Global Warming - Bound to Burn

[Sava]

I actually prefer killing real people to babies. You can always make more babies. It's harder to replace an actual person (who has lived some life).

[Kitschum]

Killing babies is proactive

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't wait for some huge ice shelf to fall into the ocean and flood coastal cities, killing millions.

Ice shelves are already floating in the ocean, numbnuts. It has no effect on sea levels when they break off.

[KrazyHorse]

Archimedes

[Elok]

Re:OP, this is pretty much what I thought already...I think. Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing, so if it says something about how black people are evil or what-have-you, I do not endorse that particular conclusion.

[Straybow]

Nuke the unborn baby tree-huggers!

[Caligastia]

Looks like an intelligent response really was too much to hope for.

[Riesstiu IV]

Next time post a shorter article. This is web 2.0, we don't read anything that requires scrolling and it has to have shiny headings and pictures of kittens.

[MOBIUS]

Looks like an intelligent response really was too much to hope for.

Well, I'll give you kudos for changing your questionable targeting of non white peoples from blacks to the Chinese - actually, foreigners in general...

But basically, what you're trying to put forward as an excuse for the US to do nothing about climate change is flawed for a number of major reasons:

1) The reason CO2 is so high in the atmosphere now is because the vast majority of the anthropogenic portion of it has been pumped into the atmosphere by the developed nations - of which the US is by far the biggest culprit! China, even now, is responsible for a tiny fraction of the US' historic CO2 emissions...

2) The Americans (and Australians, and Canadians) are the biggest per capita CO2 emitters today - each person in the US is responsible for roughly 6 times the emissions of each person in China! If you want fair treatment - come back when China's emissions per capita equals that of the US - otherwise STFU with your misplaced self-righteous indignation!

3) If you want the Chinese to stop building their coal power stations - take the lead in cutting back your own CO2 emissions by taking the moral lead - until the US does this, China has no reason to do so apart from preventing pollution in their own backyard.

4) China's renewable energy industry is expanding at a far more rapid rate than that of the US - so they are already doing the very thing that you refuse to do - for the backward logic that developed nations are failing to curb their CO2 emissions...

5) This entire document in your OP is basically classic climate change skeptics bollocks - if you want an example of the economic 'benefits' expounded by the skeptics, you only need look at dinosaur companies like Chrysler and GM who refused to change with the environmental times...

Oh well...

[Lorizael]

What a delightful conversation. I'm ever so glad it has nothing to do with racism!

[MOBIUS]

Hey I already PMed you my reply but haven't heard anything back.

Just asking.

EDIT: Answered by PM. Nope, nothing to do with racism after all - where did I ever get that idea. Thank you Lori.

[Elok]

Folks, I don't doubt that Caligastia gets a certain amount of pleasure from thinking that It's The Brown People's Fault. But think about it: some very populous and historically poor countries (India, China, Brazil) are experiencing rapid economic growth. With economic growth comes a higher standard of living; people are going to want to buy the sort of comforts we've grown accustomed to. Strictly speaking, we don't "need" cars or an electrical grid to survive, but life is pretty crummy without them.

Are we honestly going to say to the Indians or Chinese with a straight face, "sorry, you can't have more than, say, one automobile for every hundred people in your country--stick with your bicycles and water buffalo for the good of the planet"? And if we did, would we expect them to go along with it, take one for the team? I sure as hell wouldn't, in their place. Floods, famine, freak storms, what do I care, if I'm barely scraping some kind of living out of the land via subsistence farming? I certainly wouldn't turn down better fertilizers just because they were made in an energy-intensive manner, or some cheap mechanical farming equipment with a big carbon footprint. Lessee, I can guarantee a decent crop so my family won't starve, maybe even sell the surplus to buy clothes, medicine and education for the children so they enjoy a better life than I did--or chance a bad yield that could leave my the youngest crippled from malnourishment, maybe kill the whole clan if there's a bad storm, in order to make my own minute contribution to the fight against climate change. Which do I choose?

They don't even need to live with the same energy expenditures common over here in the industrialized world; if a billion people around the world merely stop living in total destitution, with maybe one car per family of ten and a very patchy electrical grid, they'll still consume a frightful amount of power (and generate correspondingly large clouds of CO2) just by their sheer numbers. And again, I couldn't blame them.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't try to cut down on our pollution as much as possible. If nothing else, it would be quite nice to stop having to suck Saudi Arabian penis all the time, and fossil fuels won't last forever, et cetera. But I just don't see climate change being halted by dramatic reduction of emissions, especially given all the talk about the process reinforcing itself. Our energy would be better spent "bracing for impact," so to speak.

[MrFun]

Ahh, that's it about. I agree

Learn to type proper sentences.

[Dinner]

3) If you want the Chinese to stop building their coal power stations - take the lead in cutting back your own CO2 emissions by taking the moral lead - until the US does this, China has no reason to do so apart from preventing pollution in their own backyard.

It would seem that a much easier and more effective way to deal with the problem would be for the countries who want to do something about climate change to band together into a trade block and then slap any country which doesn't go along with a 100,000% tariff.

[Elok]

It would seem that a much easier and more effective way to deal with the problem would be for the countries who want to do something about climate change to band together into a trade block and then slap any country which doesn't go along with a 100,000% tariff.

"That's right, China, make our consumer goods on the cheap without using convenient energy sources or we'll make them super-expensive and do it ourse...wait. Um, can we get back to you on this?"