Yet it is now being polluted at a lesser rate.
Your analogy sucks too, since it is a gross oversimplification.
IPCC Report
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
Yet it is now being polluted at a lesser rate.
Your analogy sucks too, since it is a gross oversimplification.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Will it reduce catastrophic storms?
Yes, how about them?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/climate-change-jobs_n_3505254.html
Moron.
Now you post some proof. See, that's how it works.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
LOL
And you're comparing those watered down half-measures to the kind of "plan" you're talking about?
Rune, you're making this too easy. You're naive, and ill-informed. You have nothing right now.
Socrtease
Verified User
There was this pond in Muskogee Oklahoma that was on a Sun Oil property. Before Sunoco owned it, it was owned by a company that made liquid rocket fuel, they dumped Mercury in the water. No Mercury had been dumped in that pond for years. Sunoco still had no fishing signs around the pond. It was being polluted at a much lower rate, yet the water still sucked. If they had continued dumping HALF the mercury in the pond would you think it was better? China pumps tons of smoke, dust and other particles into the air every day. They are not going to stop anytime soon. It's crazy to think they will. They were going to start honoring human rights as well, that was part of the agreement for MFN. How's that worked out for Chinese dissidents?
Well, in poor Oncelor's defence, it is likely the only tactic effective when debating yurt, hence it became his default style.
That combined with the fact that he could never actually win a debate with yurt (since no one can because yurt doesn't actually debate) explains today's episode at a minimum.
1. Assuming China never stops, should the rest of the world throw up it's collective hands and say fuck it?
2. I detailed (in great detail) China's energy agenda for you explicitly. Perhaps you could read it, and become enlightened?
Look dipshit.
The point of the Scientific American article (which is not even the topic of the OP) was that is is theoretically possible to eliminate fossil fuels worldwide, by 2030, using 2009 state of the art technology. That is all.
It is not the end all be all plan. It merely proves that it is possible were the political will present (it is not).
Now about that proof you have continuously failed to provide; Ah, I see. It is you who has nothing.
By the way One Cell, I stood up for you and fought for you and begged you to listen to reason for hundreds of posts. I now see that I completely wasted my time.
Oh, and just so you know, both Darla and I are markedly more intelligent than you.
No, sorctease is extremely intelligent and well educated. He is simply not open-minded nor up to speed on this topic. (far from it in fact)
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Just trying to stay on point.
This went from a "we can stop global warming if we do this" thread, to a "it would just be good if we do this" thread.
Which is very telling, btw.
This went from a "we can stop global warming if we do this" thread, to a "it would just be good if we do this" thread.
Which is very telling, btw.
There has been a lot of very telling things in this thread.
Socrtease
Verified User
China had an agenda in 2005 to reduce coal consumption. It was pretty explicit as well, however, by 2011 they led the world in coal consumption and that consumption had increased every single year for 13 years. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ring-coal-consumption-poses-climate-challenge
"The rising consumption numbers reflect a 200-plus percent increase in Chinese electricity generation since 2000, with most of the new power coming from coal-fired power plants. Chinese growth averaged 9 percent per year from 2000 to 2010, more than twice the 4 percent global growth rate for coal consumption. And when China is excluded from the tally, growth in coal use averaged only 1 percent for the rest of the world over the 2000-2010 period, according to EIA." Half way through that time frame, China announced a plan to reduce coal consumption and they didn't. Why you think they will this time is beyond me.
tekkychick
New member
exactly. If the US stops pouring our carbon emissions into the atmosphere, there will be fewer events than if we continue to pour our emissions into it.
We are a major polluter.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
That's simply not true, tekky. If we're the only one who reduces - as you stated - it will have very little effect on worldwide emissions, and won't affect global warming one iota.
Don't spread misinformation. Know what you are talking about.
Totally incorrect statement Onecell. How could you be this stupid?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
How is it incorrect?
Yes - we're one of the leaders. But if we're the only one who reduces significantly (again - this is what is being discussed), it will make very little difference if China, India, Japan & the rest continue to increase, as they are.
What is incorrect? I'm all ears. Draw upon that extensive experience you have studying alternatives.
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
When you say "we don't have the will", are you talking about just Americans, or do you mean the entire world? This is only mild curiosity on my part, as I have reached my saturation point. The "progressives" constantly trumpet a litany terminal illnesses the planet faces(especially if we vote for conservatives). We have now evidently devolved to the point where despite evidence to the contrary, we are the same violent, racist, sexist, greedy capitalist robber baron environmental rapists we were 100 years ago. So screw it. Let China or Russia tackle this. I'm going to take my gas guzzler out for a spin because there's still a lot of environment out there to rape.
tekkychick
New member
If we keep going at our current rate - let's call it Y - and other countries go at their rate - call it X.
If we halve ours, we'll have 1/2Y plus X. If we don't halve ours, that's Y+X
Your argument only makes sense if you think other countries will increase their emissions MORE if we cut ours than if we don't cut ours.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Which is a pretty good assumption.