Just Stop P*ssing Everyone Off

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Pale Rider

Veteran
The Duddo Dispatch's environmental correspondent demonstrates his complete ignorance of statistics.

If every individual caused the same CO2 emissions a country with a larger population would always have greater total emissions.

If, if.

We were discussing what individual countries can do to reduce pollution.

Pressure needs to be put on the governments of the bigger polluters to get the biggest and fastest results

But you, and the other members of the leftie woke brains trust on here, would rather spend your time squawking racism at someone just because they have a different view.

No wonder you never get anywhere.
 

Mr Celine

Well-Known Member
Pressure needs to be put on the governments of the bigger polluters to get the biggest and fastest results
The only part of your post which is right.

The biggest polluters are not India and China. The USA is fifteenth worse by per capita emissions but has a population, and total emissions, greatly exceeding the fourteen countries whose citizens pollute more per head.

The pressure should be applied to the USA.
 

multitool

Shaman
It's per capita emissions that count. If China was divided into provinces the problem wouldn't go away.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

No, climate change is affected by amount of emissions not amount per capita.


Depends what he means by "count", and I don't think he means base contribution to climate change.

His point is that relative pollution by country needs a per capita comparison, otherwise it's pretty meaningless. It's important because countries cannot reduce their populations very quickly, but high polluting per capita countries can change their lifestyles. Especially rich countries.

Would have thought that was obvious.
 
Last edited:

matticus

Guru
No, climate change is affected by amount of emissions not amount per capita.

The thing is, all those emissions are down to individuals. And a lot of the emissions are due to international trade/travel, so life ain't that simple.

The US is waaay up there on either measure. Their per-capita figure is about twice that of China; they could choose to point the finger and say
"AHA! Because of demographics, your filthy country produces slightly MORE emissions than us. So we have an excuse to do nothing now!"

Is that sensible? Is that going to make the US immune from the effects of climate change? And how about people living somewhere like Antigua (who are almost certainly near the front of the firing line if ocean levels keep rising).
182Antigua and Barbuda4.84438,76390,564
 

mudsticks

Squire
Is it worth asking to which countries has the world outsourced most of its manufacturing? Is it possible there may be some connection?
Exactly, we can look 'greener' whilst importing cheap stuff from countries with laxer environmental standards.

And for the most part it's not necessarily about particular 'countries' as such - all although the politics of individual states will effect that - it's about global corporations such as oil companies, who will operate in many countries, and have a global clout way beyond any individual country.
 

Ian H

Guru
No, climate change is affected by amount of emissions not amount per capita.

If you reduce the amount per capita, you reduce total emissions.
If a country 10 times the size of the UK has emissions x10, then they are doing equally well or badly.
 

matticus

Guru
Has anyone got figures for the nations of the UK? Just wondering how Scottish independence might change all of this ...
 
NEWSFLASH:
Climate Change Denier says JSO won't make him stop denying.
And they're "annoying".

More later, stay tuned...
I'm not denying anything but that makes live easier right? Anyone not agreeing with you is denier/evil/not an ally whatever buzzwords suits...
i never said they where annoying learn to read not just scan for words that might offend you

Why is this part of your argument for laissez-faire? :wacko:
Try the understand the whole sentence and not just the part that you took out. I understand it's easier just to respond with emoijs.. what a time to be alive eh..
 

matticus

Guru
I'm not denying anything but that makes live easier right? Anyone not agreeing with you is denier/evil/not an ally whatever buzzwords suits...
i never said they where annoying learn to read not just scan for words that might offend you

My most profound apologues sir. Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Let us start again:
Before we discuss your views on JSO, could you pleeeeease confirm whether you believe that man-made climate change is a real thing?
Yours Most Sincerely,
Matticus
 
Spot-On Dutchie - and I never thought I'd say that about one of your posts!

It'll be misery for financiers, and big business which have knowingly poisoned the planet and created all them rich people - that sure is a calamity.
No but rich poeple are able to avoid negative consequences longer then poor people. And behind big oil there are indeed a few poeple who got very rich knowing very well what damage they or better said their companies caused. same can be said for battery production, oil lines in the niger delta etc.

And it will shift the problem to other countries - yep, can't disagree there either...but which problem do you foresee shifting to other countries by stopping oil and gas investment?
For example investments in technologies that are not ready for such big investments yet, just because a stupid goal. We can't live without gas oil or coals for now, so just stopping it will not nullify demand so it has to come from someone else, the last time we needed gas from somewhere else we got it from Russia..


Do you mean making other countries unfarmable? Uninhabitable? Burnt to a crisp? Would you prefer that islands and lovely Florida disappear underwater, or witness the collapse of the Mediterranean holiday industry? The forced migration of peoples and nations? Starvation on a scale as yet unseen? Death of the great barrier reef, intense flooding and destruction in other lands?
Please be clear...
Nature is better in burning things to a crisp/flooding it/shake it into pieces etc. which goes to show where all just visitors here if nature is done with us no matter what technologies we have, we all be eliminated.

But no i don't mean that, i mean we need more common sense not following a few simple sentences i think we saved the planet. But also we need to disagree more, great inventions did not came because 98% of the scientist carefully cherry picked agreed the wheel should be round. it came from trial and error agreeing and disagreeing as it where with all great inventions soluttions and so on.
 
My most profound apologues sir. Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Let us start again:
Before we discuss your views on JSO, could you pleeeeease confirm whether you believe that man-made climate change is a real thing?
Yours Most Sincerely,
Matticus
I said it many times before, but no i don't believe man made climate change is fake news/not real or whatever, having said that i also don't believe natural climate change is fake news or whatever.

i do believe that there are influential people who benefit from exploiting the current climate crisis

I also believe there are influential people who benefit from exploiting the voices denying the current climate crisis

And thus i believe anything said from either site need to be approached as such. when it come to climate a lot of poeple whio normally are very intelligent about their decisions seem to be about to board a submerssive called the Titan, not allarmed by the cheap game controller with bad reviews..
 

theclaud

Reading around the chip
Very droll.

But, no answer from you?, what a surprise

Answer to what? If you are mystified, it's because you choose to be. You could read my post again instead of indulging the worst people on the forum with indignant misunderstanding on their behalf. And find out why Rusty is banging on about Israel while you are at it.
 
Top Bottom