Slashdot Mirror
EU Aims To Be 'Climate Neutral' By 2050 (bbc.com)
AmiMoJo writes: The European Union says it is aiming to become the first major economy to go 'climate neutral' by 2050. Under the plan, emissions of greenhouse gases after that date would have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground. Scientists say that net-zero emissions by 2050 are needed to have a fighting chance of keeping global temperatures under 1.5C this century. The EU says the move will also cut premature air pollution deaths by 40%. The EU says that this can be done with existing technologies such as solar and wind energy which would have to be ramped up to provide 80% of electricity. Energy efficiency measures such as home insulation would also need to be boosted to reduce energy consumption by half by the middle of the century.
have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground.
How does burying trees underground help reduce emissions?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"Under the plan, emissions of greenhouse gases after that date would have to be offset by planting trees or by burying them underground."
How does burying trees underground offset CO2?
There will even be an EU in 2050.
Too late :/
Score: +5, Sarcasm.
See: SUVs, fossil-fuel based power plants such as coal, anti-science President and wasteful American way of life.
#DeleteFacebook
I think you underestimate the growing nationalist fascist sentiment in Europe right now due to the large flood of refuges and EU enforced multiculturalism. It has gotten so bad that Hilary Clinton even wrote to the EU asking them to reconsider the refuge situation for the time being because it is producing a large amount of opposition.
The French are literally rioting in the street over carbon taxes and the EU elite continue to cling to the comforting delusions that they'll be allowed to run anything in 2050.
It's easier to knock a % off your emissions when you were incredibly bad to start with. All you need to do is match everyone else and your emissions half already halved. MPG on cars is a good example.
My observation is that governments around the world, at all levels, are great at making pronouncements, less great at accomplishing the stated goals. Recent example, note EU not on track: According to the UN, most major polluters are not on track to meet their Paris goals.
In addition to the EU, Rwanda also launched a climate change mitigation plan today Rwanda launches national plan for Paris Agreement on climate change
Another day, another set of cheap pronouncements.
True. American industry is keenly aware of environmental problems and tends to find ways to solve them without needing governments to tell them to do so
Better in what? Education? Quality of life? Access to affordable healthcare? Crime? Environment?
Do tell.
Hügelkultur on a continental scale....
To use the word 'wasteful' with regard to the 'American' way of life is not totally accurate; I'd use the term 'conspicuous consumption' instead.
All I have to do is drive around the city where I live and look at the billboards, and the people (especially women) walking down the street, to see how high our standard of living is in comparison to so many other parts of the world, and it's not hard at all to understand why so many other countries hate the U.S. as much as they do. We flaunt our prosperity here in the U.S., and some days it makes me feel dirty because I know damned well it's all built on the backs of 3rd-world countries paying their workers a pittance, in order to provide the U.S. with high-quality goods at a cheap price.
LOL 'American Capitalism' has become a cancer, especially to anyone living in the U.S.
Better at saying stuff, sure.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The EU most likely won't exist in its current form past the 2020s so claims like this are just politicians pandering to non issues when there are much worse problems to address like rising crime and falling birthrates.
Similar to the way politicians in the US pander on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and trans rights.
If I'm not mistaken: isn't it true that NONE of the countries that signed on to the Paris Climate Accord are anywhere NEAR their current goals? If I'm right, then how can the EU claim what they're claiming here?
So long as corporations are more-or-less in charge of this, there won't be ANY chance of our species reversing the damage done to Earths' climate. They'll keep focusing on the money like they always do, and pay 'lip service' to the whole climate thing, just enough to make people think they give a damn. Meanwhile all they care about is making money while they're still alive, and to Hell with 'future generations', it's their problem.
stop buying our shit then and make your own shit
The European Union says it is aiming to become the first major economy to go 'climate neutral'
You mean first major country. The EU is a federal government with member states, and by 2050 will have grown enough in power will be similar to the Unites States government, with member countries little more than anachronistic states like New Jersey and Idaho.
It took 150 years for this in the US, and that's with a constitution in theory granting the government limited powers and no others. 30 more years for the EU is very doable.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's called American Capitalism and what makes us better then anyone else in the world.
When?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The U.S. has already reduced carbon faster than the EU.
Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.
This is not going to happen if they keep shutting down nuclear power plants.
always learning soemthing on the interwebZ.
tomorrow i am going to burn some tree logs and watch them vanish like amagic trick when they slowly turn into carbon dioxid!
also, now i understand why all city pavement is so squeaky clean: all the carbon soot from diesel cars turns into carbon dioxide!
Ambiguous summary.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
We also have a faster uptake cycle of new technology, and aren't as reliant on diesel as Europe is.
Hmm, that is misleading as diesel has a higher energy density than petrol (gasoline) and diesel generates less CO2 per unit of energy than petrol (gasoline). Unfortunately, diesel generates more air pollution than petrol (gasoline). Therefore, both diesel and petrol (gasoline) are bad for the environment.
My expectation is that electric cars will be dominate before 2030 because people will demand non-polluting vehicles. Already markets are waiting for Tesla cars to become available displacing sales of new fossil cars. People are waiting 2 or 3 years for an electric car to become available.
GM and Ford are abandoning the manufacture of sedan cars. Why is that ? Demand has fallen partly in response to Tesla taking over that market. GM and Ford then cause more air pollution by building SUVs and trucks that have lower fuel efficiency rules than sedans. I don't think that is "a faster uptake cycle of new technology". It is the last death throes of GM and Ford.
Please seek professional help.
LOL, you sound like an out-of-control rich capitalist -- or one of their operatives; astroturf much?
It provides the best standards of living the world has ever seen.
Seems to be working well for you. I tell you what, since you think that it is such a bad thing why do you move someplace like Iran or Venezuela and lets see how you do there?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
...has the EU emissions gone up in 2017: https://www.reuters.com/articl... and are going up even more in 2018? When are they planning on starting?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It won't happen because the US is the #2 manufacturing country in the world.
Innovation.
You are shitposting using an American invention on a communication medium invented by Americans using a source of power invented by Americans all manufactured by processes invented by Americans.
It's 95% American innovation all the way back to the time of cottage industry, steam power, communication latency measured in weeks, lack of interchangeable parts, and using livestock to plough fields.
"EU Aims To Be 'Climate Neutral' By 2050". I am tired of ever more ambitious goals in order to detract from the reality of constantly increasing emissions. If they don't actually do anything to actually effect their "aims", nothing will happen. This has become as disconnected with reality as Trump is, just that everybody feels oh so much more conscientious about it.
Personally, I'd start reducing carbon emissions by strangling people in their illuminated Xmas decorations. Stops both a waste of electricity and a waste of oxygen.
Poor trolling.
I've lived in some of the allegedly no-go areas in the UK, no problem at all. Had most of the phone lines in one street as I ran an early (dial-up) ISP for example...
I've not enjoyed some parts of big US cities nor (say) the look of the shanties in South Africa.
The standard of living here in London is as good as NYC or Tokyo or anywhere else I've spent significant time.
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Surely that's paid trolling (or a blind-drunk post, or a prank) since it is difficult to believe anyone that manages to breathe can actually believe that level of stupid.
Rgds
Damon
PS. I guess we should be grateful that /. does not allow penis-pic attachments to posts...
http://m.earth.org.uk/
to see how high our standard of living is
The standard of living in the USA is not appreciably higher than most EU nations, and actually significantly lower than many. Yet you still manage to outdo them in all forms of energy consumption measurements per capita, per household, per km driven, per kWh produced, etc.
No one hates the USA for your standard of living. That's one of the reasons migrants want to go there. You're hated for many other reasons and one of them is a superior attitude that ignores many of the realities of your life, a prime example being that standard of living some how explains your wasteful energy consumption.
It cares about emissions, full stop.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Seems to be working well for you. I tell you what, since you think that it is such a bad thing why do you move someplace like Iran or Venezuela and lets see how you do there?
There are other ways to run things other than the US way or the Iran/Venezuala ways. You know, perhaps like France, Germany, the Nordic countries, Australia, Canada, Japan.
Try sorting by Aggregate Score:
* https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores
You may have to change it from "Show 50" to "Show 100" to see the US. See also:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Look, it's all well and good to say in 12 years you'll start to have an 80 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), but what the EU needs is a 2020 120 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard.
What is the difference?
Four things:
1. Eliminate all tax deductions, tax exemptions, tax incentives, and tax subsidies for all fossil fuel energy. Period. Including depreciation.
2. Require 120 percent of all net new energy use be renewables. That means for every KWHr you add, you have to remove 20 percent of fossil fuel power plants. With zero exceptions. And 100 percent of all the new energy must be the far cheaper wind and solar energy infrastructure, instead of the more expensive coal and natural gas and oil usage today.
3. Remove all street parking for diesel vehicles. All of it. In every municipality of more than 1000 people. This includes garages and malls.
4. Ban all exports of fossil fuel infrastructure worldwide. No exceptions.
Do that and you'll only have massive heat waves and flooding that kill thousands of people, instead of millions of people.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, because the PROFESSIONALS know EVERYTHING, right....
Wake up.
Shut up, shill.
Right now, the nations that are doing the best WRT cutting back on CO2, are those that :
1) are closing down coal if they have any,
2) have replaced these or added CLEAN energy.
3) the best are those with Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear. Oddly, Solar and somewhat wind, have not really helped local economies to cut back their emissions. Germany and Portugal have moved to around 40-50% of their electricity from solar and have spent enormous sums of money. problem is, that the more they move towards these, the more they have to import.
4) Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Northern Europe depend on Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear and have some of the cleanest and cheapest electricity costs. Wind can be cheap, but its intermittent nature destroys it for anything except lowering some costs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But he is not in any of these countries. He is in the US and complaining about the system he takes advantage of.
But you are correct. I'll amend my OP, and he can move to France, Germany, or any of the countries you mentioned.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Even more stupid trolling! All the way down!
http://m.earth.org.uk/
I thought Tim Berners Lee, a brit, invented the web, while working at CERN, in Europe?
Wake me up when I actually care and it impacts me.
Can't wait for that.
Will also mean that they will have to put down all their critters.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Scientists say that net-zero emissions by 2050 are needed to have a fighting chance of keeping global temperatures under 1.5C this century.
So there should not be a spot on the globe with a temperature above 1.5C? Why would anyone want that?
If you want to talk about a metric, how about naming it correctly first?
I just went to the bathroom. Does that count?
#DeleteFacebook
Ask the French how well their carbon taxes are going for them. Last I checked it's not going so well.
If you want to reduce CO2 then it cannot be done with a government fiat. This is a technological problem where a solution cannot be legislated into existence. You want more people to use wind and solar power? Then make wind and solar power as cheap, reliable, and plentiful as coal.
Let's get more nuclear power. People will tell me I have to compromise on some things to prevent global warming. Well, a compromise implies both sides give and take a little to find some common ground. Here's some common ground I believe that both sides should be able to meet on, nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, low CO2, reliable, plentiful, and cheap. If the global warming alarmists cannot compromise on this then I have no desire to give up anything, let the world burn if the hill they want to die on is stopping what has been proven historically to be the best source of energy ever developed.
I can no longer take anyone seriously that thinks we can solve this problem without nuclear power. We've tried everything else and France is seeing revolts as a result. If getting more nuclear power is beyond the pale for these people then I simply give up. If there is no compromise on nuclear power then there is nothing further to discuss.
That's why I mentioned SUVs as an example. That's a wasteful method of transportation for the city yet a lot of people drive those for no reason other than "it's more secure than small cars". By that logic everyone in the USA should be driving armoured fighting vehicles. Another example is living in a McMansion, watching Netflix on a 100" TV using an Xbox One instead of living in a normal-sized home and watching Netflix on a 30" TV using an Apple TV/Roku/etc. Some of the living choices in the USA are just wasteful. I'm happy that the tiny house mouvement started in the USA though, it shows a lot of people are finally realizing that sometimes it's just too much.
#DeleteFacebook
Have you ever traveled anywhere outside the US? Compared to much of the developed world, the standard of living in the US is lackluster. In other wealthy countries, people making the median wage live roughly on par with someone making about 5x median in the US. In the US, making median wage means your lifestyle will be on par with the poorest members of society in other countries... Squalid living conditions, poor food, no vacations. I really don't understand how Americans think this is not only OK, but something to be proud of!
I see you also haven't traveled anywhere outside of the US. This is pretty common because of the piss-poor standards of living we have. In Europe, international travel is affordable and available to people of average means, and everyone has a lot more free time... Here, it's considered a luxury. I hope you make it into the six figures some day so you can afford to go take a look at how people live in the developed world. You might not want to come back when you realize that nearly any job there will give you a better standard of living than you can ever hope for in the US.
Buries hand to face...How many times do I need to repeat that the http protocol is not the internet.
invented a piece of software called the mosaic browser whose purpose was to allow the embedding of banner ads in information pages. ;-)
That's when the interweb REALLY took off.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The EU is the federal level of a federated, hierarchical governance structure.
In that aspect it is analogous to the Union of United States of America.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Give the carbon "tax" proceeds back to all citizens, so it is revenue neutral. Those who think this is impossible need to be introduced to something called "math".
Those who still call that an additional tax are just gas-guzzler-owning, lying a-holes.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Keeping an obvious falsehood in your sig does not do anything to enhance your credibility.
Why not come over here and see for yourself? Afraid to discover that you've been parroting complete horseshit?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Try actually making a case. Because there's plenty democratic about the EU and the way it is run. It's almost identical to the USA's system in the 1800s. The only unelected part doesn't get to make rules, only suggestions. And if that pisses you off, then you should want to leave the UK too, since the HoL is far less democratic and has much more power.
I know AC don't get mod points but those of us with accounts too. I actually get lots of mod points. When I do get them I do read at below +2, like I should. I've had something like 45 mod points in the last few days. I will reset to my normal +2 reading level when I'm sure I will not be getting any more for awhile.
So you shouldn't be to concerned about my credibility, sir sock.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Tiny houses suck. One of the greatest pleasures in life is having a nice place to live, and tiny houses don't qualify.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Middle class or below living in any dense city is markedly inferior to suburban or rural living. Concrete and crowding do not make a pleasant life. America's suburbs - big houses and comfortable cars - are where the bulk of the American populace lives the good life.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Why not come over here and see for yourself? Afraid to discover that you've been parroting complete horseshit?
Because I don't want to get stabbed by the terrorists you let take over your cities.
I've seen countless videos of what's happening in places like Paris. Europe is DONE.
I see you also haven't traveled anywhere outside of the US.
I have. Try again with your weak attempt at trolling.
Japanese and Korean manufacturers have taken over the sedan class by making superior products at lower prices. The claim of "Tesla taking over that market" by selling 100,000 cars (2017) is an unfunny joke. That's only 2 or 3 times the sales of Corvettes, a quite limited market.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Besides, shouldn't "climate neutral" mean that they don't take sides between the climate and polluters?
Trollololololol
You've been spotted.
Here's your (You)
I wouldn't mind, too bad I can't afford it because it's so fscking expensive to live here. Getting away from Orange Julius Caesar wouldn't be a bad thing at all.
Great. Tell me which countries that all applies to, and which ones have freedom of speech so I don't get sent to prison for daring to speak my mind.
Rick, I think you have finally lost your mind. Looks like you are coming more unhinged every day. Some of that stuff you wrote in your journal is pretty disturbing. I'm going to wander off now. I would suggest professional help.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
You mean the standard of living where if you're poor they won't give you medical help?
I'm glad I don't live there.
Wipe out 300 million Americans to save 5 Million Kt of CO2.
300 million Chinese would only be 2.4
300 million Europeans 2.1
300 million Indians only 0.6
The best way to remove emissions is to remove people. And the best people to remove are Americans.
Main difference is still you are twice as high as Europe, even with your tiny decreases.
You already trolled this before. Get some new material.
Manufacturing doesn't make that much CO2. Wasteful American lifestyles do.
You have been a busy little bee haven't you WindBourne. lying about beef, lying about electric cars, lying about CO2 emissions, lying about Aircon, lying about airline procedures and lying about other people being liars. Now you add lying about China's coal use. It can't possibly be 80% as you have been shown numerous times.
Why all the lies?
You should focus on having honour instead of worrying about how to spell it.
Don't be rediculous
Huge houses also suck. One of the greatest pleasures in life is having a nice place to live, and huge houses don't qualify.
So, I disagree about dense urban living being bad, though I'm not in the very centre where I am. It is great being able to quickly walk to most places I want to get to (no finding a place to park, and being able to have a drink, for example), including huge well-maintained (royal!) parks, with excellent public transport beyond that.
I also find cars an uncomfortable nuisance. Though I can drive, and have driven quite a lot outside the UK too (including the US), I am very glad that I've never had to buy, insure, or maintain one, nor pay for the real-estate to park one on.
I do enjoy living in the country too, but suburbs and exurbs (and I've tried the Pekin, IL version), no thanks.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Hmm, steam power was a British invention. James Watt was a steam power pioneer around 1776 and the SI metric unit of power is named after him eg. the Watt = 1 Joule per second which is a unit of power.
See https://cleantechnica.com/2018... which shows the Tesla Model 3 is the 5th top car selling car by units sold but is top car by revenue. You are correct that Japanese and Korean manufacturers lead by number of units sold. You need to look at Tesla's 2018 car sold numbers and not 2017 due to the fast ramp up of the Tesla Model 3 this year. It is no joke for GM and Ford.
And because of that we changed from that old scheme of parochial thinking. Or do you still shit your pants like you used to and growing up hasn't changed what you think is acceptable?
Better in what? Education? Quality of life? Access to affordable healthcare? Crime? Environment?
Education: in the US the majority of people go through the public school system which is socialized and is thus not an example of capitalism. Or were you referring to the quality of private schools?
Quality of life: I'd say it's pretty good, with food, gas and energy being cheaper than in most of Europe, and unemployment is really much worse in many European countries than in the US.
Affordable healthcare: I live in a Mediterranean country. Everyone that can afford it gets private insurance if they want halfway decent treatment for just about anything, and anyone who doesn't have it gets insured the moment they experience the disaster that is socialized medicine.
Crime: I agree that violence in the US is pretty terrible when compared to other western countries.
Environment: in the US carbon emissions have gone down almost as much as the entirety of the EU, and if taken per capita, the reduction rates are among the best in the world. We're still big polluters but we're bringing it down faster than most.
Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.
Wake me up when the individual gets as much money for the manufacturing/production that creates pollution as the entity that creates the pollution. Until then, take your per-capita measurements and shove them up your ass. Have a nice day. :)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?
No matter the excuses, it makes the USA a part of the CO2 problem, not the solution. The USA is not in a position to criticize anybody (except maybe some heavy polluting persian gulf states), but especially not the EU.
You misspelled 'ridiculous'. Yeah, yeah, I know: 'trolling is a art'.
why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?
To be strictly accurate, nobody makes pollution for money.
A more accurate way to read what I said is this:
Entities (companies, governments, anything but individuals) make products such as cars or generate electricity or whatever. These entities then sell these things, but the problem is, that in order to make those things, pollution is created.
Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution? If I am to be included, then I will just down every manufacturing plant since I am being held responsible and yet not receiving any of the benefits. Furthermore, I have zero control over how manufacturers deal with the pollution of making their products. I have zero ability to monitor that any agreements they may have made concerning pollution are actually being used.
TL;DR, A peasant farmer in China does not cause any pollution nor receive any of the benefits of the manufacturing/energy entities that do cause pollution... so why is the peasant farmers existence any part of the equation. Measuring pollution per-capita is only useful if you remove all pollution from the equation that had nothing to do with any single individual.
Power generation and manufacturing are the largest causes of pollution. The profits from those endeavours go to very few people. Those profits should be allocated towards cleaning up the pollution, not my cash. It is rather neat how per-capita measurements make individuals responsible for cleaning up what industry has caused.
China has 900+ million people who essentially cause zero pollution by themselves. They don't have cars and have little need for electricity. Why should the stuff manufactured in China get a free pass for pollution because of that?
Or, look at it from the other direction. America has extremely efficient manufacturing and manufactures a LOT of stuff for the rest of the world. You could take dozens of countries and add their productivity output together to measure against Americas productivity output and still fall short. And yet, there are only 360 million people in America. So by default, America looks like an old 1880s factory spewing fumes because if you divide all of the pollution generated from all of that manufacturing and then divide it across a much smaller population, yeah, per-capita emissions are going to be absolutely astronomical... even though America has some of the cleanest manufacturing facilities in the world.
No. Per-capita measurements of emissions is evil, wrong, and forces the burden of dealing with the pollution from the entities who created and profited from the generation of pollution onto the general population at large. If you have 900 million other people to lay that on, it makes you look good. If you do not have an extra 900 million people, it makes you look like Love Canal is still a thing in America. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pollution should be measured by the entities creating it. The resources to fix it should come from the profits that caused it.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution?
I stopped reading right there. The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem. No corporation pollutes for the sake of it. They pollute to create good/services for the consumers, which in the end are individuals one way or another.
It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same. The polluting economic activity will reduce and less polluting activities will grow instead.
Yes, I specifically left the consumers out of the equation so we could keep this discussion within a few paragraphs instead of entire novels. But, alas, no. I will still try to make this as short as possible.
It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same.
The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if the result you are looking for is the same. I care about fairness.
The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem.
Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not. Furthermore, per-capita is per country but products are being shipped all over the world. So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?
I stopped reading right there.
Fine. If you will be intellectually lazy, then it is ok for me too. I will not listen to any further arguments from you why per-capita is a good metric. Have a nice day. :)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Abort an American, the planet will thank you
Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not.
ou fail so badly at understanding economic concepts that it's not even funny.
If you purchase and use a car, it's because you have a benefit from it. Call it a "profit" or not, it doesn't matter. You use your car to go to work, to visit friends, it doesn't matter. You take a benefit from the car which pollutes. The corporation wouldn't have build it if there were no buyers. Therefore you are 100% responsible for the pollution associated to the construction and operation of the car, like it or not.
So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?
It works both ways. China produce a lot of stuff which go to US buyers. Taking all that into account, the average US person emits a lot more greenhouse gases than the average Chinese. Like it or not.
I just love how all the assholes who think they're part of the Rich 1%, and who happen to have mod points, have leveraged that to try to destroy me. Fucking cunts.
Why not come over here and see for yourself? Afraid to discover that you've been parroting complete horseshit?
Because I don't want to get stabbed by the terrorists you let take over your cities.
I've seen countless videos of what's happening in places like Paris. Europe is DONE.
So are you the Jim Trump keeps quoting? Or did you see videos where he did?