NationStates Jolt Archive

Its mainly the fault of China and Smogistan the central Asian country. Why should we sign it?

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


Actually 45% of the US's carbon dioxide emmisions are caused by chanting USA!

Its mainly the fault of China and Smogistan the central Asian country. Why should we sign it?

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


Actually 45% of the US's carbon dioxide emmisions are caused by chanting USA!

Nigga, please.

The U.S., despite having a tiny fraction of China's population, consumes 41,565,000 barrels per day (oil equivalent) of fuel per day. China consumes 15,012,000 barrels oil equivalent per day.

Do some research before you start flapping your gums.

Its mainly the fault of China and Smogistan the central Asian country. Why should we sign it?

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


Actually 45% of the US's carbon dioxide emmisions are caused by chanting USA!
Somebody's been watching Jon Stewart! :p

Nigga, please.

The U.S., despite having a tiny fraction of China's population, consumes 41,565,000 barrels per day (oil equivalent) of fuel per day. China consumes 15,012,000 barrels oil equivalent per day.

Do some research before you start flapping your gums.
Actually China polutes far more due to the usage of coal, which is far more harmful to the environment. Maybe you ought to do research before you can talk.

Actually China polutes far more due to the usage of coal, which is far more harmful to the environment. Maybe you ought to do research before you can talk.

Way to call for more research while providing no figures yourself.

China does burn more coal (1,500 million short tons compared to the United States's 983 million short tons), but the coal that they burn, they burn more cleanly that the United States (China's coal consumption yielded 682 million metric tons of carbon emissions, whereas the United States's coal consumption yielded 524 million metric tons). (1998 DOE/EIA study.)

And this is on a straight-up nation-to-nation comparison. On a per-capita basis, China is a Prius compared to our oil-burning wide-bodied El Dorado.

Moreover, all hydrocarbons produce carbon, which is the fundamental issue of Kyoto. When people talk about coal burning "dirty," they're talking about sulfur and other impurities. In terms of producing carbon, the overall numbers are a better reflection.

Don't tell me to research when you apparently can't be bothered to.

The last I heard you guys are responsible for over 30% of the worlds pollution and you will not sign the Kyoto accord.
I blame you for that.

The last I heard you guys are responsible for over 30% of the worlds pollution and you will not sign the Kyoto accord.

~Represent

USA sucks. Polluters supremus. Bah.

The thing that bothers me most about the pollution-apologist, anti-Kyoto stance, generally, isn't the way they play fast and loose with the numbers or ignore actual pollution data in favor of soundbytes and bad assumptions, but the way in which the argument ultimately breaks down into declarations of some sort of national entitlement. "Why should we hold ourselves to the standard of a third world nation?" "We need this energy to maintain our position as the economic and technological light of the world." "I'm certain that technology will yield an answer to this issue, but if we cut back our consumption, we limit our ability to find this solution."

By god, the arrogance of it. As an American, I find it repulsive. I can only imagine what folks outside looking in are thinking.

If Kyoto is so good, then why did the Senate vote 95-0 against it? Even the most liberal Senators like Chappequiddick Ted, John F'ing Kerry, the late Paul Wellstone, and Barbara Boxer voted against it. Any nation that actually follows the treaty can say hello to decades of depression and 20% unemployment.

In all honesty, more nuclear power plants is the best way to decrease polution. That or finding a way to get fusion to work, but that's decades away. Nuc plants are safe so long as you set high specifications and enforce them. Basically, you need another Hyman G. Rickover to bust everyone's ass if they don't meet the safety requirements. I mean look at the US Navy. About 200 nuc boats have been commissioned and operated over the last 51 years and no accidents have occured with the reactors.

Compare those numbers with the Russian Navy where they had dozens of reactor accidents. K-19 herself had 2. 4 of the 7 Alfa class SSNs suffered reactor accidents.

If you believe that the prevailing assumption is that the U.S. is to blame for "pollution," you are mistaken. Both sides of this argument are invalid. Someone makes a bad assumption without facts, countered by someone without facts.

OK, IDF. Yer a reasonable person. Sorry for being nasty above. I made a bad assumption about where you were taking the argument based on your first reply.

As an aside, what do you think about the "nuclear batteries" being proposed for rural Alaskan communities? I think it's a friggin' brilliant idea.

Come on, we all know that poisoning our environment is good for us and littering makes everything beautiful. Americans are the most masterful caretakers of the Earth on the planet!

Also global warming is obviously junk science and I am a Galaxian warrior

The last I heard you guys are responsible for over 30% of the worlds pollution and you will not sign the Kyoto accord.
I blame you for that.

Kyoto is all BS-politics. Even if the US joined it and cut CO2 emissions to pre-1991 levels, it would only reduce "global warming" by .07 C (and seriously stunt economic growth). Clearly not worth it. Besides, water is a far worse green-house gas accounting for over 95% of the "warming" effect, CO2 plays little, if any role in "global warming". Unfotunately, politicians and interest gorups are able to manipulate a scientifically ignorant public with skeptical data and half-truths (what's new, i guess?).

The last I heard you guys are responsible for over 30% of the worlds pollution and you will not sign the Kyoto accord.
I blame you for that.


Didn't know I as a regular Joe 6-pack could sign an international treaty.

The US are going the right way to getting invaded by a joint western force. They pollute the world more than any other country, and don't cut emissions for their precious economy. Just wait until 2100 when half of the country is underwater. Just get rid of your capitalist president and vote for someone who cares for the putside world.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm

The US are going the right way to getting invaded by a joint western force. They pollute the world more than any other country, and don't cut emissions for their precious economy. Just wait until 2100 when half of the country is underwater. Just get rid of your capitalist president and vote for someone who cares for the putside world.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm

Art Bell called, he wants his environmental whack-jobness back!

The US are going the right way to getting invaded by a joint western force. They pollute the world more than any other country, and don't cut emissions for their precious economy. Just wait until 2100 when half of the country is underwater. Just get rid of your capitalist president and vote for someone who cares for the putside world.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm

you think that increasing CO2 levels from .032 to .040% composition of the atmosphere is going to flood half of the country?!? :rolleyes: get a clue.

Unfotunately, politicians and interest gorups are able to manipulate a scientifically ignorant public with skeptical data and half-truths.

Ignoring you post, because, quite frankly, it's bollocks, I want to ask you why the government would want to stunt economic growth? A government which actually sets out to do this as an end in itself would not last the remainder of it's term. Economic growth is stunted as a means to another end, be it workplace regulation or environmental regulation.

The Kyoto protocol is barely the start of the measures we need to reverse global warming / climate change. The interest groups you talk about contain almost the entire collection of climate scientists. Special interest, pro-business groups such as the International Policy Network have had to resort to using such respected persons as orthodontists to back up their libertarian nonsense.

And as for nuclear power being the way forward, get a grip. Nuclear power is prohibitivley expensive, dangerous, and in need of government subsidy every step of the way. PV solar panels are cheap, reliable and safe.

you think that increasing CO2 levels from .032 to .040% composition of the atmosphere is going to flood half of the country?!? :rolleyes: get a clue.
Sorry, I wanted someone with an actual knowledge of the situation to reply. Do you even know the effect of that rise?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html

Its mainly the fault of China and Smogistan the central Asian country. Why should we sign it?

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


Actually 45% of the US's carbon dioxide emmisions are caused by chanting USA!
well someonwe watchings the daily show...

I want to ask the environmentalists a question. Why is it that you are mostly against nuclear power despite the fact that it is virtualy non-poluting and western europe uses it as the main source of power? I never understood that.

And as for nuclear power being the way forward, get a grip. Nuclear power is prohibitivley expensive, dangerous, and in need of government subsidy every step of the way. PV solar panels are cheap, reliable and safe.
Nuclear power isn't dangerous. In the past century, there has been one (maybe two, if you count Japan's) bad accident, which wouldn't have happened in a properly run facility.

Sorry, I wanted someone with an actual knowledge of the situation to reply. Do you even know the effect of that rise?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html

interesting, the key word repeated was "could" and ends with the line:
"Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas"

so what exactly is the consequence?

The USA is responsible for colossal 25% of world greenhouse emissions.. so yes I think we should blame them for polluting the world. :rolleyes:

Our very existence on this planet is threatened by the USA.. China too but they have more of an excuse seen as they are a developing country.

interesting, the key word repeated was "could" and ends with the line:
"Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas"

so what exactly is the consequence?
None of course. Global Warming is just a huge scam to destroy America. Sorry to doubt your immense knowledge.

I want to ask the environmentalists a question. Why is it that you are mostly against nuclear power despite the fact that it is virtualy non-poluting and western europe uses it as the main source of power? I never understood that.

I consider myself a realistic environmentalist and I'm not opposed to nuke power at all. I'm aware that we've got a thirst for energy that's got to be met. What I'm opposed to is the sort of flat-earth outlook that blindly denies or ignores global warming as though fossil fuels were an article of faith and alternatives are heresy.

I know you are for nuclear power from your last post. I was talking about the majority of environmentalists that oppose nuclear power along with every other advancement made by humans in the past 6000 years.

I know you are for nuclear power from your last post. I was talking about the majority of environmentalists that oppose nuclear power along with every other advancement made by humans in the past 6000 years.

Don't care much for the Sierra Club, eh? I think you'll find that the majority of environmentalists aren't rabid, tree-staking, PETA-loving, Birk-wearing crunchies, but rather average joes who sort their trash for recycling, who turn off the lights when they leave a room, and walk or take transit instead of driving, when possible. The people you're talking about are just a highly visible minority.

Don't care much for the Sierra Club, eh? I think you'll find that the majority of environmentalists aren't rabid, tree-staking, PETA-loving, Birk-wearing crunchies, but rather average joes who sort their trash for recycling, who turn off the lights when they leave a room, and walk or take transit instead of driving, when possible. The people you're talking about are just a highly visible minority.
It's just that when I think environmentalists, I think hippies. And I hate hippies. It might be just a steriotype, but environmentalists are known to be against nuclear power. Is it just another example of the whiny few representing the silent majority?

The thing that bothers me most about the pollution-apologist, anti-Kyoto stance, generally, isn't the way they play fast and loose with the numbers or ignore actual pollution data in favor of soundbytes and bad assumptions, but the way in which the argument ultimately breaks down into declarations of some sort of national entitlement. "Why should we hold ourselves to the standard of a third world nation?" "We need this energy to maintain our position as the economic and technological light of the world." "I'm certain that technology will yield an answer to this issue, but if we cut back our consumption, we limit our ability to find this solution."

By god, the arrogance of it. As an American, I find it repulsive. I can only imagine what folks outside looking in are thinking.

It just gets logged, filed, and categorized alongside all the other reasons why 'folks outside' regard America as a haven for thuggish, self-satisfied brutes. America is regarded with the same antipathy as any knowing tribe of early hominids faced with an aggressive, sociopathic, self-proclaimed 'leader' who likes pissing and shitting in the community well. Wait 'til he's asleep, and then -

Whether the US starts reducing emissions or not, it's not going to be able to keep its economy either way as growth capitalism cannot continue to grow without opening new markets, and to open new markets you need affluent people who can afford to buy products, and affluent people aren't going to sit in sweatshops 11 hours a day stitching your trainers.

With over 1 billion Chinese and another billion non-chinese asians (not to mention Africa which will catch up in this century) wanting widescreen TV's, SUV's, KFC and all the rest of the first world lifestyle that they see beamed into their homes every night, there is a workforce 8 times the size of America willing to work for 1/4 the pay of Americans just to get what Americans already have.

If the Kyoto countries bring in a Green tariff for goods produced by non-Kyoto countries, who is going to want to buy overpriced American goods then?

The US government is too focussed on the short term, it's selling its people short for a quick buck with no eye on the future.

Any nation that actually follows the treaty can say hello to decades of depression and 20% unemployment.
Come on, this is a ridiculous claim. Back it up.

The reason we blame the US is that its percentage of global emitions is vastly disproportinate to its percentage of its global population.

None of course. Global Warming is just a huge scam to destroy America. Sorry to doubt your immense knowledge.
Well, you're obviously crazy. There is no conspiracy to destroy America, because if America did go down the toilet our economies would go with it.

It's just that when I think environmentalists, I think hippies.
You're still wrong.