-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Systems of control are often very, very similar. You blindly worship at the feet of the God of Ignorance in Trump so stop kidding yourself and admit that being wrong for virtually all your adult life so far is not weak.
Small steps.
One at a time.
He's ignorant? He's President, nobody thought he could do it...people think he's done for right now (after having been wrong again and again and again).... I'm right. Donald Trump isn't perfect, but he's right right now and he'll be right in the future as well.
Greta is a child, a whiny know nothing, mentally ill child being used by this industry of "Climate Doomsdayers" to try and guilt people into submission....sorry, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than one goofy teenager to get me to submit to these tyrannical greenies.
I asked for your solution, I provided my views which you asked....I guess you've given up then? It's ok I knew you would. Your response will just be name calling, personal insults, and screeching "REEEEE!!!!" as per usual. And when you get blowback, you'll cry, again as per usual. You do this over and over and over again and never fucking learn.
Jim Rickards even came out and called him a genius and pointed out why. Trump gets many things ordinary leftists-globalists turned a blind eye to for years. It is one reason he upsets them. He is derailing their agenda and part of me finds that very satisfying.
As for Greta. In the words of the long lost Brock Bwahahahaha!
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I'll say it again. We should be focusing on something that no one can debate. That's pollution. After all... if man-made climate change is in fact real..... what causes it? Pollution, right?
Attack the source of the problem, and there will be little need to haggle over the consequential effects (or not).
Seems so simple to me... but then humanity has taken a liking to finding something to constantly bicker about. :rolleyes:
True, my dear man. They burn coal here and the air sucks. We need a little Thatcherism and it gets better. Nuclear all the way.
As for Beanz and Lyle. Isn't Beanz awful? He doesn't know how to be civilized. Made me angry reading through the election thread. A Tory romp will mute that mouth a bit and I hate myself saying that as I don't like any of these parties.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I'll say it again. We should be focusing on something that no one can debate. That's pollution. After all... if man-made climate change is in fact real..... what causes it? Pollution, right?
Attack the source of the problem, and there will be little need to haggle over the consequential effects (or not).
Seems so simple to me... but then humanity has taken a liking to finding something to constantly bicker about. :rolleyes:
Happy to Tito, I haven't said much at all in this thread. I am just addressing points where I see my name mentioned. There was no need for Beanz to mention me, or misrepresent me, or spread his lies.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I'll say it again. We should be focusing on something that no one can debate. That's pollution. After all... if man-made climate change is in fact real..... what causes it? Pollution, right?
Attack the source of the problem, and there will be little need to haggle over the consequential effects (or not).
Seems so simple to me... but then humanity has taken a liking to finding something to constantly bicker about. :rolleyes:
Happy to Tito, I haven't said much at all in this thread. I am just addressing points where I see my name mentioned. There was no need for Beanz to mention me, or misrepresent me, or spread his lies.
No worries bro. Wasn't really directed at you. It's just that it's tough to get in a thought edgewise when the heavyweights are slugging it out. ;D
I had made the point before... and it got buried under the continuation of the hostilities. I thought it was a pretty good point, too. ;D
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Well I can see yet again another thread of mine has careened off the rails jetting out with Sparks and Friction.
I donut think any --- ANY --- country is going to comply or even cooperate with this stuff when their wheelhouse is cranking at maximum capacity churning out tens of billions of dollars for their economy.
Nope. And noone no how is going to stop eating meat.
Boys will be boys. And money always talks.
Same shit since Adam and Eve. Same shit, different day.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
If by "cooperating with this stuff" you mean the pollution aspect of it, well...... of course you're perfectly entitled to as much pessimism as you like.
I on the other hand, see no excuse whatsoever why nations can't be encouraged/enticed/enforced/coerced into cooperating "with this stuff."
And if some require scoldings by 16-year olds to get their collective shit together.... then so be it.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
"stuff" wasn't pooo pooing of the very disturbing and disgusting reality of pollution, just a quick reference.
Coercin countries, not as easy as it sounds, could lead to all out war, even global depression. With China, major nuke power with a Sino-centric chip on the shoulder, coercing could spark A sudden angry attack on Taiwan or Hong Kong. With India it seems far more likely to do some forcing and coercing. Financial pressure is a good start. here's hoping a strategy can work to cut back on China and India's harrifick pollution.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
"stuff" wasn't pooo pooing of the very disturbing and disgusting reality of pollution, just a quick reference.
.
Talking about pollution and global warming .... I did a pooh pooh this morning that must have single handedly raised the UK right to the top of that list.
Come on Britain, if there is a league table, we want to be at the top of it. We are a nation of competitors, so keep your Diesel engines running, light a log fire, use more micro plastics. We should all be doing our bit and raising our games!
Lets make Britain great again and get to the top of that table.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
"stuff" wasn't pooo pooing of the very disturbing and disgusting reality of pollution, just a quick reference.
.
Talking about pollution and global warming .... I did a pooh pooh this morning that must have single handedly raised the UK right to the top of that list.
Fuck me, if I dare comment on that, people will really accuse me that's I'm Broock.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
"stuff" wasn't pooo pooing of the very disturbing and disgusting reality of pollution, just a quick reference.
.
Talking about pollution and global warming .... I did a pooh pooh this morning that must have single handedly raised the UK right to the top of that list.
Fuck me, if I dare comment on that, people will really accuse me that's I'm Broock.
Ha! ;D
I will curl a post out on your behalf...
" X did you have to top up on prune juice and cheese and warm beer so that when you squeezed out the log you were raised on high like the high priest of the log flume until it gave way and broke off like a dried out kebab and exploded like a chocolate tornado ripping a huge brown splashback that left a tidemark on the cistern?...poopp. plop. poo..fucky dick sucky Palm oil gravy..careful with that arse ax Eugene....jam :flush::LOS::LOS::LOS::LOS::shocking::looroll::LOS ::LOS::LOS::domo-kun:"
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
"stuff" wasn't pooo pooing of the very disturbing and disgusting reality of pollution, just a quick reference.
.
Talking about pollution and global warming .... I did a pooh pooh this morning that must have single handedly raised the UK right to the top of that list.
Fuck me, if I dare comment on that, people will really accuse me that's I'm Broock.
Ha! ;D
I will curl a post out on your behalf...
" X did you have to top up on prune juice and cheese and warm beer so that when you squeezed out the log you were raised on high like the high priest of the log flume until it gave way and broke off like a dried out kebab and exploded like a chocolate tornado ripping a huge brown splashback that left a tidemark on the cistern?...poopp. plop. poo..fucky dick sucky Palm oil gravy..careful with that arse ax Eugene....jam :flush::LOS::LOS::LOS::LOS::shocking::looroll::LOS ::LOS::LOS::domo-kun:"
wow thatzz a chocolatey goodness "treat" that's finger-lickin' good! I'll wish I can able to blast out a cocoa tornado like X can able.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I'll say it again. We should be focusing on something that no one can debate. That's pollution. After all... if man-made climate change is in fact real..... what causes it? Pollution, right?
Attack the source of the problem, and there will be little need to haggle over the consequential effects (or not).
Seems so simple to me... but then humanity has taken a liking to finding something to constantly bicker about. :rolleyes:
https://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfo...tid=5120&stc=1
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
LOL!! Cartoons always seem to sum up things perfectly.
Couldn't have said it better myself. :cool:
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
If it's not all a big hoax then I guess this is easily explained....
A-listers flock to Google summit in private jets, mega yachts to talk climate change
https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-lis...limate-change/
But according to Italian press reports, the attendees were expected to show up in 114 private jets, and 40 had arrived by Sunday.
The Post crunched the numbers and found that 114 first class seats from Los Angeles to Palermo, Italy, where Camp guests landed, would spew an estimated 784,000 kilograms of CO2 into the air.
but hey I'm just an average guy so I'm not allowed to fly or take a megayacht or own a car or live in my own house or have a gas stove or eat red meat...I'm supposed to live in a pod and eat bugs :-\
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
I think the cartoon continues to express itself correctly. Sometimes it's not about finding flaws on the other side and sitting there... spitballs at the ready to exploit any weakness in "the enemy."
Sometimes it's about seeing the forest and not the trees. It's about realizing that many of the ideas championed by some of these climate carers (not all are "alarmists", "doomsayers", "terrorists", whatever), such as the bullet points on the cartoon...... are not the enemy and may just even be good ideas. Gosh.... fancy that!
I come from a technical background. I studied and prepared for a LEED exam some years ago, back when demand was high for LEED professionals. (Didn't go through with it due to some sudden, pressing family issues). But many of the principles espoused by LEED were just plain old common sense. Much of what is in those bullets was also in LEED teaching material. Are we to lump in EVERYTHING environmentalists do and say together..... and use the "alarmist" label..... and look for convenient scapegoats like Greta in order to trash the whole premise of making our world a better place to live?
God, I hope not.
We have to broaden our minds and stop becoming polarized at the drop of a hat. Issues become hot buttons..... and anything and everything that is mentioned regarding these issues is lumped into one pole or the other. WTF?!?
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
If it's not all a big hoax then I guess this is easily explained....
A-listers flock to Google summit in private jets, mega yachts to talk climate change
https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-lis...limate-change/
But according to Italian press reports, the attendees were expected to show up in 114 private jets, and 40 had arrived by Sunday.
The Post crunched the numbers and found that 114 first class seats from Los Angeles to Palermo, Italy, where Camp guests landed, would spew an estimated 784,000 kilograms of CO2 into the air.
but hey I'm just an average guy so I'm not allowed to fly or take a megayacht or own a car or live in my own house or have a gas stove or eat red meat...I'm supposed to live in a pod and eat bugs :-\
You are not an average guy at all. If everything for you can be reduced to having a quick check to see what Sage and Asparagus says should be your opinion, you are pretty fucking far from that. Everything for you is a rush to fall out and cast yourself as the victim. You claim to be some wild man of the forest and yet you can't even bring yourself to agree that a less polluted environment for future generations is something worth working towards. You are full of shit. One minute you are off to NASA with exclusive hard to negotiate access to meet the astronauts, and the next minute you are some poor bloke with an allotment and a dream of owning a Penny Farthing.
The presence of hypocrites grandstanding whilst flying around on Private Jets does not invalidate the science. You slagged of Greta Thunberg for not flying and for not being poor, now you are sticking the boot in because people are flying and yet you back a President that told you in 2016 he was not going to have the time to play Golf and has since then stuck his middle finger up and said Fuck You EL Kabong a Guzillion times as he waddles around with his golf stick ruining a good walk.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Ok..... I get your disdain from Greta.
So nothing else in the post caught your attention?
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Hey Lyle, forget Greta for a minute.
Many environmentalists just want society to implement the principles we all know would be beneficial for a healthy environment. Forget the alarmists, the Gretas, the doomsayers, the extremists. Focus on what everyone knows is right. Renewable energy..... pollution control and the recycling of waste to energy that would allow much of that to happen..... the protection of our wetlands and our global forestation..... city and building designs meant to preserve the environment while conserving energy and using as much renewables as possible.... promoting alternative energy sources..... fighting pollution wherever it exists.... educating our children in these principles. What's wrong with any of that?
Let's get our heads out of the sand and support these initiatives. It's not about US vs THEM. It's about doing what's right and makes common sense to protect the environment.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Ok..... we get your disdain from Greta.
So nothing else in the post caught your attention?
There's no graph on the chart the lil cartoon lecturer is presenting?
I assume you mean the list of great and wonderful things that we could achieve if only we go the green route?
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Hey Lyle, forget Greta for a minute.
Many environmentalists just want society to implement the principles we all know would be beneficial for a healthy environment. Forget the alarmists, the Gretas, the doomsayers, the extremists. Focus on what everyone knows is right. Renewable energy..... pollution control and the recycling of waste to energy that would allow much of that to happen..... the protection of our wetlands and our global forestation..... city and building designs meant to preserve the environment while conserving energy and using as much renewables as possible.... promoting alternative energy sources..... fighting pollution wherever it exists.... educating our children in these principles. What's wrong with any of that?
Let's get our heads out of the sand and support these initiatives. It's not about US vs THEM. It's about doing what's right and makes common sense to protect the environment.
No other form of energy is more efficient than nuclear. We've got oil and gas for centuries and as engines improve those will become more and more efficient using less and less. Yes wetlands, rain forests, other areas need protecting, nobody disagrees with that. Pollution control is something that the free market will address.
A lot of these "green" things ain't so great.
Lithium Batteries....where do they come from?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...car-batteries/
I'm for a clean environment, I never said I wasn't, I DO think there are a lot of folks who love to preach about saving shit but they don't practice it and it's not just brainless self absorbed actors it's world leaders too!
The sea levels are rising!!!! Is the cry of many and yet Al Gore and Barack Obama both have beach front properties....why? To be on the first line of defense? HARDLY! They're massive hypocrites and they line their pockets with the money spent on these ostentatious deals like the Paris Accords...nobody audits where the money goes. Buying carbon offsets? Same exact thing as indulgences in Catholic Church....it's a racket! And who wins? The environment? Not hardly.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Hey Lyle, forget Greta for a minute.
Many environmentalists just want society to implement the principles we all know would be beneficial for a healthy environment. Forget the alarmists, the Gretas, the doomsayers, the extremists. Focus on what everyone knows is right. Renewable energy..... pollution control and the recycling of waste to energy that would allow much of that to happen..... the protection of our wetlands and our global forestation..... city and building designs meant to preserve the environment while conserving energy and using as much renewables as possible.... promoting alternative energy sources..... fighting pollution wherever it exists.... educating our children in these principles. What's wrong with any of that?
Let's get our heads out of the sand and support these initiatives. It's not about US vs THEM. It's about doing what's right and makes common sense to protect the environment.
No other form of energy is more efficient than nuclear. We've got oil and gas for centuries and as engines improve those will become more and more efficient using less and less. Yes wetlands, rain forests, other areas need protecting, nobody disagrees with that.
Pollution control is something that the free market will address.
A lot of these "green" things ain't so great.
Lithium Batteries....where do they come from?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...car-batteries/
I'm for a clean environment, I never said I wasn't, I DO think there are a lot of folks who love to preach about saving shit but they don't practice it and it's not just brainless self absorbed actors it's world leaders too!
The sea levels are rising!!!! Is the cry of many and yet Al Gore and Barack Obama both have beach front properties....why? To be on the first line of defense? HARDLY! They're massive hypocrites and they line their pockets with the money spent on these ostentatious deals like the Paris Accords...nobody audits where the money goes. Buying carbon offsets? Same exact thing as indulgences in Catholic Church....it's a racket! And who wins? The environment? Not hardly.
Pollution control is something that the free market will address
You are going to have to stop worshiping at this particular altar ^^^^
It is quite the opposite. Huge corporations are the natural expression of unbridled free market capitalism and they are the principle culprits for environmental destruction. Fuck that model. Fuck countries and people that insist that is still the model we should be following. That will end us.
You are so ideologically driven it is absolutely religious with you. You might as well say Fuck the planet and fuck God and his creation because the Dollar is my lord and savior. Insane stuff.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Pollution control is something that the free market will address
You are going to have to stop worshiping at this particular altar ^^^^
It is quite the opposite. Huge corporations are the natural expression of unbridled free market capitalism and they are the principle culprits for environmental destruction. Fuck that model. Fuck countries and people that insist that is still the model we should be following. That will end us.
You are so ideologically driven it is absolutely religious with you. You might as well say Fuck the planet and fuck God and his creation because the Dollar is my lord and savior. Insane stuff.
I'm talking in terms of new technologies dipshit not just allowing companies to spew toxic waste into everything.
Stop :appl: being :appl: so :appl: literal
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Pollution control is something that the free market will address
You are going to have to stop worshiping at this particular altar ^^^^
It is quite the opposite. Huge corporations are the natural expression of unbridled free market capitalism and they are the principle culprits for environmental destruction. Fuck that model. Fuck countries and people that insist that is still the model we should be following. That will end us.
You are so ideologically driven it is absolutely religious with you. You might as well say Fuck the planet and fuck God and his creation because the Dollar is my lord and savior. Insane stuff.
I'm talking in terms of new technologies dipshit not just allowing companies to spew toxic waste into everything.
Stop :appl: being :appl: so :appl: literal
The thing is Lyle, new technologies for pollution control may be something the free market "will address"...... but only if they're incentivized to do it.
Case in point. Many years ago I worked at a steel mill. At the time, it was considered pretty state-of-the-art with all the pollution control mechanisms and equipment it was using. But it wasn't using all these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were so aware of the environment. They were using it because of the government and environmentalists' pressure to reduce harmful emissions at that time. The technology was costly, and added cost to the final product. But they couldn't operate without it.
So leaving the free market to its own free will regarding pollution control is a bit like leaving the fox watching the hen coop.
Companies nowadays are trying to come up with newer and better ideas at how to curb and/or re-mediate pollution. They just need to receive the boost and the importance that is warranted in order to force all of industry to use these technologies. That...... is where I believe we're lagging behind. We have the technologies. But until we can get people united behind the urgency of the need, they (the technologies) may as well not exist.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
The thing is Lyle, new technologies for pollution control may be something the free market "will address"...... but only if they're incentivized to do it.
Case in point. Many years ago I worked at a steel mill. At the time, it was considered pretty state-of-the-art with all the pollution control mechanisms and equipment it was using. But it wasn't using all these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were so aware of the environment. They were using it because of the government and environmentalists' pressure to reduce harmful emissions at that time. The technology was costly, and added cost to the final product. But they couldn't operate without it.
So leaving the free market to its own free will regarding pollution control is a bit like leaving the fox watching the hen coop.
Companies nowadays are trying to come up with newer and better ideas at how to curb and/or re-mediate pollution. They just need to receive the boost and the importance that is warranted in order to force all of industry to use these technologies. That...... is where I believe we're lagging behind. We have the technologies. But until we can get people united behind the urgency of the need, they (the technologies) may as well not exist.
Thought experiment...what if I invented something which halves the pollution emitted from your factory allowing you to increase production without drawing the ire of the government....what happens to me and my technology?
Answer: I become a trillionaire and my technology is utilized by anyone with half a brain.
Ergo "the free market will handle it" ...I never even brought up the EPA or any government agency, the immediate jump to "AH HA!!! But what about the EPA and government agencies!!!!"....I never mentioned it because the EPA doesn't invent new things, the government bureaucracy isn't in that business, they're in the "did you color inside the lines" business which is irksome but needed and that is why I didn't mention them.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Tito fan worked at a steel mill
🤔
⚙️⁉️✔️
Hope you wore a mask
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.
China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @
Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.
Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.
A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.
But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.
Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts
The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @
Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.
It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.
It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @
walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.
All majority white and asian nations.
Not one majority black nation on that list.
Not one.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denilson-The-Comeback
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.
China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @
Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.
Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.
A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.
But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.
Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts
The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @
Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.
It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.
It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @
walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.
All majority white and asian nations.
Not one majority black nation on that list.
Not one.
no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
The thing is Lyle, new technologies for pollution control may be something the free market "will address"...... but only if they're incentivized to do it.
Case in point. Many years ago I worked at a steel mill. At the time, it was considered pretty state-of-the-art with all the pollution control mechanisms and equipment it was using. But it wasn't using all these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were so aware of the environment. They were using it because of the government and environmentalists' pressure to reduce harmful emissions at that time. The technology was costly, and added cost to the final product. But they couldn't operate without it.
So leaving the free market to its own free will regarding pollution control is a bit like leaving the fox watching the hen coop.
Companies nowadays are trying to come up with newer and better ideas at how to curb and/or re-mediate pollution. They just need to receive the boost and the importance that is warranted in order to force all of industry to use these technologies. That...... is where I believe we're lagging behind. We have the technologies. But until we can get people united behind the urgency of the need, they (the technologies) may as well not exist.
Thought experiment...what if I invented something which halves the pollution emitted from your factory allowing you to increase production without drawing the ire of the government....what happens to me and my technology?
Answer: I become a trillionaire and my technology is utilized by anyone with half a brain.
Ergo "the free market will handle it" ...I never even brought up the EPA or any government agency, the immediate jump to "AH HA!!! But what about the EPA and government agencies!!!!"....I never mentioned it because the EPA doesn't invent new things, the government bureaucracy isn't in that business, they're in the "did you color inside the lines" business which is irksome but needed and that is why I didn't mention them.
Appreciate the thought experiment, Lyle. Two things though. One.... it's somewhat unlikely anyone any time soon will invent something that will "halve the pollution while increasing production" just like that. If they did, they would surely not "draw the ire of the government."
Two... what has happened so far? We've had technologies available for awhile. Are industries rushing Black Friday style to get it and implement it because they're dying to cut their pollution in half? Maybe in some fantasy world, but not in this one. Industry by and large worships at one altar. And that's the one painted green with dollar signs all over it. Pollution is just a bothersome side effect that needs policing by that very government you didn't want to bring up.
If this Utopian scenario you've painted was going to happen, it would have already happened. The technology has been available for years. But it's either too cumbersome.... "our competitors don't use it"..... "we can squeeze 2% more widgets out the door without it"..... "why aren't the Chinese doing it"....... blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseaum.
We have some basic thought differences here. You feel industry, left alone, will somehow gravitate to those measures and technologies that will eventually curb pollution and clean up the planet.
I don't.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Appreciate the thought experiment, Lyle. Two things though. One.... it's somewhat unlikely anyone any time soon will invent something that will "halve the pollution while increasing production" just like that. If they did, they would surely not "draw the ire of the government."
Two... what has happened so far? We've had technologies available for awhile. Are industries rushing Black Friday style to get it and implement it because they're dying to cut their pollution in half? Maybe in some fantasy world, but not in this one. Industry by and large worships at one altar. And that's the one painted green with dollar signs all over it. Pollution is just a bothersome side effect that needs policing by that very government you didn't want to bring up.
If this Utopian scenario you've painted was going to happen, it would have already happened. The technology has been available for years. But it's either too cumbersome.... "our competitors don't use it"..... "we can squeeze 2% more widgets out the door without it"..... "why aren't the Chinese doing it"....... blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseaum.
We have some basic thought differences here. You feel industry, left alone, will somehow gravitate to those measures and technologies that will eventually curb pollution and clean up the planet.
I don't.
Well you miss the point I was making. Halving the emissions ALLOWS for more production, it doesn't automatically make it happen. And the "ire of the government" would only be drawn IF the increased production MEANT more pollution/emissions.
What technologies aren't being utilized in terms of cleaning up emissions? The ones which aren't cost effective. The fix HAS to be cost effective or the industry isn't going to implement them.
Well the Chinese are big into manufacturing because they don't have the EPA hoops to jump through, they don't give a single solitary fuck about their environment or the working conditions of their subjects (they aren't citizens)....how do we handle this? Well we stop making it worth a company's while to manufacture things in China via tariffs and taxation, ditto with India.
I feel that industry can be guided gently rather than beaten into submission. If you can't make a profit there's not going to be an industry fullstop.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denilson-The-Comeback
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.
China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @
Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.
Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.
A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.
But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.
Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts
The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @
Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.
It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.
It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @
walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.
All majority white and asian nations.
Not one majority black nation on that list.
Not one.
no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution
I find this post offensive @Denilson-The-Comeback please tell frenchyfats about all the great work your industrial nations are doing on the environmental front.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Appreciate the thought experiment, Lyle. Two things though. One.... it's somewhat unlikely anyone any time soon will invent something that will "halve the pollution while increasing production" just like that. If they did, they would surely not "draw the ire of the government."
Two... what has happened so far? We've had technologies available for awhile. Are industries rushing Black Friday style to get it and implement it because they're dying to cut their pollution in half? Maybe in some fantasy world, but not in this one. Industry by and large worships at one altar. And that's the one painted green with dollar signs all over it. Pollution is just a bothersome side effect that needs policing by that very government you didn't want to bring up.
If this Utopian scenario you've painted was going to happen, it would have already happened. The technology has been available for years. But it's either too cumbersome.... "our competitors don't use it"..... "we can squeeze 2% more widgets out the door without it"..... "why aren't the Chinese doing it"....... blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseaum.
We have some basic thought differences here. You feel industry, left alone, will somehow gravitate to those measures and technologies that will eventually curb pollution and clean up the planet.
I don't.
Well you miss the point I was making. Halving the emissions
ALLOWS for more production, it doesn't automatically make it happen. And the "ire of the government" would only be drawn IF the increased production MEANT more pollution/emissions.
What technologies aren't being utilized in terms of cleaning up emissions? The ones which aren't cost effective. The fix HAS to be cost effective or the industry isn't going to implement them.
Well the Chinese are big into manufacturing because they don't have the EPA hoops to jump through, they don't give a single solitary fuck about their environment or the working conditions of their subjects (they aren't citizens)....how do we handle this? Well we stop making it worth a company's while to manufacture things in China via tariffs and taxation, ditto with India.
I feel that industry can be guided gently rather than beaten into submission. If you can't make a profit there's not going to be an industry fullstop.
There has to be a push toward gearing up efforts for pollution prevention/remediation technology. Monetary incentives to tech companies working on these... strict and enforceable regulations on industry to ensure they're complying with environment-preserving goals... less lip service to the environment and more measurable actions. Industry can't be left on its own (IMO) to decide whether or not to implement proven technologies meant to preserve the environment. That's where we'll continue to disagree. The whole capitalism model which involves damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the name of maximizing profits would just have to be slightly tweaked in order to accommodate the greater good, which involves our self-preservation and avoiding plunging the world into a toxic-spewing dump, where we can't even keep the vast oceans safe.
We'll agree on what to do with the Chinese because, well...... it's a huge country and whatever they do affects the rest of the world disproportionately. It's wrong to have the rest of the world minding its P's and Q's regarding the environment, only to have the Chinese continue to fuck it all up because they have this need to "catch up."
We'll only halfway agree on how to deal with industry. Gentle guidance is a wonderful idea. How has that worked so far? We have real, tangible pollution problems. Of an embarrassing scale, really. It's like going to a beach and find it ankle-deep in litter. You feel a sense of embarrassment for humankind. As with any individual and/or group or organization, sometimes you have to drop the "pretty please" and give a couple of well-placed whacks.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
There has to be a push toward gearing up efforts for pollution prevention/remediation technology. Monetary incentives to tech companies working on these... strict and enforceable regulations on industry to ensure they're complying with environment-preserving goals... less lip service to the environment and more measurable actions. Industry can't be left on its own (IMO) to decide whether or not to implement proven technologies meant to preserve the environment. That's where we'll continue to disagree. The whole capitalism model which involves damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the name of maximizing profits would just have to be slightly tweaked in order to accommodate the greater good, which involves our self-preservation and avoiding plunging the world into a toxic-spewing dump, where we can't even keep the vast oceans safe.
We'll agree on what to do with the Chinese because, well...... it's a huge country and whatever they do affects the rest of the world disproportionately. It's wrong to have the rest of the world minding its P's and Q's regarding the environment, only to have the Chinese continue to fuck it all up because they have this need to "catch up."
We'll only halfway agree on how to deal with industry. Gentle guidance is a wonderful idea. How has that worked so far? We have real, tangible pollution problems. Of an embarrassing scale, really. It's like going to a beach and find it ankle-deep in litter. You feel a sense of embarrassment for humankind. As with any individual and/or group or organization, sometimes you have to drop the "pretty please" and give a couple of well-placed whacks.
The United States has strict environmental regulations. Our peak emissions were 2007, we've been down more than anywhere else since then.
Money drives things. If a company comes out with a new system which cuts emissions and doesn't harm production then guess what, that company will utilize that new system and maximize their profits. If on the other hand there's this fucking albatross of a technology or system of production that hampers production, then that ain't going to be something businesses jump with joy to do. It has to be mutually beneficial in order for it to work. That is why solar and wind power companies have to be subsidized by the government...THEY DON'T WORK.
China pollutes more than anywhere else. Emissions, plastic into the oceans, all that jazz, they're the tops and they don't give a shit because they don't value their own people other than as cogs in the communist machine. That is why there are suicide nets at Foxconn factories...not to prevent people from killing themselves, but to prevent the loss of WORKERS.
We've got things in place. Natural gas is helping lower our emissions already....doesn't that prove my point? Switching from coal power to natural gas power? Cost effective, efficient, doesn't impede production.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
There has to be a push toward gearing up efforts for pollution prevention/remediation technology. Monetary incentives to tech companies working on these... strict and enforceable regulations on industry to ensure they're complying with environment-preserving goals... less lip service to the environment and more measurable actions. Industry can't be left on its own (IMO) to decide whether or not to implement proven technologies meant to preserve the environment. That's where we'll continue to disagree. The whole capitalism model which involves damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the name of maximizing profits would just have to be slightly tweaked in order to accommodate the greater good, which involves our self-preservation and avoiding plunging the world into a toxic-spewing dump, where we can't even keep the vast oceans safe.
We'll agree on what to do with the Chinese because, well...... it's a huge country and whatever they do affects the rest of the world disproportionately. It's wrong to have the rest of the world minding its P's and Q's regarding the environment, only to have the Chinese continue to fuck it all up because they have this need to "catch up."
We'll only halfway agree on how to deal with industry. Gentle guidance is a wonderful idea. How has that worked so far? We have real, tangible pollution problems. Of an embarrassing scale, really. It's like going to a beach and find it ankle-deep in litter. You feel a sense of embarrassment for humankind. As with any individual and/or group or organization, sometimes you have to drop the "pretty please" and give a couple of well-placed whacks.
The United States has strict environmental regulations. Our peak emissions were 2007, we've been down more than anywhere else since then.
Money drives things. If a company comes out with a new system which cuts emissions and doesn't harm production then guess what, that company will utilize that new system and maximize their profits. If on the other hand there's this fucking albatross of a technology or system of production that hampers production, then that ain't going to be something businesses jump with joy to do. It has to be mutually beneficial in order for it to work. That is why solar and wind power companies have to be subsidized by the government...THEY DON'T WORK.
China pollutes more than anywhere else. Emissions, plastic into the oceans, all that jazz, they're the tops and they don't give a shit because they don't value their own people other than as cogs in the communist machine. That is why there are suicide nets at Foxconn factories...not to prevent people from killing themselves, but to prevent the loss of WORKERS.
We've got things in place. Natural gas is helping lower our emissions already....doesn't that prove my point? Switching from coal power to natural gas power? Cost effective, efficient, doesn't impede production.
Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.
Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.
They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.
I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.
Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.
Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.
They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.
I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.
Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.
Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.
The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.
Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable
I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.
Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.
I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.
Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.
They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.
I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.
Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.
Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.
The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.
Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable
I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.
Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.
I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)
Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Why are you saying solar for houses doesn’t work? I’m seeing more and more of them popping up and my neighbors got one. I believe they said it’s working out ok. Granted today the panels are covered in ice. I’m just curious of your statement as I’m considering solar on one of my houses. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons. If I can get them installed for free and give the company the right to sell excess power to the grid I’m thinking why not.
Be sure to get a battery to store power from those panels otherwise when the power is out, the power is out :dontknow: ...as many folks in California found out much to their surprise.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.
Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.
They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.
I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.
Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.
Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.
The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.
Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable
I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.
Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.
I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)
Other countries do it..... so can the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...too-ncna901666
Countries like Japan can be given a pass if they're not rushing into the solar power field, but that's understandable given their topography and climate.
By the way, I stressed complementary for a reason.
I'm of the school of "let's do it, and move the excuses out of the way", so forgive me for continuing to insist on my train of thought.
For every idea, there's always plenty of "buts."
Also, can we leave "coal" out of the group you mentioned? Or do need to embark on yet another discussion as to why we should be moving away from coal, instead of continue to clutch onto it?
Oh wait..... you said "consistent, efficient, and dependable." You said nothing about clean. My bad.
As long as we continue to only value "consistent, efficient, and dependable" and say nothing about environmental impacts.... I guess we'll just never get anywhere and continue to champion the status quo.
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.
Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.
They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.
I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.
Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.
Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.
The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now
I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.
Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable
I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.
Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.
I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)
Other countries do it..... so can the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...too-ncna901666
Countries like Japan can be given a pass if they're not rushing into the solar power field, but that's understandable given their topography and climate.
By the way, I stressed
complementary for a reason.
I'm of the school of "let's do it, and move the excuses out of the way", so forgive me for continuing to insist on my train of thought.
For every idea, there's always plenty of "buts."
Also, can we leave "coal" out of the group you mentioned? Or do need to embark on yet another discussion as to why we should be moving away from coal, instead of continue to clutch onto it?
Oh wait..... you said "consistent, efficient, and dependable." You said nothing about
clean. My bad.
As long as we continue to only value "consistent, efficient, and dependable" and say nothing about environmental impacts.... I guess we'll just never get anywhere and continue to champion the status quo.
I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.
Is what i said...whatever, take it leave it I don't care, I attempted to make a point and this has become a thread of diminishing returns for me
-
Re: 10 Biggest Polluters on Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denilson-The-Comeback
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fatboxingfan
Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.
China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @
Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.
Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.
A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.
But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.
Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts
The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @
Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.
It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.
It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @
walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.
All majority white and asian nations.
Not one majority black nation on that list.
Not one.
no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution
So I'm right then ? There is not a majority blk country fking up the enviroment.
Even though that's a fact. Its black ppl who suffer the most over the shit whites put out there.
Blk people are more likely than whites to live in the congested communities that experience the most smog and toxic concentration thanks to fossil fuel use.
Heat waves connected to climate change kill blk people more than whites
The agricultural is fked up, disruptions due to warming cost African nations billions.
The air is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The water n oceans are fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The ice cap is fked up. Thanks to what ppl?
The animals r fked up n dying out. Thanks to what ppl ?
Yet these are the same ppl running around telling everyone how smart they are. How high their iq is.
This is crucial bcoz u need air n water to survive.
Unless your gonna talk about white supremacy and it's mentality your never gonna get to the root of how fked up the enviroment is.
