28 Mar 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasNow if they can just keep wars out of their countries!
You're welcome! Anytime!
But don't forget Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Also a high standard in their environmental ambitions.
Norway because they have the highest percentage of electrical cars in the world. No fancy words, but action!
Denmark because of their high percentage of wind power. No fancy words, but action!
Iceland because of th ...[text shortened]... er of geothermic energy. No fancy words, but action!
And Finland... just because it is Finland!
You still have that Russian Bear thing to worry about.
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasI saw a report once about a 6 year old kid who had a thought for an invention:
War is always a very polluting business...
When will they invent nukes that are environmental friendly?
'The bullet grabber' that grabs bullets out of the air before they can kill someone.
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell, o.k., but in Britain we don't have any handy volcanoes to tap and we have about 10 times the population of any of the Scandinavian countries. My opinion of our governments since Wilson is pretty low. But with 60 odd million people it's a lot harder to be ecologically sound. I can think of a few ways of getting our population down in a fair and equal opportunities fashion, but most people still wouldn't regard my ideas about reintroducing endemic warfare with traditional weapons as entirely ethical...
You're welcome! Anytime!
But don't forget Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Also a high standard in their environmental ambitions.
Norway because they have the highest percentage of electrical cars in the world. No fancy words, but action!
Denmark because of their high percentage of wind power. No fancy words, but action!
Iceland because of th ...[text shortened]... er of geothermic energy. No fancy words, but action!
And Finland... just because it is Finland!
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou're right. For a country 10 times bigger it is 10 times harder, true, but the resources to do it is also 10 times bigger. So that is not an valid argument.
Well, o.k., but in Britain we don't have any handy volcanoes to tap and we have about 10 times the population of any of the Scandinavian countries. My opinion of our governments since Wilson is pretty low. But with 60 odd million people it's a lot harder to be ecologically sound. I can think of a few ways of getting our population down in a fair and e ...[text shortened]... ard my ideas about reintroducing endemic warfare with traditional weapons as entirely ethical...
Population of Denmark and Scotland is comparable. Denmark are worldwide best in wind power. I think it's quite windy in Scotland too. What is Scotland, a part of Britain, doing?
Some small countries don't want to do anything environmentally progressive, because "we are just a small country". Some big countries don't want to do anything environmentally progressing, because "we are a big country and it is too expensive". But their true attitude is "We don't want to!"
Small countries with limitied resources can do very much, why cannot bigger countries do the same? Or if you think the country is too big, then just divide it to a comparable size and start from there.
When really big and mighty nations don't do anything, like USA with one of the highest emisions of CO2 per capita, doesn't do anything, just pointing fingers at China, who only have a third of the rate of emissions, then the message is clear: "We don't want to do anything!"
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe sad part is with the USA, China and Russia leading the pollution on Earth, the rest of the world doing its best to reduce pollution won't have much effect overall. Sad state of affairs.
You're right. For a country 10 times bigger it is 10 times harder, true, but the resources to do it is also 10 times bigger. So that is not an valid argument.
Population of Denmark and Scotland is comparable. Denmark are worldwide best in wind power. I think it's quite windy in Scotland too. What is Scotland, a part of Britain, doing?
Some small cou ...[text shortened]... ave a third of the rate of emissions, then the message is clear: "We don't want to do anything!"
Originally posted by sonhouseWe can always point fingers, but when USA points it's just propaganda from organizations with an agenda.
The sad part is with the USA, China and Russia leading the pollution on Earth, the rest of the world doing its best to reduce pollution won't have much effect overall. Sad state of affairs.
I show the numbers again:
United States - 17.564
Russia - 12.6
China - 6.195
(Numbers in CO2 emissions in kilotonnes per capita 2010 according to World Bank.)
Why does USA always point fingers at China when USA itself are responsible of almost three times (2.83 times) as much as China?
Is the American propaganda ministerium so effective in its work that every citizen in USA believe that USA is doing a good job in terms of environment? Sorry, but someone is lying to you. Guess who?
For short - USA is the bad guy in the world in this respect of the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere!
Edit:
No personal critics for your, sonhouse, not at all. You're a good guy. But to everyone denying the facts stated above...
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasIsn't the total tonnage applicable? China with 1/3 the pollution per capita but 3 times the population says they total about the same as the US, which is not trying to excuse the US but the total is not 1/3 like those numbers suggest.
We can always point fingers, but when USA points it's just propaganda from organizations with an agenda.
I show the numbers again:
United States - 17.564
Russia - 12.6
China - 6.195
(Numbers in CO2 emissions in kilotonnes per capita 2010 according to World Bank.)
Why does USA always point fingers at China when USA itself are responsible of almo ...[text shortened]... your, sonhouse, not at all. You're a good guy. But to everyone denying the facts stated above...
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseBreak up all China in provinces and you get a totally different result. If you want to show USA in a better light, then show your contribution by state and per state any state is better than China. By fiddle with statistics then you can show anything.
Isn't the total tonnage applicable? China with 1/3 the pollution per capita but 3 times the population says they total about the same as the US, which is not trying to excuse the US but the total is not 1/3 like those numbers suggest.
Only per capita you can show the truth.
The worst country in the world is Qatar with 40.31 kilotonnes per capita. There you have a true bad guy. But they just emit 70,531 kilotonnes in total compared to United states of 5,433,057. Does the fact that Qatar is a small country excuse the fact that every habitant in Qatar produce 40 kilotonne? If every chinese person produce as every american - you do the math - how much would China emit in the atmosphere? And how soon will the climate change to a Venus-like atmosphere?
If Qatar would say, "yes, so what, we are the good ones", then I would protest as vividly as I protest the USA behaviour.
Look at the small good countries in the world, who actually works to reduce the emission of CO2, and compare how much USA does, USA who spends more money to wars than environment.
Only per capita counts.
30 Mar 15
Originally posted by SoothfastThen you cannot teach me anything.
Sorry, I only teach at the college level.
I repeat: Is the American propaganda ministerium so effective in its work that every citizen in USA believe that USA is doing a good job in terms of environment? Sorry, but someone is lying to you. Guess who?