heilbronn


6.1.2008. Getting ready for a no-growth future.


6.1.2008. Gibt es ein oekologisches Wirtschaftswunder? Ein Interview mit Franz Alt


 6.1.2008. Trees are not the answer to climate change


Dezember 2007.  Eine erstaunliche, beunruhigende Weltkarte der Ausmasse der internen Ueberwachung verschiedener Laender, und ihr Bericht.


Dezember 2007.  Commentary: Climate change, courage, and celebration.  Ein sehr guter kurzer Kommntar daruebr, wie wir effektiver kommunizieren koennen.


31.12.2007.  New Year's Resolutions: Way beyond lightbulbs


Dezember 2007. Geo Artikel: Weshalb es uns gelingt, den Klimawandel zu verdraengen.


14.12.2007.  Frustration and anger - ein email Austausch mit einem Bekannten in Bali


11.12.2007. Monbiot: The real answer to climate change is to leave fossil fuels in the ground.


10.12.2007. Draft letter from Jim Hanson to prime Minister Brown


6.12.2007. Meine Guete! Argumente gegen die "Klimakatastrophe"

Argumente fuer den Unsinn dieses Berichtes werde ich Stueck fuer Stueck darlegen.


5.12.2007.  Die USA diskutieren ein Klimaschutz-gesetz, bei dem die CO2 Emissionen bis 2050 im 70% verringert werden sollen (U.S. Climate Security Bill). 

Dazu schrieb ich den U.S. Senatoren:

 

Here is a chance that the U.S. can rectify its image in the world. I just came back from giving talks on climate change in my home country, Germany, and it is sad - but very understandable - how many Germans view Americans as wasteful short-sighted people who follow the money, not morality and simple clear needs that are so obvious if one would just allow oneself to stop and think and feel for a minute.

 

I urge you to take off 2 hours, walk through the woods and meadows, look around you, and allow yourself to truly feel what climate change will do to you, your family, all of us citizens of the world, and the natural world around you and our beautiful planet.

 

If after that you oppose the climate security act, then I am afraid your sense of responsibility, simple wisdom, and clear insight into natural laws are obstructed by short-sightedness, egocentrism, and unreasonable fears.

 

BTW, S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, has less strong goals than Germany, which committed to a 40% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2050.  The world leader U.S.A. should be able to do at least less than a much smaller, less powerful country.

 

This is not a game; this is not about money. It is about the survival of 1000's of species, and of billions of people. It's about being human.  Please, support S. 2191 if life and joy and security and beauty is important to you.

 

 


4.12.2007. Konsequenter Klimaschutz jetzt! Von Franz Alt

 


4.12.2007. What is progress? By George Monbiot.

 


Ein Beitrag des Deutschen Solar_Energievereins ueber die Notwendigkeit, 100% erneuerbare Energien so bald wie moeglich durchzusetzen.:

 

[sfv-energiemail] 04.12.2007 Zum Beginn der Klimakonferenz in Bali

Gestern hat in Bali die 13. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz der Klimarahmenkonvention begonnen. In Bali soll ein Verhandlungszeitplan festgelegt werden. Doch worüber soll überhaupt verhandelt werden? Dazu erst einmal ein Blick auf die Notwendigkeiten:

 

In der Kurzzusammenfassung des letzten IPCC-Berichts durch das BMUhttp://www.bmu.de/files/download/application/pdf/syr_kurzzusammenfassung_071117_v5-1.pdf ist zu lesen, dass man die Gefährlichkeit der erwarteten Temperaturerhöhung bisher unterschätzt habe. Auch habe man bisher noch gar nicht alle Effekte berücksichtigt, die sich selbst verstärken (im Bericht des BMU ist die Rede von "Rückkopplungen"). Dazu gehört z.B. die Tatsache, dass beim Auftauen der Permafrostböden Methangas frei

wird, das seinerseits die Temperaturen weiter ansteigen lässt.

 

 

Die Klimakatastrophe entwickelt sich nach den Gesetzen der Physik - und die lassen sich durch Verhandlungen nicht verändern! Worüber soll dann also überhaupt verhandelt werden? Die einzige Chance der Menschheit liegt darin, dass Alle den CO2-Ausstoß so rasch wie möglich BEENDEN, bevor es zu spät ist, bevor die sich selbst verstärkenden Rückkopplungen überwiegen und es zu einem "runaway climate change" - einer nicht mehr umkehrbaren fortwährend schneller ansteigenden Erwärmung - kommt. Also brauchen wir zweierlei:

 

 

- Eine internationale Ächtung der fossilen Energien - ähnlich wie damals im September 1987 die erfolgreiche internationale Ächtung der FCKW, die die Ozonschicht zerstören. Dazu braucht man Verhandlungen. Aber was die Ächtung der fossilen Energien anbelangt, so muss man derzeit allerdings befürchten, dass die deutschen Verhandlungsführer noch nicht

einmal die physikalische Notwendigkeit verstanden haben. Sie vertreten die Idee, die Nutzung der fossilen Energien mit verbesserten Wirkungsgraden, also mit weniger CO2-Ausstoß fortzusetzen, oder das entstehende CO2 irgendwie unterirdisch zu lagern - also der Wunsch nach einer Übergangslösung auf fossiler Basis. Doch für eine Übergangslösung ist es längst zu spät, wie die oben erwähnten neuen Erkenntnisse des IPCC zeigen. Nur noch ein Totalausstieg kann uns retten.

 

 

- Damit die Volkswirtschaften auch ohne fossile Energien weiter gedeihen  können, brauchen wir außerdem das rasche Aufwachsen der CO2-freien Erneuerbaren Energien und eine vollständige Umstellung auf diese Art der  Energieversorgung. Für diese Aufgabe sind internationale Verhandlungen nicht das geeignete Mittel. Neue Technologien werden nicht durch internationale Verhandlungen eingeführt. Das war weder bei der Fernsehtechnik, noch bei der Computertechnik, noch beim Handy der Fall. Bei der Markteinführung neuer Technologien kommt es auf nationale günstige Rahmenbedingungen und auf Unternehmerinitiative an. Zu den Rahmenbedingungen gehört insbesondere eine Verbesserung der

Einspeisevergütungen für die Windenergie im Binnenland, für Kleinwasserkraftwerke und für die Sonnenenergie. Von dieser dringenden nationalen Aufgabe dürfen wir uns durch den Blick nach Bali nicht ablenken lassen. Und wir müssen auch nicht abwarten, was in den Folgekonferenzen entschieden werden wird. Deutschland hat unabhängig von Bali schon jetzt zuhause wichtige Aufgaben. Die Bevölkerung wünscht sich eine Vorreiterrolle bei der Umstellung der Energieversorgung auf heimische Erneuerbare Energien.

Wir sollten weitermachen bei dem, was möglich ist. 100% Erneuerbare Energien sind möglich, deutschlandweit, europaweit, weltweit. Wir müssen es nur wollen.

----------------------------------------------------------

* Solarenergie-Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (SFV) *

* Herzogstraße 6 * D-52070 Aachen * zentrale@sfv.de *

* Tel. 0241-511616 * Fax 0241-535786 * http://www.sfv.de *

* Bankkonto: 100 541 5019 Pax Bank e.G. BLZ: 370 601 93 *

 


 

 

Dossiers zur Klimakonferenz auf Bali - Neues Deutschland (ergänzt 27. 11. 2007)


Sehr gute Beitraege finden sich u.a. unter  http://www.sonnenseite.com/ und http://www.monbiot.com/

 


 Ein Beitrag von Al Gore zur NY Times im Juli 2007:

Al Gore Op-Ed

Posted July 3rd, 2007 by Shelby

 

Al Gore was published in the New York Times Sunday Opinion section on

July 1st. Read what he has to say about global warming, post-Kyoto

agreements, and the Live Earth concerts coming up this Saturday.

 

Op-Ed Contributor (read here or click on this link for the original

format)

Moving Beyond Kyoto

 

By AL GORE

Published: July 1, 2007

 

Nashville

 

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is

unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could

actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is

nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

 

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is

not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable

for human beings.

 

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to

put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our

world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth

and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average

temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an

end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

 

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been

removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in

the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million

tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per

million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts

per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million

this year.

 

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving

closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make

it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s

habitability for human civilization.

 

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north

polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly

three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models

predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone

in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet,

near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow

melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

 

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects

the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left

versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it

is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the

prospects of every generation that follows ours.

 

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession

with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all

the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal

threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly

our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from

outside this world.”

 

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from

outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

 

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly

the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The

difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground —

having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600

million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

 

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59

degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus

is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star;

Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right

next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

 

This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in

recognition of our common bond.

 

Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will

ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to

make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate

crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the

solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or

failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and

what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”

 

Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone

who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to

take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the

pledge are available at algore.com.)

 

But individual action will also have to shape and drive government

action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most

of our short history, the United States and the American people have

provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of

Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in

World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were

the result of American leadership.

 

Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to

take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for

success.

 

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an

international treaty within the next two years that cuts global

warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more

than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a

healthy Earth.

 

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the

Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I

believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States

that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter

administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded

strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations

will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.

 

Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT

agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for

it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a

new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete

this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as

currently planned.

 

If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a

domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt

that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to

sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new

treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

 

A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course;

countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon

their historical share or contribution to the problem and their

relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well

established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.

 

There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use

xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be

held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our

gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in

the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load

as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we

cannot lead?

 

Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their

future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in

the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the

best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to

warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than

politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the

greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger

bears down on us.

 

We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this

challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as

corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic

opportunities offered by a clean energy future.

 

But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the

right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience

what few generations in history have had the privilege of

experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a

shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put

aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine

moral and spiritual challenge.

 

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the

Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of

“The Assault on Reason.”


November 2007.  Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2007: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate

 


14.11.2007

Editorial

Nature 450, 319 (15 November 2007) | doi:10.1038/450319a; Published online 14 November 2007

 

The heat is on

 

At December's climate-change meeting, everyone can agree on one thing: it is make-or-break time.

 

Next month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, is charged with drawing up a clear and convincing road map that will lead to a robust international climate-change agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. That is a momentous challenge but, given the right approach from participants, not an insurmountable one.

 

Evidence is fast mounting that time is running out for nations to unite in a credible response to climate change. The International Energy Agency said last week that energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide are set to grow from 27 gigatonnes in 2005 to 42 gigatonnes by 2030 — a rise of 56%. Other estimates project even higher growth, and also reveal, alarmingly, that 'carbon intensity' — the level of carbon emissions required to sustain a given level of economic activity — is actually growing again.

 

Bad faith still clouds the implementation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. US withdrawal from the agreement and the treaty's subsequent failure to make much noticeable impact on its signatories' emissions leave ample scope for ugly and fruitless recrimination.

 

Yet the timing of the Bali meeting is, politically, rather more auspicious than was the case at Kyoto ten years ago. A new politics of climate change is unfolding in Australia (see page 336) and the United States (see page 340), two of the nations where opposition to effective international action has been strongest (see also page 333 and page 342). This is the context for a new international agreement that must transcend the Kyoto accord by setting in motion a vision that is more broadly based and more ambitious than the cap-and-trade principle of the original agreement.

If the cap fits

 

The road map that will emerge from Bali need not cling to cap-and-trade as its mainstay. Indeed, cap-and-trade has yet to be fully tested as a mechanism for reducing emissions. It was originally conceived to deal with sulphur emissions from power stations — an issue in which the costs and benefits are relatively small — but doubts are emerging about its ability to cope with the far larger issue of greenhouse-gas emissions. Nevertheless, it should not be abandoned, but other approaches, including the direct imposition of carbon taxes, may ultimately prove to be equally as potent in raising the cost of burning fossil fuels.

 

In addition to striking the right balance between Kyoto-type targets and fresh approaches to global action on climate change, the Bali road map will have to cover territory that the previous accord was unable to reach. For example, it will have to set terms for the direct involvement of developing nations in the international push to reduce carbon emissions. That means the participation of nations such as India, Brazil and China — the last of which has, the International Energy Agency believes, this year surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

 

The poorest countries cannot be expected to be part of this push here, but they must benefit from assistance for their efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change. Several wealthy nations, such as the Netherlands, are forging ahead with sophisticated adaptation strategies. But for the most vulnerable societies, adaptation to climate change ultimately boils down to poverty alleviation. Such a requirement must co-exist with the politically awkward fact that the new accord must take into account substantial contributory factors that were excluded from Kyoto — including emissions from air transport and the huge impact of deforestation.

 

A long-term international commitment to reduced emissions will also involve far greater collaboration between nations on the research and development programmes needed to come up with more alternative-energy sources. Already, market forces are pulling a diverse range of solar and wind options through to more cost-effective operation. But there are major energy problems, such as carbon capture and sequestration, that will require substantial public-sector investment to move forward.

 

The road map to emerge from Bali will have to cover territory that the Kyoto Protocol was unable to reach.

Thinking big

 

All of this is a tall order for the representatives of more than 180 nations expected to gather at Bali on 3–14 December. A great deal will hinge on the approach taken by the two largest emitters, China and the United States.

 

There will be a temptation for China to assume a stance as defender of the poor nations against the malign interests of the rich. It would certainly be politically feasible for it to point to the failure of the United States to fulfil its earlier agreement that developed nations should act first, and to argue that there is no moral case for China to do so when its per capita emissions are so much lower than those of other countries.

 

Fortunately, there are signs that China knows better than to adopt this dead-end strategy. There are clear signs that Beijing is fully aware of the threat posed to China's future development by climate change and, as usual, its leadership will be taking the long view. Despite the rampant construction of coal plants in the past few years, China knows that its energy balance has to change, and it can use the Bali meeting to assert itself as a global power, offering to lead, rather than to follow.

 

The outlook for the US delegation is less promising. Its negotiators will include ideologues who will stop at nothing to derail the humble progress the rest of the world has managed to make through the Kyoto accord. The only thing that can save them from themselves is President Bush's possible desire to end his reign on a slightly more positive note than the salutary one on which he began it, with his March 2001 decision that the United States would withdraw from the Kyoto agreement. The next American president is, thankfully, likely to take a more constructive approach to global warming after 2009. The Bali meeting is the global community's chance to prepare for the opening that this should provide

 


 6.11.2007  http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/">An Agricultural Crime Against Humanity . Biofuels could kill more people than the Iraq war.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th November 2007


November 2007.  Franz Alt. Das Ende des Ölzeitalters ist der Beginn des Solarzeitalters – Die Chance der Krise


 6.11.2007. 

Go Ahead, Rationalize. Monkeys Do It, Too.

For half a century, social psychologists have been trying to figure out the human gift for rationalizing irrational behavior. Why did we evolve with brains that salute our shrewdness for buying the neon yellow car with bad gas mileage? The brain keeps sending one message — Yesss! Genius! — while...


 5.11.2007.  Al Gore Interview. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21637195/


 3.11.2007.  Step It Up! - 100-erte von Demonstrationen in allen Staaten der USA. 

Hier ein Bericht ueber meine Eindruecke Bericht - Step It Up!

 

Beitraege zu unserem Step It Up! event:

James B. Quilligan, US Coordinator, Global Marshall Plan Initiative 

"Climate change and ecological degradation are major challenges facing the global commons today, but not the only ones. World poverty and disease, the lack of multilateral cooperation, the need to create new global economic rules and institutions, and the need for alternative sources of multilateral funding -- these are also problems which transcend national borders and are of vital concern to the international community.

 

The Global Marshall Plan believes, first, that all global commons issues must be linked together because they are interdependent and should be discussed together in one agenda. Second, the Global Marshall Plan maintains that these issues should be negotiated by representatives from business, government, and civil society -- not just from the wealthier nations -- but from rich and poor nations alike. Finally, we believe that only through global economic trust, cooperation and sharing will we be able to put sustainable development at the heart of the global market economy. Please support the Global Marshall Plan by visiting our website -- www.globalmarshallplan.org"

 

*****************

Klaudius Gansczyk

"The 21st century didn't start very well, but the consciousness of global warming gives us a new chance:Europe´s prosperity has only been possible because of the Marshall Plan

after the II'nd world war. Following the spirit of the Marshall Plan, AlGore demanded in his book "Earth in the Balance" (1992) a "Global Marshall Plan" as a new "Central Organizing Principle" for life on our planet.

Now is the time for a Global Marshall plan that units all people and nature of our planet, and which is based on an Intercultural Humanism, with transatlantic and transcultural friendships in a spirit of love in natureand responsibility towards preserving our wonderful Homeplanet for all life."

 


This interview with James Lovelock might be an interesting basis for discussion. 

"One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

 


30.10.2007 The Road Well Travelled

 

Are we already shutting our minds to the consequences of climate change?

 

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 30th October 2007


27.10.2007.  oekologisch leben - aber wie? http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=16&article:oid=a8632&template=article_detail.html&flash=true


 Rede von Bundespräsident Horst Köhler anlässlich der Feiern zum 100. Jahrestag der Gründung der Tongji Universität in Shanghai. 26.05.2007 Shanghai.

"Wir sind also alle Nachbarn geworden, und das hat Folgen für alle Politik. Jedes Land muss bedenken, welche Konsequenzen sein Handeln jetzt im 21. Jahrhundert für die anderen hat. Zum Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit innerhalb der Nationen muss das Bewusstsein der Zusammengehörigkeit zwischen den Nationen kommen. Innen- und Außenpolitik sind nur noch so getrennt wie die Innen- und Außenseite eines Handschuhs, und Außenpolitik ist zugleich Weltinnenpolitik....

http://tinyurl.com/yvkdog


 What are our goals? http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/29/climate-greenhouse-gas-carbon-goals-targets/

 


 September 27, 2007. Die Rolle von Biomasse als Kohlenstoff-speicher: http://www.sfv.de/artikel/2007/Wohin_mi.htm____________________________________________________


Angela Merkel's Rede vor der UN, September 23, 2007:http://tinyurl.com/28pvsb

Auf Englisch: http://tinyurl.com/ytdfhu


 CO2 Ausstoss durchs internet so hoch wie Flugverkehr: http://tinyurl.com/2hdeut________________________________________________________

 


September 14, 2007.  Das Klimaproblem KANN geloest werden!!http://tinyurl.com/2o3kd3

(bzw. im Archiv der Pressemitteilungen http://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/service/presse/archiv-pressemitteilungen.html)

____________________________________________________________

 

 McKinsey-Studie zur Vermeidung von Treibhausgasen: http://tinyurl.com/2zguhm

__________________________________________________________

 

25. September, 2007.  Warum arbeiten wir am Klimaschutz? (von Maiken)


2005.  Is economic growth "making" greenhouse effect ? http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/growth.html

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.