Draginol Draginol

Do you REALLY want to do something about CO2 emissions?

▼

Do you REALLY want to do something about CO2 emissions?

Or do you just want to feel good about yourself?

from JoeUser Forums

One of the things that I find maddening about the American left is its penchant for saying something is bad or that something should be done and then sitting back and doing nothing themselves about it.

Whether the case be health care (where they simply expect other people to pay for their "compassion") or more notoriously, global warming.

The United States produces (for now) the most CO2 on the planet.  Eventually China will catch up (who isn't govered by Kyoto incidentally - and people wonder why the US rejected it) and far surpass the US in CO2 emmissions because environmentalism is just a catch phrase there.

So do you believe CO2 from humans is primary causing global warming? And if so, do you think it is a life threatening thing?

Then morally, aren't you obligated to do something about it? Right now?

  1. Commuting to work more than 10 miles one way.  One third of our CO2 emissions come from driving.  It's not the gas mileage that's the problem. Nobody likes to talk about our dirty little secret: Americans drive too much.  If you're driving more than 20 miles a day, you're part of the problem. Quit it. Move closer to your job. Don't say you can't. You can. You just don't want to.   If CO2 generated global warming is really a global crisis, how can you sit back and do nothing?
  2. Get rid of your air conditioner. Electrical Power for homes represents nearly 40% of our CO2 emissions. Eliminate that second refrigerator. Get rid of the outdoor lights. Get rid of that dryer. Don't take baths, shower instead.  Don't say you can't. You can. If it's the difference between life and death, you certainly can. Quit watching TV. A typical TV uses far more power than a typical computer.  You may not want to but if global warming is the end of the world, it's the least you can do.
  3. No more long distance vacations. Whether you're driving (which is worse) or flying, there's no justification for driving or flying to a vacation destination. Not if lives are on the line.

If you truly believe that human produced CO2 is the root cause of global warming and that it will result in the deaths of millions, then how can you possibly not do the above 3 things?

politics
39,817 views 105 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
guess he doesn't know where alaska and montana are.


alaska has one third the land of the 48 states. only has about 200,000 people in it. all of the oil is in the north.

there is only one place with a smaller pop. than northern alaska.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
guess he doesn't know where alaska and montana are.


alaska has one third the land of the 48 states. only has about 200,000 people in it. all of the oil is in the north.

there is only one place with a smaller pop. than northern alaska.


Don't mean to be nitpicky but what the hell, eh? Actually, Alaska has closer to 700,000 people, not 200,000. Bingo you're right, a lot of the oil that's on U.S soil is coming from Alaska, and it's that oil that provides the state with the lion's share of it's revenue, which means they tax their citizens less in comparison to other U.S states.

In comparison, northern Canda is comprised of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut which is several times the size of Alaska and has a whopping 110 thousand people spread out amongst the three territories.

And yes I'm aware of Montana, it's a beautiful state! I grew up in Alberta which shares the border with Montana, there are a lot of similarities, cattle ranching and oil etc.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh.. what Artysim said.. He sure knows more about this topic than I.

Why should I spend my time to educate you when you will simply find excuses to ignore what's staring at you in the face


I'd rather say you are simply in a state of denial, and you just can't see the other side of the argument. Trying to hammer your point with pretty numbers that fit your view of the world.

But anyway, I don't see how I could make you see things rationnaly about any topic you oppose. I mean, you turned the conversation about how we could efficiency - and in a conservative, business-friendly way - reduce CO2, and you started attacking Liberals economics view, cleary making a 90 degree turn of the topic, simply because you don't seem to like being proven wrong.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top

Artysim: Population density has very little bearing on GDP.

I am not sure you really thought through your argument before posting it.  Belgium, Denmark, etc. all have much lower GDP per capita than the United States despite having much higher population densitities.

Moreover, Alaska has a much MUCH higher per capita GDP than Quebec does despite having vast amounts of land (or Ontario for that matter).

The reason why these countries have lower GDP is pretty straight forward - your countries excessively tax your most productive class.  This leaves the most demonstratably productive people in your country with less capital to keep doing what they've already proven to do so well - generate wealth.

Also, feel free to explain how trade deficits/surpluses are a "prime indicator" of economic health. China has a tremendous trade surplus. Would you prefer to live there?