Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
1) China's one child policy has had a greater positive impact on reducing global emissions than all steps taken together that the US has put forth.
LOL! China's population has grown just as much as the USAs and even more than most western countries. The "one child" policy had nothing to do with climate change and no longer exists. Did you even think that through before posting?
higher fertility than the west wrote:
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
1) China's one child policy has had a greater positive impact on reducing global emissions than all steps taken together that the US has put forth.
LOL! China's population has grown just as much as the USAs and even more than most western countries. The "one child" policy had nothing to do with climate change and no longer exists. Did you even think that through before posting?
1) China's fertility rate fell to below the level of the US around 30 years ago.
2) China's fertility rate is FAR below that of the US at this time and has been for 25 years.
3) Population growth (or decline) lags fertility rates. Hence your ridiculously irrelevant fact regarding population growth is, well, ridiculously irrelevant.
4) China's one child policy changed social norms in China and clearly is having a lasting effect since, as you point out, the official policy no longer exists. And yet, the fertility rate remains FAR below that of the US. And FAR below population replacement numbers.
5) The overall number of people on the planet is obviously the single biggest determinant of CO2 emissions.
6) As previously pointed out, China today emits less than half the CO2 per person that the US does.
7) One can only wonder if you are as stupid as you appear to be.
Here is a person, presumably AMERICAN, siding with the unintended consequences of the barbaric policies and practices of an oppressive and evil communist regime.
You, Hitler and Stalin seem to have much in common. It’s either that or you’re just some terrible combination of uneducated and stupid. I’m not entirely sure which is worse.
Does anyone argue for climate stasis?
All in the name of some fictional “problem” wrote:
Here is a person, presumably AMERICAN, siding with the unintended consequences of the barbaric policies and practices of an oppressive and evil communist regime.
You, Hitler and Stalin seem to have much in common. It’s either that or you’re just some terrible combination of uneducated and stupid. I’m not entirely sure which is worse.
Your stupidity is most impressive.
Good job!
It makes you impious regarding this particular dogma of the Progressive religion. You believe in your head, but you don't yet believe in your heart of hearts that your Mother Earth demands a sacrifice from you. You should listen to at least 5 hours of NPR everyday in order to cultivate your faith so that you can properly worship according to the instructions of your high priests. You might want to keep an icon of Greta Thunberg in your pocket, and masturbate, err... I mean pray to it at least 5 times a day. And if that doesn't help, stare at a picture of a sad Polar Bear for at least 1 hour every day and chant "melting ice caps, rising seas" over and over again, then you will truly attain enlightenment. And if all that still doesn't help, you might want to contemplate your white privilege and say 50 hail-hillaries to purge you of your uncleanness.
besides a jerk wrote:
?
It makes you an apathetic zombie inhabitant of the earth like 99.9999% of the global population. There's nothing at all unusual or noteworthy about your views or your approach to your selfish, consumerist life. Congrats!
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
1) China's one child policy has had a greater positive impact on reducing global emissions than all steps taken together that the US has put forth.
2) The US had CO2 emissions of 15.0 metric tons per person in 2016. China had CO2 emissions of 6.4 metric tons per person in 2016. Who exactly, is paying lip service to reducing CO2 emissions?
Read the following and answer your own question.
US CO2 Emissions
2005 5.9 Gt
2017 5.1 Gt
Change: Decrease of 13.5%
China CO2 Emission
2005 6.26 Gt
2017 10.87 GT
Increase of 73.6%
Human.
fisky wrote:
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
1) China's one child policy has had a greater positive impact on reducing global emissions than all steps taken together that the US has put forth.
2) The US had CO2 emissions of 15.0 metric tons per person in 2016. China had CO2 emissions of 6.4 metric tons per person in 2016. Who exactly, is paying lip service to reducing CO2 emissions?
Read the following and answer your own question.
US CO2 Emissions
2005 5.9 Gt
2017 5.1 Gt
Change: Decrease of 13.5%
China CO2 Emission
2005 6.26 Gt
2017 10.87 GT
Increase of 73.6%
And it gets worse. China plans to build 300-500 coal power plants by 2030, when their Paris Agreement "cap" goes into effect. What a joke! These 500 power plants will produce MORE CO2 than the entire USA. Doubt me? Here's a link that explains the plan, including a link to China's China Electric Council proposal.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/fisky wrote:
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
1) China's one child policy has had a greater positive impact on reducing global emissions than all steps taken together that the US has put forth.
2) The US had CO2 emissions of 15.0 metric tons per person in 2016. China had CO2 emissions of 6.4 metric tons per person in 2016. Who exactly, is paying lip service to reducing CO2 emissions?
Read the following and answer your own question.
US CO2 Emissions
2005 5.9 Gt
2017 5.1 Gt
Change: Decrease of 13.5%
China CO2 Emission
2005 6.26 Gt
2017 10.87 GT
Increase of 73.6%
The US had CO2 emissions of 15.0 metric tons per person in 2016. China had CO2 emissions of 6.4 metric tons per person in 2016.
Try to understand that fact. I know that might be difficult for you. But spend a few minutes and try to digest that.
Is the US "special"? So "special" that they get to emit well over twice what China emits per person and then demand that China reduce more?
How "special" is the US, exactly? What makes for this "specialness"? Is it apple pie? Motherhood? Land of the free, home of the brave? What exactly makes Americans entitled to emit well over twice what the Chinese do and then complain that the Chinese are not doing their part?
Look, when the US gets their emissions per person down to the same level as the Chinese then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you've got your work cut out for you, mate.
fisky wrote:
fisky wrote:
Read the following and answer your own question.
US CO2 Emissions
2005 5.9 Gt
2017 5.1 Gt
Change: Decrease of 13.5%
China CO2 Emission
2005 6.26 Gt
2017 10.87 GT
Increase of 73.6%
And it gets worse. China plans to build 300-500 coal power plants by 2030, when their Paris Agreement "cap" goes into effect. What a joke! These 500 power plants will produce MORE CO2 than the entire USA. Doubt me? Here's a link that explains the plan, including a link to China's China Electric Council proposal.
{linked article]
Once again, when the US gets their emissions per person down to the same level as the Chinese then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you've got your work cut out for you, mate.
The metric "CO2 per capita" never even existed back in 2005 when China was #2 in CO2 emissions. It was invented after China became #1 in emissions to distract people like you from the fact that China is increasing CO2 emissions at a staggering rate.
Unfortunately for your argument, the climate doesn't care about CO2 emissions per capita. On the other hand, the climate probably doesn't care about CO2 emissions at all, so there is that.
fisky wrote:
The metric "CO2 per capita" never even existed back in 2005 when China was #2 in CO2 emissions. It was invented after China became #1 in emissions to distract people like you from the fact that China is increasing CO2 emissions at a staggering rate.
Unfortunately for your argument, the climate doesn't care about CO2 emissions per capita. On the other hand, the climate probably doesn't care about CO2 emissions at all, so there is that.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAH....what???
It's becoming more and more evident that climate change deniers are mostly people too lazy to do the research to back up their views and just align their stance with the one prescribed for them by their politics.
There has been a noticeable shift in the last few years from "the climate ISN"T changing"...to "Well....I refuse to accept that it's changing because of humans." You were wrong before and are wrong now.
fisky wrote:
The metric "CO2 per capita" never even existed back in 2005 when China was #2 in CO2 emissions. It was invented after China became #1 in emissions to distract people like you from the fact that China is increasing CO2 emissions at a staggering rate.
Unfortunately for your argument, the climate doesn't care about CO2 emissions per capita. On the other hand, the climate probably doesn't care about CO2 emissions at all, so there is that.
Wikipedia "CO2 emissions per capita" page as it appeared in the 9 April 2005 revision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions&oldid=12096129Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
Once again, when the US gets their emissions per person down to the same level as the Chinese then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you've got your work cut out for you, mate.
By this logic, Al Gore and Prince William need to reduce their personal carbon footprint to that of an average person before they can lecture middle class people on reducing their emissions. Right?
besides a jerk wrote:
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
Once again, when the US gets their emissions per person down to the same level as the Chinese then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you've got your work cut out for you, mate.
By this logic, Al Gore and Prince William need to reduce their personal carbon footprint to that of an average person before they can lecture middle class people on reducing their emissions. Right?
I really don't care about Al Gore. If you want to obsess over him, have at it!
fisky wrote:
The metric "CO2 per capita" never even existed back in 2005 when China was #2 in CO2 emissions. It was invented after China became #1 in emissions to distract people like you from the fact that China is increasing CO2 emissions at a staggering rate.
Unfortunately for your argument, the climate doesn't care about CO2 emissions per capita. On the other hand, the climate probably doesn't care about CO2 emissions at all, so there is that.
"The metric "CO2 per capita" never even existed back in 2005"?!?!?!?!? WTF???
You just disqualified yourself from being considered intellectually superior to a retarded earthworm. You have no business posting here or anywhere else unless it is to ask questions to try to educate yourself.
Hats 2 B Shed wrote:
besides a jerk wrote:
By this logic, Al Gore and Prince William need to reduce their personal carbon footprint to that of an average person before they can lecture middle class people on reducing their emissions. Right?
I really don't care about Al Gore. If you want to obsess over him, have at it!
You don't care about people who burn 100x the carbon footprint of the average person? I thought that was something you cared about.