It may or may not make the case, but searching on "world's most polluted countries" and "world's most polluted cities" is interesting to say the least.
Most Americans want Barack Obama back as President, poll shows
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
I'm not arguing that at all. The assertion is that they are doing nothing ... which isn't true ... that's the part I want proven. Granted, they have done very little in the past, but these things don't clean up overnight either.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...gthens-environmental-laws-polluting-factories
Perhaps not surprisingly, the submitted plans are even less impressive than the process that produced them. In aggregate, the promised emissions reductions will barely affect anticipated warming. A variety of inaccurate, apples-to-oranges comparisons have strained to show significant progress. But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.
The lack of progress becomes even more apparent at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030 even without the climate plan. And a Bloomberg analysis found that China’s 60-65 percent target is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing with business as usual. All this came before the country admitted it was burning 17 percent more coal than previously estimated—an entire Germany worth of extra emissions each year.
I hope this helps you understand that what you think about these countries and what they are actually doing are two different things. Pay attention to the last sentence.
So the scientist you quoted also believes that human activities impact climate on a global scale. BTW, this may be one of the best and easiest to understand explanations of climate change I've seen.
Yet just because you think other countries are larger polluters than the U.S., you'd like to change our environmental policy to mimic these large polluter countries; China and India?
How will that help global climate change?
No, he'd like to not drastically **** up our economy and energy sector while we go it alone.
OK, so maybe I missed it in the thread somewhere... how do you do that and protect the environment?
I don't want to drop to the same level environmentally as China or India.
That's the point. You are placing higher emphasis on the environment than the economy and Energy sector, specifically.
He is placing higher emphasis on the economy and energy sector than that of the environment. Correct approach in my opinion, however, I and he acknowledge and understand you can't completely ignore the environment. The reason we believe what we do is exactly what has been pointed out. While humans may have a direct impact, we don't know to the extend for certain. Moreover, any action we take in the US doesn't move the needle as the other countries in the world so far worse damage. Effectively, we are talking about a cost benefit analysis here vs the cost feelings analysis the left typically employs in their decision trees.
Coop disagrees with this post.
Seriously though, I always rolled my eyes when Hannity would bloviate about the Dems believing the GOP wants dirty air and water. I guess you prove his point. And to the point of your post. No, it most certainly doesn't. It's called weighing risk and the likelihood of mitigating/realizing/impact of realization of said risk. The envirowhackos have chickenlittle'd themselves into obscurity.