The whole climate change is one giant scam.
So many reasons.
Two of my favorites.
If cc is true then population MUST come down.
If cc is true then no immigration from low co2 emission country per person to high co2 emission country per person. Many poor countries emission is 40 to 80g per person and when they come to the UK it goes up to 800g ish person. Scandinavia countries being colder has around 1200g ish person. Accepting immigrants there is madness. All immigrants should go back to poor countries unless we really need the person's skills.
Topic: Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Deal - Here's why I think it's great! (Read 2209 times)
June 26, 2017, 10:52:42 AM
June 25, 2017, 11:55:19 PM
Trump positioned in the world as primitive man. He was not interested in what will happen to the world, he is not even able to understand that a very large part of America is located in the coastal zone. Even his 58 story skyscraper on 5th Avenue will go under water. But all this pales before the possibility of saving several hundred million on the environment.
you have no idea what a Paris agreement actually is... If you want to bash someone or something, first read a little about it. US has been donating $3bil+ every years to China and India to improve the environment, etc.. the hippie stuff.. but that agreement doesn't force them to use that money for that cause and they can use it for whatever they want. You primitive man.
China and India need to do a lot more to combat climate change. Why these two countries are still depending on coal-fired power plants to generate electricity, when cheaper options such as natural gas and Uranium are available? Apart from the global warming, thermal power-plants are causing hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, due to the pollution.
June 25, 2017, 10:07:24 PM
Trump positioned in the world as primitive man. He was not interested in what will happen to the world, he is not even able to understand that a very large part of America is located in the coastal zone. Even his 58 story skyscraper on 5th Avenue will go under water. But all this pales before the possibility of saving several hundred million on the environment.
you have no idea what a Paris agreement actually is... If you want to bash someone or something, first read a little about it. US has been donating $3bil+ every years to China and India to improve the environment, etc.. the hippie stuff.. but that agreement doesn't force them to use that money for that cause and they can use it for whatever they want. You primitive man.
June 25, 2017, 09:52:52 PM
....chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.
China could have gotten their act together in the year 1800, or 1900. They didn't.
Please explain your theory with historical context for the people who lack the knowledge like me.
I'll try, but you are tough to convince. China has a long and possibly unique history. If you like, compare it with African tribal society or North American Indians in the year 1800.
Neither of the latter could ever have brought themselves rapidly to a technological level. But China was different, radically so. It had simply "looked inward," and rejected the Western world. That held until 1948, when the Mao "cultural revolution" started. But it remained both traditional China, and communist China.
Only when China itself started to open up to Western industrialization and methods, did the process of change really being. The first container shipped from China in 1995.
Thus, although you might argue the Western world owes sub Saharan Africa carbon credits, I don't buy that anyone owes China anything.
June 25, 2017, 06:10:38 PM
Here's the big thing that I think about the Paris Climate Deal / Paris Climate Accords, all the Liberals are coming out and going insane over it but in reality it's not like this document held any legal binding in the least. SO this wasen't going to stop any country from violating the treaty, this was just some political play from the Dems to feel as if they were doing something in regard to Climate Change and helping the world, when in reality they're doing nothing alongside the Republicans and Trump.
So it is great, leaving some bullshit treaty is wonderful IMO.
So it is great, leaving some bullshit treaty is wonderful IMO.
June 25, 2017, 02:56:30 PM
....chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.
China could have gotten their act together in the year 1800, or 1900. They didn't.
Please explain your theory with historical context for the people who lack the knowledge like me.
June 25, 2017, 02:15:36 PM
....chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.
No, we don't.
China could have gotten their act together in the year 1800, or 1900. They didn't.
That was their choice, and the result was that they fell behind.
We don't OWE them anything.
June 25, 2017, 10:54:11 AM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.
Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.
Don't worry. You'll figure it out someday sarcasm or otherwise.
Well if you tried to look smart or something similiar you miserably failed.
/Edit
Ah and i already quoted your post. No reason to delete it. ^^"
I tend to react sometimes and later realize there is no point in arguing which is why I deleted the post. It wasn't the first post I deleted and it wont be the last. I failed in that I didn't delete it quickly enough and now I feel compelled to continue a ridiculous argument.
Firstly, I would like to point out to you that sarcasm need not be ironic (it appears you weren't aware of that).
Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to take lessons from China about CO2 emissions; if you look at the ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions you will see that China ranks #175 in the world. Seems like they need a lesson in efficiency! Their low emissions per capita is only achievable due to their crushing over-population consisting of mostly impoverished subsistence farmers who derive little or no benefit from China's CO2 emissions.
"Even if" means it could be but must not. If that is not the meaning feel free to explain me that phrase please.
Your intentions were not clear for me that is why i wrote it like that.
You just repeated what i said (china has a lot of farmers with zero emission). Do you expect me to not know what i just told you?
Lets talk about some points:
1. You realize there is a difference between a developing and an industry nation?
2. The learning was regarding their energy mix which has the highest % of renewable energy in the world and they want to increase it further to shut down nuclear and coal plants.
For a fucking developing nation which 20-30 years ago was a 3rd world nation that is more then incredible.
3. Point 2 directly means that when the farmers with zero emission start the urbanisation process they will use energy primarily from renewable sources with close to zero emission.
I don't understand what you find incredible about a country choking on its own excrement deciding to build a humongous hydroelectric dam (which is over 100 year old technology) to mitigate its pollution woes. It's sensible but not incredible. Fortunately they had the geography to support the effort as well as the assistance and expertise of companies and gov't agencies in Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Japan, Scotland, Switzerland, USA and the UK as well as some help from the Wold Bank.
China is no longer a developing nation, they are a world super-power with a dual personality using the "developing country" moniker as a crutch to keep from making any promises about carbon emission reduction while at the same time having the world's second largest military budget.
3. By the time the farmers are urbanized, China wont need all the energy it currently produces as they will be a post-industrialized country with a declining population that will need to be bolstered by immigration from.... probably Africa?
Industry nation with half the population living as subsistence farmers? Ok...
And chinas argument is sound. All the existing industry nations have been heavily polluting the world and destroying nature without thinking twice until the end/2nd half of the 20th century. That is why we have to give china the time and help to not go the same way as we did.
June 05, 2017, 09:50:53 PM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.When I say plant trees I meant forestry industries who want to sell them for profit later, the people who plant pine trees and conifers for timber and pulp and Christmas trees, in the end the tree is fallen but because their is an economic interest people replant their fields and put new trees in instead of leaving it clear cut and left alone to be turned into pasture land.
It would be good to keep the trees in general since they produce more Oxygen when they mature but it doesn't hurt to clear the fields now and then to reduce the forest fire risk and revive the vegetation, nature does a good job of doing that over the years without human intervention the problem is that if we firefight and stop the burns the fires that do happen will be bigger and more dangerous than if they are allowed to burn, and new vegetation may not be able to grow in the underbrush due to the lack of sunlight so forest management does have a role for cutting down and replanting old trees now and then they eat CO2 to grow hence its a viable strategy in eco protection.
http://www.fopap.org/the_truth_about_trees.html
June 05, 2017, 09:32:07 PM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.Although planting trees would have a small positive impact, we are releasing the carbon dioxide that it took plant life and microbial life many eras to sequester.
June 05, 2017, 09:24:01 PM
I understand that the world is going through the next phase of climate change, and we may be approaching a mini-ice age. Temperatures are the lowest for 50 years. Will we have to introduce a new global warming initiative to avoid the big freeze.
I don't know from where you are getting such strange data. The average global temperatures have been increasing ever since 1970s, and there is no hint of a "mini-ice age" anytime during 1970-2017.
June 05, 2017, 07:04:42 PM
People need to really look at what this was going to cost and who was making the profits and where the loop holes were constructed into the policy.
This really is a clear case of the Trojen Horse and redistribution of wealth. It really had nothing to do with solving climate change.
Follow the money.
This really is a clear case of the Trojen Horse and redistribution of wealth. It really had nothing to do with solving climate change.
Follow the money.
Bingo.
June 05, 2017, 07:00:45 PM
People need to really look at what this was going to cost and who was making the profits and where the loop holes were constructed into the policy.
This really is a clear case of the Trojen Horse and redistribution of wealth. It really had nothing to do with solving climate change.
Follow the money.
This really is a clear case of the Trojen Horse and redistribution of wealth. It really had nothing to do with solving climate change.
Follow the money.
June 05, 2017, 12:50:42 PM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.When I say plant trees I meant forestry industries who want to sell them for profit later, the people who plant pine trees and conifers for timber and pulp and Christmas trees, in the end the tree is fallen but because their is an economic interest people replant their fields and put new trees in instead of leaving it clear cut and left alone to be turned into pasture land.
It would be good to keep the trees in general since they produce more Oxygen when they mature but it doesn't hurt to clear the fields now and then to reduce the forest fire risk and revive the vegetation, nature does a good job of doing that over the years without human intervention the problem is that if we firefight and stop the burns the fires that do happen will be bigger and more dangerous than if they are allowed to burn, and new vegetation may not be able to grow in the underbrush due to the lack of sunlight so forest management does have a role for cutting down and replanting old trees now and then they eat CO2 to grow hence its a viable strategy in eco protection.
http://www.fopap.org/the_truth_about_trees.html
June 05, 2017, 11:30:48 AM
I understand that the world is going through the next phase of climate change, and we may be approaching a mini-ice age. Temperatures are the lowest for 50 years. Will we have to introduce a new global warming initiative to avoid the big freeze.
June 05, 2017, 07:29:45 AM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed. June 05, 2017, 03:00:46 AM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed.
June 05, 2017, 02:07:20 AM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
I think that all the same things like climatic arrangements should be supported by all countries that use very large production. The fact is that there is a large percentage of the impact of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. Of course, you can fix this situation, plant many trees, but at the same time a person destroys a large number of forest points. We do not have time to recreate what has already been destroyed. 
June 05, 2017, 01:40:54 AM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.
Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.
Don't worry. You'll figure it out someday sarcasm or otherwise.
Well if you tried to look smart or something similiar you miserably failed.
/Edit
Ah and i already quoted your post. No reason to delete it. ^^"
I tend to react sometimes and later realize there is no point in arguing which is why I deleted the post. It wasn't the first post I deleted and it wont be the last. I failed in that I didn't delete it quickly enough and now I feel compelled to continue a ridiculous argument.
Firstly, I would like to point out to you that sarcasm need not be ironic (it appears you weren't aware of that).
Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to take lessons from China about CO2 emissions; if you look at the ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions you will see that China ranks #175 in the world. Seems like they need a lesson in efficiency! Their low emissions per capita is only achievable due to their crushing over-population consisting of mostly impoverished subsistence farmers who derive little or no benefit from China's CO2 emissions.
"Even if" means it could be but must not. If that is not the meaning feel free to explain me that phrase please.
Your intentions were not clear for me that is why i wrote it like that.
You just repeated what i said (china has a lot of farmers with zero emission). Do you expect me to not know what i just told you?
Lets talk about some points:
1. You realize there is a difference between a developing and an industry nation?
2. The learning was regarding their energy mix which has the highest % of renewable energy in the world and they want to increase it further to shut down nuclear and coal plants.
For a fucking developing nation which 20-30 years ago was a 3rd world nation that is more then incredible.
3. Point 2 directly means that when the farmers with zero emission start the urbanisation process they will use energy primarily from renewable sources with close to zero emission.
I don't understand what you find incredible about a country choking on its own excrement deciding to build a humongous hydroelectric dam (which is over 100 year old technology) to mitigate its pollution woes. It's sensible but not incredible. Fortunately they had the geography to support the effort as well as the assistance and expertise of companies and gov't agencies in Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Japan, Scotland, Switzerland, USA and the UK as well as some help from the Wold Bank.
China is no longer a developing nation, they are a world super-power with a dual personality using the "developing country" moniker as a crutch to keep from making any promises about carbon emission reduction while at the same time having the world's second largest military budget.
3. By the time the farmers are urbanized, China wont need all the energy it currently produces as they will be a post-industrialized country with a declining population that will need to be bolstered by immigration from.... probably Africa?
June 04, 2017, 11:18:27 PM
There are a lot of things to be considered when making deals, of course, maybe there is something that Trump doesn't want and probably just doesn't know that the Earth needs to be taken care of. As humans, we are the root cause of the problem, and the global population is increasing, and nothing can be done about it but to inventions and innovations, there would be things that are worth experimenting on and funding, because typically the right thing to do is do something about the problem and how to solve it, running away from the problem won't do anything. That's why pulling out of the deal is a big disappointment for me.
June 04, 2017, 10:45:17 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.
Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.
Don't worry. You'll figure it out someday sarcasm or otherwise.
Well if you tried to look smart or something similiar you miserably failed.
/Edit
Ah and i already quoted your post. No reason to delete it. ^^"
I tend to react sometimes and later realize there is no point in arguing which is why I deleted the post. It wasn't the first post I deleted and it wont be the last. I failed in that I didn't delete it quickly enough and now I feel compelled to continue a ridiculous argument.
Firstly, I would like to point out to you that sarcasm need not be ironic (it appears you weren't aware of that).
Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to take lessons from China about CO2 emissions; if you look at the ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions you will see that China ranks #175 in the world. Seems like they need a lesson in efficiency! Their low emissions per capita is only achievable due to their crushing over-population consisting of mostly impoverished subsistence farmers who derive little or no benefit from China's CO2 emissions.
"Even if" means it could be but doesn't have to. If that is not the meaning feel free to explain me that phrase please.
Your intentions were not clear for me that is why i wrote it like that.
You just repeated what i said (china has a lot of farmers with zero emission). Do you expect me to not know what i just told you?
Lets talk about some points:
1. You realize there is a difference between a developing and an industry nation?
2. The learning was regarding their energy mix which has the highest % of renewable energy in the world and they want to increase it further to shut down nuclear and coal plants.
For a fucking developing nation which 20-30 years ago was a 3rd world nation that is more then incredible.
3. Point 2 directly means that when the farmers with zero emission start the urbanisation process they will use energy primarily from renewable sources with close to zero emission.
Edit:
One source:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-report
June 04, 2017, 10:39:20 PM
It has to do with the level of industrialization. A 2 year old is allowed to shit on the carpet, a 20 year old not. If you want to prevent certain countries from passing through industrialization then you have to offer them tech etc to do that.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/china-trump-paris-facts
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/china-trump-paris-facts
What prevented these countries from going through the industrialization phase a few decades back? Now it is too late to allow any sort of industrial pollution and it doesn't matter whether these countries are industrialized or not.
This unfortunately can't be the case
as nation's tackle new industries, they go through growing pains that involve the environmental impact of the new industry and the regulations that will rush to fill the void. Simply producing infrastructure, say a major road installation, would require sooo much concrete and rebar to be manufactured. There is no clean way to make stuff like this; essentially, 'humanization' will always have an environmental impact. They can't stay pre industrial forever, so increased carbon footprint is essentially an inevitability of modernization. Unless you would have them remain primitive, eventually, industrialization and increased population will start to take its toll on the environment. These acords sought to address that; by setting proportional targets, nations could do what the they can to help the issue; the global effort by all state actors would have made a paradigm shift to move.the entire world towards more sustainable energy technologies.Now, we will remain behind in this, and our reluctance to honor such an important agreement, that we helmed, will com into play down the line. We lost bargaining power, this will come up again when we sit down to negotiate something equally important. America bitched up, behind pating a tab. The richest nation of them all.
And the rest of the free world will embrace these technologies, just like bitcoin and China, while we languish with some goddamed coal.
Maybe we can sell coal to Syria and Nicaragua.
June 04, 2017, 10:33:02 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.
Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.
Don't worry. You'll figure it out someday sarcasm or otherwise.
Well if you tried to look smart or something similiar you miserably failed.
/Edit
Ah and i already quoted your post. No reason to delete it. ^^"
I tend to react sometimes and later realize there is no point in arguing which is why I deleted the post. It wasn't the first post I deleted and it wont be the last. I failed in that I didn't delete it quickly enough and now I feel compelled to continue a ridiculous argument.
Firstly, I would like to point out to you that sarcasm need not be ironic (it appears you weren't aware of that).
Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to take lessons from China about CO2 emissions; if you look at the ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions you will see that China ranks #175 in the world. Seems like they need a lesson in efficiency! Their low emissions per capita is only achievable due to their crushing over-population consisting of mostly impoverished subsistence farmers who derive little or no benefit from China's CO2 emissions.
June 04, 2017, 09:20:56 PM
It has to do with the level of industrialization. A 2 year old is allowed to shit on the carpet, a 20 year old not. If you want to prevent certain countries from passing through industrialization then you have to offer them tech etc to do that.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/china-trump-paris-facts
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/china-trump-paris-facts
What prevented these countries from going through the industrialization phase a few decades back? Now it is too late to allow any sort of industrial pollution and it doesn't matter whether these countries are industrialized or not.
June 04, 2017, 09:15:07 PM
Climate deals only last as long as a president stays in power, unless they get 3-4 terms in the USA only binding obligations will ever change that outcome. That said regardless of whether they are in or not in aggregate everyone suffers from the greenhouse effect, and cancer near the production locations. I say plant more trees so we can farm them later ^^.
June 04, 2017, 09:03:17 PM
First Disclosure before you attack me as Trump supporter!
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
Tackling global warming is not bad for humans on this planet, it is doing nothing that is bad for us. Trump has essentially made a mockery of the United States and did enough damage that it will take generations to fix. You might not feel the effects but your children and grandchildren will be suffering from this madness.
June 04, 2017, 08:51:17 PM
This issue with global warming is so tiring, pollution is very bad for the atmosphere and for human beings as well, These accords are not binding and there is no way to enforce it and it seems to be just a joke and I don't think it's going to work.
It is not so much the nature of the accord, than the fact that we broke the accord. We were the foremost voice on this; we dragged out negations and for us to suddenly walk away from the table is kind of weak. We lead by example; abandoning a piece of global legislature, so broad that only two countries disagreed, simply does not make sense. If the current administration were serious about environmental preservation, wouldn't the US walking away from something of this magnitude dissuade other nations to doing so? And the taling points on how it was a 'bad deal' for Americans is bullshit. We can prop up fucking coal, but we just turned our back on a better planet. and 100,000 more green energy jobs?
Bigly.
June 04, 2017, 08:15:09 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.
Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.
Don't worry. You'll figure it out someday sarcasm or otherwise.
Well if you tried to look smart or something similiar you miserably failed.
/Edit
Ah and i already quoted your post. No reason to delete it. ^^"
June 04, 2017, 05:23:07 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
Even if this is sarcasm it makes no sense.
Majority of chinese are farmers that produce pretty much zero emmisions.
Emission per capita is important and a good indicator.
June 04, 2017, 04:56:03 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
yes. Let's every country over-populate to reduce our per capita emissions; take the lesson from China.
June 04, 2017, 03:00:35 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
Stop telling 3rd world people some bullshit lies.
China is the nr. 1 producer of renewable energy.
There are more then enough studies that say china will have peak energy consumption in the next few years.
China is placed rank 56 or something re co2 emission per capita.
The industry nations could take an example from china in this regard.
June 04, 2017, 02:09:37 PM
This issue with global warming is so tiring, pollution is very bad for the atmosphere and for human beings as well, These accords are not binding and there is no way to enforce it and it seems to be just a joke and I don't think it's going to work.
June 04, 2017, 06:07:40 AM
Trump tries to protect miners, but the coal industry employs about 70,000 people. It's less than one, and many retailers in America. Very stupid goal. Trump is actually working against America, but he is a fool and can't hurt on a global scale. Since 2007, when there was a shale technology, they are gradually wiping out oil, gas and coal. The era of oil is over. That is why the Arabs are armed and that the weapon directed against American interests.
June 02, 2017, 12:44:59 AM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
It has to do with the level of industrialization. A 2 year old is allowed to shit on the carpet, a 20 year old not. If you want to prevent certain countries from passing through industrialization then you have to offer them tech etc to do that.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/china-trump-paris-facts
Quote
But here's the reality: In the Paris agreement, China, for the first time, set a date at which it expects its climate emissions will "peak," or finally begin to taper downward: around 2030. That goal came about after the US and China finally brokered a landmark bilateral climate deal in 2014 to work together. China has always argued it's unfair for developed countries—who have already enjoyed the economic growth that comes with spewing carbon into the atmosphere—to curtail the growth of developing countries like China. So getting China to agree to "peaking" emissions was a major diplomatic break-through that turned out to be the secret sauce the world needed to come together in Paris.
The president's view of China is outdated. Here's what Trump left out:
China is already ahead of schedule. As we reported in March 2016, Chinese emissions may have actually peaked in 2014, and if those emissions didn't peak in 2014, researchers say, they definitely will by 2025, years ahead of China's official 2030 goal. Chinese coal consumption dropped 3.7 percent in 2015, marking two years in a row that coal use in the country declined. That meant 2015 was the first year in 15 years that carbon emissions dropped in China, according to the World Resources Institute.
China is far surpassing the US on investment to create clean energy jobs. In February, China announced that it would spent $361 billion over the next couple of years to create 13 million green jobs, according to the country's National Energy Administration.
China is winning on clean energy technology. In 2016, a Chinese firm topped a global ranking for wind energy production for the first time, beating America's General Electric. China leads the world in solar energy production—and has done so for some time. (Go inside one of the world's biggest solar manufacturing plants with me, here.)
This year China is slated to launch the world's biggest national carbon trading market—stitching together seven pilot carbon trading markets which have been up and running since 2013.
China overtook the US as the world's biggest market for electric vehicles in 2015—and has a big plans for expansion. "We are convinced China will become the leading market for electro-mobility," said Volkswagen brand chief Herbert Diess at a recent Shanghai car show.
The president's view of China is outdated. Here's what Trump left out:
China is already ahead of schedule. As we reported in March 2016, Chinese emissions may have actually peaked in 2014, and if those emissions didn't peak in 2014, researchers say, they definitely will by 2025, years ahead of China's official 2030 goal. Chinese coal consumption dropped 3.7 percent in 2015, marking two years in a row that coal use in the country declined. That meant 2015 was the first year in 15 years that carbon emissions dropped in China, according to the World Resources Institute.
China is far surpassing the US on investment to create clean energy jobs. In February, China announced that it would spent $361 billion over the next couple of years to create 13 million green jobs, according to the country's National Energy Administration.
China is winning on clean energy technology. In 2016, a Chinese firm topped a global ranking for wind energy production for the first time, beating America's General Electric. China leads the world in solar energy production—and has done so for some time. (Go inside one of the world's biggest solar manufacturing plants with me, here.)
This year China is slated to launch the world's biggest national carbon trading market—stitching together seven pilot carbon trading markets which have been up and running since 2013.
China overtook the US as the world's biggest market for electric vehicles in 2015—and has a big plans for expansion. "We are convinced China will become the leading market for electro-mobility," said Volkswagen brand chief Herbert Diess at a recent Shanghai car show.
China is on track to practically own African development, a product of toxic U.S. policies, many of which have yet to come to light.
I consider China a country that could become potentially a problem, but there is no match for the problems that the U.S. has created and is creating through moronic policies built to protect very narrow interests.
June 01, 2017, 11:36:46 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".That still doesn't address the main concern. Right now, most of the burden is on the United States and the European Union. China and countries such as Saudi Arabia are not required to make much sacrifices. The agreement needs to be modified, to make it palatable to all.
June 01, 2017, 09:57:49 PM
...Even Ivanka already knows that Trump out of his mind.
Bah.Made up political horseshit.
Here's another point of view.
All he did was fulfill a campaign promise.
So blame the people like me, who voted for him.
Well, I guess he has to take the opportunity when he can to fulfill a promise. After all, the Republicans in congress are not being very cooperative with other items on his agenda. I'll be shocked if they ever pass a decent infrastructure bill. That's one of the few promises that he made that I could really get behind.
As for Ivanka, nice try, but I personally have no clue why the Trumps are trying to win over the LGBTQ community. Milo is definitely the exception and not the rule.
June 01, 2017, 08:21:28 PM
...Even Ivanka already knows that Trump out of his mind.
Bah.Made up political horseshit.
Here's another point of view.
All he did was fulfill a campaign promise.
So blame the people like me, who voted for him.
June 01, 2017, 05:35:21 PM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
Before you sing the praises of this idiot Trump remember that to date only two countries have not signed the Paris agreement — Syria and Nicaragua. Russia, Iran and the DPRK has not yet ratified it. Barack Obama, who has put his signature under the Paris agreement, declare today, June 1, because of Trump's "the United States joined the handful of countries that reject the future".Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner tried to persuade the President not to withdraw from the Paris agreement. But they did not succeed. During his speech, Donald trump in the Rose garden, Ivanka and Jared were absent. Even Ivanka already knows that Trump out of his mind.
June 01, 2017, 05:03:12 PM
Another big news: Elon is also honoring his word and departing Trump's presidential councils.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/elon-musk-leaving-trump-advisory-councils-following-paris-agreement-withdrawal/
I think this decision of Trump was a very dangerous one and it will cause massive fractures among all Americans and the American companies which were against it.
Pissing off the biggest business owners in the US ain't the brightest idea.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/elon-musk-leaving-trump-advisory-councils-following-paris-agreement-withdrawal/
I think this decision of Trump was a very dangerous one and it will cause massive fractures among all Americans and the American companies which were against it.
Pissing off the biggest business owners in the US ain't the brightest idea.
That is distorting the issue.
Credible scientists are in agreement that CO2 is causing a problem, and that burning coal etc is accelerating the problem, and that humanity and other life forms on earth are going to be living in a different environment soon as a result.
The "big business owners" fall into two groups.
a) Trump type business owners, who are willing to sacrifice their children's planet for the sake of temporary financial gain
and
b) more responsible business owners who are willing to adapt and/or give up a little profit to minimize the damage done.
People who distort the issue, for their own short term benefit, are not even serving themselves much less anybody else's interests.
June 01, 2017, 04:35:07 PM
Another big news: Elon is also honoring his word and departing Trump's presidential councils.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/elon-musk-leaving-trump-advisory-councils-following-paris-agreement-withdrawal/
I think this decision of Trump was a very dangerous one and it will cause massive fractures among all Americans and the American companies which were against it.
Pissing off the biggest business owners in the US ain't the brightest idea.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/elon-musk-leaving-trump-advisory-councils-following-paris-agreement-withdrawal/
I think this decision of Trump was a very dangerous one and it will cause massive fractures among all Americans and the American companies which were against it.
Pissing off the biggest business owners in the US ain't the brightest idea.
June 01, 2017, 04:29:39 PM
First Disclosure before you attack me as Trump supporter!
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
You say in your signature "Consultant (Not taking new clients right now)", so we know from the start you are kind of a bullshitter. What is the point of advertising that you are a 'consultant', if you are not taking clients? More bullshit flows from your post. You want the "freedom" to do as you like without basic ethics, but you know that you only have an advantage when other people do have ethics. But you sense that your predation is not sustainable, so, like all crooked people you try to gain supporters using sophistry and bizarre logic. You are selling tickets on the titanic.
June 01, 2017, 04:17:26 PM
Rothschilds + Rockefeller are running the show:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind
Human caused climate change is ABSOLUTELY impossible. Human caused environmental degradation happens often, but environment is not climate.
Even a nuclear winter would not be a permanent climate change. After some years or decades, the earth would resume the climate that is dictated and controlled by the Sun and the internal heat of the Earth.
We are just but little specks of dust crawling on the surface of the earth and have no where near enough impact to the thermodynamics to have any meaningful impact on the climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind
Human caused climate change is ABSOLUTELY impossible. Human caused environmental degradation happens often, but environment is not climate.
Even a nuclear winter would not be a permanent climate change. After some years or decades, the earth would resume the climate that is dictated and controlled by the Sun and the internal heat of the Earth.
We are just but little specks of dust crawling on the surface of the earth and have no where near enough impact to the thermodynamics to have any meaningful impact on the climate.
Please spread this message to the spoiled-brat Millennials
I know politics is not your interest. But you are smart enough to understand why "everything equal" is always horrific failure that leads to war and megadeath. Please read this quote and understand why you must stop teaching your friends and kids the bullshit about "the rich are evil and everything must be equal". The Ten Commandments tell us not to covet what our neighbor has (and that includes accusing every rich person of being corrupt when in fact many people get rich by hard work!). The "99% versus 1%" movement is Satan whoreship!
I know politics is not your interest. But you are smart enough to understand why "everything equal" is always horrific failure that leads to war and megadeath. Please read this quote and understand why you must stop teaching your friends and kids the bullshit about "the rich are evil and everything must be equal". The Ten Commandments tell us not to covet what our neighbor has (and that includes accusing every rich person of being corrupt when in fact many people get rich by hard work!). The "99% versus 1%" movement is Satan whoreship!
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
I had a conversation in a hotel with someone who was very much a believer in man created global warming. I began to notice a pattern to their thinking. When you test anything, you must see how it is connected to other reasoning. What emerged was a fundamental belief that government is good and there to take care of you until you die. This notion appears to be linked to those who just want to be taken care of, but not to the point that they are on welfare. They will pretend to be independent thinking individuals, but there is a core surrender of independence because they do not want to think no one is in charge. They voted for Hillary as well, and this all seems linked to this desire not to be responsible for the future in a subtle way. Perhaps it is linked to childhood when you did not have to work or cook. They just took care of you. It seems that those who believe in global warming are more likely to trust government. What happens when they wake up and discover nothing is as they thought it would be?
Quote from: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-termination-of-cash-approaching-rapidly-the/
I am becoming deeply concerned that the United States is headed into its version of a communist revolution under the label “progressive” and the bankers, who Larry Summers has always supported, will be used as the scapegoat for Wall Street and the “rich” who have to be stripped of their liberty and their money for the “good of the people” as they always say. The United States does not look like it will be a country we can recognize by 2032 if we can even make it past 2024. The United States will most likely break apart by 2036. There are separatist movements rising in many areas from Vermont and Texas to California, who reasons they voted for Hillary not Trump justifying their departure.
The entire purpose of eliminating cash is to strip us of our assets, liberty, and to prevent bank runs. The youth, who have been brainwashed by Bernie Sanders and people like Elizabeth Warren, will turn against the older generation and enslave them if at all possible. This threatens our future with outright civil war. They will not be satisfied until they destroy the freedom of their opposition. It is starting to appear that 2036 is our date with destiny.
The entire purpose of eliminating cash is to strip us of our assets, liberty, and to prevent bank runs. The youth, who have been brainwashed by Bernie Sanders and people like Elizabeth Warren, will turn against the older generation and enslave them if at all possible. This threatens our future with outright civil war. They will not be satisfied until they destroy the freedom of their opposition. It is starting to appear that 2036 is our date with destiny.
I saw NBA legend Kevin Garnett using the term "not progressive enough" on national TV in his condemnation of coaching great Phil Jackson (when Jackson referred to Lebron's "posse").
June 01, 2017, 07:28:46 AM
Trump positioned in the world as primitive man. He was not interested in what will happen to the world, he is not even able to understand that a very large part of America is located in the coastal zone. Even his 58 story skyscraper on 5th Avenue will go under water. But all this pales before the possibility of saving several hundred million on the environment.
Do you seriously believe that a deal between corrupt politicians will stop the natural movement of the oceans, whatever it may be?
June 01, 2017, 01:03:03 AM
Covfefe. Bigly covfefe.
Things were so much better under the "TelePrompter-in-Chief"
Perhaps "covfefe" is the Austrian term for "wheeling-and-dealing"?
June 01, 2017, 12:38:06 AM
Covfefe. Bigly covfefe.
June 01, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
Trump did the right thing. Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and China are causing more pollution (on a per capita basis), and still the burden of reducing the climate change is falling on just the western nations and Japan. Everyone has to share the burden.
May 31, 2017, 08:57:06 PM
US pulling out of perhaps the last best chance of a coordinated response to climate change. Result is estimated 30bn tones/year of extra CO2 for the atmosphere. Enough to raise temperatures and raise sea levels. The poorest will pay.
The poorest always pay when corporate greed rears its head. Because of this, politicians have become adept at spinning these things to have a bogeyman other than the corporate sponsor that is responsible. Besides driving cars, the average American isn't the major reason behind global warming. It takes industrial production to make an impact of this magnitude, and these guys don't even have the decency to pay proper taxes.
We fucked up bad when we gave corporations personhood.
May 31, 2017, 08:09:42 PM
US pulling out of perhaps the last best chance of a coordinated response to climate change. Result is estimated 30bn tones/year of extra CO2 for the atmosphere. Enough to raise temperatures and raise sea levels. The poorest will pay.
May 31, 2017, 05:35:20 PM
Oh well, maybe bringing the Atlantic coast to Chicago is a part of Trump's idea to make America great again
I'd give him a bit more time, despite this flaw I still think he'll be better than Obama was. I mean it's not that hard to be better than Obama.
I'd give him a bit more time, despite this flaw I still think he'll be better than Obama was. I mean it's not that hard to be better than Obama.
You are right, apparently all you need is a dick, and not to be Black, in order to past muster
Shit, you don't even have to be a politician, you can be an actor and be better than Obama. Again people, you may not have liked Obama, I get that. But bullshit if you prefer this.
Edit: seems Tesla is using himself as a bargaining chip, he says he will quit if Trump pulls out. Interesting indeed, Tesla is a gem.
May 31, 2017, 05:27:09 PM
China and United states are the biggest pollutants, with US having a very high carbon dioxide per capita level (over 2 times higher than China and the EU).
If I were Trump I'd feel ashamed to be leading the country that is pumping so much shit into the atmosphere and isn't even trying to do something about it.
If I were Trump I'd feel ashamed to be leading the country that is pumping so much shit into the atmosphere and isn't even trying to do something about it.
May 31, 2017, 04:25:44 PM
Oh well, maybe bringing the Atlantic coast to Chicago is a part of Trump's idea to make America great again
I'd give him a bit more time, despite this flaw I still think he'll be better than Obama was. I mean it's not that hard to be better than Obama.
I'd give him a bit more time, despite this flaw I still think he'll be better than Obama was. I mean it's not that hard to be better than Obama.
May 31, 2017, 03:54:45 PM
I think several factors come together. Politicians who don´t believe in climate change and who will not believe anything until the day the ocean reaches their ankles. These politicians are servants of the great corporations that cause planetary pollution. These corporations don´t mind polluting, they only want to earn more money no matter what, they will not suffer the effects in the climate because they will already have died and their children and grandchildren will have money to emigrate to the few habitable zones that will remain in the planet. In the meantime people are still recycling and taking other measures that in the end are insufficient. I sincerely think that there is no reversal or solution.
May 31, 2017, 01:05:38 PM
Trump positioned in the world as primitive man. He was not interested in what will happen to the world, he is not even able to understand that a very large part of America is located in the coastal zone. Even his 58 story skyscraper on 5th Avenue will go under water. But all this pales before the possibility of saving several hundred million on the environment.
May 31, 2017, 11:25:47 AM
First Disclosure before you attack me as Trump supporter!
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
This is not about liberals and conservatives. This is bigger than politics. This is about our planet - our home getting rekt by our savage abuse of the environment. Go tell the polar bears that global accords are bad for humans. Go tell that to the people of coastal settlements which are going to be swallowed by the sea.
May 31, 2017, 10:00:59 AM
First Disclosure before you attack me as Trump supporter!
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
It is BS. NDCs are not legally binding so the whole agreement is of no value. It is basically "I will abide by the contract terms, or not" type of a deal, i.e. no deal.
The only way to reduce impact humans make on the environment is to reduce our global population. Anything else is a waste of time.
The impact the population growth has on the environment is so significant that no green technology can offset it.
We are the root cause of this problem.
Try to tell Hasidic Jews or Muslims that they are only allowed to have 1 child. See how this will work...
May 31, 2017, 09:40:00 AM
First Disclosure before you attack me as Trump supporter!
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
I don't like liberals like Trump! So no I'm not a Trump supporter! I don't like Trump or Hillary another nut-case liberal freedom hater!
But I think any global accords are bad for humans on this planet so pulling out is fantastic! So I support it. What do you think?
PS: My country is a liberal freedom hater-crap hole, that is a Hillary lover, but all I have is to complain like about Trump for example, not that is will do any good every year I loose more and more freedom and am more regulated in my third world country.
Jump to: