That's fine, as long as you people from the above countries keep some of the shame you heap on the US for yourselves, considering that you're getting worse and worse when it comes to the enviornment.
I totaly agree that oter countrys need to take responsibility to, and i think it is shamefull that my country has increased there polution so much latly when what we really shud be doing is cutting back. But on the posetive side ouer goverment have recently approved investing serious money inn procjekts both inn Norway and abrode with the goal of reducing CO2 emissons and oter polutions with more then norways total polution per year today. Among those procjekts 3 billion norwegian a year to save the rain forest. and it seems to me that the US is the western country that seems least willing to make dramatic change. Just look at the attmeted stalling of the balie meeting. When it comes to China and oter big developing countrys i belive there shud be some rules for them to, i mean it kinda limits the effect if cut backs inn the western world is made up for buy developing countrys. CUS then what was the point of your previous comment ?
If anyone, ANYWHERE, doubts the totalitarian sensibilities of the Global Climate Change mafia...well, just read this. Sig Heil, baby. http://www.lttonline.co.uk/lttxtraarticle.php?uid=7064
more scientists finally talking common sense http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071216/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingdenial
Let's have fun with math! You're a per capita kind of guy, so let's do this. From my previous link, we find that the US has increased it's emissions by 6.6% from '97 to '04. So from here, I have determined that the US' population increased by 6.86%. So, let's say that in '97 each person in the US was responsible for 10,000 tons of emissions per year. When we apply the growth rates to each we get: 10,000 * 1.066 = 10660 1 * 1.0686 = 1.0686 To get the ratio, we get 10660 / 1.0686 = 9975.6691 or down by 0.24%. Sure it may not seem like much, but add in this number--the real GDP (adjusted for 2000 dollars): 1997: 8703.5 2004: 10675.8 or a very healthy 18.47% growth in the economy. (BTW they have a different population number that comes out to a 7.15% increase, but we'll keep the first one because I'm lazy and have actual work to do). So the US has increased it's economy while reducing it's emissions RIGHT NOW. Let me know when any Kyoto signors can say that. A while back I read an article that (and I may get the actual numbers wrong but the proportions are about right) said that the US has about 6% of the world's population. It also emits 22% of the world's pollution. Most people stop there and say that the US are a bunch of slobs. What they don't consider is that the US is responsible for close to 30% of the world's economy (total GDP IIRC). So, think of it this way. You are CEO of Earth, Inc. Your US division has 6% of the company's total employees and is responsible for 30% of revenue at a cost of 22% of the pollution. Is it absolutely a one to one correct analogy? Probably not and pretty over-simplistic, but close enough. Would you be happy with the performance of your US division?
Well you make a good argument for that the US has been no worse then most oter wester countrys inn the most recent years. and as i said befor i think many countrys need to take responsibility for the climate not only the US. But the point is we are poluting to much and as a hole we need to polute less. and then the country who is responsibel for 1/4 of said polution needs to make major changes. Exatly how those changes are to be implmented i think i will leav to far more intelligent folks but things do have to change. and as for you creating 30% of the revenue and therfor comperativly less polution per production unit well i think that is good, it mean that if we can translate some of what you do to oter parts of the world there production to will become less damegeing to the climate. But large countrys like India and China is growing fast and so are theire amount of polution and i dont think they will be convinced that they shud stay poor and you shud stay rich because atm you produce less polution comperd to your production. I think the amount of polution allowed form each country has to be some how tied to population land area and the current amount of polution Cause your argument about prodcing more for less polution comperd to most of the rest of the world is not going to convince many oter countrys. I mean i hope you can see that it wont seem very fair to folks inn China that they shud stay poor to keep us riche. So what i think we have to do it use alternative energy sources -Thorium -Host of renewabel (solar, wind, wave) -R and D to find new way to power over lifes because if we cant do that we will all need to reduce ouer standard of liveing, particularly us inn the rich countrys. Here are some GDP nummbers for Norway 1997: $120.5 billion 2006: $213.6 billion Increas of about 77.1% Population 1997:4,405,000 million 2007:4,770,000 million Increase of about 8.3% not that this changes anything i just thogth it woude be fun to look up
BTW: New US Dept of Energy report is out (em. mine): Yeah Norway. China is not going to forsake any limits on emissions to 'stay poor'. They will forsake any limits on emissions so that they can become rich.
well that looks like there are some good news It`s not like i hate the US or think you are the source of all evil. I just think all countrys need to take this problem seriously and the impression i have gotten is that it is generaly not considerd to be so serious inn the US. But that impression migth be wrong. and yes i think china migth become a major problem. But then if we are abel to devlope some non poluting energy sources, they migth be abel to countiue there grow without it haveing a to detremental effect on the enviorment.
What you mean to say is that you don't think we are taking it seriously because our government is not mandating a solution to business. But why is the mandate necessary if the goals are already being achieved? You seem to me to be the same person that rails against America's aid to foriegn nations that while already is more generous than any other nation in the history of earth, is not good enough because government aid per capita is not as high as other nations. But then you discount the amount of private aid that the world's most generous citizenry donates per year. I don't know how many times I need to explain to a european that we do things differently here. Government is not the be all and end all to life's problems. We trust private solutions and for the most part, they work very well. And returning our economy to early 90's levels of production is a non starter. We have been both successful and responsible and the entire world has benefited. One final point, well rather a question. Is global warming or climate change or whatever it is being called today THE biggest problem in the world right now. Or is it starvation, disease, lack of opportunity or lack of drinkable water.
Hold on a second. The US may not have ratified Kyoto, but the government has been actively involved in all sorts of environmental mandates, including regulations on business.
Stuff George Bush has done (em. theirs): And lots of other stuff including funding for finding alternatives to fuel our cars.
Of course. And oddly no credit ever given to us. It's like when I am refered to as an environmental obstructionist when I have a carbon footprint below 2 tons. It's not enough to walk the walk, is it?
I kinda liked this map Countries GDP as US States: Norway's GDP is about the same as Minnesota. Not sure how accurate that is (originally from here), but there you go.
The goals are allready been achieved seriously ?? We are no were near the cuts nessesary to limit the dameges of climate change. Are there some good news ? yes but we are only talking about very small steps inn the correct direction. As for the part about charity i do not see how that is realated at all. But if you are going to make statments about that you are the most generous citizense inn the world then i woude like to see the nummbers to back up that statment. As for me not knowing enoff about how you do things inn america i think i probebly know a lot more about america then most americans know about norway or europe remember that wile europe migth be about the sames size as the US it is far more diverse and has a much larger population. finaly i also think not evrything can be the reponsibility of big companys, cause well they will do what earns them the most amount of money. So inn the case of reducing emissons big companys are not going to do that as long as there are no economic incentivs for them to do so. Funny map GDP per capita Norway $46,300 GDP per capita USA $43,800 So considering that Minnesota has a sligthy larger population that is probebly correct.
Exactly how much is that? http://thenewsbuckit.com/2007/06/united-states-most-charitable-country.html
Romo's a good guy except I think he had a little too much Jessica Saturday night since he played like crap on Sunday.
now i`m a bit busy atm so dont have time to look it up but if i remember correctly the experts say about 50% withinn 10-12 years. and that was befor they dicoverd new info that leads one to belive that the climate is changeing even faster then they feared. Impressive charity nummbers there, but as i understand them they include a lot of domectik aid. and a lot of it hardly goes to the needy i mean colleges and churches. Not that i don`t belive you on that the us publick gives substansial amounts to the needy. To be perfectly hounest if i get to choose i prefer the US as the sole superpower inn the world. I mean comperd to past superpowers like th british empire, sovjet, roman empire you look pretty good also comperd to potensial future superpowers like China, India and United Europe i think the world coulde do worse then have the US as the leading power.
Glenn Beck hit upon NBC's journalism "advocacy," via Brian Williams, of environmentally conscious LED lights; revealing that NBC: Brian Williams, somehow "forgot" to disclose that its parent; i.e., General Electric, makes such LED lights! Matter of fact, it exclusively makes such lights. Full disclosure? Hardly. Read more here!
GE does not exclusivly make LED's. Sylvania and Lumileds also do as well as a shitload of crappy Chinese companies
Not to be rude or anything but if you are gonna buy a line of bullshit it's best to get your facts straight.