"One last thing: if you’re going to come on here and accuse us of low intellectual ability, at least learn how to spell first. "
Feel free to correct my spelling, I don’t mind it at all. I still write, speak and read better English than a lot of native speakers in this forum.
DOOGIE: No. Not in a union.
Restless - dont maik phun uv r speling.
The picture is a joke. Though it may be in bad taste, there are some people that feel this way. If you don’t, don’t get your panties in a wad. We can’t be responsible for someone else’s bad sense of humor.
And if you have to think about whether this is a photoshop, you have some serious issues.
"And if you have to think about whether this is a photoshop, you have some serious issues. "
Jesus Christ, you have some poor reading habilities don’t you? I never had ANY doubt this was a photoshop job, your buddies were the ones that didn’t seem to get it.
Restless –
The definition of emissions to which you refer is stacked to make it impossible for the U.S. to NOT be the leader. If you define the pollutants only as auto emissions, of course the country with the most autos per capita, due to geographical necessity and the fact that people can afford to buy them, will of course be the leader. The levels of auto emissions per vehicle here are among the lowest anywhere because of the anti-pollution technology we incorporate into our cars – we just have a lot of vehicles.
However, if you start to look at other, and arguably much worse, types of pollution, you will note that countries such as India, China and “Third World” nations produce much more than their share. Specifically I am referring to coal and oil pollution from power plants, which tend to be old and dilapidated in those countries, and not to have the pollution-reducing technologies that are required of U.S. plants.
If you check your facts you will see that developing nations produce much more overall pollution than does the U.S. – if you want to micro-define pollution in order to have something else to rant against Americans about, be my guest, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
Now please go find something else to do other than caterwaul against the United States and insult our intelligence (with your silly arguments as much as with your actual insults).
BostonBarrister,
Anything but admiting that you might not be the perfect role models,uh? Let’s make a deal. One of you admit the USA has some faults, whatever they might be, and I’ll shut up till the end of the month.
"The US alone accounted for 36.1% of greenhouse emissions in 1990. But the world’s biggest polluter opted out of the pact last year, arguing that its economic interests would be threatened. " BBC news.
I’m sure this is just some meaningless statistic or something stupid like that “stupid recycling program”. You that are trying to deny this are either a bunch of ignorants or hypocrites. You tell me.
No one said the US doesn’t have faults. We are just challenging the nonsence that you are putting out.
"No one said the US doesn’t have faults. We are just challenging the nonsence that you are putting out. "
Which nonsense? The facts about your country being the biggest polluter? You’re not chalenging anything, you’re simply doing what you always do whenever anyone makes you notice the USA is not parfect, you’re denying.
And larryalavender,
I invite you to show me the evidence from credible sources that your country is not the biggest polluter. I can provide UN reports and articles from non USA based news networks, can you present anything other than your claims?
Here’s a non-U.S. website for you to check Restless:
Go to that website, and type in “pollution” and at least 3 of the first 10 articles that come up will explain why poor countries have the worst pollution problems. You will have to pay for them, as they are “premium” content – or you can just take the cites and go look up the print issues in your local library, which I hope gets the Economist for its foreign periodical section.
I stand corrected. I did not know that we produce 36.1% of the world?s green house gases.
I know greenhouse gases are supposedly the problem behind global warming. I know there is supposedly debate about whether global warming is directly related to greenhouse gases or part of the earth?s warming and cooling cycle between ice ages.
Either way, they can?t be any good for the environment.
In all fairness, I do think we should be doing much more to eliminate our dependence on oil for fuel.
Well, I guess you have it?the US isn?t perfect. What would you have us do now?
?I can provide UN reports and articles from non USA based news networks, can you present anything other than your claims?
You finally put up some statistics to back up your rhetoric. I?m pleased. How about defending your position that the US is a terrorist and that it tortures people?
Boston,
I’m not paying for anything, times are tough around here. If you want to post some quotes or send me the text I’m cool with that though.
Here are some numbers:
United States 285,023,886
Indonesia 227,741,428
Brazil 177,752,913
Russia 145,470,197
Pakistan 144,616,639
Bangladesh 132,974,813
Nigeria 127,119,885
Japan 126,891,645
Those are the populations of each nation. Only India and China have more people than the US. Russia and Japan are the only other very well developed countries on the list. So as the third largest and arguably most industrially developed country in the world it’s pretty much a given that we are on the top of the list as the largest consumers of resources and producers of pollution. So? Should this be some sort of shock or something?
Travel around a bit. Try Mexico City for one. The air there will make any city in the US look like a mountain meadow in comparison.
Are we perfect? Hell no but we aren’t the worst by far, especially if you take facts like numbers of cars per capita and total population into account. Russia is a pretty damn nasty place. They never paid a lot of attention to the environment when they were the USSR and they don’t have the money to do much about it now.
Just because we don’t jump at the beck and call of the other nations doesn’t mean we aren’t environmentally responsible. We could be better but so could a lot of other places.
And does the fact that third world countries also pollute makes your conduct any better? When these countries are in a much less favorable position in what regards their hability to endure the economical sacrifices one would have to do to reduce pollution? Curious about that, because it seems to me that all you can do when you can’t protect your nationalistic instincts is to point other countries faults. Can you give me a honest reply to this WITHOUT pointing someone else’s missconducts?
This is still focusing on the definition of pollution as “greenhouse gasses,” which is basically automobile emissions. Aside from what I have already said about the U.S. having the most cars but producing fewer emissions per car than in other countries, also recall that “greenhouse gases” are only worrisome in that they are projected to affect global tempertaturs by some scientists.
However, this is far from universally accepted – there is a substantial minority of scientists that believes “greenhouse gases” have NO effect on climate (and that the moderate global warming we are seeing is part of the natural cycle of colder and warmer temperatures one sees from examining the fossil records). This dispute is the reason why the U.S. will not sign on for the Kyoto Protocols – we will not make the large sacrifices of economic growth (and, ergo, standard of living) that would be required by the Kyoto Protocols simply for some unproved, highly contested theory.
As I said before, change the measure of pollution to include the more toxic and damaging pollution from heavy industry and power production with the old, dilapidated equipment in the developing world, and you will see that the U.S. is no longer the “biggest polluter in the world.”
It’s all a matter of your definition, and the one you’re choosing is slanted to ensure the U.S. is the biggest polluter. Basically, what I’m saying, and what I think SteelyEyes is getting at, is that while the U.S. is the main emittor of “greenhouse gases,” the U.S. is far from the largest polluter.
As for the Economist, I have a print subscription but not an online – perhaps I’ll look through my back issues at home and see if I can’t find some quotes for you.
Ok. I thought I was speaking to someone with the capability of admiting a mistake by the USA but I think I was wrong. Rationalize all you want, you’re still the biggest polluter in the eyes of the rest of the world.
And your claim that your cars have smaller rates of gas emissions is a lie. A car with 4000 cc like the pickup trucks you like so much that burns 20 liters of petrol per 100 Km, even if properly mantained and tuned will produce a lot more pollution than the 1200-1400cc cars most Europeans use, as an example.
Restless –
While we do have a lot of larger cars, we also have a lot of smaller cars. I’m going on memory, but even with the popularity of SUVs I believe that smaller, less expensive cars like the Toyota Corolla, Ford Tempo, and Honda Accord are still the best selling vehicles and still make up the majority of cars on the road. As I said though, I’m going off of memory.
The other thing we have here in the good ol’ US is emissions testing of all vehicles in most states - in order to get their highway funds, states need to test emissions for vehicles, and make certain that vehicles meet whatever minimum standard has been set for road-worthiness. I don’t know about any similar measures taken in Europe because I haven’t bothered to look. But I do know that the developing nations to which I was actually contrasting the “biggest polluter” USA in my statement (I wasn’t contrasting European cars with American cars – I was contrasting American cars with cars in the developing world) don’t have such safeguards. They also tend to be older, and would produce higher emissions even if they were in tune, which they generally are not.
I’ve never claimed the U.S. is perfect, but you also have to look out for the converse of viewing the U.S. as the “Great Satan,” and the cause of all the world’s problems simply because you don’t like the current administration.
Restless, get it right!
Most of our trucks are well over 4000cc. Most popular vehicles sold each year are 1/2 ton pickups, and they tend to run 4600-6000cc or more.
Now, your statement about most euros using 1200-1400 is undershooting also. I recall quite a few euros who have 1600-2000cc engines in their autos…
Funny you don’t mention how much your trains/busses pollute at all though. Nor anything about the vast difference in natural resources in usa compared to most of europe, like trees for example.
Why not start a car/gas thread instead ?