What is Digg?141 Comments
- elliotys, on 11/07/2009, -9/+44While this stall sucks for the environment, I am for everyone playing by the same rules.
- anonymousmedic, on 11/07/2009, -11/+41Well......bye!
- bossm4n, on 11/07/2009, -12/+42Rigggghhhhttt! State run businesses in China who are undercutting their competitors in the US are going to follow our lead. Cap & Tax and other extreme environmental legislation will simply be the final nail in the coffin for what's left of the manufacturing business in the US.
- EVILTHETURTLE, on 11/07/2009, -11/+40Good.
- blqysmg, on 11/07/2009, -5/+32HiddenIP is right. The U.S. does not want to enter into treaties or contracts where we gain nothing. We do not have to sign a treaty to reduce our greenhouse gases. We can do that WITHOUT signing onto anything. The only thing actually signing the treaty will do is make us legally liable to pay our money to other countries. Why would we do that if they have NO commitment to improve?
- BookaShade, on 11/07/2009, -13/+35China's pollution is double the US pollution.
Try again. - Maddoktor2, on 11/07/2009, -9/+30China and India make up the majority of the world's population. If they don't comply, the entire thing is just a waste of time that will accomplish nothing but them receiving even more funding from the "richer" nations while they continue to pollute merrily away, and that's complete and utter *****.
They already have our jobs and money. They'll effectively own the US if they ever call in their markers. Enough is enough. Stop the outsourcing of jobs and impose stiff penalties on those that practice it, while giving tax breaks to those that don't. The jobs need to be brought back here. Period. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this is as good a place as any to start. - wreckosaurus, on 11/07/2009, -8/+27While I think we need climate legislation soon, I think any deal that doesn't include china, now the number one emitter of carbon dioxide and continuing to grow, is ridiculous.
- dusanmal, on 11/07/2009, -6/+24Yes, because it is misleading abuse of statistics (ex. try pollution per square mile)...
Now here is the pollution situation from satellite imagery: http://digg.com/d319L6Z
If your reasoning is correct, US, EU,... should have 4 times greater cloud of pollution over themselves.
They don't. Actually, most environmental damage done in US is blown by wind currents from China...
So, China and India and Brazil and Mexico and Russia who now make 3/4 of world-wide pollution (and growing), by UN own numbers, should do MORE than US and EU,... to make such treaty fair. - prakash1234, on 11/07/2009, -9/+25all this global warming debate is gonna create a carbon trading scheme, for the rich to profit. Its not gonna do ***** to the environment.
- kolop1, on 11/07/2009, -5/+20It's a trap.
- wreckosaurus, on 11/07/2009, -1/+15Carbon dioxide is caused by the sun? Hmm, maybe you want to practice your denier talking points before using them. But if some guy on the internet says it's not bad, then maybe I'm wrong.... After all, you cited so much evidence in your post there.
- homesnatch, on 11/07/2009, -2/+15China will never agree to such a deal... This is exactly why Bush did not sign the Kyoto protocol. Seems that the current administration is in agreement. "Change"
- stubear, on 11/07/2009, -6/+19Find a new meme already.
- ryanonfire, on 11/07/2009, -15/+28You know Germany does a lot of environmental stuff even though they know it would be cheaper for them not to. Just have some balls and step up to the plate America. You used to set the standard in almost everything and now you've fallen behind.
- blausow623, on 11/07/2009, -9/+22If Bush were president right now, at least half of these posts would be ripping him. You know it and I know it, yet where are all the posts here ripping Obama? Oh right, Obama can do no wrong.
- blqysmg, on 11/07/2009, -3/+16The per capita argument is a strawman. Yes, we 300 million Americans produce more pollution per capita than the 1.2 billion Chinese. We also produce more pollution per capita than the Indian population. When you look at the big picture, however, you realize that China DOES produce more pollution than the US. The pollution that China is producing is on the rise, while the US is declining in pollution and has been for decades. It is ALSO true that the US is producing more CO2 now, but that is not pollution. It IS a greenhouse gas, but not pollution.
The fact of the matter is that the U.N. wants the U.S. to pay money to other countries AND to reduce our use of energy. If we work less, produce less, etc. we will have less money to work on environmental progress, since the clean answers are a lot more expensive than the old, dirty way of working. If it were JUST a commitment to reduce our greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, I'd be all for it. It isn't. It's about the U.S. having hard to reach targets with financial penalties, while paying others, who have no commitments at all, money to compensate them for our having "polluted" the world with out presence. - BookaShade, on 11/07/2009, -9/+21Yes! One less whiner.
- inactive, on 11/07/2009, -23/+35....because the U.S. isn't stupid.
- magibeg, on 11/07/2009, -0/+11Carbon Dioxide not dangerous... you should try inhaling some for a while. Also i would like you to show me some evidence indicating a correlation between the slight variances in the sun and the global temperature. I'll save you some time... there isn't one.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climat ...
Here's an easy read. - norman619, on 11/07/2009, -4/+12Stay simple minded Frixionburne
- InfiniteNothing, on 11/07/2009, -4/+11A) It's part of a negotiation. We should do what's right but some times you have to threaten to leave the negotiating table
B) The US could have trouble being cost competitive if we are holding ourselves to a higher standard. That means continuing to ship more jobs over seas.. - inactive, on 11/07/2009, -6/+13"virtually every scientist and academic body"
Complete *****. - oldhick, on 11/07/2009, -0/+7First, these are political solutions that don't involve scientists nor academic bodies. Scientists didn't come up with patently ridiculous ideas like cap n' trade. Politicians did. The discussions with the UN have nothing to do with scientists and others believing in or not believing in climate change. The discussions are about how we solve the problem, politically.
- norman619, on 11/07/2009, -4/+10Well I wish it were that simple. We are talking about an incredibly complex system here. Driver of climate changes are found on this planet as well as outside of it. The problem is the AGW peopel are too arrogant and ignorant to accept the the fact that we do not understand the system anyhwere nearly as well as they woudl like to belive to make calls like this. To say the sun is THE cause is just as ignorant as saying CO2 is THE cause. Be all this as it may, the very idea upon which their views are built is false. CO2 does not drive climate changes. Experts in Geology, oceanography, and climatology have all known for a while now that CO2 levels only change AFTER global temperatures change and NEVER before.
- blqysmg, on 11/07/2009, -0/+6@magibeg. Just because there is a similar looking graph does not mean that one thing caused the other. There is a VERY good reason for believing the reverse - that the rise in temperatures has contributed to the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, our burning of fossil fuels has also affected the rise in CO2 levels, there is no question there.
I'm not saying that the activities of man are not affecting the climate. I'm sure that they are. I'm simply pointing out that it is a very complex system. There ARE factors other than CO2. We have gone into and come out of ice ages many times in the last couple of million years. Man has been witness to many of these events. The temperature swing of an ice age is 10 to 12 degrees. Compare that to the less than one degree of change that we've been witness to in the last 500 years.
If it's all about CO2, answer me this... how did we come out of any one of these ice ages? How does the Earth cool, then warm, by 10 degrees without the devastating effects of man on the environment? Then ask yourself why our sudden and catastrophic effect on the CO2 of the planet has not caused warming in four out of the last seven decades? (hint: we cooled for 30 years, then warmed for 30 years, then cooled for ten.) Also ask why we are today about the same temperature as in 1935 and cooler than some parts of the 13th and 16th centuries? - shdwfx, on 11/07/2009, -4/+10So many retarded replies, it's sad:
@BookaShade: sources for your claim? I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
@prakash1234: 400 times? wtf?
@dusanmal: any sources for your claims? The article is about greenhouse gases. Not everything that creates smog and/or is bad for humans is a greenhouse gas. And FYI: I've been to more than a few big cities in east Asia and realize that the air quality is bad, very bad. And a lot of people wear masks to filter some of that crap out. - blqysmg, on 11/07/2009, -2/+8Leading by example is a very good idea. That means reducing our greenhouse gas output. Where does promising to pay other countries who are NOT committing to reduce their greenhouse gas output "leading by example?"
- InfiniteNothing, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6A higher CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere forces more CO2 into the water where it becomes carbonic acid. This upsets many precious ecosystems like coral reefs.
- bunit03057, on 11/07/2009, -2/+7We outsource a LOT to china and because of that they have a middle class larger than the population of the entire United States plus they have managed to invest it back into the U.S. to support our excessive debt.
I guess your argument is kind of a giant fail. Or were you talking about those countries whose governments rob their populations blind after committing a genocide? Yea we should just leave them be. - MWeather, on 11/07/2009, -3/+7Either we need to reduce CO2 output, or we don't. What other countries do does not affect that at all.
- govsucks, on 11/07/2009, -5/+9HEY! Thats the same thing Bush did.
I really wish the collectivists would pass ALL their grand schemes. Carbon taxes, healthcare. Sometimes to fix something you need to utterly destroy it first. - AlterLite, on 11/07/2009, -2/+6Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out...
- Vaiper, on 11/07/2009, -18/+22Lead by example... Be the change you want to see in the world...
It's like all the good values we are taught as kids become null and void in the adult world. That is a damn shame. America really should be setting a standard instead of worrying about what everyone else is doing. - micadjems, on 11/07/2009, -2/+5At least compared to most developing nations.
- fadeddragon, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3"Under current proposals the rich countries are expected to cut carbon emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020. The rich world would also pay out billions of pounds every year to help developing nations adapt to climate change and cut emissions."
More like why should we ***** pay them to do whats right. - blqysmg, on 11/07/2009, -1/+4It's true that most of the 3rd world is living at the edge of starvation. We do a LOT to try to fix that, but we can't do enough. We really cannot. The fact that we have 150 million productive people in the US (people who file taxes, anyway) compared to over 7 BILLION people in the rest of the world says it all. China and India have more rich people than the entire population of the U.S., and yet we don't consider them to be "rich" countries. The Arabs have more money than we do, and the average citizen of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. are much more affluent than we are. They have abject poverty in their countries, much worse than we do here.
What's the point of all of this? Billions of people live in places that cannot support them. There is not enough water, not enough farmland. As a result, we have starvation. It's NOT OUR FAULT that people live in those conditions. We don't have enough resources to fix the entire world, no matter what the UN believes. We can help, but you guys have got to stop pointing fingers at us and saying "You are not fixing this!" - herojon, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3THEY TOOK OUR JAWWWWWWWWWWWWBS
- Vaiper, on 11/07/2009, -3/+6@ 3nder99
Gotta spend money to make money. Heaven forbid we improve our technology and infrastructure! Oh noes! What ever will we do?!? - LogicalWisdom, on 11/07/2009, -4/+7The USA also is the world's largest producer of manufactured goods. Even though we use more resources and energy per capita, we are also far more efficient in creating the goods. Maybe you should learn before you open your mouth.
- magibeg, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3HiddenIP "Complete *****."
Then tell me which academic bodies have claimed global warming to not be man made,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
"every scientist-gore's buddies"
Because there is a massive conspiracy among scientists to side with Gore from all over the world.
To oldhick
Discussions may very in the actual comment section on the issue, case in point 2 of the responses to me were basically claiming there is no scientific consensus on the matter. When a large number of people don't understand the issue at hand that affects the options for politically solving the problem. - FarOutGrace, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3Waspbr: Maddoktor2 is correct, China is by far, the worst of the worst. I'm not going to do your work for you, so look it up. You have a computer so look at a few pictures of the air they have to breathe in China. We are not the worst, yet.
- quarando, on 11/07/2009, -3/+5It's easy to argue that everybody should "play by the same rules" when you are well positioned to benefit from such rules.
Most of the 3rd world is living on the edge of starvation, and we privileged people can't be bothered to take a few minor steps to stop destroying the planet until the 3rd world does it first. - DubSnipe, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2The US would OBVIOUSLY be against having tougher laws on emissions given that it would be a hypocrit thing to have their companies manufacturing in countries that don't follow them. It's like that recurring idea of playing with footballs made by 9-year old boys in Singapore. So what's the next step? Let's make our companies cleaner around the globe? Overhead costs go up. And let's admit it, corporations rule the US. They wouldn't allow for their revenue to diminish.
Anyway, as of today, most poorer countries pollute the same or more than the US because of treaties and policies required to establish economic relations with its companies. They also dictate what and how to produce. I live in a country which is used by many companies for manufacturing, for example, and all technologies, processes, and raw materials are provided by their specifications. It's true that China manufactures and pollutes, but it's the companies the ones that decide. If the governments of these countries were to forbid certain manufacturing practices required to make a product, then companies would move their factories elsewhere, which is not good for countries that depend on it, and basically are the ones that pollute most, aren't they?
US companies are a bunch of bastards. And since the US doesn't want to regulate them, they're also a bunch of bastards. I'd love to show you the colors of the water that kids in my country have to drink so you can dress all your cool clothing. - digghasnoethics, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3Its precisely because so many countries won't do their part that I don't think a multinational agreement on meaningful cuts is possible.
Instead I'd like to see import taxes levied by all countries on all other countries. Take the CO2 pollution output by the country in 2000, subtract 1% per year past that date, then the permissible import duty is the number of percent their emissions are today over the derived figure.
So if the US was producing 100Gtonnes of CO2 in 2000 and are producing 110 Gtonnes today, other countries could impose import tariffs up to 22% on US exports in 2010.
That system has the advantage that only the WTO has to agree, and its self correcting. Any country that doesn't pull its weight in CO2 reduction actions gets high tariffs slapped on its exports, thus its economy declines and so does its CO2. Conversely any country that really does the job on reduction can grow and export, providing they do it in a carbon efficient manner.
Carrot and stick. - fadeddragon, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3I agree we should lead by example but cutting are own emissions. What I don't agree with is this "The rich world would also pay out billions of pounds every year to help developing nations adapt to climate change and cut emissions."
- smashTasker, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3Consumption IS NOT equal to success!
- fragged23, on 11/07/2009, -2/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
I just will believe the founder of the weather channel over Al Gore any day. - BookaShade, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3lol shdwfx looks at wikipedia for his information.
how sad. and inaccurate. - saigumi, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2What sucks about this is that the US already IS cutting emissions. We did this without some idiotic UN piece of paper.
The only reason "poorer" countries want this is because they want that cash piling into their pockets so that they can build a bigger mansion with a military with bigger toys. I mean, you actually expected some UN oversight to actually work? Food for Oil was a bust. France and Iraq were profiting handsomely from that corrupt deal. Why else do you think they were so adamantly against having something done to Iraq? Humanitarian reasons? Haha... right. -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is