(October 22, 2018 at 6:09 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(October 22, 2018 at 5:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Russia is the 4th largest producer of c02

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...85FAd9ME0M

Doing the blame America game makes no sense. Canada and Australia produce the same C02 per capital. Because they also are large spread out countries with heavy transportation needs, like the US.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...85Hu59Ok0M

These are 2015 numbers. I couldn't find anything newer and didn't spend a great deal of time looking.

These values are in million metric tons of CO2
China 9000 million metric tons = 9 billion
US about 5000
India 2000
Russia 1500

I think if you add up all the countries in the European Union, you'll get a number higher than Russia.

Canada 550
Australia 380

In a cold hearted world, nuking China & the US, wiping them out completely would decrease CO2 output by 14 billion metric tons.

And the nuclear winter might help cool the planet down a bit.

If I'm thinking it, you know other world leaders are too.

You do realize the only reason why the planet is worth saving is because people deserves life and needs it to live, right?   The planet by itself deserves nothing and is worth nothing.

Those who think of mass murder to save the planet are scum of the same kind as those who deservedly hung in Spandau prison.

(October 22, 2018 at 10:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(October 22, 2018 at 6:09 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...85Hu59Ok0M

These are 2015 numbers. I couldn't find anything newer and didn't spend a great deal of time looking.

These values are in million metric tons of CO2
China 9000 million metric tons = 9 billion
US about 5000
India 2000
Russia 1500

I think if you add up all the countries in the European Union, you'll get a number higher than Russia.

Canada 550
Australia 380

In a cold hearted world, nuking China & the US, wiping them out completely would decrease CO2 output by 14 billion metric tons.

And the nuclear winter might help cool the planet down a bit.

If I'm thinking it, you know other world leaders are too.

You do realize the only reason why the planet is worth saving is because people deserves life and needs it to live, right?   The planet by itself deserves nothing and is worth nothing.

Those who think of mass murder to save the planet are scum of the same kind as those who deservedly hung in Spandau prison.

I'm not sure he's advocating mass murder .

(October 22, 2018 at 10:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(October 22, 2018 at 6:09 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...85Hu59Ok0M

These are 2015 numbers. I couldn't find anything newer and didn't spend a great deal of time looking.

These values are in million metric tons of CO2
China 9000 million metric tons = 9 billion
US about 5000
India 2000
Russia 1500

I think if you add up all the countries in the European Union, you'll get a number higher than Russia.

Canada 550
Australia 380

In a cold hearted world, nuking China & the US, wiping them out completely would decrease CO2 output by 14 billion metric tons.

And the nuclear winter might help cool the planet down a bit.

If I'm thinking it, you know other world leaders are too.

You do realize the only reason why the planet is worth saving is because people deserves life and needs it to live, right?   The planet by itself deserves nothing and is worth nothing.

Those who think of mass murder to save the planet are scum of the same kind as those who deservedly hung in Spandau prison.

The planet isn't in danger. Never was.
The people on the planet, other species on the planet and all the food they eat to survive are in danger of going extinct when the temperatures get too hot to sustain life.
The human population has the very real potential of going extinct in less than 200 years.

Do you know what a war is ? A war is a planned mass murder of the army that is trying to kill you and everyone in your country.
Bombs have been dropped in war that killed hundreds of thousands in order to save millions from dying.

I'm not proposing that we should. I'm saying that world leaders are probably looking at who is threatening to kill everyone on the planet and thinking....what can we do to stop it ?

Imagine you are in a large room with 100 other people. The door to the room will unlock in 24 hours. The room is air tight and only contains enough air for 15 hours if all 100 people continue to breathe.
Everyone dies or some will die in order for some to live. There are no other options.

We have this one planet. That's all we got.

(October 22, 2018 at 11:05 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: The people on the planet, other species on the planet and all the food they eat to survive are in danger of going extinct when the temperatures get too hot to sustain life.
The human population has the very real potential of going extinct in less than 200 years.

I have read over 50 books on climate change and related subjects, and I can't remember any qualified scientist suggesting the human race could go extinct. Worst case scenarios are usually that certain parts of the globe may become uninhabitable in summer months without heavy use of air conditioning. The destruction of the coral reefs and the Amazon rainforest are very real possibilities, as well as the dustbowlification of the western United States. The flooding of coastlines will take hundreds of years. Of course we do run the risk of high levels of extinctions of other species, especially in the oceans. And we run a very real risk of overshoot and collapse of human populations, but nothing near extinction.

(October 22, 2018 at 5:41 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: I'm not saying there are no risks to other power sources but the is a risk to nuclear and even thou only 6 people died the damage is more then death and just because this one only killed a few does not mean we will be so lucky in the future .

Fair enough.  All I'm saying is that we need to look carefully at all aspects any energy production proposals, evaluate them in perspective, and be prepared to be flexible.

If we intend to stop poisoning our lungs, the atmosphere, and the climate, our energy policy going forward is going to have to include multiple systems -- solar; wind; tidal; geothermal; nuclear; carbon-recapture combustion; and probably at least a half-dozen more -- some kind of "smart" distribution system, and some serious attention to conservation.

---

(October 22, 2018 at 10:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: You do realize the only reason why the planet is worth saving is because people deserves life and needs it to live, right?   The planet by itself deserves nothing and is worth nothing.

Actually I think the planet is worth saving.

Not so sure about the people.

The planet will not mourn you after you died saving it.

-and there is no replacement creature on the planet even remotely interested in conservation or the repair or maintenance of the earth, let alone capable of engaging in it. I think that people get this idea in their heads that there's some sort of "natural balance" - not realizing that life is an explosion of thoughtless exploitation.

When I heard the Trump man say...
"Planet gets warmer. It gets colder. Warm again, cold again. It's a natural cylce."

I really want to punch him in the face.
Yes the cold events were called Ice Ages.
The warming events caused mass extinction of species and they gradually happened over hundreds of thousands of years.
What is happening now is spiking up each decade right before our eyes. This isn't natural.

It's man made.
And if it's man made, it must be designed right theists ?

(October 24, 2018 at 9:39 am)Rahn127 Wrote: When I heard the Trump man say...
"Planet gets warmer. It gets colder. Warm again, cold again. It's a natural cylce."

I really want to punch him in the face.
Yes the cold events were called Ice Ages.
The warming events caused mass extinction of species and they gradually happened over hundreds of thousands of years.
What is happening now is spiking up each decade right before our eyes. This isn't natural.

It's man made.
And if it's man made, it must be designed right theists ?

Whether the current warming trend is man made is irrelevant.  

We have no compelling reason of principle per se to leave the planet as we found it.   So it being man made does not in itself impose any additional burden upon us to halt or reverse it.   On a practical level we should leave the warming trend be if it either makes little difference to human society, or is more costly to slow, halt or reverse than to let continue unchecked, even if the trend is man made.

But unfortunately the warming trend would prove vastly costly to the human society in dislocation and infrastructure obsolescence.   Furthermore the cost of meaningfully slowing or halting the trend would seem to be far less than the cost of putting up with the warming.   Therefore it would enrich the human society by decreasing impoverished and emiseratiom to invest in slowing, halting or reversing the warming trend, even if the trend is not man made.

So in the long run investing in fighting the warming trend through reduction in GHG emission is a sign of optimizing the use of society’s resources to pursue greater common good by decreasing aggregate human misery and impoverishment.

The problem is the right wing does not see the goal of good governance to be the pursuit of greater common good or decreasing the total misery and impoverishment.   They see the goal of good governance as to protect a person’s or a small group’s paragative to exploit any unearned advantage to maximize his (their) own wealth and imfluence without meaningful concern for consequences to but a few.    So they do not think the fact that the human society overall might become more impoverished and emiserated, that other people without resource or privilege are trampled, to be a sign of failure of governance.  

It so happens that much of those who are in privileged positions ro readily enrich themselves by emiserating others are also those who can most cheaply readily mitigate the personal consequences of climate change.   So they have little incentive to invest their own wealth into any collective effort to slow or halt climate change.  To them, the cost of climate change is but the emiserating of those others whom they have become accustomed to think is right to emiserate.  So it is not their problem.  Therefore it is an unwarranted imposition on their own paragatives if their freedom to do whatever it takes to enrich themselves is curtailed in the interest of solving that problem.   Hence their great loathing for any effort to systematically slow or reverse climate change that requires them to make investment that mainly serve to reduce the future emiseration and impoverishment of others, and their willingness to go through great length to discredit the need of the society overall for such investment to relieve pressures for such such investment.

(October 23, 2018 at 9:36 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The planet will not mourn you after you died saving it.

Hey, it's not for the applause; the act is its own justification.  

---

(October 24, 2018 at 10:22 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: The problem is the right wing does not see the goal of good governance to be the pursuit of greater common good or decreasing the total misery and impoverishment.   They see the goal of good governance as to protect a person’s or a small group’s paragative to exploit any unearned advantage to maximize his (their) own wealth and imfluence without meaningful concern for consequences to but a few.    So they do not think the fact that the human society overall might become more impoverished and emiserated, that other people without resource or privilege are trampled, to be a sign of failure of governance.

 

The other problem is that "good governance" has historically been an oxymoron.