• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg Has Left The Building

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wrong, as usual. Here's some data for you to refute:

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Compare China's per capita CO2 emissions to those of the US.

Not per capita but per capita GDP. That's a convenient way to make China look better than it is because it has so many people. How much a country pollutes vs how industrialized it is, is what matters. BTW, did you notice the change column from 1990 to 2017? Let's see: Over those 27 years US emissions have gone up .4%. IOW, less than 1%. China? Up 353.8% India up 305.1%. It helps to look at your data before using it.
 
No you haven't, and the US was polluting way before Trump arrived on the scene, so you can try that "hating Trump" excuse on someone else. And who on earth measures pollution by GDP?

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Uh, it's simple. If a country has a lot of poor rural farmers it'll create less pollution than an identically sized country that is very industrialized but, on a per capita GDP basis, the second country may be much less of a polluter. Raw population numbers tell you nothing.
 
Uh, it's simple. If a country has a lot of poor rural farmers it'll create less pollution than an identically sized country that is very industrialized but, on a per capita GDP basis, the second country may be much less of a polluter. Raw population numbers tell you nothing.

If it's so simple I suggest you go have a chat with the experts and give them your point of view-put them straight, like. I'm sure you'll be warmly received.
 
If it's so simple I suggest you go have a chat with the experts and give them your point of view-put them straight, like. I'm sure you'll be warmly received.

That's not an answer nor can you refute what I just posted. For instance, the state of CA has about 39 million people. So does Afghanistan. Which one do you think emits more CO2 into the atmosphere? That's why raw population is meaningless.
 
Stop harshing the moppet! :naughty :naughty

Gretamania is sweeping the planet faster than mass extinction!

:2dance: :2dance:

Yeah, whatever you are taking, ask your doctor to up the dose.
 
That's not an answer nor can you refute what I just posted. For instance, the state of CA has about 39 million people. So does Afghanistan. Which one do you think emits more CO2 into the atmosphere? That's why raw population is meaningless.

Give it a rest mate and have a word with yourself. The US remains the planet's second worst polluter, and no amount of you dancing around will change the fact.

Top 5 most polluting countries
 
Give it a rest mate and have a word with yourself. The US remains the planet's second worst polluter, and no amount of you dancing around will change the fact.

Top 5 most polluting countries

Bwahahahaha...I just destroyed your BS and yet, you keep repeating it. Too damn funny. In fact, your own data blew up in your face. OOps...:lol:
 
The US is already behind a lot of other developed nations like Japan and the European nations in terms of providing efficient and environmentally friendly public transportation. Time to get with the times.

Indeed it is, but there is no more efficient means of travel than flying. Greta would have us turn an hour and forty minute flight from Paris to Barcelona into a 13 hour train ride and a 6 hour trans-Atlantic flight into a 15-day voyage on an environmentally friendly ship. Not reasonable.
 
Ah, man. She's a shill and a stooge. Just like David Hogg and the Cortez bimbo.


Amazing that we are getting our climate facts from a 16 going on 12, our gun policy from a 15 who rode his bike as fast as he could to get his camera, and our House leadership from a college graduate who's best job offer was as bartender in a taco joint.

And the left has no problem with this.
 
Yeah, try again. Greta does not make specific policy proposals. She has never said "no one should ever fly again." She made a choice not to fly as a personal statement, not as a global demand. (The text of some of her speeches is available here: Greta-speeches - FridaysForFuture)

Yes she does. She’s a leader in an anti-air travel movement and promotes veganism.
 
The girl has remarkable courage
 
Indeed it is, but there is no more efficient means of travel than flying.
That depends on what you mean by "efficient."

In terms of mileage, trains and buses often match or beat airplanes. The more comfortable your flight, the less efficient it is -- e.g. a private plane for a handful of passengers is downright wasteful compared to an economy seat on a large plane.

In terms of time, security measures at the airport mean that relatively short flights (300 miles or less) can be closely matched by trains, buses or even cars. If you are flying more than that, or over an ocean, then flights are faster.

In terms of environmental effects, flying is a disaster. One round-trip flight across the coasts generates as much GHGs as 2.5 months of driving.


Greta would have us turn an hour and forty minute flight from Paris to Barcelona into a 13 hour train ride...
I already pointed out that is not true. She doesn't make specific policy recommendations. She doesn't fly because she's making a political statement.
 
Yes she does. She’s a leader in an anti-air travel movement and promotes veganism.
She promotes veganism?!? HOLY **** WE'RE DOOMED!!! HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!!!

Anyway.... The "anti-air travel movement" barely exists, and even that doesn't say "no one should ever fly." The goal is to reduce flights (as they are disastrous for the environment), promote greener flights (non-fossil fuels, or electric powered flight for short hops), and to improve other infrastructure to make those flights less necessary. (Even that description is a bit much, as there doesn't seem to be any real NGOs

"Leader" is also, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. She didn't found an anti-flight lobbying organization; she isn't on the board of directors of any NGO. She is an activist who sets an example. She is no more a "leader" than Kanye West is a leader of the evangelical movement.
 
Please man. She's a tool for the climate quacks. She's a brainwashed robot spewing what she's been fed. Nothing she bleats has the remotest thing to do with cleaning up anything. If we REALLY wanted to improve air quality, we'd be planting millions of new trees. That's more oxygen into the atmosphere and less CO2. All these multi trillion dollar tax scams being proposed will do zero to improve any of the so called problems. Oh, and we still haven't heard how they're going to force China and India to do what they want. Nor have we heard how they're going to keep Asia and Africa from filling up the oceans with plastic, because that is where 95% comes from.

She's 16.

She get's a pass.
 
Well, I'm a fan - obviously.

But her science...

Let's just say it's a bit shaky.

:)

Says who? Certainly not every single scientific organization on the planet.

Your science is based on what? What some Manhattan real estate guy says?
 
Amazing that we are getting our climate facts from a 16 going on 12, our gun policy from a 15 who rode his bike as fast as he could to get his camera, and our House leadership from a college graduate who's best job offer was as bartender in a taco joint.

And the left has no problem with this.

You are getting your science from a Manhattan real estate huckster. Why is that OK?

Would you be OK if we all just listened to the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on the matter? Sounds like it would be a good compromise, right?
 
When is she going to go to China and protest their continuing use of CFCs, which are drifting into our atmosphere and killing the ozone layer?
 
When is she going to go to China and protest their continuing use of CFCs, which are drifting into our atmosphere and killing the ozone layer?

Right after you. She does not want to steal your thunder
 
When is she going to go to China and protest their continuing use of CFCs, which are drifting into our atmosphere and killing the ozone layer?

When they start doing worse than us. Currently, they’re doing better at taking the problem seriously.
 
This is why I fully support laws requiring children to wear bicycle helmets.
 
When they start doing worse than us. Currently, they’re doing better at taking the problem seriously.

Bull****.

I started a thread a few months ago in the Environment forum that talked about how they are using CFCs, which are banned via international agreements, and is leaking into the ozone layer. 7000 TONS in emissions in the last several years....all coming from Eastern China.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom