 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / October 2007(OT:) BBC says US is the world's biggest polluter
In a series of reports coming up in the coming week, the BBC will be looking at pollution around the world, and in their promo they say the US is the world's biggest polluter. Here's some pics to prove it: http://202.148.132.209/photos/SkyNews_Image_20070806215830.jpg Ooops...that's Bejing... http://p.vtourist.com/1/1608560-Health_Well_Being-Seoul.jpg Ooops...Bejing again... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/BejingSmog_MODIS_200603 05_lrg.jpg/800px-BejingSmog_MODIS_20060305_lrg.jpg OOOPS!!! Bejing again! http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/08/chinaindia/image/soc_smokestacks.jpg Oh, sorry! A factory in China... One more time: http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/shang_dan/beijingpollution121806.jpg DAMN!!!! China again!!!! Let's try this again: http://www.asianews.it/files/img/2077_ASIA%20-%20pollution%20(150%20x%20112).jpg Oops...sorry..India... http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/atmos/image/pollutant9.jpg DAMN! Agra, India! http://www.sfgate.com/n/pictures/2007/06/21/foam5.jpg SHOOT! India again!!! http://www.syriait.net/photos/uncategorized/air_pollution_china.jpg Ooops... back to China... All those who wanted Bush to sign the Kyoto Agreement...THIS is what it allows. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an American city still this polluted. On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote: >In a series of reports coming up in the coming week, the BBC will be >looking at pollution around the world, and in their promo they say the US >is the world's biggest polluter. Here's some pics to prove it: Would you stop with the facts.... You are irritating the liberals.....  SignatureScott in Florida > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are irritating the liberals..... What BBC fails to say is that we make the best damn ice cream in the world! >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >What BBC fails to say is that we make the best damn ice cream in the world! LOL.... That we do. Makes me want to drive down to my favorite orange grove shop. They make a delicious soft vanilla and orange swirl...mmmmmmmmmmm SignatureScott in Florida >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Makes me want to drive down to my favorite orange grove shop. They > make a delicious soft vanilla and orange swirl...mmmmmmmmmmm Yummy! Reminds me of the creamsicles of my youth. >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Yummy! Reminds me of the creamsicles of my youth. Next time I go down there, I'll get a picture of it and post it. SignatureScott in Florida >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Yummy! Reminds me of the creamsicles of my youth. No doubt some of the "cream" you injested was courtesy of the weird old guy in the corner house who gave you 25 cents for candy, afterwards. >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:13:42 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What BBC fails to say is that we make the best damn ice cream in the > world! Nah, that's the Canadians. Tully's in Oshawa, ONT. > In a series of reports coming up in the coming week, the BBC will be > looking at pollution around the world, and in their promo they say the US [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > allows. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an American city still this > polluted. China hasn't signed and maybe India hasn't, either. Of course, I don't work from a philosophy that, just because someone else does something, I should do it, too. "An eye for an eye and, pretty soon, everybody's blind" is the logical extension of that policy. I take responsibility for my messes. And failing to take responsibility for one's messes means one should not wag the finger at others. If we had a policy of treating this as important, perhaps the Chinese citizenry would become dissatisfied with their government's handling of pollution and start to agitate for change. If you consider CO2 to be a "pollutant," then we are far and away the world's largest polluter, per capita. China IS fast closing the gap in total emissions but they're trying to fee a billion-point-three people. One could also look at this situation in terms of opportunity. China and India clearly can't continue to pollute the way they do forever; they're going to have to make some changes. If our industries are technological leaders in CO2 abatement and pollution control and eco-friendly technologies, we'll make money selling to the Chinese. Not much chance of that, of course, since our energy policy was written behind closed doors by Cheney with select members of the coal and oil industries. So select that he would not admit who they were. Funny how cranked you get about people sounding the alarm about pollution, climate change and other pending problems, yet have no problem with CEOs writing government policies to their own advantage without scrutiny or any transparency whatever. By the way, I'm still waiting for the timing marks in that BBC One Planet show where you claim someone said global warming was NOT caused by man. I listened several times and it's not in there. You were bullshitting again. No surprise there, of course. >> In a series of reports coming up in the coming week, the BBC will be >> looking at pollution around the world, and in their promo they say [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > with their government's handling of pollution and start to agitate > for change. Only idiot f.cking LIEbrawls would say that. The average Chinese citizen knows that to protest means years in jail plus beatings and other forms of torture or ending up as a source of donor organs. > If you consider CO2 to be a "pollutant," then we are far and away the > world's largest polluter, per capita. China IS fast closing the gap [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > caused by man. I listened several times and it's not in there. You > were bullshitting again. No surprise there, of course. >> In a series of reports coming up in the coming week, the BBC will be >> looking at pollution around the world, and in their promo they say the [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > writing government policies to their own advantage without scrutiny or any > transparency whatever. I never said I was in favor of back-room deals. I think they should be done away with totally. And, I don't think thet we should be 'allowed' to pollute more because they do. Have you seen any reports on the Ganges River? It's one of the most polluted bodies of water in the world (At least it didn't catch on fire like the Dayton did, THREE TIMES, the last one in the late 60's...) What I'm taking exception to is the BBC calling the US the world's biggest polluter. You'd be hard pressed to find a city as polluted as Bejing in the US these days. We also lead the field in producing clean technology. (Hey, there's $$$ to be made!) > By the way, I'm still waiting for the timing marks in that BBC One Planet > show where you claim someone said global warming was NOT caused by man. I > listened several times and it's not in there. You were bullshitting > again. No surprise there, of course. In my last post in that thread, I said I believed it was the announcer BEFORE the report that said that. At 3AM I'm not 100%...only 96%... >>> In a series of reports coming up in the coming week, the BBC will be >>> looking at pollution around the world, and in their promo they say the [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > I never said I was in favor of back-room deals. I think they should be > done away with totally. Yet, you've remained strangely silent on that, although you get completely cranked about specious and half-heard and less understood snippets of ANYTHING with respect ot climate change. The Republican governor of my state was on TV this AM, and admitted, again, that we ARE changing the climate through CO2 emissions. Gosh! I guess the conspiracy of scientists reached him, too! > And, I don't think thet we should be 'allowed' to pollute more because > they do. Have you seen any reports on the Ganges River? It's one of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the US these days. We also lead the field in producing clean technology. > (Hey, there's $$$ to be made!) As I said, it depends on what you measure. If you accept CO2 as a "pollutant" and, like other, classic pollutants it DOES change the environment, then we are the largest polluter. We are far and away the biggest per-capita polluters, the average Chinese producing about 1/4th the CO2 that each of us produces. Yes, there's $$$ to be made - a point also brought up in Al Gore's movie. However, as long as the Administration is focussed on granting favors to the oil companies, there will be little incentive for additional investment. >> By the way, I'm still waiting for the timing marks in that BBC One Planet >> show where you claim someone said global warming was NOT caused by man. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In my last post in that thread, I said I believed it was the announcer > BEFORE the report that said that. At 3AM I'm not 100%...only 96%... So, from this off-hand remark by an announcer that you can't reference, you put up a post that pretends to be authoritative, pointing to an in-depth program? There's probably a job in the Bush Administration for you. >>> Funny how cranked you get about people sounding the alarm about >>> pollution, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cranked about specious and half-heard and less understood snippets of > ANYTHING with respect ot climate change. Because most of it is Bullshit. Even you got data from the IPCC that shows global warming is a regular occurance. However, the Liberal media and the "leaders" of the Liberal parties around the globe would have us believing all the ills of the world are caused by us. Perhaps the Ragheads have the right idea: obliterate the Human Race. If everyone on Earth DROPPED DEAD this minute, it wouldn't matter one whit: global warming would continue to march until nature runs it's course, and then the Earth will repair itself like it has in the past and continue it's journey. > The Republican governor of my state was on TV this AM, and admitted, > again, that we ARE changing the climate through CO2 emissions. Gosh! I > guess the conspiracy of scientists reached him, too! He wants to get re-elected in a Liberal state? I'd say his elections advisors got to him instead of scientists. >> And, I don't think thet we should be 'allowed' to pollute more because >> they do. Have you seen any reports on the Ganges River? It's one of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > biggest per-capita polluters, the average Chinese producing about 1/4th > the CO2 that each of us produces. But there's FOUR TIMES more "average Chinese"!!! That comes out equal. Maybe Per Capita the Chinese aren't polluting as much, but as a society, what you just said is the Chinese polute the same. Now as wealth grows and more and more Chinese start buying cars, use more electricity, etc, they will surpass us handily. Remember, thanks to the Kyoto agreement, they can burn higher sulfer content coal and oil, and don't have to think twice about screwing up the planet. In the next couple years, the Chinese will far surpass us as the world's biggest polluter, with India coming in close behind. And, add to that that Chinese *Industry* is not accountable, and I bet the actual pollution emitted by China as a whole metts or surpasses that of the US. > Yes, there's $$$ to be made - a point also brought up in Al Gore's movie. Probably the only truthful thing in the movie. Sometime when I either need a good laugh, or I can keep control of my blood pressure, I'll rent the movie to see what the Nobel Prize Winner has to say. Don't hold your breath. > However, as long as the Administration is focussed on granting favors to > the oil companies, there will be little incentive for additional > investment. And I find this an absolute shame. We got the Wake Up call THIRTY YEARS AGO and ignored it then, and we're getting another one now, and look like we're ignoring it AGAIN! SOMEONE in both industry and the government needs to wake up NOW and start working on a different infrastructure. The reason they aren't says two things: they KNOW how mush oil is in the ground and how they can manipulate it for bigger anf bigger profits, and that they already have a handle on other technologies and are waiting until the oil starts to dry up. Remember, a new technology is always expensive. If they release it now the Early Adopters will start the buy-in whail prices are high and get the bugs worked out, and then in a few years the rest of us will be able to buy in at reduced prices. If they keep a lid on the technology, then JUST BEFORE it's too late they can say, "Hey look what we have!!!" and release it to a much bigger market at a larger markup... >>> By the way, I'm still waiting for the timing marks in that BBC One >>> Planet show where you claim someone said global warming was NOT caused [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in-depth program? There's probably a job in the Bush Administration for > you. Well, that's OK. A week or two before this report a BBC reporter (um, their "science" reporter, who probably knows about as much about science as I know about Journalism...) dismissed Global Warming offhand as "It's us." Never mind that there is plenty of evidence to point to the fact that it's not us, and that the IPCC even has data that shows it's an occurance every 10-15,000 years. He said it, I repoerted it. Just like the off-hand remark I posted in the other thread. One carries the same amount of credibility as the other. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.