Throwing money at climate change problems?

I was reading this article...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_o鈥?/a>



I noticed the ending about Hawaii needing money to help with the mosquitos.



How will money help with the mosquitos?



Are they going to spray toxic chemicals to kill the mosquitos, trading one environmental problem for another?



Won't the mosquitos just come back again the next season?



I read an article a couple years ago about villages in the mountains in Columbia having to root up and move to higher elevations because of new outbreaks of disease from the disease-carrying mosquitos that are now reaching these people in places before the mosquitos couldn't because it was too cold.Throwing money at climate change problems?They are just looking for hand-outs so that nationally we will have to help pay for mosquitos carrying dengi fever in Hana. It is a waste of everyones money. That what you get with big government, waste, corruption, and stupid little entities lobbying for government handouts.Throwing money at climate change problems?Some countries like Singapore have been very successful at getting rid of mosquitos but they don't like to draw attention to their methods.



A small amount of oil sprayed on stagnant water will stop them breeding. The department of the environment in that country is ironically involved in damaging the ecology for the benefit of humans. I can't say I blame them though, mosquito's are irritating and spread some very nasty diseases.Throwing money at climate change problems?That is the problem with trusting politicians to design a response. They'll throw maney around and sign treties to "do something", while entirely missing what's msot effective or most cost efffective.



Case in point... the one fast fix we have available to reduce current warming and minimize future warming would be to rapidly and globally reduce black carbon soot, which has up to 60% of the effect of CO2,

http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.htm鈥?/a>



Black carbon soot has been identified as the warming factor that can be addressed the fastest, at the least cost, and with the greatest short-term and long term benefit (CO2 remins in teh air for 1000+ years, so its reduction has only very long term benefits).

http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Briefing%2鈥?/a>



Since developed nations addressed their air pollution 80% decades ago, the responsibility for addressing this issue currently lies squarely on the shoulders of booming economies in Asia, particularly China (remember air quality during the Beijing Olympics?) and India, with 500+ additional dirty coal plants being completed at a rate of 2 per week.



How many politicians recognize this?

None that I'm aware of.



How many current or pending treaties pursue black carbon reduction? None that I'm aware of.



How many current or pending global warming CO2 treaties bind developing nations to ANY emissions limits or emission growth rate limits of any kind?

Not a single one!



In spite of the feel-good CO2 treaties and their follow-on proposals, not one results in any global reduction, or even a tangible and assured global emission growth slowdown. Obviously politicians have failed us; we can't trust them to take appropriate steps to lessen the risk to us. We need to educate them and direct them with exactly what they need to do.



Allocating funds to cover other things related to global warming that are even further removed from the core porblem should only strengthen our skepticism of the value that politicians provide on this particular common global challenge. Mosquitos and other minor side effects will be irrelevant if the global economy collapses as coastal cities go underwater, and as global crops fail. Politicians need to get their eyes on the ball. We need to recall or impeach the ones who don't.