It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:
ding was equating population with CO2 admissions. If that were true every country would have the same per capita output.It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:
Why are you using "per capita"? ... where did you get this chart? ... this chart gives a total emissions of 35 gigatonnes ... where does all this CO2 go every year? ...
You've been beaten down so badly that you're incapable of non-emo logical thought. Sad and funny at the same time.
Perfect statement that shows Trump supporters are in the bubble.
More pigeon logic. Drop a little poop. Strut around, declare yourself a winner, then fly away. The absolute only others who agree, are other pigeons dropping bird shit everywhere.
You're babbling now, fagosa. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I have proof. You’re all P.U.T.I.N.S.
You're an idiot, kid.
And supporters are self proclaimed PUTIN Pigeons spewing pigeon shit. This is for real.
You’re a self proclaimed imbecile. Live with it.
You’re just name calling and violating posting rules.
Tissue, *****?
Then why all the secrecy about it? Why not just come out into the open and say look, we want to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the infrastructure of other nations?
Stop being obtuse. The problem is that population growth is driving carbon emissions in the less developed and poorer regions of the planet and that's why global carbon emissions are increasing at a rate of 1 billion tons per year per yer. That's the problem.
The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions but as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.
Secrecy?? We already provide aid to other nations and most scientists believe it is a real problem. If you are looking for dishonesty you don't have to look farther than the nearest mirrorThen why all the secrecy about it? Why not just come out into the open and say look, we want to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the infrastructure of other nations?
I'll tell you why? You know that would never fly. So you use dishonesty instead. It's dishonesty all the way down.
I just explained this to you. Again... I don't really understand how you can argue what you are arguing. You have seen the population and carbon emissions by regions. The problem is in the poorer developing regions.It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:How about now?
.
Climate change
Population and climate change are inextricably linked. Every additional person increases carbon emissions — the rich more than the poor — and increases the number of climate change victims – the poor more than the rich. Having smaller families and ending population growth are vital tools in the...populationmatters.org
Still no idea?
You should do the math for providing infrastructure for 4 billion people. You are talking about a drop in a bucket to justify not saying what the only solution to the problem is. The rich nations must pay for the development of the poor nations. There it is. Now own it.Secrecy?? We already provide aid to other nations and most scientists believe it is a real problem. If you are looking for dishonesty you don't have to look farther than the nearest mirrorThen why all the secrecy about it? Why not just come out into the open and say look, we want to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the infrastructure of other nations?
I'll tell you why? You know that would never fly. So you use dishonesty instead. It's dishonesty all the way down.
You can make all the predictions and assumptions you want but I think, with our help, these developing countries could develop more carbon-neutral economies and not become dependant on finite resources.
