Global island, spill med mening.

[hanekam]

jeg skal være med i noe som heter global island på skolen, i forbindelse med samfunnskunnskap, og jeg skal da være medlem i global island. dere kan lese om siden på www.globalisland.nu men problemet som skal diskuteres der er dette.

http://www.globalisland.nu/pages_game/dilemma/dilemma.php

 

hva ser dere på som en løsning på problemet som blir fremstilt her? det er jo mulig å trekke paralleler med den virkelige verden og dette uten problemer.

 

 

takker for alle svar-

Endret 21. mars 2006 av simvik

[klilleng]

Siden krever innlogging, og det er sikkert meningen at du og gruppen din skal løse problemet på egen hånd.

[Lemkin]

Løsningen er alltid laissez-faire kapitalisme

[klilleng]

Løsningen er alltid laissez-faire kapitalisme

5789043[/snapback]

 

Sant, sant.

[hanekam]

dette her er dilemmaet. og div info..

 

 

Global Island dilemma about Climate and Energy

 

How will Global Island reach the climate agreement’s goal of a 15% reduction over ten years in present levels of CO2 emission?

 

Global Island is seeing some violent climate changes. Last year four hurricanes caused serious damage everywhere on the island – but particularly in impoverished Porta. 5% of the country’s population lost their homes, and much of the infrastructure, including many roads and bridges, was wrecked.

 

Scientific studies predict that all low-lying coastal areas are in danger of flooding if there is no reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. Among other things, such flooding would destroy some of the best agricultural land in the South and create a considerable influx of refugees from poverty-stricken southern countries into the North.

 

Subjects and target groups: English, Physics, Chemistry, and Geography in the age groups 15-16 years (secondary school) and 16-19 years (high school). The two age groups play separately.

 

Background for the dilemma on Global Island

 

The Scenario on Global Island

Global Island consists of two rich countries, Nex and Porta, the middle income country of Zobia, and two poor countries: Votrox and Otago. Nex is the economic super power and the biggest polluter, while Zobia, with its large population and vast natural resources, is experiencing great economical growth. This development has meant that Zobia has doubled its energy consumption and pollution over that last five years.

 

In order to halt the escalating green house effect and its effects on the global climate, all the countries have signed a climate agreement to reduce present levels of CO2 emission by 15% over ten years, and by 50% by the year 2050.

If the goals in the agreement are not met, the Global Island Panel on Climate Change expects:

• Higher average temperatures

• Melting of the polar ice caps, causing increased water levels in the oceans

• More violent weather systems (including more hurricanes)

• New rainfall patterns and local climate changes, like drought in current agricultural areas.

 

The Green House Effect

The green house effect is caused by a layer of gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere which lets light in and prevents heat from escaping. In itself, the green house effect is a positive phenomenon, as it ensures a stable global climate with an average temperature of about 15 degrees Celsius. Without the natural green house effect, none of the higher life forms we know would exist, and the northern part of Global Island would be covered with ice more than half the year round.

 

Man-made green house effects derive mainly from a surplus of the green house gas CO2, which is released into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas. As more and more of these kinds of fuels are used on Global Island, the global warming caused by man-made green house effects grows worse. Furthermore, it has been estimated that the current supply of gas and oil will be used up in 50 years if the growth in consumption continues. The problem of excess CO2 emissions is made worse when trees are cut down and natural vegetation is burned.

 

The Climate Agreement

The goal of the climate agreement is to reduce present levels of CO2 emission by 15% over ten years, and by 50% by the year 2050.

 

In order to give poor countries a chance to break free from poverty, it has been agreed that the rich countries must make radical reductions while the poor countries may actually increase emissions to allow for economic growth.

 

The first 15% reduction will be achieved by the rich countries reducing their emissions by 30 percentage points from 70% of all man-made emissions to 40%. The poor countries are responsible for the remaining 30% of total emissions and will be allowed to increase their emissions by 15 percentage points to 45% of the current total.

 

Suggestions for Solutions

There are a number of different ways to reach the goals. Here are some suggestions that have been put forward by members of the Global Island parliament:

1. The rich countries reduce their energy consumption.

2. The rich countries transfer some of their consumption to renewable energy.

3. The rich countries construct renewable energy sources in poor countries to make increased energy consumption possible without releasing more CO2. In exchange, the rich countries take over the poor countries’ rights to a 15 percentage point increase in emissions, so they only have to reduce their share of the total CO2 emissions by 15 percentage points instead of 30.

4. The poor countries sell their 15 points worth of excess quota to the highest bidder.

5. The rich countries are allowed to buy CO2 quotas by turning over energy saving technology to the poor countries.

6. By planting more trees, countries can boost their CO2 quotas by the amount of CO2 that the trees are able to absorb.

7. Forest-rich countries receive extra CO2 quotas in exchange for not cutting down trees.

[klilleng]

Voldsomt fokus på CO2 der da.. Klimaendringene kan jo like godt skyldes endringer i solens syklus.

 

Siden det virker som om CO2 er er 99% av fokus i "oppgaven" kan du jo foreslå å erstatte alle fossile kraftverk med moderne kjernekraftverk. Null Co2.

 

Pkt 1 "The rich countries reduce their energy consumption." er det bare gærne natur-sosialister som tror på, så styr i det minste unna den løsningen.

[hanekam]

Voldsomt fokus på CO2 der da.. Klimaendringene kan jo like godt skyldes endringer i solens syklus.

 

Siden det virker som om CO2 er er 99% av fokus i "oppgaven" kan du jo foreslå å erstatte alle fossile kraftverk med moderne kjernekraftverk. Null Co2. 

 

Pkt 1 "The rich countries reduce their energy consumption." er det bare gærne natur-sosialister som tror på, så styr i det minste unna den løsningen.

5792807[/snapback]

 

 

det er kun fokus på co2. eller nesten. men hvordan vil moderne kjærnekraft verk påvirke miljøet.?

[klilleng]

det er kun fokus på co2. eller nesten. men hvordan vil moderne kjærnekraft verk påvirke miljøet.?

5792882[/snapback]

 

Stort sett ikke noe. Ulempen er at det blir en del radioaktivt avfall som må lagres et sted. De rike landene kan jo betale de fattige for å lagre avfallet..

[gspr]

Løsningen er alltid laissez-faire kapitalisme

5789043[/snapback]

 

<offtopic>Laissez-faire-kapitalisme er én løsning, og den er gjensidig utelukkende med sosial trygghet for alle.</offtopic>

[Toxon]

Løsningen er alltid laissez-faire kapitalisme

5789043[/snapback]

Enig!

 

Jeg skulle ønske man kunne være med enkeltvis, men det kan man ikke siden læreren må melde på hele klassen.

[Lemkin]

Løsningen er alltid laissez-faire kapitalisme

5789043[/snapback]

 

<offtopic>Laissez-faire-kapitalisme er én løsning, og den er gjensidig utelukkende med sosial trygghet for alle.</offtopic>

5793159[/snapback]

 

<svarpåofftopic>

Hvis du mener sosial trygghet som i et påtvunget velferdsystem, så har du et poeng.

Laissez-faire kapitalisme fungerer kun hvis et større flertall tenker, og ikke minst handler, på et rasjonelt grunnlag. Dette vil føre til ordninger som vil hjelpe de svakeste i samfunnet. Forskjellen er at dette blir etikkens oppgave, ikke statens.

</svarpåofftopic>

 

On topic:

 

Alt for mye fokus på Co2 utslippene og den såkalte "man made green house effect". Synd at det er et spill hvor "reglene" nok til sier at dette er fakta, men i virkeligheten kan dette være tidenes største hype som kun har ført til øknomisk tilbakegang. Regner med at dere må statse på teknologi innenfor kjernekraft, da dette er den mest miljøvennlige vi vet om idag.