Slashdot Mirror

The US is not the worst in emissions per capita. This should be obvious a prior with a few small extremely rich Middle Eastern oil nations.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_perc ap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

If you look at SO2 and NOx emissions per populated area, the USA is MUCH MUCH better. Our CO2 emissions comes with less SO2 and NOx than almost any other nation! In short, yes we burn a lot of fossil fuels, but we burn it cleaner than anyone.

More to the point, fossil fuel usage, per capita, has been steady in the USA since 1976. We are not the primary source of change that is altering the planet for the last 30 years. We were already there 30 years ago!

Change is heaviest in countries that are industrializing like Mexico, India, and China. Obviously, addressing the scope of the problem would require major changes in all nations. Currently there does not seem to be ANY HOPE of preventing further increases in greenhouse gases as there is nothing on the table to prevent nations that are industrializing from continuing on that track. Any changes that could be made in the USA, Canada, and Western Europe (and Oz and Japan) would pale in comparison to the large increases coming from China and India. And short-sighted, when you consider that capping CO2 emissions will force a quarter-after-quarter recession on all involved nations. And ain't that a pretty picture to consider?

I, for one, welcome our new farting car overlords. They actually could help.

The smog laws in America are almost pointless when you consider it's GLOBAL warming and India/Mexico are basically shitting into the atmosphere. If they can make this work ... awesome.

Funny that. Look who has the biggest piece of the pie chart. (It ain't Mexico).
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/env_co2_emi- environment-co2-emissions

But the United States is by far and away the largest producer of corn, soybeans and a big producer of wheat as well.

But the United States is by far and away the largest producer of corn, soybeans and a big producer of wheat as well.

But the United States is by far and away the largest producer of corn, soybeans and a big producer of wheat as well.

Things are pretty rough if a country that doesn't even suffer from the /illusion/ of terrorist threat* can go to such lengths to violate their people's privacy in the name of security. Makes one think that maybe it's a part of human nature to overreact, or something.

Random statistics from the internet, demonstrating I at least made a half-assed attempt to research this comment: Terrorist "Incidents" in the past 40 years. Sweden is way down at #60, U.S. at #15. Interestingly, per-capita stats place Sweden at the same rank, but the U.S. way down at #93. Of course, this statistic may be entirely meaningless - but I guess it does show something, in terms of the tax base supporting the respective anti-terrorism efforts vs. actual risk.

* - (such as the illusion of threat we have in the U.S. At least people hate us here. Who hates the Swedes? The Finns, I guess... Or the Geats.)

Things are pretty rough if a country that doesn't even suffer from the /illusion/ of terrorist threat* can go to such lengths to violate their people's privacy in the name of security. Makes one think that maybe it's a part of human nature to overreact, or something.

Random statistics from the internet, demonstrating I at least made a half-assed attempt to research this comment: Terrorist "Incidents" in the past 40 years. Sweden is way down at #60, U.S. at #15. Interestingly, per-capita stats place Sweden at the same rank, but the U.S. way down at #93. Of course, this statistic may be entirely meaningless - but I guess it does show something, in terms of the tax base supporting the respective anti-terrorism efforts vs. actual risk.

* - (such as the illusion of threat we have in the U.S. At least people hate us here. Who hates the Swedes? The Finns, I guess... Or the Geats.)

> they're one of the only nations in Europe to accept refugees and grant asylum.

Most countries in western Europe DO accept refugees and grant asylum. Btw, France doesn't come off all that well, ranking low in terms of inflow of refugees per capita:

#1 Sweden
#2 Denmark
#3 Germany
#4 Switzerland
#5 Norway
#6 Austria
#7 Canada
#8 Netherlands
#9 Australia
#10 United States
#11 Finland
#12 United Kingdom
#13 New Zealand
#14 France
(...)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ref_inf_199_ percap-inflow-1990-99-per-capita

Oh really? #39 on % of GDP spent on education. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_ percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita

That link goes to military expenditures. I think you meant this link.

While it is true that the US ties for 37th, note that it is being beaten badly by most metrics by countries that spend a lot less in education (both in absolute and %GDP values).

Just because we don't spend more than anyone else, does not mean that we spend too much for how little we get.

Oh really? #39 on % of GDP spent on education. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_ percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita

That link goes to military expenditures. I think you meant this link.

While it is true that the US ties for 37th, note that it is being beaten badly by most metrics by countries that spend a lot less in education (both in absolute and %GDP values).

Just because we don't spend more than anyone else, does not mean that we spend too much for how little we get.

We already spend a shit load of money on education

Oh really? #39 on % of GDP spent on education. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_ percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita

We're obviously missing something and it definitely isn't money.
What most people (four "insightful" moderators) that follow this easy path to self righteous indignation about the poor state of educational affairs utterly fail to realize that, among other things, a super-educated population does not magically make a thriving utopia.

Spending less on education does not lead to certain nation-state collapse just as making education your number one spending priority does not ensure above-average GDP growth. Spend less? Spend more! It doesn't seem to help either way.

The "something missing" you allude to most likely has little to do with education because we, the voters who fund public education, are okay with the systems we have. We have been for decades.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_mal- health-suicide-rate-males #29 Sweden #30 USA

The big (obvious) flaw here is that this is a survey of Americans only. It's well known that the US is one of the most religious countries on the face of the earth. The number of "true believers" in the US has always been astronomical, the number of people who self-identify as "born again" Christians or fundamentalists is off the charts relative to almost any other western country you want to name. The level of education in the US is also corespondingly low relative to other western countries.

Anyone want some actual FACTS?

According to the American Religious Identification Survey "The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001" and the number of people who believe in no religion AT ALL doubled from 1990 to 2001. And when you say "the face of the Earth" just be honest and say "some countries in Europe, such as England, but not Italy, and not anywhere in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa or just about everywhere else, because those countries just don't count."

Also, this research indicates that the average American citizen has more years of schooling, on average, than anywhere else in the world.

Yes, because mentioning anything negative about the US is automatically bashing and can't possibly be just the truth.

I suppose pointing out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the US seems to have only made the situation worse is simply "America bashing" despite the fact that it's true.

You might want to look up some statistics comparing the standard of living in various countries. It's not "America bashing" it's reality.

Related to this discussion, try life expectancy. The US is on that list, but you might have to scroll a bit since it's sorted best to worst.

Europe's demographic issues will lead to worse relations with the US, unless the US intervenes in some unforseen way.

I only skimmed rapidly and superficially through the page that you linked to about that subject, because I found it very ranty and unconvincing. But it seems his main point is that in a future Europe with lots of Muslims we will see the end of our Western values.

Note, however, that for many, many centuries, Muslim parts of Europe have been far more tolerant than Christian parts of Europe. Where is the fundamental difference that changes this age-long difference?

Today, in Muslim countries, small groups of extreme religious fundamentalists that are intolerant and hateful have gained tremendous notoriety. But in our countries the extreme Christian fundamentalist are also often intolerant and hateful. Fundamentalism is conducive to intolerance and repression.

Christian fundamentalists are less extreme, but this seems to be because modern society influences them to be less extreme. In medieval Europe Christianity was repressive, intolerant and murderous, as exemplified in the above links. Most of the notorious Muslim fundamentalists either live in, or have their roots in, societies that remain largely medieval today. Medieval conditions are conducive to intolerance, and to giving intolerance a stronger influence.

Another factor that is conducive to extremism is that in most Muslim countries the people are repressed by undemocratic governments.

Note also that one of your closest friends in Europe is a Muslim country, namely Turkey.

Affluence and commerce tends to lead to more tolerance and openness in society at large. This is to a great extent because you have a large middle class that has very strong incentives to achieve and protect stability. If the number of Muslims in Europe increases, they will in due time be a large part of that middle class, and will have this desire for openness and stability.

It evades the problem instead of solving it. The problems are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and some other enemies. Your plan to send teachers and librarians to somewhere else (Monaco?, Belize?, where?) to improve relations with the US simply doesn't address the difficult problems.

Sheesh, am I that unclear? Obviously Monaco and Belize have nothing to do with the problems at hand. And do you really consider Monaco cautiously friendly?

Countries where such programs might have good effects would perhaps be Jordania, Pakistan or Bangladesh. You need Muslim countries that are cautiously friendly, where you can gain substantial goodwill by helping them raise people's economic independence, well-being and democratic influence, sufficiently so that the peoples of other Muslim countries will yearn for similar prosperity and democracy.

Another interesting country is Afghanistan. You have already invested heavily in removing the Taliban government. You should protect this investment, and get substantial goodwill, by making sure people there get substantially better opportunities. Since conditions there are generally pre-medieval, you can probably get more noticeable improvement at less cost, compared to many other countries.

With judicious foreign aid you could really get lots of goodwill and influence. Clearly this is unmined territory. Both in foreign aid per capita and in foreign aid as percentage of GDP your chart bars look pitiful.

Give some really noticeable contributions to raise two countries out of poverty and illiteracy toward economic independence -- say A

Europe's demographic issues will lead to worse relations with the US, unless the US intervenes in some unforseen way.

I only skimmed rapidly and superficially through the page that you linked to about that subject, because I found it very ranty and unconvincing. But it seems his main point is that in a future Europe with lots of Muslims we will see the end of our Western values.

Note, however, that for many, many centuries, Muslim parts of Europe have been far more tolerant than Christian parts of Europe. Where is the fundamental difference that changes this age-long difference?

Today, in Muslim countries, small groups of extreme religious fundamentalists that are intolerant and hateful have gained tremendous notoriety. But in our countries the extreme Christian fundamentalist are also often intolerant and hateful. Fundamentalism is conducive to intolerance and repression.

Christian fundamentalists are less extreme, but this seems to be because modern society influences them to be less extreme. In medieval Europe Christianity was repressive, intolerant and murderous, as exemplified in the above links. Most of the notorious Muslim fundamentalists either live in, or have their roots in, societies that remain largely medieval today. Medieval conditions are conducive to intolerance, and to giving intolerance a stronger influence.

Another factor that is conducive to extremism is that in most Muslim countries the people are repressed by undemocratic governments.

Note also that one of your closest friends in Europe is a Muslim country, namely Turkey.

Affluence and commerce tends to lead to more tolerance and openness in society at large. This is to a great extent because you have a large middle class that has very strong incentives to achieve and protect stability. If the number of Muslims in Europe increases, they will in due time be a large part of that middle class, and will have this desire for openness and stability.

It evades the problem instead of solving it. The problems are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and some other enemies. Your plan to send teachers and librarians to somewhere else (Monaco?, Belize?, where?) to improve relations with the US simply doesn't address the difficult problems.

Sheesh, am I that unclear? Obviously Monaco and Belize have nothing to do with the problems at hand. And do you really consider Monaco cautiously friendly?

Countries where such programs might have good effects would perhaps be Jordania, Pakistan or Bangladesh. You need Muslim countries that are cautiously friendly, where you can gain substantial goodwill by helping them raise people's economic independence, well-being and democratic influence, sufficiently so that the peoples of other Muslim countries will yearn for similar prosperity and democracy.

Another interesting country is Afghanistan. You have already invested heavily in removing the Taliban government. You should protect this investment, and get substantial goodwill, by making sure people there get substantially better opportunities. Since conditions there are generally pre-medieval, you can probably get more noticeable improvement at less cost, compared to many other countries.

With judicious foreign aid you could really get lots of goodwill and influence. Clearly this is unmined territory. Both in foreign aid per capita and in foreign aid as percentage of GDP your chart bars look pitiful.

Give some really noticeable contributions to raise two countries out of poverty and illiteracy toward economic independence -- say A

As I understand it the government has been prevented from keeping a close tally on this

Yeah, prevented in the same way that atheism is a religion.

so the numbers given are the best available data

Crap is crap, it doesn't matter if it came out of a prince or a pauper, it is still just as useless.

Even if they're not exactly right it's still a problem. Even if it's off by an order of magnitude (900 instead of 9000) it's still a problem.

No, not really. Given the estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the US (10-20 million), 900 deaths, half of them by traffic accident puts them between just at and half the national average murder rate of 420 per 10M and significantly better than the 1,500 per 10M national average of traffic deaths per capita. Those numbers don't even account for manslaughter, just murders and traffic deaths. Making them significantly better than the average legal resident.

More is spent on education than defense in this country.

CIA world factbook shows that Defense is 4.06% of GDP.

This page shows that Education is 5.7% of GDP.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-educ ation-spending-of-gdp

What that page doesn't show you us that the US GDP is 12tr$, so 5.7% is 648 BILLION dollars, or over $2k per year for every man, woman, and child in this country. When you consider the fraction of the 300m assumed population that actually receive public school instruction, and the magnificent failure of public schooling to produce much more than school shootings, the crushing magnitude of the failure of this investment is starkly obvious - even in comparison to the "investments" we make in our military.

When i think back to all the public school english literature teachers that had their big NOW/Teachers Union pow-wows and the classroms filled with posters about it being a wonderful day when the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber, i want to smack them un-stupid more than ever.

The notion that we (the US) overspend on defense to the detriment of education, loudly trumpeted by the entrenched teachers unions of our horrible nationalized schooling system, is one of the critical self-serving fallacies in popular culture.

I want kids to be educated. I like hard working teachers. I hate the modern US government, which goes to tremendous lengths to prevent good hard working teachers from having a meaningful positive impact in the lives of deserving kids.

How many of those can plausibly claim to have gotten there through immigration? Many of them have been powerhouses for hundreds of years.

I am not exactly sure how to answer your question. How many got where through immigration?

Many rich nations have substantial foreign-born populations, and some of them will want citizenship.

Immigrants tend to go where there are good jobs and high standards of living.

The problem is that the US is NOT the biggest CO2 emissions maker in the world, that title belongs to China, and India is right behind it.

Utter bollocks.

China is catching up with the US but it hasn't got there yet (something like 1/2 to 2/3 of the emissions of the US). India is about 5th behind Russia and Japan as well as China and the US.

Assorted years for different countries.
http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions .php

2003 figures:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-envi ronment-co2-emissions

2002 figures:
http://timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country

1996 figures:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html

Lots more here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=global+emis sions+by+country&btnG=Search&meta=

Tim.

How about looking at some real numbers instead of a pretty flash animation that may or may not be correct?

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0502-rhett_butler.ht ml

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-peop le-birth-rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/ch ap1.htm

I'm not too worried about having a large family right now.

I'd like to see a study that shows which cities have the most number of universities and the number of successful startups and successful large companies in it.
How about which cities have the highest number of employed people with degrees...

I agree, that would be much more intersting, so I Googled for it. Didn't find one for cities, but I did find it for countries. Go wild.

And exactly how is kytoto's goal to damage US-economy. The US is not the biggest emmitter of CO2 per capita (8th place) but when multiplied by the number of inhabitants it is... So you think there's a global conspiracy to damage the US with regards to CO2-emissions? The IAE (of which the USA is a member) says the USA is the biggest spender of primary energy...

In this light, I'd be interesting to see some statistics: for example, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_ percap-gross-national-income-per-capita Even more interesting would be to see the the same statistics, but with the top and/or bottom 10, 20% incomes omitted. Assuming that the poor are better of then elsewhere in the world, based upon the fact that "the richest people in the world make their money in the US"? I don't know...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_perc ap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-c rime-murders-per-capita

United States: 0.042802 Murders per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 Murders per 1,000 people

Not saying I agree with all the examples you cited of the UK over-policing, but I wouldn't go spruiking the US method of "lock-em-up and throw away the key" too much.

your gun crime is LOW?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_ percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
hmmm

#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Think again. you appear to have *twenty seven* times as many firearms murders as the UK. So it seems that despite all the arguments about how you can defend yourselves better, in practice, you are way more likely to be shot.

Might I suggest you take a look at why Great Britain banned most guns in 1997.

The Dunblane Massacre and The Hungerford Massacre some years before.

Also note that the UK is rated #46 in murders per capita, though they do suffer from a significantly high crime rate overall. In fairness, the US, right to bear arms still largely intact, isn't that far behind them.

That said, the US does have a higher perception of it's relative safety than most other nations.

Not taking sides. Just passing on information.

Might I suggest you take a look at why Great Britain banned most guns in 1997.

The Dunblane Massacre and The Hungerford Massacre some years before.

Also note that the UK is rated #46 in murders per capita, though they do suffer from a significantly high crime rate overall. In fairness, the US, right to bear arms still largely intact, isn't that far behind them.

That said, the US does have a higher perception of it's relative safety than most other nations.

Not taking sides. Just passing on information.

Um, maybe you should check out the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD.

I have. At least where reliable data is available and reasonably accessible. You, clearly, have not.

Did you know our neighbors to the north have the second largest oil reserves in the world. And if you think they are going to hold us off with their superior Zamboni technology, I just can't see it happening.

Those are very interesting statistics, and they fly in the face of what I've read previously about crime in New Zealand (I found this related link (on the same site) even more disturbing). It's curious how things appear to so bad in supposedly 'civillised' countries. I wonder how much of that is down to better reporting (and people being willing to report crime) and how much of it is down to genuinely higher instances of violent crime, I suppose unfortunatley it's practically impossible to tell.

I think that the fact we have one of the highest prison populations per capita (along with the US), along with some of the highest rates of assault, says something about the 'lock them up' policy so beloved of right-wingers and the Daily Mail (i.e. it doesn't work).

Currently we arn't locking up lots of people who should be in a secure facility and who are not fit to be out in society. We do need to fix what's broken in our society and address the root causes of crime, but we also need to protect the majority from the criminal minority.

Not everyone is of a mind to assault random strangers or break into someone elses house or car, if you restrict the freedoms of the criminal minority crime statistics will go down drastically - that's really quite indisputable. Personally, I'm very willing to pay more taxes as required to facilitate that (without ignoring the importance and better value of preventative measures and attempts at rehabilitation).

Interestingly, if you were to move to New Zealand it's actually more likely that you'd be a victim of assault, while if you went to Canada your chances would only be very slightly reduced: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_ass_perc ap-crime-assaults-per-capita&nofb=1

I think that the fact we have one of the highest prison populations per capita (along with the US), along with some of the highest rates of assault, says something about the 'lock them up' policy so beloved of right-wingers and the Daily Mail (i.e. it doesn't work).

Wrong-o.

The Alaskan reserve that everyone is having a hissy fit over contains around 2 to 3 years worth of oil at current U.S. consumption.

Phffft! That's a drop in the proverbial bucket!

That is what we've been fighting over?!? That won't make any difference whatsoever in our energy independence or national security, it will only prolong the inevitable. The only reason that is being argued over is because people are misinformed, have a political agenda to push, or stand to make money off of it!

We're going to trade that much pristine wilderness for 2 to 3 years worth of oil that won't make a difference? No thanks.

How about actually do something about alternative fuels, like we mean it...

Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita by country
 
#1 United States 715 per 100,000 people
#2 Russia 584 per 100,000 people
#3 Belarus 554 per 100,000 people
#4 Palau 523 per 100,000 people
#5 Belize 459 per 100,000 people
#6 Suriname 437 per 100,000 people
#7 Dominica 420 per 100,000 people
#8 Ukraine 416 per 100,000 people
#9 Bahamas, The 410 per 100,000 people
#10 South Africa 402 per 100,000 people

"They all love it, but it's only a good place to live; not to make money. Things are scarce, money is scarcer."

Although I understand the need to save money for a rainy say and retirement, there is more to life than purchasing power. Saying "they all love it, but it's only a good place to live..." seems to be missing the point.

"Although the Pocket World in Figures somehow calculated that Canada has the highest quality of life (the US second),"

Perhaps they somehow included things such as quality of education, infrastructure and (yes) healthcare.

I will not get into the experiences of your relatives in in Regina as I do not know the specific facts, but I do know that many of these "can't get healthcare in Canada" stories are years old or are blown out of proportion. In the past five years there has been more federal money made available to the provinces for healthcare, and some overall reform too. Each province runs its own health care system, so there are differences in each province.

Besides that, if there are shortcomings to the healthcare system (as there are in every country), at least they are spread across the board, not suffered exclusively by uninsured or poorly insured people. I have experienced health care in California and three Canadian provinces. I will take the Canadian model any day.

Considering all the problems the US has with its healthcare system, it still amazes me that the US spends the most per capita on health care. Where is the money going, and who is benefiting?

'The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.'

Economy Statistics > Economic aid > Donor (per $ GDP) by country
 
#1 Denmark $8.23 per $1,000 of GDP
#2 Luxembourg $7.57 per $1,000 of GDP
#3 Netherlands $6.93 per $1,000 of GDP
#4 Norway $5.60 per $1,000 of GDP
#5 Sweden $4.91 per $1,000 of GDP
#6 United Kingdom $3.69 per $1,000 of GDP
#7 Ireland $3.31 per $1,000 of GDP
#8 Lesotho $3.20 per $1,000 of GDP
#9 Belgium $3.06 per $1,000 of GDP
#10 Switzerland $3.06 per $1,000 of GDP
...
#23 United States $0.59 per $1,000 of GDP

The U.S> has the largest prison population (over 2 million) and the highest rate of prisoners per capita at 715 per 100,000. source: NationMaster

It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives

Riiight, except that 80.2% of China's production of electricity and 71.4% of the USA's production of electricity is coming from fossil fuels, and that for the whole world 65.1% of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.

You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.

>> Which UN stats? Which national stats? Which study in Sweden? Which newspapers, in Wales or elsewhere?

There are lots of very detailed stats available on this subject. I don't know which sources the parent had in mind, but NationMaster is pretty thorough and fairly neutral:

The UK has a slightly higher per-capita crime rate than the US, although neither of them has anything to brag about, as they're respectively 6th and 8th in world rankings.

For "advanced 1st world" countries whose populations do not need crime to survive, that's an utter disgrace. And this figure does tell you that allowing or not allowing guns makes little difference to your overall per-capita crime rate.

The biggest danger about guns is that people talk incessantly about them and so lose focus of the real issues. Pro or anti firearm policy is a red herring, because disallowing guns doesn't eliminate or even reduce your crime problem.

If you have criminals, they will perform crimes, it's in their nature, and changing the tools of their "trade" isn't going to make them get a job and take up basket-weaving instead.

The real reason why governments don't want civilians to carry firearms is because policemen often get shot when chasing gun-equiped criminals. Other weapons don't have this property; thieves don't run back and fight it out with the police using knives and fists, but they will fire shots back when running. Whenever a police death happens in the UK, all politicians get on this easy bandwagon, and the outcome is predictable. And of course, police don't like being on a more even playing field with criminals, nor getting shot at, so you won't find any police chiefs being liberal about this.

It has nothing to do with reducing crime. Because it doesn't.

USA: 1

Luxembourg: 1.016

Netherlands: 1.099

Belgium: 0.954

Germany: 1.678

France: 1.596

Japan: 1.314

Italy: 1.139

Norway: 1.846

China: 0.559

Burundi: 0.430

Israel: 0.683

Poland: 1.021

And I left of there. Not really easy to find a general trend here: highly developed densely populated countries are on parity with the US (at least for the benelux). Highly developed, sparesly populated countries are much more energy efficient than the US (Japan, Norway, Germany, France), except for Italy. (non-)Developing countries are very wasteful (China, Burundi). And let's not forget about Poland!

According to Nation Master, who gets there information from the CIA fact book, the USA is 17th in oil consumption per capita.

Interesting to note: Luxembourg is number 7 and most of the largest consumers per capita are Island Nations.

US ranks #46 in military spending per GDP.
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_ pergdp-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-gdp

That humans are causing global warming is as good as proven. That you heard rumors of global cooling back in the 70s has absolutely nothing to do with it and is a logical fallacy. The "natural cycles" argument isn't a support for your case since it can go both ways. The worst case scenario is a natural heating trend boosted by human emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol's problem is that it isn't efficient enough. In 2005 there were talks about extentions and changes in the agreement, and to adapt to the development of countries such as China. China has signed, ratified and begun implementing the protocol already.

That the US emits less CO2 than china is nothing but a lie — the US is the world's #1 polluter by a good margin. Not by capita (only #5), but that's basically a counting trick. What matters for the environment is the actual amount of CO2 pumped out.

Reducing CO2 emissions and increasing energy efficiency does not necessarily mean economical doom. There's millions to be earned and saved and big companies are already doing so. Then there's also carbon trading, which is also profitable. The problem is that big oil and the politicians in their pockets don't get their hands on all that money, so they protest and call it all a hoax.

That humans are causing global warming is as good as proven. That you heard rumors of global cooling back in the 70s has absolutely nothing to do with it and is a logical fallacy. The "natural cycles" argument isn't a support for your case since it can go both ways. The worst case scenario is a natural heating trend boosted by human emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol's problem is that it isn't efficient enough. In 2005 there were talks about extentions and changes in the agreement, and to adapt to the development of countries such as China. China has signed, ratified and begun implementing the protocol already.

That the US emits less CO2 than china is nothing but a lie — the US is the world's #1 polluter by a good margin. Not by capita (only #5), but that's basically a counting trick. What matters for the environment is the actual amount of CO2 pumped out.

Reducing CO2 emissions and increasing energy efficiency does not necessarily mean economical doom. There's millions to be earned and saved and big companies are already doing so. Then there's also carbon trading, which is also profitable. The problem is that big oil and the politicians in their pockets don't get their hands on all that money, so they protest and call it all a hoax.