What a surprise
#41
Posted 06 July 2005 - 01:44 PM
Considering China's population size and the fact it's still a developing country, you'd think its pollution would be much more than it is.
Also remember that most of Eastern Europe is still recovering from Communism.
America is a fucking rich and technologically advanced country, yet it can still produce more CO2 than a grand-total population (and landmass) of...what, twice its size? And it can't think of ways to try to emit less carbon?
Step 1) You convert all cars to electric power. Make it mandatory. Then scrap and recycle the old internal-combustion-engined cars and use the metal you gain for other things 2 birds with one stone.
Step 2) You convert all power stations to nuclear fission/fusion.
There. You've smashed your carbon emissions by at least 1/3.
While I'm not saying that that's an excuse...I agree every nation should work its utmost to cut carbon emissions and pollution, what I'd also say is that I'd like to see Bush live up to that promise on carbon emissions...
#42
Posted 06 July 2005 - 02:22 PM
Good luck getting people to give up their SUVs for a tiny electric car also, because it's not going to happen.
#43
Posted 06 July 2005 - 02:55 PM
Source: Right wing (generally the rich ones) and taught to the rest of U.S.A. that chamge is bad, so they can still be in the power, contaminate a lot and can still taught to new americans that change is bad.
Worse: they also have thaught to defend the undefendable.
#44
Posted 06 July 2005 - 05:16 PM
You can't build fission, because the left wing environmentalists bitch.
We are working on fusion, but it's not possible yet.
Require electric cars? And who's going to pay for these electric cars? You also forget how much plastic, and metal would be required to build this massive fleet of cars you're talking about. This would be far worse for the environment.
Also, Shell plans to build two more hydrogen/gas stations in the US... Los Angelos, and New York City I believe. That's a viable solution, because it's not replacing our cars, it's just converting them. Granted, our current methods for producing hydrogen fuels are not eco friendly, but they will be with time. That is a realistic long term solution. Plus, our SUV's will retain their 400hp that most never use
You see, you blame the government for not doing these things, but the idea of capitalism is that private enterprise takes care of it. Look what's happening, a private enterprise has realized that one day, fossil fuels will run out, and they're going to be the first on the ball, because they want to make money. Something you wouldn't find in a socialist/communist government.
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell
#45
Posted 06 July 2005 - 06:09 PM
You can't build fission, because the left wing environmentalists bitch.
Heck those environmentalists piss me off too, we have problems here as well. Trying to get 10% of our power source onto wind power and these environmentalists are moaning saying no it will ruin the country side. Morons, there will be no country side if climate change has anything to do with it.
And a socialist government would prolly fund their own scientists to research it, either way, this isn't a capitalist/socialist problem, its a human problem and humans need to work together, regardless of political views to overcome climate change.
#46
Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:01 PM
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
#47
Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:27 PM
#48
Posted 06 July 2005 - 09:17 PM
wrong, they're called eco terrorists... and they are terrorists, they burn down buildings. Not particularly smart either, all's they've managed to do is tag up a few building saying they were there, and fail miserably at attempts to burn down low income housing developments. That's right, dumb enough to screw up a match and gasoline. Not to mention the kids are a bunch of albino looking suburbanites who's houses probably took out a rainforest single handedly. And what the hell does burning down the house do other than making them cut down more trees?
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell
#49
Posted 06 July 2005 - 10:11 PM
Gee... I wonder why they chose France to build a highly experimental and unstable form of power
Beats me, at least we know it won't be a major loss if something dangerous happens
wrong, they're called eco terrorists... and they are terrorists, they burn down buildings. Not particularly smart either, all's they've managed to do is tag up a few building saying they were there, and fail miserably at attempts to burn down low income housing developments. That's right, dumb enough to screw up a match and gasoline. Not to mention the kids are a bunch of albino looking suburbanites who's houses probably took out a rainforest single handedly. And what the hell does burning down the house do other than making them cut down more trees?
Exactly the point There is no pleasing eco terrorists. They say we need to focus on climate change, so we build wind farms, then they go moan saying the wind farms are destroying the country side, so we remove them, and then we get flooded so they moan that we weren't paying enough attention, so we find another source of power and they moan because it makes "too much noice pollution" and scares away small birds SO we remove that and they moan because the sea levels rise more. JESUS CHRIST CAN WE DO ANYTHING RIGHT
I share the view with you silent killa. I believe in preserving the environment but fundamentalists that want both, rather than one or the other are just beyond control. They rule our government really
#50
Posted 06 July 2005 - 10:37 PM
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
#51
Posted 07 July 2005 - 06:16 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users