Yeah, starving children in poor countries, emitting 100x less CO2 than the average US/Canadian/Australian (which is already 2-3x the average European/Japanese) are the problem. We should kill them so that we can continue to drive our SUV to McDonald and leave the engine running while waiting in the drive in.
Even if your theory is right, what do you say to the current pregnant mothers?
"Don't worry, you'll get a microcephalic baby, but that's for better good so don't worry, in 100-200 years there will be enough immunity in South America. We should even bring Zika to the US to make sure the population gets immunity."
If we attempt to rule them with an iron fist from Westminster they'll simply choose to go for full independence and continue doing what they do regardless of what we think
So? It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to invade them with the help of the British armed forces than fighting them defending their colony.
Some places like Delaware and Ireland are tax havens but they are also real places with real people living there. Places such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands are places with almost no population and/or production and their sole purpose is to be a tax haven. Nothing of value would be lost if we stopped all trade with these entities. The worst would be the loss of tourism destinations but there are plenty of other islands to go to.
My phone is 2.5 years old and I don't plan on replacing it (or its battery) before another 6 months. Although I agree that user replaceable batteries are better, I could still replace the battery in my phone if I really wanted to (but not change it quickly every day).
You can easily keep the phone for twice as long, maybe more. Other than gaming, I don't see any application requiring a new phone. But still, $20/month is quite high. These phones are not worth the extra $$$ over $400-500 phones such as the Nexus series.
Carbon emissions per capita is an irrelevant and stupid metric.
Imagine an island nation with ten people, but they happen to be very good at farming dairy. Their per-capita carbon emissions is likely to be larger than any other country so by your logic they should be sanctioned more heavily than China, which is without any reasonable doubt a worse offender.
Wrong again. If they farm a lot, they will have a lot of exports. These exports will pay for the reduction of CO2 in countries where it is more efficient to reduce emissions. That's the whole point of carbon credits exchange, which is allowed in agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, a country which inefficiently burn oil to heat uninsulated houses in the winter will produce nothing of value and will need to buy credits.
Per capita emissions is a valid metric. Just because countries merge or divide doesn't change the problem. China would no longer be #1 if they split in three.
so? Are you saying you should have a right to emit more because somehow others happen to be regrouped in an artificial entity called "country" which happens to have more citizens than yours?
1. half of the planet lowers CO2 emissions by 10%. The rest does nothing, and their CO2 emissions rise by 10%. 2. Nobody does anything, and the world emissions rise by 10%, globally.
It's obvious that 1 is better than 2, even if it would be even better to get the perfect solution where everybody would reduce emissions.
If we were all emitting like the Chinese, we would solve the CO2 problem. They emit much less CO2 per capita than the USA or even most European countries. When they reach the same level as the west, then you might have a point. Until then, you are wrong. The more countries lower their emissions, the better.
Also you forget to mention that if they are wrong but we reduced our emissions, when we find out in 10-100 years, we will have more oil left to use. Not using oil, and keeping it for later, is never a loss.
I bet you didn't read the (now expired) Kyoto protocol. The goal was that developed countries, which historically contributed more to global warming (being industrialized first), should cut their emissions first, and that meant before 2012. During that time, countries such as China and India would get the capacity to actually monitor their emissions. How can you verify that you cut emissions if you can't even measure them? The next step, after 2012, was to give them emissions targets too. But developed countries, leaded by the USA, made sure the first step was never completed so that there is no second step.
OK, there's 100% consensus that climate change is happening. It's a fucking dynamic system, how can it be static? HOWEVER, there is ZERO consensus that it is caused by human activity.
Of course there is:
The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols
Slashdot Mirror
He can boot on a CD or USB and recover most files.
Yeah, starving children in poor countries, emitting 100x less CO2 than the average US/Canadian/Australian (which is already 2-3x the average European/Japanese) are the problem. We should kill them so that we can continue to drive our SUV to McDonald and leave the engine running while waiting in the drive in.
Even if your theory is right, what do you say to the current pregnant mothers?
"Don't worry, you'll get a microcephalic baby, but that's for better good so don't worry, in 100-200 years there will be enough immunity in South America. We should even bring Zika to the US to make sure the population gets immunity."
the Amazon cable is twice the length.
It's already the case. Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is the military wing.
If we attempt to rule them with an iron fist from Westminster they'll simply choose to go for full independence and continue doing what they do regardless of what we think
So? It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to invade them with the help of the British armed forces than fighting them defending their colony.
Some places like Delaware and Ireland are tax havens but they are also real places with real people living there.
Places such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands are places with almost no population and/or production and their sole purpose is to be a tax haven. Nothing of value would be lost if we stopped all trade with these entities. The worst would be the loss of tourism destinations but there are plenty of other islands to go to.
My phone is 2.5 years old and I don't plan on replacing it (or its battery) before another 6 months.
Although I agree that user replaceable batteries are better, I could still replace the battery in my phone if I really wanted to (but not change it quickly every day).
You can easily keep the phone for twice as long, maybe more. Other than gaming, I don't see any application requiring a new phone.
But still, $20/month is quite high. These phones are not worth the extra $$$ over $400-500 phones such as the Nexus series.
RTFA. No such thing as "moral evil". It's still a valid and interesting scientific subject.
Carbon emissions per capita is an irrelevant and stupid metric.
Imagine an island nation with ten people, but they happen to be very good at farming dairy. Their per-capita carbon emissions is likely to be larger than any other country so by your logic they should be sanctioned more heavily than China, which is without any reasonable doubt a worse offender.
Wrong again.
If they farm a lot, they will have a lot of exports. These exports will pay for the reduction of CO2 in countries where it is more efficient to reduce emissions. That's the whole point of carbon credits exchange, which is allowed in agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, a country which inefficiently burn oil to heat uninsulated houses in the winter will produce nothing of value and will need to buy credits.
Per capita emissions is a valid metric. Just because countries merge or divide doesn't change the problem. China would no longer be #1 if they split in three.
so? Are you saying you should have a right to emit more because somehow others happen to be regrouped in an artificial entity called "country" which happens to have more citizens than yours?
Let's say there are two scenarios:
1. half of the planet lowers CO2 emissions by 10%. The rest does nothing, and their CO2 emissions rise by 10%.
2. Nobody does anything, and the world emissions rise by 10%, globally.
It's obvious that 1 is better than 2, even if it would be even better to get the perfect solution where everybody would reduce emissions.
Of course. But that doesn't mean we do not have hints/proxy of previous climate.
Wrong, if 50% of the planet reduces CO2 emissions, this is significant but not perfect.
If we were all emitting like the Chinese, we would solve the CO2 problem. They emit much less CO2 per capita than the USA or even most European countries.
When they reach the same level as the west, then you might have a point. Until then, you are wrong. The more countries lower their emissions, the better.
Parts of the worlds such as Antarctica, Greenland, etc. Did I just loose 10 seconds on this?
You should read on climate proxies. We can have hints even without records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course not. Any reduction in CO2 emissions is better than status quo.
Also you forget to mention that if they are wrong but we reduced our emissions, when we find out in 10-100 years, we will have more oil left to use. Not using oil, and keeping it for later, is never a loss.
I bet you didn't read the (now expired) Kyoto protocol.
The goal was that developed countries, which historically contributed more to global warming (being industrialized first), should cut their emissions first, and that meant before 2012. During that time, countries such as China and India would get the capacity to actually monitor their emissions. How can you verify that you cut emissions if you can't even measure them? The next step, after 2012, was to give them emissions targets too. But developed countries, leaded by the USA, made sure the first step was never completed so that there is no second step.
Imagine having people that used to own slaves still being able to vote today
You mean as opposed to having people that used to force people with black skin at the back of the bus still being able to vote today?
In some part of the world, of course. But anyways, thermometers existed back then, if that was you concern.
There are various ways. When we find traces of past glaciers in a tropical zone, usually that means the climate was not the same before.
OK, there's 100% consensus that climate change is happening. It's a fucking dynamic system, how can it be static?
HOWEVER, there is ZERO consensus that it is caused by human activity.
Of course there is:
The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And what if the liberals were right? How would you know it?