US: thanks for destroying our world!

Originally posted by JSR
maybe i misunderstand. is the kyoto prot. a promiss to reduce c02 per capita per country, or, per country in total?

Per country total. But how do you reduce a country's total emissions? A country is comprised of its people, is it not?

Total reductions can only begin when per capita reductions are made. In other words it has to start with the people. And that was my whole point, and the reason deflections and finger pointing achieve nothing.

reply to post by Mdv2



Uh.....you're welcome?


Broad generalizations of an entire countries population are short-sighted and juvenile, not to mention not the best way to make friends which I assume is not why you're here, yet I'm sure it's one hell of a way to get replies.

Just my opinion though and everyone's got one.

NP

we'll bail you outta your next war again too.


now to go home fire up the bbq and roast some baby seals.



**no baby seals were harmed this evening but some cows got cooked...yum burgers!**


btw i dont own an suv i do have a fuel efficient car. did you know YOUR personal pc emits greenhouse gasses also? so before you start ranting and raving about the US and our polluting ways live green and turn your pc off.

Originally posted by Bluess
I take it you think I was trying to insult you, wich I weren't. If you had read my first post in this topic i think you would understand.

I generally follow up on something preposterous with a tone that's probably a little inflated and more attacking than it needs to me. I'm not getting defensive; it's all fun in the end.

Originally posted by Bluess
However as i already stated this whole "Global warming" issue have another aspect called polution wich also affects us all. So when you say: "A global issue which may not even BE a problem" I say it is a problem allready.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution in the sense that it hurts us all. I don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Bluess
And by the way I'm Danish and havent had English teaching in many years, but thanks for bringing that up aswell...

I wasn't attacking your grammar, I make enough mistakes myself, I just used it as a sarcastic way to your finding "may" as a key word. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Bluess
edit: by the way i have a degree in economics, so I am not totally oblivious

I had no idea, I apologize if I went after you for that. What exactly did you study, how far did you get (PhD? Graduate student?), etc.?

reply to post by Mdv2

Apparently you haven't heard that China is spewing outrageous amounts of crap into the atmosphere as well. How about Russia and Chernobyl, their graphite reactor? France like to poison tourists with their rotten (oh, it's aged, sorry) meat, but that's another discussion entirely.

You should amend the title of this thread and consider apologizing. Not all Americans are polluters. Some of us lead by example, however, you can't force other people to treat the planet well.
-----
PS: Americans in general would love to convert to something like free energy. The problem is that the greedy one percent who run the country don't want to lose the billions they're making via the status quo.

The only country I see really working to break the cycle is Iceland with their hydrogen cars. Everyone else is still part of the problem.

[edit on 12/13/2007 by PrplHrt]

Originally posted by Johnmike
I generally follow up on something preposterous with a tone that's probably a little inflated and more attacking than it needs to me. I'm not getting defensive; it's all fun in the end.

No offence taken, I understand.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Carbon dioxide is not pollution in the sense that it hurts us all. I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not talking about Carbon dioxide in itself, im talking about the biproducts from using fossil fuel for:
1. gas, gasoline, petrol, diesel, fuel oil or coal

Although the largest part of most combustion gases is relatively harmless nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide (CO2) (except with hydrogen as fuel), a relatively small part of it is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), partly unburnt fuel, and particulate matter.

Source

2. the dangers in spilling during transport (oil in the sea or nature)

Originally posted by Johnmike
I wasn't attacking your grammar, I make enough mistakes myself, I just used it as a sarcastic way to your finding "may" as a key word. Sorry about that.

No problem, i would prolly have done the same, should you get interested in Danish typing

Originally posted by Johnmike

I had no idea, I apologize if I went after you for that. What exactly did you study, how far did you get (PhD? Graduate student?), etc.?

apology accepted. I graduated from a Danish business school in 1996. Not that i claim to be a financial expert, but i follow the development in economics fairly well.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Everyone else is still part of the problem.

Assuming, of course, that there is a "problem" to begin with. It all goes back to how we want to define things. We can call the (supposed) temperature increases "global warming" if we want, but according to some data, we're still 7-12 degrees cooler today than we were in the 12th Century. So maybe we can call it "over-cooling reversal." We can define it as a problem, but if the increased temperatures and moisture in the atmosphere turns previously unproductive land, like that in the tundra and the deserts, into food-producing land to feed babies all over the world, it's suddenly less of a problem and more of a solution.

Personally, I think we should avoid doing anything out of the ordinary until we get better data. One thing that is clear is that historically, we do a lousy job at trying to manage the environment. Just take a look at the history of Yellowstone Park. What a mess!

Originally posted by scientist
People buy these horrible cars, because it's what they can afford, and it's all that's being offered.

Exactly...that's the market. Because these cars are affordable, we buy them. Once it becomes too expense to buy or drive a gas-guzzling, fume-spewing car, people will run from them en-masse, buying more effecient vehicles.

Originally posted by scientist
give me a break! It's not the american people, it's the car companies.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Who buys the cars?

Car companies like making money. They'll try to sell the most profitable models they can, but in the end they make what people want.

Americans have always liked huge, primitive wallowing gas-guzzling monstrosities. It's not new; it's been like that since the days of Al Capone. For some inexplicable reason they love these great huge wasteful hunks of steel and chrome with sofa sets for seats, engine blocks made of iron and horse-cart suspension at the back. That's what Americans like. So that's what American car companies give them.

Look at the rest of the world: except for Arabs (the world's most Americanized people, by and large), who else buys American cars in large numbers? The rest of the us prefer European, Japanese and now Chinese cars, which are nowhere near as big and crude and thirsty as your American monsters.

One word. Oil.

Oil is obsolete, yes. But still used around the world as our main fuel source. Why you ask? There have been alternate clean burning alternatives for decades, but the technologies are suppressed and buried.

You can thank the US Government for suppressing the technologies which exist which would not only make pollution disappear, but would solve world hunger, give free energy to anyone in the world, cure all diseases that exist. Make this world into a utopia.

But no you have leaders with psychopathic delusions of grandeur. The leaders of the free world are nothing but savage deranged sociopaths bend on world domination.

Where's my ticket to Bohemian grove I wish to sacrifice a child in front of my minions while listening to death chants.

Or better yet lets get initiated into Skull and Bones. Wait a second... for that to happen we would have to masturbate in a coffin and deluge all of our sexual fantasies. I'll pass yet again.

Check Please.

[edit on 12-14-2007 by CPYKOmega]

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
The United States is not the chief pollutor, it has been surpassed by China in 2007, and yet they do not have to reduce pollution.

Per capita the US still trumps China in CO2 emissions. Australia, Luxembourg and Canada trails closely behind (in that order). China isn't in the top 29.

Source

Per capita municipal waste, the US still tops China. Australia, Iceland and New Zealand follows behind closely (in that order). Again, China isn't in the top 29.

Source

So the OP's assertion that the American people have a responsibility to bear still stands.

It doesnt mattter about per capita. China doesnt need to surpass the US in per capita terms in order to affectively surpass the US in green house gas emissions (thanks to its massive population). the problem with china is, that it will continue to grow until its comparable in per capita terms. That equates to about some 1.6 billion ppl.. you wanna cry wolf...cry to them. China is also the biggest polluter in sulfur dioxide which causes acid rain. China is the worlds biggest industrialized polluter. They have absolutly no regulations to speak of. that is why chinas arable land is turning into a desert at an ever alarming rate.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by West Coast]

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by JSR
maybe i misunderstand. is the kyoto prot. a promiss to reduce c02 per capita per country, or, per country in total?

Per country total. But how do you reduce a country's total emissions? A country is comprised of its people, is it not?

Total reductions can only begin when per capita reductions are made. In other words it has to start with the people. And that was my whole point, and the reason deflections and finger pointing achieve nothing.

kyoto is a scam.. a fraud. its nothing more then another way to tax the ppl of their own money.

reply to post by West Coast


I see my message is lost in the finger pointing again...

Look, it doesn't matter what your neighbours do. What's important is what YOU do yourself, can we agree to that?

Now what are YOU going to do about it?

Originally posted by Mdv2

That the American people have always been too stubborn to change their polluting habits is not a new fact.

Well Mdv2, your statement here seems to have been repeatedly proven.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by West Coast

 

I see my message is lost in the finger pointing again...

Look, it doesn't matter what your neighbours do. What's important is what YOU do yourself, can we agree to that?

Now what are YOU going to do about it?

This whole thread is a stereoptypical generalization.. and im getting pretty sick of them. "Blame americans for everthing"..


There is not solid proof that green house gas emissions cause global warming.. Our oceans make up most of our green house gass emissions.. (98% i think). South americas rain forest make up some 2 % of total CO2 emissions as well. We humans dont even measure 1 percent in the total co2 emissions.. why arnt you ppl blaming the oceans, rainforests etc?

I believe cheaper solar panels would be one step forward. Companies right here in the US are making it cheaper. I have read articles of new manufacturing processes and materials. If we can get the prices down to where everyone can get these installed on their roofs then we can at least say we are trying. We will have to make baby steps before anything. If gas was over $4.00 here in America then no one would want to buy anything other then a fuel efficient vehicle. I see a lot of people driving large trucks with just one person inside. A 2 ton vehicle pushing a 250lb. man around is not efficient. The world should move forward and not wait on us.

Originally posted by JSR
who cares about per capita. are we trying to reduce c02 per person or in total.

If anything bids fair to drive the rest of us to hate Americans (which I, for one, do not...yet), it is this issue and the selfish, I'm-all-right-jack attitude so many Americans take to it. It is simply nauseating.

Please use a little intelligence. China has four times as many people as the USA. Every person has a basic, irreducible carbon footprint (CO2 and other pollutants from cooking food, heating dwellings, breathing, etc.) The average Chinese overhead from this base value is well under four times smaller than the American overhead.

So whose consumption is largely inessential?

Whose is easier to rein in?

Who has the greater moral responsibility to rein in their consumption?

Please do not make the rest of world more disgusted with America than they already are. All the nukes in the world won't save you if the rest of the us really get mad.

Thank you.

Oh deny ignorance people!!

Your source makes a generalisation in the 1st sentence!

"American people"

hello?

You can't blame US citizens for the decisions of the Government.

Your header is nothing more than a point grab.





[edit on 14-12-2007 by Thurisaz]

reply to post by West Coast


Yes, I agree the OP is very harsh in his statements, but if he had used tact the way I start my threads, this thread would have simply sunk to the bottom. It's the way people are -- the more stinging and insulting the statement is, the more likely people are to respond. It's sad, but it's the truth.

And so is the fact that American people pollute more, per person. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why China has topped the US in total pollution -- they've got four times as many people.

In this thread I've seen Americans blame everyone else except accepting the fact that they are part of the problem, too. China has been blamed. Car companies have been blamed. The OP has been blamed. And now you're blaming the oceans and rainforests for it. Say what? At least the previous arguments had some merit. This is now entering the realm of junk science.

Edit: typo

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

Blame…. It doesn’t really get anyone anywhere other then to let off some steam and to make oneself feel less responsible for the situation. It’s not constructive at all.

I am a little confused about this Global Warming issue though. From my knowledge an international scientific community has agreed upon that we are contributing to a high degree of the climate becoming warmer faster then usual. I understand that in a finding that there will be other scientists who will disagree but since the majority of the International Scientific Community has come up with so much evidence to point to the fact I would have to assume that we have an issue…

I have to agree that America does cop a lot of flack ( a lot of the time by its own people) but sometimes I can understand why.

Originally posted by West Coast
This whole thread is a stereoptypical generalization.. and im getting pretty sick of them. "Blame americans for everthing"..

Well, you are the worlds largest polluter by far and have so far not committed to do anything about it because it might hurt your precious economy. It's already going down the pan, so whats the harm? Might not be able to buy 75 new Aircraft Carriers this year or bomb to oblivion another third world country?

Originally posted by West Coast
There is not solid proof that green house gas emissions cause global warming.. Our oceans make up most of our green house gass emissions.. (98% i think). South americas rain forest make up some 2 % of total CO2 emissions as well. We humans dont even measure 1 percent in the total co2 emissions.. why arnt you ppl blaming the oceans, rainforests etc?

Do you understand the process of photosynthesis and the carbon cycle in nature?

During the day, plant life will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and emit O2. At night, the reverse happens. So, the cycle is in equilibrium. No extra CO2, over a 24 hour period, is actually added to the atmosphere.

With the burning of fossil fuels, this adds extra CO2 to the atmosphere, over and above the balanced CO2 emissions of Plant life.

Thus, your argument is stupid.

posted by Thurisaz
Oh deny ignorance people!!

Your source makes a generalisation in the 1st sentence!

"American people"

hello?

You can't blame US citizens for the decisions of the Government.

Your header is nothing more than a point grab.

Pardon? You can't blame American people for the actions of their Government?

And there I was thinking you guys elected your officials.......

So your admitting to being a despotic dictatorship then and your elections are just a charade?

Seriously, the OP might have generalised against Americans, but every single one that has commented in this thread has actually lived up to the generalisation itself....

How ironic