Global Warming - Worst Offenders

[VirusType2]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0912/gallery.global_warming/index.html

The graphs say it all. (4 short pages)

 

[xdrive]

lol china is the worst and it wants money from countries lol.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

You can't really think of China as comparable to those other single nations. Its population and landmass are huge.
In spite of it's rapid development, a lot of China is basically third world.

 

[lame-o]

Funny, I always thought everyone said that the U.S. emissions were far worse than even China's.

 

[VirusType2]

You can't really think of China as comparable to those other single nations. Its population and landmass are huge.
In spite of it's rapid development, a lot of China is basically third world.

Check out the money chart though: pollution compared to economic strength.

If I'm understanding the graph right, it looks like at least China is building a huge economy with all that pollution. What the hell is the US doing with all that pollution? - just driving? - Corporations getting in debt and going bankrupt? WTH?

Making a conscious effort to cut wastes and pollution, I must be the oddball. (In the US). Very disappointed in my countrymen. A little angry, even.

 

[lord_raken]

Austraily is the worst offender per person.... which is really a more even gauge.

China is on of the lower end of the graph when it come to pollutants per person... so in a sense china is one of the most efficient.

 

[VirusType2]

Canada is a pretty huge country, and their emissions are minuscule compared to the US. So how does that - "Well the US is really big and people have to drive far" excuse hold up? Could someone please, enlighten me on this comparison if you will?

Highway efficiency, industry, travel patterns, eating habits, distance to work and school - surely these are all factors that just add up. But that is an extreme difference between us in CO2 emissions.

I can't see how it adds up - rather, I can't see how Canada is doing so much better than us. Granted, I don't know much about Canada except it's cold, and they put their milk in bags - could that be what makes the difference? :cheese:

 

[Raziaar]

Canada is a pretty huge country, and their emissions are minuscule compared to the US. So how does that - "Well the US is really big and people have to drive far" excuse hold up? Could someone please, enlighten me on this comparison if you will?

Highway efficiency, industry, travel patterns, eating habits, distance to work and school - surely these are all factors that just add up. But that is an extreme difference between us in CO2 emissions.

I can't see how it adds up - rather, I can't see how Canada is doing so much better than us. Granted, I don't know much about Canada except it's cold, and they put their milk in bags - could that be what makes the difference? :cheese:

Well, we do have 308 million people compared to their 33 million people.

But the numbers still don't add up. We simply like polluting here I guess. Our industries here like polluting.

And yes I know I'm quoting you Virus, not ZT!

 

[15357]

Interesting, we cut about triple the amount that was expected of us on CO2 emissions, and still we're on that chart.


Also, let's kill China. That might give us a little bit more time.

 

[jverne]

polluting is the US number one national sport.

 

[Seppo]

lol neither china nor the US wants to cut down on stinky gases because of their "arms race". neither of them wants to be the first one to back off because it would slow down their economic and industrial growth. you hang up. no YOU hang up!

 

[Shyam]

More Brazilians and Indians think Global warming is a problem compared to United States. I am surprised ?

 

[xdrive]

Austraily is the worst offender per person.... which is really a more even gauge.

China is on of the lower end of the graph when it come to pollutants per person... so in a sense china is one of the most efficient.

Australias population is small, but we have heavy mining and farming operations thats why we came first.

 

[Stigmata]

Canada is a pretty huge country, and their emissions are minuscule compared to the US. So how does that - "Well the US is really big and people have to drive far" excuse hold up? Could someone please, enlighten me on this comparison if you will?

Highway efficiency, industry, travel patterns, eating habits, distance to work and school - surely these are all factors that just add up. But that is an extreme difference between us in CO2 emissions.

I can't see how it adds up - rather, I can't see how Canada is doing so much better than us. Granted, I don't know much about Canada except it's cold, and they put their milk in bags - could that be what makes the difference? :cheese:

We take the bus to and from the grocery store to buy bagged milk.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Do you have bagged yoghurt? Because I had that in Paraguay and it's actually pretty great.
Bags of milk is still ridiculous though :arms:

 

[Warped]

polluting is the US number one national sport.

Amen to that brother!! I'm the number #3 polluter of NY state!

We'll see you at the finals next fall!

 

[Stigmata]

Do you have bagged yoghurt? Because I had that in Paraguay and it's actually pretty great.
Bags of milk is still ridiculous though :arms:

We have go-gurt. I haven't seen any real yogurt in a bag though. Paraguay really needs to give us the manufacturing secrets to that.

Bagged milk is fantastic anyway :arms:

 

[Sainku]

If I'm understanding the graph right, it looks like at least China is building a huge economy with all that pollution. What the hell is the US doing with all that pollution? - just driving? - Corporations getting in debt and going bankrupt? WTH?

I think you are reading it wrong, China has a pretty horrible gdp per emissions rate. Also Canada was right behind the US in emissions per capita according to this. Also I think it is kind of unfair to point fingers at China since they make all our stuff.

 

[Saturos]

Al Gore is full of shit.

/thread

 

[The Monkey]

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with anything?

 

[VirusType2]

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with anything?

Exactly what I was going to say, but I wanted to give someone else a shot.

 

[PvtRyan]

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with anything?

He invented CO2.

It amuses me that France is nowhere on these graphs yet nobody talks about nuclear power as a part of the solution. France generates 80% of its electricity using nuclear power and yet despite having 4x more inhabitants, only has 2x the CO2 emissions of The Netherlands. Why isn't anyone even mentioning this? Just build nuclear power plants to supply the bulk of power and heavily subsidize solar panels to put on people's houses, and wind turbines can suck a cock. It's not that hard people!

 

[Eejit]

I'm afraid that would violate the tenets of the Green Religion.

 

[PvtRyan]

I'm afraid that would violate the tenets of the Green Religion.

Environmentalists can go choke on cock as well.

All this talk about being "green" and "sustainable" and "renewable" has been pissing me off immensely. The only behavioral change that makes sense is cutting back on meat consumption, but that gets least attention of all. Most talk is about bullshit like cutting back on electricity use. That's just not going to happen, people aren't going to change, electricity use is only going to skyrocket in the future. What we need are not behavioral changes, but technological advancements.

Fuck this green media hype.

 

[Eejit]

Yup. And what we also need is population control. There are far too many of us.

 

[xdrive]

I have an idea! Stop overpopulating the ****ing world. Stop people in third world countries from having 5000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 kids per person.

This would also stop the famine in these countries. You can't put 20,000 people into a place that only has the infrastructure for 5,000 people.

A plan like they have in china should be set up. think 1 or 2 children only, unlimited children for race minorities.

 

[PvtRyan]

Yup. And what we also need is population control. There are far too many of us.

Hm, well there was an interesting piece in a paper I read on the train (a free one and it's actually good, unlike shit like Metro) that argued that economic prosperity is the best way to reduce population growth. We should stimulate the economies of developing countries, not try to force population control there.

 

[Solaris]

I think we should drop condoms over developing nations

 

[VirusType2]

I think we should drop condoms over developing nations

TTAHAHA, this caught me so off guard.

Instead of dropping bombs on countries, we can just drop condoms and porn. We'll get them in the long run! That's one way to lower their population.

 

[xdrive]

Hm, well there was an interesting piece in a paper I read on the train (a free one and it's actually good, unlike shit like Metro) that argued that economic prosperity is the best way to reduce population growth. We should stimulate the economies of developing countries, not try to force population control there.

I fail to see how that would help.

 

[Solaris]

TTAHAHA, this caught me so off guard.

Instead of dropping bombs on countries, we can just drop condoms and porn. We'll get them in the long run! That's one way to lower their population.

Heh, not as a weapon. Just condom's sound like a fantastic way of combating poverty. We should put women in charge of their reproduction.

 

[Eejit]

Economic prosperity generally results in more women in the workplace, lowering the likelihood of or delaying having children.

 

[PvtRyan]

I fail to see how that would help.

While more wealth in the short term will increase population (lower infant mortality due to better healthcare) but in the longterm, people will also choose to have fewer children because having lots of children is no longer a prerequisite for having a good old age, the opposite is true: children cost a lot of money. This is pretty much a universal constant, it happened to Europe and is currently happening in Africa and the Middle-East. As people grow wealthier, the population will first grow rapidly due to lower mortality rates and then the growth will plummet because people will have fewer children.

 

[Solaris]

I don't think it's economic success that purely causes reduced child births, rather access to condoms and the pill.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't think it's economic success that purely causes reduced child births, rather access to condoms and the pill.

That's what I was thinking. They can afford condoms, vasectomies (physical removal of reproductive organs), and mortgages and loans that make economic decisions more important (instead of straw huts). But also better education.

Money is more important in the world when you don't live off the land. Kids are expensive in that world.

 

[Shyam]

I fail to see how that would help.

It actually makes sense. People in developing economies have lots of kids because they will support them in their old age and want to make sure some survive. India is an example. Even though their population is still increasing, the rate of population increase is going down. India's increasing number of middle class are choosing to have 1 or 2 kids. And this middle class is increasing, due to India's strong economic growth.

Also it is important to concentrate on giving the women of developing countries more education. Again I use India as an example. An increasing number of middle class women are choosing not to stay at home and work, because they know that both the Husband and wife has to work to make a decent living. And having large number of kids is burdensome to having this lifestyle. Also, they are now more aware of condoms and other contraceptive measures. They also have one or two kids to cut back on education costs.

Of course, that still leaves a huge population of poor people in India who still have a large number of children to make sure the parents are taken care of in their old age. I think the problem is up to an extent, all we hear are the bad stories from developing countries. There are some success stories, even in Africa there is some improvement.

 

[xdrive]

It actually makes sense. People in developing economies have lots of kids because they will support them in their old age and want to make sure some survive. India is an example. Even though their population is still increasing, the rate of population increase is going down. India's increasing number of middle class are choosing to have 1 or 2 kids. And this middle class is increasing, due to India's strong economic growth.

Also it is important to concentrate on giving the women of developing countries more education. Again I use India as an example. An increasing number of middle class women are choosing not to stay at home and work, because they know that both the Husband and wife has to work to make a decent living. And having large number of kids is burdensome to having this lifestyle. Also, they are now more aware of condoms and other contraceptive measures. They also have one or two kids to cut back on education costs.

Of course, that still leaves a huge population of poor people in India who still have a large number of children to make sure the parents are taken care of in their old age. I think the problem is up to an extent, all we hear are the bad stories from developing countries. There are some success stories, even in Africa there is some improvement.

No they have heaps of kids because they don't have condoms and other ways to stop a women from getting pregnant. Everytime they would have sex they would get pregnant.


There birth rate should be capped to 2 kids per person. The world health organization should go to these refugee camps in africa and inject them to stop them having children.

It's down right cruel that these people 50 kids and they are born into some poor camp with no food.

 

[Solaris]

Why do you assign logical reasons as to why poor people have lot's of children (security in old age)?

Perhaps they just have sex as much as anyone else, but have no access to birth control like women in the west and so it results in more unplanned children.

Surely having to raise 6+ children is more costly than supporting oneself in old age.

 

[Shyam]

Why do you assign logical reasons as to why poor people have lot's of children (security in old age)?

Perhaps they just have sex as much as anyone else, but have no access to birth control like women in the west and so it results in more unplanned children.

Surely having to raise 6+ children is more costly than supporting oneself in old age.

You do know that many of these kids start working at the age of 7 or 8 right ? Also I agree with your reasons. And I certainly prefer your method to Xdrive's.

There birth rate should be capped to 2 kids per person. The world health organization should go to these refugee camps in africa and inject them to stop them having children.

It's down right cruel that these people 50 kids and they are born into some poor camp with no food.
Reply With Quote

I feel that some of the blame goes to charity organizations. A large sum of the donations are spent on their administration costs, further money goes into the pocket of various corrup politicians and warlords, and finally the people themselves get handouts to keep them alive for two weeks.

 

[TwwIX]

Well, at least we're exporting something for a change.