Turn on thread page Beta

Why Bush doesn't care about global warming watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    You sytill are not answering my questions...how come u produce 25% then?
    Because we produce 25% of the world's economic output. Believe it or not, emissions are strongly correlated with economic growth. The more an economy grows, the more energy it requires, and the more emissions it releases. Do you want us to destroy our economy just to reduce emissions?

    How come you dont even reduce your emissions at all?
    Because we never agreed to do so. Our Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0.

    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Ah I think this was it:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...403983,00.html
    "The UK is still under its 12.5% target, but only just."

    I'm not sure if that's our target or Kyoto's
    Look at the date of the Guardan article and the date of the BBC article.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    12.5% of cut in emissions? IF the US did that just imagine what that would mean in the overall picture...but those burgers are just too tantalizing
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Because we produce 25% of the world's economic output.

    HAHA since when??
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Look at the date of the Guardan article and the date of the BBC article.
    So the UK looked like it was on target but was actually producing 8 millions MORE in actuality?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    HAHA since when??
    Since 1945 (actually we produced 50% of the world's output back then).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    So the UK looked like it was on target but was actually producing 8 millions MORE in actuality?
    It was on target because its emissions decreased in 2002. The BBC article includes data from 2003 (when British emissions increased), while the Guardian article does not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Since 1945 (actually we produced 50% of the world's output back then).

    Care to provide some data?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It was on target because its emissions decreased in 2002. The BBC article includes data from 2003 (when British emissions increased), while the Guardian article does not.
    Ah funny how the 'we're on target' thing was in the TV news but the 8 million tonnes over thing wasnt
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Care to provide some data?
    US GDP - $10.4 trillion. World GDP - $32 trillion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Ah funny how the 'we're on target' thing was in the TV news but the 8 million tonnes over thing wasnt
    You expect the Guardian to write something negative about Labour?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You expect the Guardian to write something negative about Labour?
    No, but then again the BBC have a tendancy to be biased
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Maybe he didn't mention global warming because many Americans (myself included) don't buy it. Man-made global warming is only a theory and there is no conclusive scientific evidence to prove that it even exists.
    ERM...USA, yer fighting a losing battle with these Kyoto quacks. These are the guys that would be building fallout shelters back in the '50s
    The precession of the equinoxes repeats itself every 26000 years, the last ice age was 10000 years ago, we may warm up for the next 3000 years, then head back toward the next ice age.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    ERM...USA, yer fighting a losing battle with these Kyoto quacks. These are the guys that would be building fallout shelters back in the '50s
    The precession of the equinoxes repeats itself every 26000 years, the last ice age was 10000 years ago, we may warm up for the next 3000 years, then head back toward the next ice age.
    Kyoto was just a thinly veiled scheme designed to destroy the US economy and make Europe more competitive. I found a great article on this Kyoto con job:

    Europe's Kyoto Scam
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Kyoto was just a thinly veiled scheme designed to destroy the US economy and make Europe more competitive. I found a great article on this Kyoto con job:

    Europe's Kyoto Scam

    Cato? lol ... ok ...

    well I dont really think that they have evidence of people's intent.

    Effect (which is disputable anyway in this case) and intent are two very different things.

    There is little evidence that Kyoto was concocted by Europe to cripple the US.

    Wasnt Kyoto a US initiative at first? (I could be very wrong on that)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Conspiracy theories.. hooo boy...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well...chatting to those lovely guys in the FBI a few weeks ago - as I always do ofcourse...Bush has come up with an ingenious plan to counteract global warming.

    You see, when talking to his military "advisers" (also known as "the hand that works the puppet"), they were discussing nuclear weapons.
    In the general overview, they outlined the after-effects of a massive nuclear war - with only cockroaches and keith richards surviving (come on - plutonium? he's injected far worse - but the moment that guy sobers up he's in trouble!), and the earth being wrapped in a vicious nuclear winter.

    And, in his tiny little mind, the cogs started whirling and he thought I KNOW! it doesn't matter about global warming, because we can just use our mighty stock of nuclear armaments to cleanse the world of all the horrible coloured people - and further the arian race (did anyone notice how his dad always had a little square scar above his lip, which looked like it had once been a moustache singed by a little fire-bombing in a bunker in the late 40's? and that little tinge in the accent never wore off!)

    Isn't it a brilliant thing...fundamental christians in favour of nuclear armaments - follow the lord or die...
    So - just as the world gets really f*cking hot...the waters start rising and the bush family sit in their boat reminiscing of the "second coming" of 40 days of rain (2 by 2 the rednecks walked into the arc...brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, bonded by "holy" wedlock and so beautifully inbread), they will see the weapons of the lord soaring overhead and think "what a wonderful world".
    In some parts of the world...people are shouting "Revolution, REVOLUTION!" but in the south people are shouting "Evolution, EVOLUTION", with the rallying cries of "WE WANT OUR THUMBS!".

    So - to conclude...dont worry about global warming, if your names not bush you'll be dead long before then.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Why should America promise to reduce emissions when the other countries who have promised to do so have reneged on their agreement?
    That is a poor, poor argument. Just because Europe haven't reduced emissions, America doesn't need to? Especially as America is biggest pollutor in the world? Come on, you can do better than this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Acknowledging global warming as a problem would be a good first step...by not even looking at Kyoto America gives off a superior, arogant impression.

    Doubly bad post Iraq...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Cato? lol ... ok ...

    well I dont really think that they have evidence of people's intent.

    Effect (which is disputable anyway in this case) and intent are two very different things.

    There is little evidence that Kyoto was concocted by Europe to cripple the US.
    Kyoto probably wasn't created for the sole purpose of hobbling the USA, but I can see why Europe was salivating over the thought of us agreeing to its terms. It would have cut our GDP growth by 50% and what European politician wouldn't love to see that happen to an economic competitor?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Kyoto probably wasn't created for the sole purpose of hobbling the USA, but I can see why Europe was salivating over the thought of us agreeing to its terms. It would have cut our GDP growth by 50% and what European politician wouldn't love to see that happen to an economic competitor?
    Ye poor you, i mean just 25% of the overall pollution...thats nothing..
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,086

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.