weeyellowbloke Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I guess people will start taking notice once Holland and New York start to disappear in a couple of decades time. It's like sticking a frog in a slowly heating pot of water. And on a serious note: Didn't the massive deathbringing hole in the Ozone layer end up fixing itself? Yep, it has... mostly. That story just goes to show that despite what some people claim humanity can have massive effects on the environment. CFC aerosols were the main contributing factor to weakening the ozone layer. Scientists realised, governments listened and through international co-operation CFC's were phased out of use. The ozone layer recovered and everyone celebrated. Now if only that could happen again. Instead we get out-right lies like the Great Global Warming Swindle. Also, yes China and India are entirely to blame. It has nothing to do with our 200 year industrial history or the obscene drain of resources and pollution output of the USA when compared to population size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyxis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 lol @ the Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 My mistake. Just checked and the data that I was using was from 2000. But my point still stand about per person. Im not sure your point does stand. Ok china may have way way more people, but how many of those people are actually making this CO2? Whereas in america it probably more evenly spread across the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Im not sure your point does stand. Ok china may have way way more people, but how many of those people are actually making this CO2? Whereas in america it probably more evenly spread across the population. That sounds like something you've just totally made up, without thinking to look for evidence of it. Maybe do that, and then come back and make a point... The same could be said for when the western world was going through the industrial revolution. The use of CO2 would not have been evenly spread both here (I.e major cities compared to the then still major focus on agriculture), in America and everywhere else going through it at the time. How can we criticise them for developing the exact same way we did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Also, yes China and India are entirely to blame. It has nothing to do with our 200 year industrial history or the obscene drain of resources and pollution output of the USA when compared to population size. That argument annoys me. Yes the west trashed the world for that time. But and its a big BUT people didnt really know what was going on. Fast forward to 2009 and we have a fair idea of what damage is being down and the west is making inroads to help prevent it. But if other massive countrys arnt going to play abll as well it makes it hard for everyone else. Money goes the world go arround and if by making the west green is going to bankrupt us bankrupt as everything can be produced in an un green east then govenments are going to strugle to do as much as they would like. That sounds like something you've just totally made up, without thinking to look for evidence of it. Maybe do that, and then come back and make a point... The same could be said for when the western world was going through the industrial revolution. The use of CO2 would not have been evenly spread both here (I.e major cities compared to the then still major focus on agriculture), in America and everywhere else going through it at the time. How can we criticise them for developing the exact same way we did? The same goes. What happened 200 years ago can not be used to justify what is happening today. Its not fair but the world isnt fair. People used to OWN people as there slaves 300 years ago. That dosent mean it was right then. Or that it would be right for someone in india or china to do it today Edited May 18, 2009 by danny Automerged Doublepost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The same goes. What happened 200 years ago can not be used to justify what is happening today. Its not fair but the world isnt fair. People used to OWN people as there slaves 300 years ago. That dosent mean it was right then. Or that it would be right for someone in india or china to do it today No offence, but please don't even try and compare slavery to industrialisation...they really are complete opposites. The western world is not doing enough at the moment, so why should we expect a developing country to do the same? America is doing nowhere near enough curb it's ommisions. Why should we expect a developing country to try, if the biggest power in the world (for now) isn't doing enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 No offence, but please don't even try and compare slavery to industrialisation...they really are complete opposites. The western world is not doing enough at the moment, so why should we expect a developing country to do the same? America is doing nowhere near enought curb it's ommisions. Why should we expect a developing country to try, if the biggest power in the world (for now) isn't? It was an example not to be taken literally. America isnt doing its fair share either. But like i have said no one is prepared to put themselves at a disadvantage economically. So the only way forward is for everyone to do there fair share. Im not saying america, europe, india or china can do this on there own. But equally none of these are going to attempt to on there own either. My point is you cant justify polluting the world in 2009 just because Europe and america did 200 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 The argument is that developing countries have a chance to shape themselves with environmental problems in mind since they are susceptible to rapid change, where as most places in the West have infrastructure that doesn't suit the current environmental needs right at their core. The idea being to nip any future problems in the bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Plus China have signed the Kyoto Protocol but America still haven't bothered to do so. Just because they signed up to the agreement doesn't mean they're meeting targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Just because they signed up to the agreement doesn't mean they're meeting targets. They aren't required to lower their ommisons, because they're a developing country. But the fact they are at least aware there's a problem, seems to be more than the US is admitting too. For the biggest power in the world, they're hardly setting a good example are they? You'd expect them to lead, not be the last to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 They aren't required to lower their ommisons, because they're a developing country. But the fact they are at least aware there's a problem, seems to be more than the US is admitting too. For the biggest power in the world, they're hardly setting a good example are they? You'd expect them to lead, not be the last to follow. Maybe that the reason if developing countrys arnt required to then why should america. Why shoudnt they leave it for 20 years when they wont be the worlds biggest power and it wont be there problem any more. Its just slopey shoulders on everyones part. Until theres something laid down that every country will be an equal part of it isnt going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Maybe that the reason if developing countrys arnt required to then why should america. Why shoudnt they leave it for 20 years when they wont be the worlds biggest power and it wont be there problem any more. Its just slopey shoulders on everyones part. Until theres something laid down that every country will be an equal part of it isnt going to work. No way. You cannot expect developing countries to adhere to the same rules as already developed ones. That just wouldn't be fair, and just isn't feasible at all. How would you expect them to develop if they have to adhere to the same rules? It's just not possible. Western countries should be setting down the guidelines and abiding by them, and when countries such as China are at a level of development where they can cope with such guidelines, then they can and should be enforced. Edited May 18, 2009 by Slaggis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 They aren't required to lower their ommisons, because they're a developing country. But the fact they are at least aware there's a problem, seems to be more than the US is admitting too. For the biggest power in the world, they're hardly setting a good example are they? You'd expect them to lead, not be the last to follow. I'm not really sure where you are getting you facts from. China and US held secret talks on climate change deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I'm not really sure where you are getting you facts from. China and US held secret talks on climate change deal Tell me that's pretty recent? Otherwise my entire geography course has been a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 No way. You cannot expect developing countries to adhere to the same rules as already developed ones. That just wouldn't be fair, and just isn't feasible at all. How would you expect them to develop if they have to adhere to the same rules? It's just not possible. Western countries should be setting down the guidelines and abiding by them, and when countries such as China are at a level of development where they can cope with such guidelines, then they can and should be enforced. I agree that developed countries should reduce their emissions, but surely China should as well? Especially considering the country has the highest emissions. All countries should be doing something about it as it's a global problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 Tell me that's pretty recent? Otherwise my entire geography course has been a lie. Recent is a relative term. It has no intrinsic value. Watchmen High 5! Obama recognised that climate change had to be addressed during his campaign. Even Bush acknowledged that there was a problem way back in 2005. Geography isn't a real subject so your course is a lie. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Geography isn't a real subject so your course is a lie. Sorry. It's fine, I could never colour inside the lines anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 It's fine, I could never colour inside the lines anyway. Good, because the lines aren't real. Bar possibly coastal ones, but hey, why stop there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Geography isn't a real subject so your course is a lie. Sorry. Ever heard of Jurgen Habermas? He's a German critical theorist who argued there are three types of knowledge; useful knowledge that allows people to master their social and physical environments, knowledge to understand the world and knowledge to question the world rather than take it at face value. I'm happy to criticise Geography as a subject and I do, but it exposes people to all these types of knowledge and that's part of what makes it relevant. Haggis would be better off reading Journal articles than A level text books, but he doesn't need to so why would he, that's the nature of A levels. Yes I bit, I felt like it :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjak Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 You sicken me. Unless you drive a long distance to work and have no alternative, giving up your car is the smallest of sacrifices you could make for the Earth. Jesus, this kind of attitude really pisses me off. And then you blame the East?! Your ignorance knows no bounds. And sadly, its people with your kind of attitude that will one day make our race extinct. Congratulations. 1) I love cars. 2) I live out on the country, where the bus can be five minutes early or an hour and a half late, and where going somewhere by bus takes three times as long as by car. 3) Cars are only a small part of the pollution. 4) I'm actually going to convert my car to Bio Ethanol! Stop being bitches about people driving cars! It's worse, and less necessary to use fossil fuels to get electricity or to fly jet aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 Ever heard of Jurgen Habermas? He's a German critical theorist who argued there are three types of knowledge; useful knowledge that allows people to master their social and physical environments, knowledge to understand the world and knowledge to question the world rather than take it at face value. I'm happy to criticise Geography as a subject and I do, but it exposes people to all these types of knowledge and that's part of what makes it relevant. Haggis would be better off reading Journal articles than A level text books, but he doesn't need to so why would he, that's the nature of A levels. Yes I bit, I felt like it :p And so I start the morning with revision for my Social Theory exam today. I wasn't going to mention him but I'm going to have to now! All I think that shows is that you initially need to learn to criticize, and be objective, before you really learn anything. Thus rendering a lot of subjects, *cough*economics*cough* pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 1) I love cars.2) I live out on the country, where the bus can be five minutes early or an hour and a half late, and where going somewhere by bus takes three times as long as by car. 3) Cars are only a small part of the pollution. 4) I'm actually going to convert my car to Bio Ethanol! Stop being bitches about people driving cars! It's worse, and less necessary to use fossil fuels to get electricity or to fly jet aircraft. 5) Cars are more than handy in an emergency 6) Try carrying a weeks worth of shopping on the bus/train/bicycle Get rid of them entirely? No. Use them less? Yes. Things that pollute have been around for centuries, it's just that we're overusing them now. Things just need to be used in moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 No way. You cannot expect developing countries to adhere to the same rules as already developed ones. That just wouldn't be fair, and just isn't feasible at all. I CAN and I DO. Life isnt fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 You Kandoo? Why is everyone upset about these people? They don't even have the internet, they're not important. Also. Global warming is made up; common guys: don't listen to those geography teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I CAN and I DO. Life isnt fair. Deep, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts