10 Biggest Polluters on Earth

[El Kabong]

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.

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[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.

[El Kabong]

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)

[walrus]

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.

[El Kabong]

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 ...as many folks in California found out much to their surprise.

[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.

[El Kabong]

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