cold iron Loc: White House

China has 19% of the world s population, but consumes ...
53% of the world's cement
48% of the world's iron ore
47% of the world's coal
.... and the majority of just about every other major commodity.
In 2010, China produced 11 times more steel than the United States.
World Record: China made and sold 18 million vehicles in 2010.

There are more pigs in China than in the next 43 pork producing nations combined
China currently has the world's fastest train and the world s largest high-speed rail network.

China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power, but don t use it themselves. While they manufacture 80% of the world s solar panels, they install less than 5% and build a new coal-fired power station every week. In one year they turn on more new coal powered electricity than Australia's total output.

China currently controls more than 90% of the total global supply of rare earth elements.

In the past 15 years, China has moved from 14th place to 2nd place in the world in published scientific research articles.

China now possesses the fastest supercomputer on the entire globe.
At the end of March 2011, China accumulated US$3.04 trillion in foreign currency reserves
--the largest stockpile on the entire globe.

Chinese people consume 50,000 cigarettes every second

They are already the largest carbon dioxide emitter and their output will rise 70% by 2020.
~*~*~*~*~*~
And we think we're saving the planet?! It will not make one iota of difference what we do in Australia, Canada, the United States or anywhere else in the world; for that matter, all the politicians are doing is increasing our cost of living and making our manufacturers uncompetitive in the world market, with their i***tic carbon tax, when countries like China are growing and consuming at these extraordinary rates! Time to wake up

woodguru

China has already been putting hundreds of billions into trying to do as much as possible Meanwhile we have science deniers who are rolling things backwards, EPA standards, pollution regulations, oil versus sustainable. The it's too late already is about the lamest possible argument.

If we could go back in time 40 years ago knowing what we now know we'd have phased oil out entirely in a very short period.

cold iron Loc: White House

We could today do away with gas and oil generators, but the Dems refuse to use it. We have what is called 4 gen nuclear reactors that can not melt down and they have been tested many times but it matters not to the left wing fools. So, we can phase out oil today, but don't hold your breath. You can find out about this just look. There are also gen 3 reactors
that can run on all the old waste that we have to keep buried for fear of a leak. I think that is the way to go, k**ls to bird with one stone, but the left keep there hands over there ears.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

Mike Easterday

I will be driving my pickup truck and barbecue something later .

currahee

"C*****e c****e" enforcement is just another s**m. The so-called world g*******t backed by the banker elite wish to impose another one of their stupid delusions to ens***e us. They're on their way to hell and they want to take everyone on the planet with them. Just look at the "hell results" of their liberal Stalinist policies: Detroit, Deer-born Michigan, the homeless in California, the Marxist "brain washed" students coming out of "government run indoctrination schools" falsely called "public," etc.

waltmoreno

Not only that but the global saviors want the US to invest many billions of dollars into crackpot schemes which, according to their best estimates, will result in a drop in global temperature of less than one degree in something like 50 years. Insane!

JohnCorrespondent

That kind of argument (posted by cold iron) might be tried, to stop almost all new actions about anything. One can always say: this (wh**ever new action) won't work, because not enough _other_ people are doing it. (After all, the action (dramatically reducing pollution) has, supposedly, not yet gained majority world-wide status, which is why I call it a "new" action.) If everybody thought as cold iron does, where would progress ever come from? We would still be doing the same old thing that everybody else has been doing for centuries. Every new action would be stopped, with the argument that there's a bigger crowd of people who are _not_ doing it (yet).

Within his argument, I see two points (which I assume are true but I have not verified them): (1) China pollutes much more than we do; and (2) China is growing economically much faster than we are.

After illustrating those two points, cold iron then would have us believe that (because of those two points) it is useless for _us_ to reduce how much we pollute.

Well then, cold iron, you call a carbon tax in the U.S. i***tic; and you ask us to wake up. Aside from waking up, what else would you have us do? Grow economically and make no effort at all to reduce pollution?

Shall we try to be more like China (as in growing economically and making no effort to reduce pollution)?

What do you expect will be the result, in one year, 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years? An extremely (far worse than now) polluted planet with the U.S. on top economically? Is this the happier result you would have us aim for?

Or instead, shall we try to influence China so that it will pollute less?

There are ways to influence China. A lot of the world is already on the ecological bandwagon. This huge group could continue to grow and could, say, boycott Chinese products, or stop trading with China.

It is true that it would be difficult (for the U.S. at least), since we (particularly the U.S.) have borrowed so much money and probably owe a huge monetary debt to China already, and might suffer greatly in an economic way if China decides to stop lending to, or stop buying from, _us_. Some countries (some of the ones in Europe which have exercised saner economic practices than we have) might take over the burden of supporting us, if they thought it were for a good cause (reducing world-wide pollution). They would have to trust the U.S. to behave responsibly in the future (not squandering resources so much and not polluting so much). Does the U.S. look trustworthy? Hmm.

I _would_ like to influence China. However, I'm just an ordinary person, not a President nor a billionnaire. Shall I just give up then? No. Why should I even bother to give up -- that's losing for sure. Instead, I find something positive to do so that the groups, such as the ecological movement, will have a better chance of success. I set two tasks for myself: (A) pollute less, and (B) communicate so that I can be part of the solution group, not part of the polluting group.

We might fail, or we might succeed. If we act positively, then we at least have a chance at success. We may influence others, and those people may influence yet others.

I think it's reasonably likely that we will all fail, such that our grandchildren (what's left of them who don't die from cancer or heat stroke or severe storms) will live in domed habitats or wear gas masks a lot. But even if we fail, I will be happier if I can answer to my grandchildren when they ask me what I did about pollution. Having lots of money is going to matter less in the end, I think. What would we spend it on -- better gas masks and more chemotherapy, which will be needed because of the pollution that _I_ contributed to? They will think, "Thanks a lot, Grandpa" and they will think it bitterly, if they even survive long enough to think about it.

[quote=cold iron]China has 19% of the world s population, but consumes ... [and so on] [end of partial quote]

cold iron Loc: White House

[quote=JohnCorrespondent]That kind of argument (posted by cold iron) might be tried, to stop almost all new actions about anything. One can always say: this (wh**ever new action) won't work, because not enough _other_ people are doing it. (After all, the action (dramatically reducing pollution) has, supposedly, not yet gained majority world-wide status, which is why I call it a "new" action.) If everybody thought as cold iron does, where would progress ever come from? We would still be doing the same old thing that everybody else has been doing for centuries. Every new action would be stopped, with the argument that there's a bigger crowd of people who are _not_ doing it (yet).

Within his argument, I see two points (which I assume are true but I have not verified them): (1) China pollutes much more than we do; and (2) China is growing economically much faster than we are.

After illustrating those two points, cold iron then would have us believe that (because of those two points) it is useless for _us_ to reduce how much we pollute.

Well then, cold iron, you call a carbon tax in the U.S. i***tic; and you ask us to wake up. Aside from waking up, what else would you have us do? Grow economically and make no effort at all to reduce pollution?

Shall we try to be more like China (as in growing economically and making no effort to reduce pollution)?

What do you expect will be the result, in one year, 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years? An extremely (far worse than now) polluted planet with the U.S. on top economically? Is this the happier result you would have us aim for?

Or instead, shall we try to influence China so that it will pollute less?

There are ways to influence China. A lot of the world is already on the ecological bandwagon. This huge group could continue to grow and could, say, boycott Chinese products, or stop trading with China.

It is true that it would be difficult (for the U.S. at least), since we (particularly the U.S.) have borrowed so much money and probably owe a huge monetary debt to China already, and might suffer greatly in an economic way if China decides to stop lending to, or stop buying from, _us_. Some countries (some of the ones in Europe which have exercised saner economic practices than we have) might take over the burden of supporting us, if they thought it were for a good cause (reducing world-wide pollution). They would have to trust the U.S. to behave responsibly in the future (not squandering resources so much and not polluting so much). Does the U.S. look trustworthy? Hmm.

I _would_ like to influence China. However, I'm just an ordinary person, not a President nor a billionnaire. Shall I just give up then? No. Why should I even bother to give up -- that's losing for sure. Instead, I find something positive to do so that the groups, such as the ecological movement, will have a better chance of success. I set two tasks for myself: (A) pollute less, and (B) communicate so that I can be part of the solution group, not part of the polluting group.

We might fail, or we might succeed. If we act positively, then we at least have a chance at success. We may influence others, and those people may influence yet others.

I think it's reasonably likely that we will all fail, such that our grandchildren (what's left of them who don't die from cancer or heat stroke or severe storms) will live in domed habitats or wear gas masks a lot. But even if we fail, I will be happier if I can answer to my grandchildren when they ask me what I did about pollution. Having lots of money is going to matter less in the end, I think. What would we spend it on -- better gas masks and more chemotherapy, which will be needed because of the pollution that _I_ contributed to? They will think, "Thanks a lot, Grandpa" and they will think it bitterly, if they even survive long enough to think about it.



This planet has been around a long time, it has frozen over completely and all the ice has melted more than once, and the coral is still doing ok. You do not know that the CO2
are 300 parts per million do you? That is about .04%. Valcanos make more CO2 than man. And this has been going on for say 4 billion years. Every time it rains most of the CO2 is picked up by the water and taken to the bottom of the ocean and buried in the seabed. I am sorry if I overloaded your little brain.

Abel

You're right about a s**m curahee, but the s**m was about "G****l W*****g" not "C*****e C****e," which is a natural cyclic function of the sun. G****l W*****g peaked out about 2008, and the sun is going into hibernation causing the Earth to now start cooling. The cycle is about 200 years long, and we are now starting down into a minimum, so I hope you haven't thrown your winter gear away. The G*******t s**mmers still push the "warming" but they are using defective data and looking only at the short term. We have an 11 year sunspot cycle, and the graphs are very spikey, with many hot and cold spikes, but the longer view, looking at the 200 year graphics, and averaging them out, shows that the overall temperature average is decreasing, and has been decreasing since 2008 toward a minimum about 2030 or so. This Redundant Cycling is something that we have little to no control of. There is a book by John Casey, called Dark Winter, that covers this cyclic system quite well if you happen to be interested in it.

The "Hell results," as you mentioned, are more of a man made phenomenon caused by the G*******t Elites, who the Establishment Elites in the US Congress work for. Now that's something we might be able to do something about, if we got off our dead butts and went to work industrially like the Chinese have. We used to be the "Industrial Giant" of the world! The USA has slipped way down the "great" roster in nearly all categories with the possible exception of complacency and political stupidity, mainly due to the Democrat/C*******t/Progressive I***Tology that is engulfing the USA like a "hungry blob!" An I***Tology that believes we should all lay down our shovels, sit on our asses, and let the government support us, which is basically Socialism, and if that gets fully established, it will eventually fail because they will run out of other peoples wealth to steal. When it finally fails, the conservative thinking people will have a chance to start over, and I sure as Hell hope they learned enough from the failure to do a better job next time around!

JohnCorrespondent

Some of the coral may be ok. Some isn't, from what I hear.

".04%" and so what? .04% might be lot by relevant criteria.

Yes I've heard about the planet being here 4 billion years. And, however it may have changed in that time, there's still a planet here now and it still has complexities going on. Some species have gone extinct; some haven't; some have been replaced by others more suited to the newer environments. During the various ice ages creatures including humans have had to migrate and make adjustments. Those generations aren't around to tell us about it directly but I suppose those migrations and adjustments were difficult. At least they had more gradual changes to adjust to, compared to what's beginning now.

Say what you will, I will continue to view polluters as both harmful and irritating. Examples are both small and large; and both kinds can be addressed:

(1) Down the street in this mobile home park there were two dumpsters badly overflowing at least once a week, and that went on for years despite complaints to management. It was an eyesore such that I was embarrassed to have anyone come visit me because they'd have to drive past it. Plus it attracted vermin such as rats. We residents finally sued about that and many other neglects of maintenance by the owner, and the problem got fixed! The process of getting it fixed took years! And it took a coordinated action by a lot of ordinary people such as myself.

(2) Various pollutions on a larger scale occur such as big oil spills at Alaska shore, California shore, and at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico; and, the pollution disaster at the Fukishima nuclear power plant, the same kind of plant that we have in the U.S. Now, you could say that the oil might have leaked out someday anyway if there were the relevant earthquake or volcanic eruption or a strike by a big meteor. Yes, and I could even die tomorrow by being struck by a meteor, but that doesn't mean I should neglect my health; do you see this point about the meteor and the health? Likewise there could be earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, and other natural disasters, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't behave responsibly about the environment. We have made some progress in (a) cleaning up the environment, (b) not generating as many disasters, and even (c) in some ways not polluting as much (asbestos, lead, ...); and this progress has been waxing and waning according to the government administrations and the influence of public discourse. One volcanic eruption, earthquake, or meteor strike could render moot much of the human activity, if it were a big enough eruption, quake, or meteor; but does this mean we should roll over and play dead -- just to make sure that we will fail, or be worse off, no matter what?

We will eventually have another ice age or another melting of the ice, even without human activity; this is true. Likewise, we will all die someday anyway, and so will our descendants. We can (A) go out more quickly in a pollution pile of our own making, or we can (B) maintain what environment we've got and also prepare for natural disasters, then we will eventually die also, of course. I choose the latter (B).

I don't claim to be any expert on c*****e c****e. I just don't like pollution and I believe some things I've read about c*****e c****e and g****l w*****g.

If anyone wants to study c*****e c****e or any other topic seriously, I have a suggestion:

(I am introducting a very broad topic here; and the c*****e c****e or pollution discussion might fit into this broad topic, for some people.)

What you know depends a lot on where you get your news. For example, people who only read Al Jazeera will have a much different perspective than people who only listen to Fox News. My suggestion is to find a news partner, preferably someone you disagree with, and recommend news articles to each other; then actually read what your partner recommends, and report back to your partner so that he or she will know that you actually did read and understand the recommended news article. This will be beneficial if both partners do the same for each other; it should not be just one-sided.

I had a conversation with someone I disagree with; it was about some political topic; and he suggested that I read the Magna Carta. He felt that I needed to further my education so that I would understand things as well as he did. So I did read the Magna Carta, carefully, and took notes about it, and wrote down my understanding of what the Magna Carta means; and I showed him what I wrote, and I asked him: Is this what you, too, think the Magna Carta means? His reply was that the Magna Carta just exists. He did not address anything I wrote, and I suspect he's never read the Magna Carta himself. This is an example of a one-sided exchange. He was mostly just wasting my time, and he didn't respect me enough to have a real discussion with me. I finally had to give up on him, and after that I didn't bother to take him seriously, so I stopped wasting my time and energy on him.

Similarly (in a much different topic area), after much prodding by people who asserted it would help me understand, I finally read the entire Bible from first word to last word. The results of that were: that now I know more about what's in the Bible, but it didn't change my faith at all; and also, I found that most of the people who call the Bible the Word of God haven't ever bothered to read it (except in small disjointed parts).

So, if anyone is serious about learning a topic, yes go ahead and do your homework about it, but don't expect too much at once from your adversaries in argument; try them out on little things first, to see whether they will just waste your time.

By the way, check the spelling on that word "valcano". It should be "volcano".