Spill, Spill, baby SPILL!

I can can insult you all (*)(*)(*)(*)ing day, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Do you know what facts are? Fact: China has four times the population, and only twice the emissions, as stated in your own document.

Do you know what facts are?

Please take a break and come back later.

I could keep insulting you and still be right, but I'm not going to do that.

 

it means

A. Chinese pollutions is worse than the US (though the US's per capita pollution is worse than China, as stated in the article)

and B. The US still leads the world in C02 reduction, despite not having a planned market to reduce pollution like China

..but the bigger point here is how your post which stated "Unlike the Chinese government, The U.S. government just isn't inclined to engage in any kind of a process to advance the usage of solar energy" goes completely against the facts... as the US leads China in solar energy, and continues to show better results in pollution reduction

 

A) China has four times the population U.S.
B) And twice the emissions of the U.S.

That means that, by ratio, China has half the emissions.

Can you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hearing me? Can you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hear anything or anyone?

 

sigh*

China's population is four times larger than the United States', and its emissions are close to double in size. But the average American is still responsible for twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as his or her Chinese counterpart

thank you for posting the same exact thing that I already posted.. which is that although China leads in pollution "US's per capita pollution is worse than China, as stated in the article"

I hope this was a fair compensation to you for your remarks about China showing better progress in clean energy improvement (and overall pollution REDUCTION) being completely wrong

 

Good, glad we got that cleared up. Clearly their government is handling pollution better. I imagine that they probably have transporation systems worth a damn, to try to cut down on smog. The U.S. government could care less.

 

That isn't entirely correct, China still has worse pollution overall AND is showing poorer results in pollution reduction. Which again is a complete contradiction to your initial post about China and solar energy. If China was handling the situation better, they'd be showing better pollution reduction than the US

also, I think you mean they "couldn't" care less

 

I don't hold them to the same standard as a richer, more developed country but there are other places on the internet where you can masturbate.

 

Earlier in the thread you were describing the US's desire to make money as a contribution to its pollution in contrast to China.. now you are accrediting its richness to why it is more successful in reducing pollution than China. Are you abandoning your initial statement?

 

Looks like OmegaEnigma's back.

 

there are also parts of china that dont have running water or electricity. seems pretty easy to cut down on emissions when 71% of your population makes less than $5 a day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

 

"I don't care how rich you are, water is not an replaceable resource, so you better think about that."

El wrongo amiguito! Water is a replaceable and infinite resource -- use nuclear power to run desalinization plants.

 

The koch brothers spent more on the 2012 election than the top 3 labor unions combined.
They are hellbent on buying the government of their choice.

 

Hmm, I wonder why that would be? Do you know what "subsidies" are? Do you know why we originally gave them to the oil companies? It was a way to get the industry off the ground, a way to invest in them so they could take off, working on-demand, but we are not doing that for the wind or solar industries, in fact GOP law makers are doing the exact opposite of that!



If we stopped paying $8 billion into fossil fuels out of tax payers dollars, and put that into the alternative energy sources, we wouldn't be talking about this now. It's apolitically rigged in one direction by favor of the GOP.

 

Given the current campaign finance laws, I guess they have. Apparently they've even managed to buy the judges they want, which of course puts the final nail in the coffin for our freedom.

 

Taxcutter says:
Solar has been trying to get off the ground since the 60s. They got big contracts with NASA.
Wind has been trying to get off the ground since the 1930s. Still, no joy.

How long does the runway have to be?

One thing you can say for oil & gas. They are dispatchable on demand. Wind and solar are not and likely never will be.

 

Well, regarding Oklahoma quakes....we have had recorded earth quakes here even from the 1800's. We don't get a lot of noticable ones. We have had more in the last three years....and it could be or may not be from fracking. I know there was an earthquake somewhere else...some other state not known for earthquakes OR fracking. So perhaps its just a cycle? There is nothing conclusive really.

 

Blah blah blah blah.

Why are you typing on a computer which is made from oil byproducts? Hypocrite much?

How about the chair on which you're sitting? Any plastics in it? The table? Do you walk everywhere or use oil?

Blah blah blah blah.

 

It's not just the $8 billion in subsidies. It's the annual cost of maintaining a 7-ocean navy so the Condoleeza Rice can make it into and out of port without getting sunk (not needed with alt energy). It's the cost of cleaning up the Alaskan coast and the Caribbean. It's the depletion allowances. It's the cost of accelerated depreciation for oil equipment and tankers. It's the cost of invading Iraq because Saddam was undercutting the Texas oil men.

It would be interesting to see what oil is REALLY costing us, but I think that's a carefully guarded secret.

 

Blah blah blah? What are you trying to be? Dracula?
I bet even Dracula is better informed and more aware of modern science than you are! LOL! Congratulations on running into another complete misconception about what we can or cannot do without oil! I will also point out that one of the many reasons corporations are against cannabis is because when and if people discover most oil based products can be replace by a renewable resource that you can grow in your back yard, they can't hold a monopoly on it any more like they do now.



Stick that in your pipe genius!

 

Most of Texas was never known to have Earthquakes prior to the fracking process. They had 16 recorded earthquakes in 1 year in a part of Texas that has NEVER had a known earthquake prior to the fracking installation wells.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-fracking-earthquakes-azle-445/



When you start looking at the grouping on the map, it's pretty hard to pretend it isn't related, unless you are the kind who can still pretend the world is flat also?



Not to mention the constant rise in frequency over the last 5 years.

 

Psssssssssstttttttttttttt: This thread isn't about cannabis. Nice but feeble attempt at deflection.

 

Protect the climate, stop using electricity, stop posting.

Or just go around trying to encourage people to make others pay the price for you, that makes you a good person.

 

I guess you got one other thing in common with Dracula, you really suck at being human. You like to be in denial, be my guest.

 

I would say that Texas has a pretty strong earthquake history too.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/texas/history.php

Keep in mind---that these little tremors that no one feels---were never recorded back then. I have an open mind to a point---but when things are so hyped that people say "Texas has never known to have earthquakes before fracking"...then a person has to be wary about the information spoon fed. I mean...Texas has a history of earthquakes ALL OVER the state---and much larger ones then in Oklahoma.

 

i've got a better idea.

let's just get rid of all the people.

It's people that are the enema of mother Gaia.