Evil Indian Capitalist Polluters Kill Millions

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by red_jon
Gian - yes, even those on the hard-right should be able to admit that there are issues with corporate power.

But apparently you said corporations were the issues themselves? They aren't. And there are problems with corporations taking too much power like in Nigeria.

And India has 900 million people, Japan has FAR less than that. Hence, India has many cheap, exploitable labourers which wouldn't be cheap and exploitable if they had large houses and TV sets. So the status quo of them being poor is beneficial to western business.

Yes and? Did I say differently? However those people should work with cleaner industries and not heavy polluting ones.

And yet you cannot challenge it.

Did I say anything about spending money on robotics? I said spending money on cleaner industry. Those 2 cent/hour workers may still be there but at least hundreds of polluting factories won't.... being replaced by cleaner ways of manufacturing.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But it never would have gotten better if you conservatives had your way. It's us ecologists who kept pushing you and kept pushing you. And we have a cleaner environment thanks to our nagging.

Yes it would.

If "ecologists" like you had your way you would make everybody live back in the stone ages.

That is why a mix of policies (that will not harm business significantly - if very minimally at the most) would be best.

[Sandman]

I was thinking along the lines of (improved) nuclear power...

Improved? How? Who's going to improve it? I think that you're playing with fire here, a meltdown would cause far worse devastation than even this cloud.

You didn't say who was going to pay for the replacement of inefficient equipment.

As for modern industrialisation polluting 'much lesser', there may be less acrid clouds, but there will be much more consumer waste, requiring gigantic landfills, and much more demand for increasingly scarce resources such as water and wood.

Really? I have to disagree with that.... I think once these developing countries reach modern status... better ways of manufacturing will be invented (that require lesser amounts of humans to work).

Technology will solve all problems, right? Let's hope you're right, although there is no reason to assume you are.

Quite frankly, my proposal's potentials
outweigh the negatives.

Your proposal needs modification. Specifically, the developed nations should curb their own consumption because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have a Western lifestyle.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sandman


Improved? How? Who's going to improve it? I think that you're playing with fire here, a meltdown would cause far worse devastation than even this cloud.

Improvement in the line of safety. A meltdown can be averted if proper procedures are taken.

You didn't say who was going to pay for the replacement of inefficient equipment.

And that is still the damn question I am wondering... sure my plan might be good on paper but it might not work without FDI.

As for modern industrialisation polluting 'much lesser', there may be less acrid clouds, but there will be much more consumer waste, requiring gigantic landfills, and much more demand for increasingly scarce resources such as water and wood.

Then I suggest instead of landfills garbage-energy incineration. (I am unsure if that would be possible)

And for scarce resources such as water... there is always desalination but that is very expensive. But Saudi Arabia and most rich arab states must do it to supply 95% of their water supply.

Technology will solve all problems, right? Let's hope you're right, although there is no reason to assume you are.

And why shouldn't it? Sure we should be independent from technology (hehe... remember Matrix?) but we can use it to our advantage.

Your proposal needs modification. Specifically, the developed nations should curb their own consumption because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have a Western lifestyle.

True. But you do not have a right to say what needs modification or not, I will have to do that myself. As I will say now: My proposal is something I have been thinking of for sometime... there are issues involved though and it needs some smoothing out. But it sure the hell is a lot better than other proposals floating around out there.

[Ned]

I think any call for India, China or SE Asia to call a halt, or at least slow down, their economic development in order to reduce pollution - especially if the reason is that it may harm the world environment and cause global warming - is likely to fall on eternally deaf ears. What this means is that world polution is going to get a lot worse before it gets better - and the primary problem is not the United States.

[Giancarlo]

Ned that is wrong to say. If they slow down economic development they might be stuck with a cheap inefficient burning energy (such as coal) for much longer.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ned
I think any call for India, China or SE Asia to call a halt, or at least slow down, their economic development in order to reduce pollution - especially if the reason is that it may harm the world environment and cause global warming - is likely to fall on eternally deaf ears. What this means is that world polution is going to get a lot worse before it gets better - and the primary problem is not the United States.

Even though the US are the world's largest consumers, are the greatest generators of carbon dioxide and have even been known to export waste to countries like India (and, specifically, India) and refuse to sign international treaties which attempt to reduce pollution?

They're just trying to get out of poverty. And you're asking them to slow down their economic development whilst we get richer?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by red_jon
are the greatest generators of carbon dioxide

And the Bush adminstration is hard at work figuring out a way to come up with a plausible solution to help ease emissions of CO2.

and refuse to sign international treaties which attempt to reduce pollution?

What idiotic international treaties? Oh that one arbitrary, illogical and retroactive one everybody knows as Kyoto? That treaty was trash to begin with. It would of caused massive economic losses. There are dozens of better alternatives that would actually work for both the environment and economy at the same time.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Fez


And the Bush adminstration is hard at work figuring out a way to come up with a plausible solution to help ease emissions of CO2.

Three words- sports utility vehicle. If the millionaire family-appointed oil baron most Americans did not elect actually wanted to reduce emissions he would at least give these vehicles the same requirements as others. But General Motors wouldn't like that.

What idiotic international treaties? Oh that one arbitrary, illogical and retroactive one everybody knows as Kyoto? That treaty was trash to begin with. It would of caused massive economic losses. There are dozens of better alternatives that would actually work for both the environment and economy at the same time.

Oh, you mean the treaties other countries signed? Yeah, it really must have been pathetic if all the other nations agree to implement it.

[Giancarlo]

What an opiniated uninformed person....

Originally posted by red_jon


Three words- sports utility vehicle. If the millionaire family-appointed oil baron most Americans did not elect actually wanted to reduce emissions he would at least give these vehicles the same requirements as others. But General Motors wouldn't like that.

Americans did elect him. And who are you to pass judgement like that? On if he was elected or not? Leftism sucks... and that is all I will say.

He is reducing emissions through more economically secure options.

Oh, you mean the treaties other countries signed? Yeah, it really must have been pathetic if all the other nations agree to implement it.

Oh great comeback. It happens to be that treaty would of cut off about 1.5% - 2% of GDP growth in the US if implemented. GOOD ONE! That would of really made the world go into recession. The Kyoto treaty was a pathetic venture that should of been shot down in the beginning. It solves nothing just creates more problems.

[Sandman]

Improvement in the line of safety. A meltdown can be averted if proper procedures are taken.

You'll not know until it's too late. Accidents are inevitable.

Then I suggest instead of landfills garbage-energy incineration. (I am unsure if that would be possible)

Crazy. You'd get a cloud of monstrous proportions.

And for scarce resources such as water... there is always desalination but that is very expensive. But Saudi Arabia and most rich arab states must do it to supply 95% of their water supply.

Oil prices would go up even more.

And the Bush adminstration is hard at work figuring out a way to come up with a plausible solution to help ease emissions of CO2.

You're too guillible.

What idiotic international treaties? Oh that one arbitrary, illogical and retroactive one everybody knows as Kyoto? That treaty was trash to begin with. It would of caused massive economic losses. There are dozens of better alternatives that would actually work for both the environment and economy at the same time.

Kyoto targetted the developed countries. The developing nations look to the developed for pointers on how to develop their economies. If we can turn the developed countries, the developing countries will follow down the road of efficiency.
Since America has failed to even think about doing anything about overconsumption and pollution, the developing countries will follow them instead, since it is America that is the premier developed country.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sandman

You'll not know until it's too late. Accidents are inevitable.

Yes and floods are inevitable.... and so are hurricanes... people die... that is inevitable... your point being?

Crazy. You'd get a cloud of monstrous proportions.

And you are any different?

Oil prices would go up even more.

They would?

You're too guillible.

I am?

Kyoto targetted the developed countries.

Yes and could of cost billions to the economy.

The developing nations look to the developed for pointers on how to develop their economies. If we can turn the developed countries, the developing countries will follow down the road of efficiency.

You aren't making any sense. You are just saying the developed world should throw its economy down the gutter to please some tree huggers!

Since America has failed to even think about doing anything about overconsumption and pollution,

It has?

[Sandman]

Yes and floods are inevitable.... and so are hurricanes... people die... that is inevitable... your point being?

Hundreds of nuclear power stations in poor, densely populated countries is not a good idea.

Yes and could of cost billions to the economy.

Hasn't so far, and a few billions here and there is not very much anyway. World GDP is several trillions.

You aren't making any sense. You are just saying the developed world should throw its economy down the gutter to please some tree huggers!

Cutting energy consumption and improving efficiency will clearly boost the economy in the long run by lowering the need for fuel, environmental benefits aside.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sandman

Hundreds of nuclear power stations in poor, densely populated countries is not a good idea.

Okay... so they should build petroleum, coal and gas power plants?

Hasn't so far, and a few billions here and there is not very much anyway. World GDP is several trillions.

That is because the Kyoto is not in effect in the US. If it was there would be very bad effects. And I am talking into the hundreds of billions.

Cutting energy consumption and improving efficiency will clearly boost the economy in the long run by lowering the need for fuel, environmental benefits aside.

Did I say otherwise? Sure I want technological advancements.

For example: Getting steel requires a lot less energy than it did in WWII. Infact a 100 times less. That shows progress is being made and will continued to be made.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by red_jon
Hence, India has many cheap, exploitable labourers which wouldn't be cheap and exploitable if they had large houses and TV sets. So the status quo of them being poor is beneficial to western business.

Actually, it's quite counter productive to business at large. For example, if I were a business man I'd want a product that I can sell to the largest market possible. Keeping India, China, and other third or fourth world countries in poverty doesn't increase my market, it in fact decreases my market and therefore hurts my business.

Sure, your arguement is based on the cost of labor and yes that effects profits, but the rise in the cost of labor would pale in comparisson the the rise in available consumers.

Furthermore, evidence to counter your theory exists in the simple fact that the IMF, World Bank, and the US itself lend money to troubled countries all over the world.

If you theory was even remotely plausable you wouldn't see this type of action from any monetary institution. What you would in fact see is an ever shrinking population of consumers world wide with an ever increasing gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". The situation at hand would be a few nations of the world with extremely high tech goods with no one to sell them to except themselves. Exports would become non-existant.

So, it is in the best interest of Western economies that the rest of the world "keep up" and we loan them money in the order of billions to do so.