また地球温暖化・CO２排出量

http://ito.bakufu.org/index1.html　No 2

また地球温暖化・CO２排出量の話題を聞きましたが これはどういう意味でしょうか。

No.3 ベストアンサー 回答者： kantansi 回答日時： 2015/12/09 14:38

No.2です。

　「ALにこだわりたい」というのはどういうことでしょうか？
以下が2002年7月12日週号のThe Economist紙の当該記事の一部です。　私の回答が正しいと思いますが？

CURWOOD: Environmental activists have long warned about the dangers of fossil fuels. Now the British business journal The Economist is joining the chorus. The cover of its current issue reads: "CO2AL, Environmental enemy No.1." The issue also opines that markets could be a potent force for greenery if only greens could learn to love them. Vijay Viatheeswaran is the Energy and Environmental Correspondent for The Economist. And he joins me now from London. Welcome to Living on Earth.

VIATHEESWARAN: Hello.

CURWOOD: Tell me, how did coal make it onto the cover of The Economist as "environmental enemy No.1?"

VIATHEESWARAN: First of all, more than any other fossil fuel it's particularly carbon-intensive, and it's so much more abundant. It's very clear that we can burn all of the conventional oil, and conventional natural gas that's in the ground, and still meet very aggressive targets for climate change.

But if we burn even part of the coal that's spread all over the world, then we're in real trouble. The final reason is the most important one. That's human health. There's no dirtier fuel out there, frankly. Coal is nasty stuff. And, the current ways that we burn it are very dirty, particularly inefficient, and they do a lot of harm to human health.

CURWOOD: How can market forces help to reduce the use of coal? The stuff is cheap.

VIATHEESWARAN: It's a good question. Many people imagine that markets are, fundamentally, the enemy of the environment. First, nobody that believes in markets, and free markets, would allow coal to get a free ride the way it does. For example, in a lot of rich countries, Germany and Spain are good examples, they give cash to coal producers to encourage them to produce more coal and to lower the price. Now, that's outrageous when you think about the harm that it does to the environment.

In America, too, it's a more implicit form of subsidy. But, old coal plants don't have to meet current environmental regulations. So, when one talks about market forces, I would say, first of all, get rid of the subsidies and the free ride. The flipside of that, I would say, that's still not enough. And classical economists would argue you need to get prices right. That means rolling in the environmental and human health harm caused by all kinds of fossil fuels.

In some countries in the world, particularly in Europe, they impose carbon taxes or various kinds of taxation on top of the market price. And, that's very specifically meant to take account of the harm that it does.

CURWOOD: Let's look a little closely at how the U.S. handles this. How does the U.S. stand in terms of our free trade, our free market economic approach vis a vis coal?

この回答へのお礼

The Economist紙の当該記事の検索知識でベストアンサー

私はAL＝アル・ゴアとひっかけていると思うのですが、
私だけでしょうか
The Economist紙ではなく毎日新聞の週間エコノミスト
であれば文面通り炭素集約型・炭素悪玉論でそのままで
しょが・・

http://ito.bakufu.org/index1.html　No２

お礼日時：2015/12/14 08:02

No.2 回答者： kantansi 回答日時： 2015/12/08 14:39

「二酸化炭素（CO2)を多く輩出する石炭（COAL)火力発電は環境問題のいちばんの敵」でしょう。

この回答へのお礼

ある教授とその教授を好む友人が理系と文系とでは
物事の思考が違うと、文系ではね～と言ってました
が、この雑誌のカバーの意味は文系思考も必要では、

私はALにこだわりたいのですが

お礼日時：2015/12/09 11:51

No.1 回答者： area_99 回答日時： 2015/12/08 11:56

全ての二酸化炭素は環境問題の一番！

▲
という意味です。
読めませんか？