why arent liberals going after china , they are worse on global warming

[ScreamingEagle]

You aren't looking hard enough.

Besides the fact that considering we have been condemning China for years for its atrocious record on human rights, I don't think trying to get them on global warming will do much...in fact it hasn't.

What a cop out. Big bad China doesn't listen to us…. so liberals are just willing to lie down and take it?

Besides the fact that the US puts out vastly more pollutants per person than China does. They are just now passing us...and they have 3 times the people that we do.

What the hell does "per person" or "per capita" have to do with it?

China is now the BIGGEST producer of CO2 emissions on the planet. You liberals are worried about too much of the stuff causing a greenhouse effect causing global warming. Will global warming be less likely to happen because China has less "per capita" output? What fools. Or perhaps CO2 emissions are not the real issue at stake? Hmmm?

Seriously. He is a prime reason why we should make college education free and a very good example for those who would wish to practice eugenics.

You have a sick and dangerous mind.

 

[red states rule]

Libs should unite and protest you polluting this board with your useless comments.

You have nothing to add, and nothing new to say.

Ever.

Now you can go ahead and drop another assinine comment about Liberals and their loving tolerance.

But I will rail against you, until you have something useful to add.

You ruin threads.

You want to take me on - fine

Remember you have to walk before you can crawl

I ruin threads for libs - they hate to read the truth about liberalism

 

[red states rule]

I know what you mean. What I find interesting is that when you challenge him on these generalities, he will not back it up with any statistical proof. Oh. He might search the Internet and find a rare comment made by an extreme leftist in the heat of a debate and pull it out of context, ignore any apologies or retractions that such an individual makes, and treat it as the official stance of the Democrat Party. That is the extent of the proof that he will provide to back up such asinine comments of his, as “Libs never miss a chance to shit on their own country”. His baseless gross generalities do get old and tiresome.

Ah, the "moderate" who sounds more and more like a liberal

 

[Mr.Conley]

They are polluting the planet at a rate equal to or greater then the u.s. but I dont hear the u.s. media or any liberals going after them.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007...es-as-largest-annual-global-warming-polluter/

This article is from the gaurdian uk

Eye On China: China Passes United States as Largest Annual Global Warming Polluter

Published by jessejenkins, June 22nd, 2007 global warming , United States , Asia

China’s annual greenhouse gas emissions seem to have passed the United States’. The U.S. will long remain largest cumulative contributor to global warming though.

China has overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, according to this Guardian (UK) article.

The Guardian writes:

The announcement will increase anxiety about China’s growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China’s emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world’s biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year [see previous post].

But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China’s recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes.

If China has now passed the United States as the largest annual global warming polluter, it does nothing to absolve the United States of the moral and pragmatic responsibility to act swiftly and decisively to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions.

We in the U.S. will still be the second largest global warming polluter in the world, not exactly a comfortable position; and we will long remain the largest single contributor to climate change, as cumulative greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, not annual emissions, and we will long remain the largest cumulative emitter.

To me, China’s now larger role in global CO2 emissions simply highlights the urgency of taking a leadership position in the United States - enacting real reforms to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and do our share to solve this global crisis - so that we may turn to addressing the global community, particularly China and India, in a global solution.

Contrary to President Bush’s usual line of argument, pointing at China’s growing emissions does nothing to absolve the United States of it’s responsibility act to solve the climate crisis; rather it points to the urgent need to both enact smart domestic policies and lead a global response to this global crisis, and time is clearly running out.

As James Hansen (among other reputable climate scientists) has repeatedly warned (see here for the latest example), the Earth stands perilously close to tipping points that could send the climate crisis spinning beyond our control. For now, for better or for worse, humans and their activities are solidly in the driver’s seat of the global climate. But perhaps as little as 5 or 10 years of continued business-as-usual could push the climate crisis beyond our ability to change course - we’ll be rudely kicked out of the driver’s seat before we can turn this car around

Have you ever tried talking to the Chinese Politburo? Trust me, at this point it's a lost battle. The only way China will ever get onboard any major global warming initiative is if it finds itself standing with the short stick in the international climate change debates. Right now, however, we're busy helping them hold the fort in that area. If you ever want to see any action from the Chinese, the United States will have to get itself serious on the issue, and then, along with the international community, shame China into action.

 

[Larkinn]

What a cop out. Big bad China doesn't listen to us…. so liberals are just willing to lie down and take it?

Hi, China is a sovreign country, they can do whatever they want.

What the hell does "per person" or "per capita" have to do with it?

Are you serious? It has to do with how much each individual would be negatively effected by a decrease in emissions. Besides the fact that the US is far, far, richer than China.

China is now the BIGGEST producer of CO2 emissions on the planet. You liberals are worried about too much of the stuff causing a greenhouse effect causing global warming. Will global warming be less likely to happen because China has less "per capita" output? What fools. Or perhaps CO2 emissions are not the real issue at stake? Hmmm?

Lets see. We could waste our time trying to get something from a country that doesn't give a fuck about anyone, has no democracy,and stifles dissent...or we could try and get something from a country that pollutes just as much, and has freedom of the press, and we can actually vote to change things.

Gee...hard decision.

You have a sick and dangerous mind.

[/quote]

Free college is sick and dangerous? Well I can see how with your arguments you would want the populace to be uneducated. Then it would be harder for them to see how obviously silly they are.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

So, if china, wants to kill its own civilians, its ok, because they are a sovereign country. Im sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

china is catching up with us economically, if they arent caught up already.

we could help dissenters in china, and ex pats, fight for change in china, that is not a waste of time, while doing all we can here.

Not everyone should go to college, their is nothing wrong with learning a trade, and not everyone needs or even should go to college, not everyone succeeds. Im sorry, but free college, fine, you pay for everyone to go to college, i refuse.

Hi, China is a sovreign country, they can do whatever they want.



Are you serious? It has to do with how much each individual would be negatively effected by a decrease in emissions. Besides the fact that the US is far, far, richer than China.



Lets see. We could waste our time trying to get something from a country that doesn't give a fuck about anyone, has no democracy,and stifles dissent...or we could try and get something from a country that pollutes just as much, and has freedom of the press, and we can actually vote to change things.

Gee...hard decision.

Free college is sick and dangerous? Well I can see how with your arguments you would want the populace to be uneducated. Then it would be harder for them to see how obviously silly they are.[/QUOTE]

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The U.S. owe's the world nothing, while our american citizens, are barely scraping by, with most families both parents have to work, and we have even one homeless, and/or one unemployed. And legal u.s. citizens not getting health care.

The US is the worlds economic superpower. Most of those benefits stay inside the US.

The u.s. needs to change what?. the only change i think it needs is stop trying to make people like us, take care of our own and allies first, everyone else, second.



Feed the world with food and technology? What an arrogant assumption. No, the US does not "feed the world". Per capita our donations are atrociously low. Considering the amount of people starving around the world, if we are trying to feed the world, we are failing at it, miserably.



You are a fucking idiot. This "crap" is used to try and get the US to change, not just so "libs" can run around and gloat about how the US is doing some things incorrectly.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Hello. I have a huge problem with many of the things rsr says, but i also have a problem with people calling him a fucking idiot, and other things, that are just as savage, and then trying to take the moral highground. Atleast in your thread, you dont attack him, you call him out on his b.s. But that is different then just saying asshole rsr. or asshole rsr.

Libs should unite and protest you polluting this board with your useless comments.

You have nothing to add, and nothing new to say.

Ever.

Now you can go ahead and drop another assinine comment about Liberals and their loving tolerance.

But I will rail against you, until you have something useful to add.

You ruin threads.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Screaming eagle is right, if we as americans, whine about global warming, and then give up and do nothing, because its too hard to get china, and other countries to stop, besides just ourselves of course, we are acting cowardly. It take courage to stand up to big polluters like china, and india, and do everything we can to get them to knock it off or tone it down. Pollution comes into america and goes out of america, so if any of you say lets give up on changing china, Im sorry to be harsh, but i try think youre an idiot, and a quitter.

What a cop out. Big bad China doesn't listen to us…. so liberals are just willing to lie down and take it?


What the hell does "per person" or "per capita" have to do with it?

China is now the BIGGEST producer of CO2 emissions on the planet. You liberals are worried about too much of the stuff causing a greenhouse effect causing global warming. Will global warming be less likely to happen because China has less "per capita" output? What fools. Or perhaps CO2 emissions are not the real issue at stake? Hmmm?


You have a sick and dangerous mind.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

we do both, because pollution is a global issue, not a nation issue. We need to clean up, and try to get others to clean up too.

So we are supposed to make another sovern nation clean up their mess before we even clean up ours ?

 

[red states rule]

The US is the worlds economic superpower. Most of those benefits stay inside the US.

Feed the world with food and technology? What an arrogant assumption. No, the US does not "feed the world". Per capita our donations are atrociously low. Considering the amount of people starving around the world, if we are trying to feed the world, we are failing at it, miserably.



You are a fucking idiot. This "crap" is used to try and get the US to change, not just so "libs" can run around and gloat about how the US is doing some things incorrectly.

The US leads the world in giving money. Libs are on a guilt trip since they think it it so unfair the US the best and richest country in the world

 

[red states rule]

I know what you mean. What I find interesting is that when you challenge him on these generalities, he will not back it up with any statistical proof. Oh. He might search the Internet and find a rare comment made by an extreme leftist in the heat of a debate and pull it out of context, ignore any apologies or retractions that such an individual makes, and treat it as the official stance of the Democrat Party. That is the extent of the proof that he will provide to back up such asinine comments of his, as “Libs never miss a chance to shit on their own country”. His baseless gross generalities do get old and tiresome.

Isn't there someone else you can annoy?

Family, friends, poisonous reptiles?

 

[Larkinn]

So, if china, wants to kill its own civilians, its ok, because they are a sovereign country. Im sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

china is catching up with us economically, if they arent caught up already.

we could help dissenters in china, and ex pats, fight for change in china, that is not a waste of time, while doing all we can here.

Not everyone should go to college, their is nothing wrong with learning a trade, and not everyone needs or even should go to college, not everyone succeeds. Im sorry, but free college, fine, you pay for everyone to go to college, i refuse.



Free college is sick and dangerous? Well I can see how with your arguments you would want the populace to be uneducated. Then it would be harder for them to see how obviously silly they are.

[/QUOTE]

Who said its ok? There is just nothing you can do about it, unless you want to invade China which is pretty much the stupidest idea ever. China DOES kill its own civilians...or at least has. And nobody talks about it. Tianneman square, anyone?

 

[Larkinn]

The US leads the world in giving money. Libs are on a guilt trip since they think it it so unfair the US the best and richest country in the world

No, as a percentage of GDP, the US gives very little. Less than many western countries.

 

[Bern80]

No, as a percentage of GDP, the US gives very little. Less than many western countries.

Uh, your both right. As a total dollar figure the U.S. gives the most. As a percent of GDP it doesn't. What's your point. RSR is partially right about you though. Why, as the richest nation in the world, are we suppossed to feel guilty about not giveing every nickle and dime we have?

 

[Larkinn]

Uh, your both right. As a total dollar figure the U.S. gives the most. As a percent of GDP it doesn't. What's your point. RSR is partially right about you though. Why, as the richest nation in the world, are we suppossed to feel guilty about not giveing every nickle and dime we have?

Because people are starving to death so people in America can buy yacht's and such.

Its also not about giving away every nickel and dime. The US is very stingy in its aid...and much of the foreign aid that we give away is NOT humanitarian aid, rather it is aid to countries we are interested in propping up, such as Israel. Also a lot of the "Aid" the US gives away is more accurately described as bribes since the money will come only if the government agrees to do something.

The US also promises to give away far more than it does, every year. The MDG's are nowhere near completed..and we continue to ignore them.

As for whether to measure it by raw dollars or GDP...that is an obvious question. Is Bill Gates generous if he gives a pauper $1 dollar? Is someone who is struggling to feed their family generous if he gives a pauper $1 dollar?

They both help out the papuer the same amount...but one is much more meaningful as far as judging the generosity of the givers.

 

[Bern80]

Because people are starving to death so people in America can buy yacht's and such.

There is no causility link there Larkinn. Someone in India isn't dieing because I bought a PS3.

Its also not about giving away every nickel and dime. The US is very stingy in its aid...and much of the foreign aid that we give away is NOT humanitarian aid, rather it is aid to countries we are interested in propping up, such as Israel. Also a lot of the "Aid" the US gives away is more accurately described as bribes since the money will come only if the government agrees to do something.

We should be very stingy to who we give our aid to, We obviously don't want to give ot to groups that bite the hand that feeds them. I understand you think we should just give money away out of the goodness of our hearts with not strings attached, but in the real world it simply doesn't and can't work that way.

I am a frim believer that simply giveing things to people out of charity or just plain old feeling sorry for them, is not the best way to improve someone. It's the best way to make them dependent. The U.S. isn't wear it is because it go some big hand out from England.

The US also promises to give away far more than it does, every year. The MDG's are nowhere near completed..and we continue to ignore them.

Most likely because it has become an expectation for us to give our money away.

As for whether to measure it by raw dollars or GDP...that is an obvious question. Is Bill Gates generous if he gives a pauper $1 dollar? Is someone who is struggling to feed their family generous if he gives a pauper $1 dollar?

Poor example as Bill Gates gives away millions every year.

They both help out the papuer the same amount...but one is much more meaningful as far as judging the generosity of the givers.

Do you think it makes a difference to the pauper where hsi $1 came from? Your example is purely a selfish one. It only makes you feel good to say look how much of my money I gave away. the pauper could care less. A dollar is a dollar.

 

[Larkinn]

There is no causility link there Larkinn. Someone in India isn't dieing because I bought a PS3.

Sure they are. Well probably not India...more Africa.

You are not fully responsible, but you are partially responsible. Just as if there was a baby lying in the road and you just left it there to be run over by a truck, you would be partially responsible for its death.

We should be very stingy to who we give our aid to, We obviously don't want to give ot to groups that bite the hand that feeds them. I understand you think we should just give money away out of the goodness of our hearts with not strings attached, but in the real world it simply doesn't and can't work that way.

This has nothing to do with not giving money to groups that attack us. We DO give money to groups like that...we funded the Taliban for a number of years. I am interested in giving money to groups that concentrate on feeding and clothing people and saving lives...not to groups who have political goals to overthrow a regime we don't happen to like.

The real world CAN work that way. In fact it sometimes does. There are numerous countries out there who give aid with no strings attached, and the US does occasionally as well.

I am a frim believer that simply giveing things to people out of charity or just plain old feeling sorry for them, is not the best way to improve someone.

Ah yes, let them starve to death instead.

It's the best way to make them dependent. The U.S. isn't wear it is because it go some big hand out from England.

Errr, in part, yes actually. In the beginning the colonies were propped up by england...then during the revolutionary war we were helped by the French...at numerous times other countries have helped us out. For their own reasons and goals, of course, but its not like we never got assistance.

Besides that, Africa is a different matter. They are already dependent. You expect a refugee camp with 100k people in it to...what exactly? Just sort of settle in the camps and build farms? Please explain to me what you would do if you were one of them.

Most likely because it has become an expectation for us to give our money away.

Its expected because WE PROMISED IT.

Poor example as Bill Gates gives away millions every year.

Umm, no, good example because how much he actually gives away is irrelevant to the point.

Do you think it makes a difference to the pauper where hsi $1 came from? Your example is purely a selfish one. It only makes you feel good to say look how much of my money I gave away. the pauper could care less. A dollar is a dollar.

Lmao...your right its selfish of me to think that those with more should give away more. This has nothing to do with me feeling good, it has to do with equality, respecting peoples human rights, and equalizing gross gross gross imbalances in wealth.

As I said...yes to the pauper a dollar is a dollar, but it reflects differently on the person giving that dollar. Generosity is not measured by how much you give, but by how much you give compared to how much you have. A good friend of mine went to Ghana and sometimes locals would take her into their home and feed her, despite the fact that they had very little. I consider that very generous. I, on occasion when my finances are doing well, will take good friends out to dinner. I feel its a nice gesture, but its not particularly generous, nor is it a big deal. The difference? How much we have to give.

 

[Bern80]

Sure they are. Well probably not India...more Africa.

You are not fully responsible, but you are partially responsible. Just as if there was a baby lying in the road and you just left it there to be run over by a truck, you would be partially responsible for its death.

This is the same argument you made with socialized medicine. at some point Larkinn you're going to have to get objective about stuff and ask your self some questions such how specifcally how I'm hurting someone in Africa?

Errr, in part, yes actually. In the beginning the colonies were propped up by england...then during the revolutionary war we were helped by the French...at numerous times other countries have helped us out. For their own reasons and goals, of course, but its not like we never got assistance.

Besides that, Africa is a different matter. They are already dependent. You expect a refugee camp with 100k people in it to...what exactly? Just sort of settle in the camps and build farms? Please explain to me what you would do if you were one of them.

I would simply suggest a diffrerent approach to our giving so we aren't on the strin forever. that is giveing coupled with some level of education or helop in establishing an infrastructure of some type so that at a certain point they have the opportunity to achieve on their own.

Lmao...your right its selfish of me to think that those with more should give away more. This has nothing to do with me feeling good, it has to do with equality, respecting peoples human rights, and equalizing gross gross gross imbalances in wealth.

As I said...yes to the pauper a dollar is a dollar, but it reflects differently on the person giving that dollar. Generosity is not measured by how much you give, but by how much you give compared to how much you have. A good friend of mine went to Ghana and sometimes locals would take her into their home and feed her, despite the fact that they had very little. I consider that very generous. I, on occasion when my finances are doing well, will take good friends out to dinner. I feel its a nice gesture, but its not particularly generous, nor is it a big deal. The difference? How much we have to give.

This highlights a very fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. I don't know how to say it without being condescending, but I'm glad you joined this board because I have never seen a more perfect example of what today's liberal is than you. Everyone is suppossed to be equal (which creates a society only as good as it's lowest common denominator) wealth must be balanced out as if me achieving and making millions out of my hard work is somehow inherently a bad thing because you didn't.

You have this elitist attitude that there are certain groups of people that can't possibly achieve anything without a constant handout.

The best way to help people is not a handout. All that does is breed dependence, which doesn't help anyone at all. the best way to help people is to get them to realize their potential. But the liberal mindset simply doesn't take human nature into acoount.

 

[Larkinn]

This is the same argument you made with socialized medicine. at some point Larkinn you're going to have to get objective about stuff and ask your self some questions such how specifcally how I'm hurting someone in Africa?

I already explained how you are. Its completely compatible with the baby example. You are responsible, not only for the things you DO, but also for the things you do NOT do.

I would simply suggest a diffrerent approach to our giving so we aren't on the strin forever. that is giveing coupled with some level of education or helop in establishing an infrastructure of some type so that at a certain point they have the opportunity to achieve on their own.

We do this as well. Sort of...not very well anyway. Part of the problem is that there aren't many organizations large enough to do this on a large, national scale. But yes, we should be doing this more, we should be sending over people to work with them, to train them, to teach them, etc, etc. We should also be sending in forces to places like Darfur where teaching and training them does nothing. After all, skills in a refugee camp are pretty useless.

This highlights a very fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. I don't know how to say it without being condescending, but I'm glad you joined this board because I have never seen a more perfect example of what today's liberal is than you. Everyone is suppossed to be equal (which creates a society only as good as it's lowest common denominator) wealth must be balanced out as if me achieving and making millins out of my hard work is someone how inherently a bad thing because you didn't.

Not at all. Wealth does not have to be balanced out. However, it is not ok for the inequality to be so great that people are starving to death while others have huge unnecessary luxuries. I am all in favor or a free market, but I also recognize that historical circumstances have not allowed everyone to benefit from that free market.

You have this elitist attitude that there are certain groups of people that can't possibly achieve anything without a constant handout.

Please explain to me what their options are when they are driven out of their villages by militias who are intent on killing them, raping their women, and driving them out. Then they go to refugee camps run by the UN where they are all in tents, have no land to put up a shop, much less a farm to feed themselves. Tell me...what are these people supposed to do?

It has nothing about elitism, it has to do with recognizing that a great deal of what we get, and how we get it comes from where we were born and the circumstances of the society we were born in. Warren Buffet once said something to the effect that if he was born in Africa he would have been dead long ago...his skills are useless there.

The best way to help people is not a handout. the best way to help people is to get them to realize their potential. But the liberal mindset simply doesn't take human nature into acoount.

You don't seem to realize the reality of what many of these people are faced with. Its not like they can go and work at their local supermarket. In Zimbabwer unemployment is 80% now and inflation is at something like 4,000%. So tell me...what should they do?

Potential is a lot easier to realize when the society around you isn't completely fucked. It is you who is elitist. After all the logical consequences of what you are saying is that Africa is failing because the people there just aren't as good as us. Untrue...they have been put in a very unfortunate position and it is extremely difficult for them to dig out of the hole they are in.