It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US: thanks for destroying our world!

page: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO


A law against trucks?? Did you go to the grocery store this week and buy food? How do you think it got there? Just magically appeared??



Yes A law against trucks and people who drive them. I've found over the years that people who drive SUV's and trucks are the rudest, obnoxious of their kind. we don't need trucks to transport goods. All we need are people with innovative ideas.


Monorails, underground air tunnels, electric trains.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

All heil jedimiller.

I like driving in my BIG truck. I crank up the air conditioner when it gets hot and I crank up the heat when it gets cold.



and there lies the problem doesn't it? ignorance and lack of compassion for other countries in the world, as long as you are warm in your little truck emmiting all that co2 you are fine with it. that's why we need to apologize to the rest of the world.

when was the last time you checked your vehicle for emmision? I have a smog check once a year and all my vehicles are .001 under the average.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Monorails, underground air tunnels, electric trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I'll look around my city for these things, buy well as far as I know, we don't have them, does that mean our store shelves will be empty till we do...
we do have trains though, but they look too old to be electric. And, well, one glance into the cars to see what they are transporting kind of gives me the idea that there is a better way to cut greenhouse gases than banning trucks and suv's...

ya, see, there is carload after carload of coal, probably being transported to one of the old power generation stations that are still allowed to burn coal....

I could think of a few more ways to cut emmisions without reducing the stocks in the stores to zero....
like, well, how about instead of building all these multi-million dollar homes way out in the middle of nowhere and have the occupants driving 10 to twenty miles to work or more....we build hundred thousand dollar homes closer to the workplaces, or better yet, how about we just restore some of the lovely old homes in the city that's been abandoned as people fled the city. God, there's many old homes in this city that would be beautiful if they were just fixed up. Instead, they are left all boarded up, or are in disrepair and occupied by the crack addicts, and social misfit! I'm pretty sure it would cost far less, and waste less resources to fix these up than it does to build these nice million dollar mansion! how far do you live from your place of work oh, great jedi, because, well, I live close enough that I could conceivable walk, although I really don't know how well my bad foot would react once I got to work...

how about we quit buying so much crap!!...hey that would make the necessity of trucking so much crap to the stores a little less wouldn't it?? and to top it off, energy is being used to produce the crap...so there would be a little savings there wouldn't there.

tell ya what oh, great jedi.....
I'd still be walking to work if this lame-brained country didn't have such a screwed up healthcare system...before the foot went, I walked just about everywhere- and it was seven miles into town!
and most of the crap I buy is the second hand crap that someone left at the salvation army box after they upgraded it to the newer and susposedly better crap!! I walk around my house with a shirt and a couple sweaters on in the winter, our heat is turned down that low...what about you? The shop I work at is a MANUAL print shop, much of the energy being exerted there is from the human labor!

If you feel the need to apologize to the rest of the world, hey, go right on ahead. Personally I don't! I didn't vote for the lamebrained stubborn as all heck president we have in office now, ain't never in my life flown in a plane, very seldom travel further than ten miles from my home.....
go right ahead and apologize if you like!

just know this.....increase the price of gas to the point where it isn't affordable for me, or take away my little car, and well....there is no way I am gonna walk to work every day!! and that will be more the fault of the government and the crazy healthcare system than mine! I'll just leave my share of the outrageous debt that's been racked up the past decade or so for you all to pay and not work!

oh, ya, wonder how much co2 is being let lose in the two wars we're in right now!!

now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go hop into my little car and drive it a couple miles down the road to work!!




[edit on 17-12-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

and there lies the problem doesn't it? ignorance and lack of compassion for other countries in the world, as long as you are warm in your little truck emmiting all that co2 you are fine with it. that's why we need to apologize to the rest of the world.

when was the last time you checked your vehicle for emmision? I have a smog check once a year and all my vehicles are .001 under the average.


Jedi - it's hard not to disagree with the sentiments you express, but I do find the perpetuation of this campaign to get people to turn off their engines to save other countries a little misleading and impractical.

The reason wastefulness of energy and natural resources is a stupid idea is not because it affects polar bears, or poorer countries - even if indirectly it does just that. It's because it's a waste of money. It costs 4thDrWhoFan more in the long run to live his life inefficiently, but if he/she has the money and doesn't care, there is no argument or eco-debate on earth that will stop him/her.

The practical fact of the matter is that the depth of reliance on dwindling resources means that you will not persuade people to change before they dwindle entirely. Eventually it will get too expensive for 4thDrWhoFan to run a car - and then he will stop. The world may or may not be a different, more polluted, less breathable place by then, but as a fact it stands thus.

Look, the fact of the matter is that China's emissions over the next 50 years or so will render whatever savings we make completely irrelevant. To suggest that the US has "destroyed our world" is absurd - without the US we would have absolutely no way of confronting that fact at all, because we would not have the technology to do anything about it. Due to the pitiful amount of importance given to that technology budget wise (relative to a war that costs a billion dollars a day, for example), we still don't have that much hope of not causing a great deal of damage.

Long story short, no one comes out of this a winner, really. But the real point is that no one will do anything about it until the have to - because that is the human nature. That is NOT the same as giving up, though, because fortunately it's also a fundamental of human nature to be astonishingly inventive. And when that fundament is called upon again, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be the US that is at the forefront, making as much money out of its inventiveness as it can. Bless its little heart.

LW


JSR

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
What tragic naivete. Are you expecting the mass of humanity to display such a high degree of psychological sophistication and emotional maturity? You yourself do not.


you sir are a pompous ass. incapable of a discussion without insult.

I on the other hand, in the nature of good will, will concede this argument to you.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by birchtree

By the way I was wondering are you a Hyundai Car Salesperson... I think you might have a future there.


No. But I do believe in their efficient fuel cars. I drove a huyndai excel for 10 years until it broke down.


They make them small, compaq and recyclable. all the interiors are cheap plastic you can easily break down and most of the stuff is good to break down.

Right now I drive a 2006 Sonata and I can fill it up and it will last me a whole week. Also helps to get clean gas from chevron with techron. cleans your engine and helps the environment.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
and there lies the problem doesn't it?

Umm....NO!
It cannot be a problem since GW is nothing but a huge hoax.



ignorance and lack of compassion for other countries in the world, as long as you are warm in your little truck emmiting all that co2 you are fine with it. that's why we need to apologize to the rest of the world.

Umm.....Since the U.S. has some of the most strict environmental laws in the world and relatively is one of the most clean nations, the rest of the world should apologize to us.


when was the last time you checked your vehicle for emmision?

Well, unfortunately here in Maryland, they have a huge scam where you have to get your emissions checked in order to renew your tags. Hell, if it was not for this scam, I would pull off my catalytic converter in order to get better performance and mileage.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
They make them small, compaq and recyclable. all the interiors are cheap plastic you can easily break down and most of the stuff is good to break down.

And the first time you get into a major accident, you unfortunately are dead because of the 'snap-together' nature of these cars. While I would be nice and safe inside my huge truck.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
It cannot be a problem since GW is nothing but a huge hoax.



It may seem silly to say, but I actually don't think Global Warming is the problem. And even if it was, as I've pointed out above, I don't think there's practically speaking any way of addressing it. Your deliberate confrontation aside (and yes, we all think you're incredibly big and clever) your assertion of your right to ruin is entirely a drop in the ocean.

No, the problem for the environment can only sensibly be addressed and confronted on a very local level. If you drop a can in a park, it annoys the next person to walk through the park. If a million people across the world drop a million cans in a million parks, that annoys a hell of a lot of people, but all you can reasonably do is pick up your can. Confronting this issue on a global level is beyond our capabilities, but the local and immediate benefits to being more efficient and sensible and less wasteful are well within our grasp.

A few years ago I suffered from respiratory problems as a result of traffic fumes on my walk to work. I live in London, where not that long ago a congestion charge was brought in to put people off driving around the city. Traffic levels went down, and my health improved.

If you live in a big open space where A and B are far apart, the roads are a bit dodgy in wet weather and there hasn't been a bus since last year - you have every right to use your big truck to get around - no matter how bad that car is for the environment. If you drive it around London when you don't need to you're being stupid because not only are you selfishly making my life less pleasant, but you're spending money you don't need to on a very inefficient form of travel.

The point is, being environmentally irresponsible is foolish, because ultimately you will end up paying for it yourself. On the other hand, taking responsibility for the entire world's environmental problems (remembering that global warming is only one way humans can adversely affect the environment, albeit it's a big one, if true) is nonsensical. Your big, butch, macho truck is not responsible for the death of polar bears. Getting rid of it won't save them. But if you do live in the city, it might just save you money and someone close to you having breathing difficulties from its fumes.


Umm.....Since the U.S. has some of the most strict environmental laws in the world and relatively is one of the most clean nations, the rest of the world should apologize to us.


Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, I'm not sure we have anything to apologise for to the US, ever. About anything.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
[edit on 12/17/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Jedi,

1 ton 4x4 vs. Hyundai in a head-on accident...
Which vehicle would you rather have your family in at that moment?

On top of that, sometimes it just isn't convienent to weld together several hyundai's to haul things around.

Gas mileage isn't everything. I put my families safety above MPG, and for that I don't apologize.






[edit on 17-12-2007 by b309302]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
Jedi,

1 ton 4x4 vs. Hyundai in a head-on accident...
Which vehicle would you rather have your family in at that moment?

On top of that, sometimes it just isn't convienent to weld together several hyundai's to haul things around.

Gas mileage isn't everything. I put my families safety above MPG, and for that I don't apologize.



MPG is, of course, not the most effective way to calculate emissions...

However, I must say I find all this to be a little bit off the point of the original post, which suggested we had the US to thank for the destruction of the world. Clearly nonsense, as I've posted above, but the idea that your choice of car is to blame for the world's environmental problems is frankly ridiculous.

Let's be realistic. The fact of the matter is that China will completely overwhelm any efforts the rest of the world makes to cut emmissions in a relatively short space of time. Hyundai or 4x4, it makes no odds.

And what is all this paranoia about road accidents, anyway? I understand the need to protect your children, but if you're that concerned about their safety the fact is statistically you'd be better off in public transport. Which in turn would make you more eco friendly. Or maybe just don't let them out of the house at all. Or make them walk. Or buy a tank.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


[edit on 12/17/2007 by darkbluesky]


I think that was a wise edit


Can we have the true figures though? It would be an interesting comparison.

I agree with your sentiment that it is a bit harsh to solely focus on the US, we all have a responsibility, and I think blaming the US is too easy. I'm more bothered by their efforts to hinder action on mitigation, but I think your government will come round with time....hopefully.

ABE: Meant to add, I think the per capita comparison for US v China is useful, more than it shows that using total emissions is a bit misleading, it shows that it would be scary if china develops to US levels of per head emissions.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
[

Yes A law against trucks and people who drive them. I've found over the years that people who drive SUV's and trucks are the rudest, obnoxious of their kind. we don't need trucks to transport goods. All we need are people with innovative ideas.


Monorails, underground air tunnels, electric trains.


Do you have a name for the little world you live in????

I bet we would all like to come visit you.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
You should be thanking the United States for saving your life. The united nations solution to global warming: 80% population reduction.
See:
www.spp.nus.edu.sg...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by skid
You should be thanking the United States for saving your life. The united nations solution to global warming: 80% population reduction.
See:
www.spp.nus.edu.sg...


Can you point out where in th article it says this? I've just quickly scanned it, and can't see it yet, but I'm pretty busy, so just a page number would do. What I did note is that it says Agenda 21 doesn't have any population reduction goals, but it is possible I missed the relevant section.

cheers.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I dont know if anyone mentioned it before but:

Per capita Australia generates the most pollution.
I guess this means, while the U.S. might generate more overall due to our larger population, Australia generates more pollution per person then any other country.

link:
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
I dont know if anyone mentioned it before but:

Per capita Australia generates the most pollution.


I think that's just for the power industry. IIRC, the gulf states show the highest levels of per capita emissions overall.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I don't really get the issue here. If you read the report, it is unclear whether warming is greater or not tropo vs. surface. The problem is the tropospheric data.


The issue IS that it’s unclear. No one truly knows how the atmosphere functions as a whole, no one truly knows why the planet is warming. The planet over eons has been thru warming and cooling periods before man existed here. Why are we to be so arrogant in insisting that it’s us (as humankind) this time that are causing these changes? And then to bring that arrogance to the next level and blame one country?


The models show similar contrasts, different models can show a bit more warming in tropo than surface, and others vice versa. It needs clarification, sure. But it's not inconsistent. We expect warming there - it is present.


Once again, if you are the programmer/researcher that comes up with these simulations and models and you expect warming, you can manipulate those models/simulations into giving you just that.


What do you think is causing warming? If you were naive about the tropo warming data, how can you make any grand claims about the other stuff?


I think global warming is part of a natural cycle that the Earth has been going thru for eons. There is just as much data that shows warmer temperatures precede higher carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around, I do not think I have made any grand claims here.


GHGs help to warm the troposphere and surface, they are increasing, they will make the troposphere and surface warmer. The observation is that the surface and tropo is warming, it is less clear on the exact extent of warming in the troposphere.


Let me clarify for you, I am not arguing against the properties of GHG's or the fact that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. The point of this thread is to blame mankind for this trend, and more specifically to point the finger at one country, the U.S.A.


This is because climate is very complex. Doesn't mean we can't get a grasp on this stuff. We can measure solar activity, we can make assessments of the effects of aerosols (e.g., sulphates from volcanoes), etc etc.

We have competing forcings and feedbacks. We can take your route and say "it's all too complex, lets fogeddabowtit" or we can do some science using evidence to the best of our abilities.


Can you please show me where I said that we should, "fogeddabowtit" because the climate is very complex? What I said was that at this time our understanding of the climate and the way the atmosphere works is marginal at best, and yet we are going to use this limited understanding to come to definitive conclusions as to what is, and what is not "causing" global warming, and then base entire economic policies on these conclusions, when in truth no one really knows for sure.


Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by DrZERO


A law against trucks?? Did you go to the grocery store this week and buy food? How do you think it got there? Just magically appeared??



Yes A law against trucks and people who drive them. I've found over the years that people who drive SUV's and trucks are the rudest, obnoxious of their kind. we don't need trucks to transport goods. All we need are people with innovative ideas.


Monorails, underground air tunnels, electric trains.


Please answer the above stated question, DID YOU GO TO THE GROCERY STORE THIS WEEK TO BUY FOOD???


[edit on 17-12-2007 by DrZERO]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
So CO2, the essential product for plant life on this planet is bad for us? Get real! The global carbon tax that the UN wants to implement does nothing to curb usage and serves as the economic model for a world government. Of course, we could cut down on CO as it is not beneficial to our environment but you won't get the oil companies to agree to weaning the world off of fossil fuels. Global Warming is a joke and we are all the punchline...




top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join