You are wrong. The current population is likely non-sustainable. 8 million tons of plastic is dumped in oceans every year. 36 gigatons of Co2. All that accumulates and doesn't just disappear. Eventually there will be a tipping point. It isn't just about food production.
And I do. I donate more of a percentage of my assets than these people do AND I pay a 50% effective tax rate. It has nothing to do with charity either - it has to do with hoarding assets and accumulation based on inequitable tax laws.
" We could build floating cities, and use all land for crops. We could turn the Sahara and other deserts into farmland. We could build floating farms to grow even more food. "
No we can't. Why do people think this stuff? The real world is not scifi.
No that IS the choice. If you want massively available, cheap goods you are going to have more pollution. The real solution to reducing pollution is to use less, but that ain't gonna happen, because everyone wants stuff and people like to make money selling stuff.
The main point is that Europeans can feel good about themselves and point fingers at China and those "dirty countries". That is really all that matters in life.
Um, most people in developed countries are not much affected by local pollution? The Bay Area is probably the most polluted area in the entire nation. Christ, you can't possibly believe that. One thing I noticed about California technocrats: they are disconnected from reality.
Doubtful they were Americans. I remember all the Eurosnobs talking about the VW "clean diesels" and made fun of all the silly Americans with their backward petrol vehicles. Turns out they both suck.
The point is that you just shift your manufacturing to these other countries and *voila* you "produce" less Co2 and they produce "more". But in reality they are just manufacturing junk for you, so it really isn't significant. The Earth really doesn't care. But people in the EU get to feel better about themselves, which is really all that matters in the end.
Diesels were never clean. Anyone who actually stood next to a diesel powered vehicle with half a brain could tell that. Of course it didn't stop the superior Euros from scoffing at the silly Americans and their gasoline powered vehicles.
If local pollution is more manageable, why is it so terrible? Why aren't there U.N. conferences on why the air quality in some cities in Europe is so poor? The reason the UK reduced Co2 is just because they offshored their manufacturing and industry.
Amazingly no. Local pollution needs standards to enforce laws and investments. And no, the EU has terrible pollution problems. You don't know what you are talking about.
Basically the energy usage has dropped for both manufacturing and commercial use and they switched to natural gas and added some wind power. Amazingly if you use less energy that emits CO2 you produce less CO2. Getting rid of your manufacturing and sending it overseas helps a lot. Essentially everyone needs to learn to code.
Exactly. Local pollution is a much more immediate threat. But you can't sell carbon tax credits on local pollution so it isn't really a problem. Unless you can make money off of the solution there won't be one.
Doubtful. Technonerds tend to be Truthers, because they are so much smarter than all the sheep. After all, they make six figures designing websites and fixing desktop computers. They must be smart
Oh look, a 9/11 truther nutter. How original. The fact that a jetliner crashed into a building shouldn't affect the structural integrity of the building at all.
Exactly. These types of stories are offensive. Why didn't they use AI to determine which tracks were frozen and how much fire to use? Or they could use Tesla powerwalls to generate resistance heat to unfreeze the tracks. There isn't a solution that couldn't be improved by a 100x more expensive and complicated application of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong. The current population is likely non-sustainable. 8 million tons of plastic is dumped in oceans every year. 36 gigatons of Co2. All that accumulates and doesn't just disappear. Eventually there will be a tipping point. It isn't just about food production.
And I do. I donate more of a percentage of my assets than these people do AND I pay a 50% effective tax rate. It has nothing to do with charity either - it has to do with hoarding assets and accumulation based on inequitable tax laws.
" We could build floating cities, and use all land for crops. We could turn the Sahara and other deserts into farmland. We could build floating farms to grow even more food. "
No we can't. Why do people think this stuff? The real world is not scifi.
Bill Gates could fund all of that and not even dip into his assets.
No that IS the choice. If you want massively available, cheap goods you are going to have more pollution. The real solution to reducing pollution is to use less, but that ain't gonna happen, because everyone wants stuff and people like to make money selling stuff.
And an infinite supply of journalists trying to sell their books.
Turn over your keyboard. Notice where it says "Made in China". Are you willing to not have a keyboard?
"...it will never end."
And at the current rates, everyone will own an iPhone and a Tesla. Only good times ahead people, we just need to wait.
The main point is that Europeans can feel good about themselves and point fingers at China and those "dirty countries". That is really all that matters in life.
I don't doubt some of them were American. Many people on Slashdot are not too bright, but they believe in marketing and shiny things.
Because China is building all the junk that California consumes.
Um, most people in developed countries are not much affected by local pollution? The Bay Area is probably the most polluted area in the entire nation. Christ, you can't possibly believe that. One thing I noticed about California technocrats: they are disconnected from reality.
Doubtful they were Americans. I remember all the Eurosnobs talking about the VW "clean diesels" and made fun of all the silly Americans with their backward petrol vehicles. Turns out they both suck.
The point is that you just shift your manufacturing to these other countries and *voila* you "produce" less Co2 and they produce "more". But in reality they are just manufacturing junk for you, so it really isn't significant. The Earth really doesn't care. But people in the EU get to feel better about themselves, which is really all that matters in the end.
Diesels were never clean. Anyone who actually stood next to a diesel powered vehicle with half a brain could tell that. Of course it didn't stop the superior Euros from scoffing at the silly Americans and their gasoline powered vehicles.
If local pollution is more manageable, why is it so terrible? Why aren't there U.N. conferences on why the air quality in some cities in Europe is so poor? The reason the UK reduced Co2 is just because they offshored their manufacturing and industry.
I don't know. Why? Ever heard it discussed anywhere? But you hear "climate change" being talked about everywhere. I wonder why.
Amazingly no. Local pollution needs standards to enforce laws and investments. And no, the EU has terrible pollution problems. You don't know what you are talking about.
Basically the energy usage has dropped for both manufacturing and commercial use and they switched to natural gas and added some wind power. Amazingly if you use less energy that emits CO2 you produce less CO2. Getting rid of your manufacturing and sending it overseas helps a lot. Essentially everyone needs to learn to code.
Exactly. Local pollution is a much more immediate threat. But you can't sell carbon tax credits on local pollution so it isn't really a problem. Unless you can make money off of the solution there won't be one.
Doubtful. Technonerds tend to be Truthers, because they are so much smarter than all the sheep. After all, they make six figures designing websites and fixing desktop computers. They must be smart
Continues today? The redneck states get a disproportionate amount of federal money. But poor you. Welfare queens.
Steel doesn't fatigue? Who knew? What about if a large jet crashes into a building? Does that affect it, or should the building just stand there?
Oh look, a 9/11 truther nutter. How original. The fact that a jetliner crashed into a building shouldn't affect the structural integrity of the building at all.
Exactly. These types of stories are offensive. Why didn't they use AI to determine which tracks were frozen and how much fire to use? Or they could use Tesla powerwalls to generate resistance heat to unfreeze the tracks. There isn't a solution that couldn't be improved by a 100x more expensive and complicated application of technology.