That's a lot of projection ... and only a few real facts.
As opposed to your posts, which are
all projection, and no facts.
I did doubt your stance, of course, I doubt all ill-informed stances.
You continue to be a total idiot: My statement is not a "stance". It isn't "my stance" that Indians emit 1/20th of the emissions Americans do. That isn't an opinion. That is simply the reality. The average Indian emits 1/20th of the emissions of an average american. I showed you information that backs this point. If you have no links, no facts, no sources, no figures to counter this, then you can shut your face. How's that?
I answered the questions that were important, you missed the connections, that's all. The whole story is something your sources will never offer, which was the point. Environut sites, ie. the "Church of Gore", only offer a fraction of the information that is needed for truly informed actions.
TALK ABOUT PROJECTION: I don't understand your fascination with this "Gore" character. I dont understand why you are just SO EAGER to talk about this "Gore" person. I don't know who informed you that I give one flying shit about "Gore". I don't really know much about this "Gore," so I won't comment on him. I certainly have made no mention of a "Gore" in this thread or any other I remember in recent memory, so please, take that discussion up with someone else.
Other than that, it is obvious by this statement that you are an idiot. I quote the Energy Information Administration, not "The Church of Gore," whatever the **** that is. But wait, you obviously have NO idea what the EIA is. Let me quote from your favourite website:
Wikipedia said:
The United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), created by Congress in 1977, is the independent statistical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. EIA's mission is to provide policy-independent data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.
The agency collects data on energy reserves, production, consumption, distribution, prices, technology, and related international, economic, and financial matters. This information is disseminated as policy-independent data, forecasts, and analyses. EIA publishes long- and short-term energy forecasts. EIA programs cover data on coal, petroleum, natural gas, electric, renewable and nuclear energy.
Feel free to look it up on the DOE website though, if you don't believe wikipedia. In any case, you continue to be an idiot: I know that my sources don't offer your point of view. That is why I ask for your sources. Isn't that kinda obvious, dipshit? The problem here isn't "my sources," it's yours: They don't ******* exist. You have no sources.
Now, you want to know why India isn't going to follow this bullshit ... it's because they know it's all based on bad or no information and science. One little fact you seem to ignore, as do those who think that India is some demon, is that India is making huge strides in technology and science. Most of our advancements are because of India.
TALK ABOUT PROJECTION: I have never, nor will ever, think of any country as "a demon." Stop projecting. Never once did I say that. Never once have I heard anyone say that, except you. I bet India is a wonderful place [except for the poverty], and I know many Indians, and I think they're wonderful people. Let's focus on the facts and our WORDS, and not on your absolutely IDIOTIC pre-concieved notions.
TALK ABOUT PROJECTION: Care to source where you heard that THAT'S the reason Indians aren't going along with it? Maybe a news article? Maybe you're friends with the Environment Minister or the President? Because, you know, AS THE ARTICLE IN THE OP STATES:
Gateway Pundit said:
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Jairam Ramesh said at a meeting today with Clinton
Whoops. I guess he agrees with my "stance" on this issue.
Associated Press said:
India is widely viewed as an indispensable partner on climate change, along with China and Brazil. Those three countries and others in the developing world argue that the industrial world produced most of the harmful gases in recent decades and should bear the costs of fixing the problem.
The Associated Press: India stands firm against binding emissions limits
Well, what about that: they think those are "harmful gasses," that are produced MORE by the developed world. What about that. Who would've thunk: Rich countries' populations can spend MORE energy!!! What a HUGE breakthrough!!! Maybe they're also missinformed and think that 20 indians emit as much carbon as 1 american.
The Times of India said:
[The Negotiator] says that in a fair deal, the industrialized nations would therefore have to pay the full costs of technology and capacity building of reducing emissions in the developing world.
Emission compromise at cost of development? - Global Warming - Environment - NEWS - The Times of India
Reducing emissions??? Now why would ANYONE want to do that??
Now, here's the other point you conveniently ignored, you are talking about less than .1% of the atmosphere being effected,
TALK ABOUT PROJECTION: "I'm" not talking about 0.1% of anything. I'm talking about India's carbon emissions and the US's, as it relates to the OP. The US produces more, India, who's average person consumes 1/20th of the average american, sees no reason to curb its emissions, considering THEIR AVERAGE PERSON CONSUMES 1/20th OF WHAT AN AMERICAN DOES.
and even if you drop all your modern conveniences you will only change how much we put out by about 10% ... at most ...
TALK ABOUT PROJECTION: Nobody said we have to do that.
And wait, "by about 10%"?? So now you're an authority on the subject? Where'd you get the PhD?? Let's see some sources, *****.
due to the simple fact that we can't avoid it. Cooking on an open fire puts more carbon out than a gas stove does, hunting our own food instead of processing it would completely eradicate all other life, without sewer systems (which a ton of carbon is produced in making) we would completely ruin all land, without land fills trash would be everywhere, and recycling only increases the carbon output. So really, unless you are willing to sacrifice everything, STFU ... no environmentalist gives a damn about saving the planet in reality, otherwise they wouldn't use anything.
Oh my god, look at that GIGANTIC strawman!!! It's tearing down BUILDINGS for christ sakes. I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever advocating open-fire cooking. I don't recall ever advocating hunting, jeez, I don't like hunting at all. I certainly don't advocate against sewers. ****, I don't recall ANYONE ever advocating against sewers.
See, this entire paragraph is worthless: it has no relation to anything on this thread. You're just a silly idiot who'se shoving absolutely unrelated and idiotic assumptions here, continually exposing yourself more and more to really how... sad and pathetic you are. I just can't waste any more time on this. My advice is that you read more often and, you know, the internet exists. Source shit. Good luck.
You are confusing boredom with concession?
