How Europe can save the world

Part1: Summary

In this article the writer says that he briefly held a meeting between the European Union to reduce carbon emissions by 20% and the agreement in Brussels and to be a decline between 1990 and 2020. He also said they would use renewable energy because it is durable examples of renewable energy, air and water, biofuels. Also the writer says that at the end of 2010 will be stations for the storage of energy in all the states of Europe.

But there are problems impeding the European Union which is renewable energy need to be a lot of money. As there are some companies that impede the European Union the most important of India, China and America, which use fossil fuels. We stopped to curb climate change before it is too late.

In short, the European Union and other nations are working hard to stop carbon emissions. As it would be a successful if the cooperation of the world to solve this problem.

Word count: 163


Part2: Main idea

1 - Convention on the European Union to reduce emissions by 20%
2 - The development of plants in all the countries of Europe for the storage of energy.
3 - Problems faced by the European Union.


Part3 comment:

This topic gave me a lot of information that I didn’t know it, but I want to know how long we will depend on the Arab Gulf fuel use in cars because there are many non-energy sources of fuel that can be used instead of fossil fuels.

An Inconvenient Truth-Task4

Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/ ,

In this review indicates that Al Gore's high temperature is one of the causes of human-induced, and many scientists support his view on this subject. The time had seemed to be implemented to redress the matter quickly before it is too late. He also added the images, video and graphics that show what would happen if we do not address the situation as quickly as the sinking of some East Asian countries and most of the sinking of America. At the end of the film indicated that he did not mean to scare people, but wants to know what is the difference between now and 1950 emission.



Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156,

From the negative review, saying that Al Gore's ambitions in politics and not to modify the climate of the earth. It would also take advantage of people when he said emotionally from the death of his son in a car accident and the death of his sister from lung cancer. It is also critical of Bush's policy because he does not care about the climate and that is in the war. He also added that the pictures might be old and may be in the winter or in summer, has been picked.


What is my opinion? I agree with the first review of some evidence, he said that we see in our world today, such as the occurrence of some earthquakes and floods due to global warming. I also agree with him one time and said that global warming is a threat to our world and we must find the appropriate solution and quickly. I Agreed with the second review, when he said that Gore made in his speech to reach for the presidency and the new American policy was not interested in climate change and that the issue is not a moral core.

An Inconvenient Truth-task3