The US Owes The World $4 Trillion For Trashing The Climate

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Based on data from a study published in Nature Climate Change, the US’s climate debt supposedly totals in the trillions of dollars.

There are 250 billion tons of carbon debt accumulated since 1990, Matthews figures, so that amounts to $10 trillion. Yes, trillion—$10 trillion that polluting industrial nations owe climate creditor nations like India, China, and Nigeria who have stayed under their carbon budgets. (In the case of China, it won’t be for long.) Seeing as how the US is responsible for 40 percent of those emissions—or 1 billion tons—it would owe $4 trillion.
 
I am sorry, I could not get past the fact that the US apparently owes China and India... Yeah, I can get that we have been an industrialized nation longer and have done more damage in past years, but the comment that the US has done nothing to stem the tide is just ridiculous, as ridiculous as nations such as China that completely scoff at the rest of the world in fixing climate issues.
 
And this is when the real agenda, which is wealth redistribution between nations shows it's ugly head
 
I am sorry, I could not get past the fact that the US apparently owes China and India... Yeah, I can get that we have been an industrialized nation longer and have done more damage in past years, but the comment that the US has done nothing to stem the tide is just ridiculous, as ridiculous as nations such as China that completely scoff at the rest of the world in fixing climate issues.

Many parts of industrialized china just dump whatever chemicals into rivers and creeks. Areas smell and they don't care about emissions. We are no golden child either but damn.
 
Well,

For the longest time, the biggest argument against renewables has been that they are not coat competitive with fossil fuels, to which the retort has bee. That if the total cost of fossil fuels, including medical problems from air pollution, and the costs due to rising global temperatures are considered, renewables are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.
 
Ahahahaah China.... yea right. And it's Vice... no wonder.
 
Global warming is a bunch of bunk. Not one prediction they've made in the last 50 years has been even close to accurate. How can they call this science when they can't even come up with an accurate prediction? How can people believe their current predictions when they've been so consistently wrong in the past?
 
China's cities are the most smog-filled places on Earth and they pollute everything without regard for anyone, least of all their own people. India has a billion people heating homes with dung, to the point that there's a brown cloud permanently hanging over the Indian Ocean. Yet this study seems to think that the USA owes those two countries for being a bigger polluter. I don't have to read the study to know that it consists of bullshit (which if in India, will be later dried and burned for heat, which is somehow better for the environment than burning natural gas).
 
And this is when the real agenda, which is wealth redistribution between nations shows it's ugly head

I wonder what the Iraqis would think about that statement. Sounds like bullshit to me.
 
And this explains why China and India are so low.
Take the world’s total carbon emissions, and “imagine a baseline where everyone has polluted the same amount," he tells me, "which they haven’t.” Those countries that have polluted more, per capita, are now in climate debt.
So we'll take a baseline that doesn't exist really, and we'll use it for our purposes of manipulation of numbers to make the US seem like a dick and say they owe the world money.

Lets conveniently ignore the fact that China in 2010 (latest values that are easily found) put more than 50% more CO2 into the atmosphere than the US, and because they have more than 4 times as many people, we'll say they're actually doing ok, because... POPULATION! Meanwhile India is up there in population, but doesn't have the huge manufacturing base, but their holy river is so fucking polluted you need a tetanus shot after looking at a picture of it, but they're super duper in the green!
 
And this is when the real agenda, which is wealth redistribution between nations shows it's ugly head

+ a trillion more.

Anyone who believes a single line of bull from these climate "scientists", or any government agency or agent regarding the world climate deserves nothing short of a lobotomy.

Suckers.
 
and the costs due to rising global temperatures are considered,

What about the benefits of increased global temperatures? I consider the way to feed the ever growing population (hundreds of years from now) will be to make use of the land to the north that is currently a frozen for half of the year.
 
What about the benefits of increased global temperatures? I consider the way to feed the ever growing population (hundreds of years from now) will be to make use of the land to the north that is currently a frozen for half of the year.

I'm afraid the 0.02 degree change in the last 18 years won't make much of a difference.
 
Anyone who believes a single line of bull from these climate "scientists", or any government agency or agent regarding the world climate deserves nothing short of a lobotomy.
Fuck yeah bubba! I mean I know easily as much as "scientists" by sitting here in my chair and reading message boards!
 
Zarathustra[H];1041850020 said:
Well,

For the longest time, the biggest argument against renewables has been that they are not coat competitive with fossil fuels, to which the retort has bee. That if the total cost of fossil fuels, including medical problems from air pollution, and the costs due to rising global temperatures are considered, renewables are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.

Nuclear is what should be used. It would be almost impossible to run an entire country on renewable energy. Nuclear is safe when done properly, cheap and effective.
 
LOL! We are the New England Patriots of the world's nations. So, China, in which people die from just being outside from the pollution, is in good standing with this organization?
 
I guess we will have this paid off after 24.9 years, considering the $40.11 billion of foreign aid we give the world every year.
 
And this is when the real agenda, which is wealth redistribution between nations shows it's ugly head

That's always been the real agenda. Of course the supporters will take their cut first.

How about they subtract everything the US has done for these other countries from the amount, including everything from charities to technology, disaster and military aid. The US would have such a surplus that we could probably pay off our national debt.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041850020 said:
Well,

For the longest time, the biggest argument against renewables has been that they are not coat competitive with fossil fuels, to which the retort has bee. That if the total cost of fossil fuels, including medical problems from air pollution, and the costs due to rising global temperatures are considered, renewables are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.

No their not. The only reason they even seem competitive is due to the massive government subsidies.
 
We just need to massively ramp up our population and our per capita pollution stats will look much better.
 
Global warming scientists have a "consensus" that it's real right?
That's what the media ( controlled by liberals ) would tell you.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, disagreeing with the "consensus", including 9,029 with PhDs


http://www.petitionproject.org/
 
And there was me thinking that the average forum member on a tech website would be more intelligent and knowledgeable about science than your average Joe in the street. But no, even here a scarily large number are going to stick their fingers in their ears about climate change.
 
Global warming is a bunch of bunk. Not one prediction they've made in the last 50 years has been even close to accurate. How can they call this science when they can't even come up with an accurate prediction? How can people believe their current predictions when they've been so consistently wrong in the past?

Well, when you have the education and science sector being heavy handed with a liberal bias, the real truth is never revealed. I've watch many Meteorologist and Scientists lose their standing when they presented factual truths about the earth temperatures and the cycles. Global Warming is a massive Government grab.
 
Over 70% of those "scientists" don't even have a doctorate?
Most don't practice in the field of climate science either, so their opinions are basically worthless. It's a political statement, not an intellectual or research based one.
 
uh... I don't know of any US cities where you loose ~10 years of your life just breathing the air... Doesn't China have a number of them? Don't forget something like 20% of our "bad" air quality in the western US is because the massive pollution in China mixes with our air over here.
 
Well if that's all you do, more power to you I guess...
Fine...

"Fuck yeah bubba! I don't have any background in anything related to the climate, but hell my job that does nothing to do with anything climate related gets me enough knowledge as these so called 'scientists' because I can read the internet!"
 
Not to worry, everything will even out once the universe begins to enter the final throes of entropic heat death. People will be wishing for a bit of global warming then.
 
Its humorous that the picture on the front page of that article is Mexico City where they had no emission testing or laws up until a few years ago.
And in other parts of Mexico, they dont have any ..if it runs, you can drive it ...and they do
 
We should be using Nuclear all over the world and investing huge amounts of money in energy research to work toward increasing our energy reserves by thousands if not millions of fold.

Using less energy is stupid shit, making more energy in better ways is the future.

We need a radical increase in our capacity to make energy to seriously move forward, traditional chemical sources are too inefficient and they pollute too much. There's an incredible array of potential sources for vast amount of energy, but we're stuck on great grandparent's plan. My grandpa hated that plan.

If scientists could afford to lobby we would be spending a lot more on actual forward looking research. Right now there are billions being spent to shut non-corporate scientists up and get them out of the way.
 
What about the benefits of increased global temperatures? I consider the way to feed the ever growing population (hundreds of years from now) will be to make use of the land to the north that is currently a frozen for half of the year.

It might add some arable land, but it will also kill other arable land, by making it too warm (or too wet)
 
Most don't practice in the field of climate science either, so their opinions are basically worthless. It's a political statement, not an intellectual or research based one.

So, just because a scientific expert isn't 100% in the field he should be disregarded, and instead we should listen to people on forums, and political think tanks backed by big oil?

laughingsmiley.gif~c200
 
Back
Top