Originally Posted by RockyMtnMerlin
Why can't we have it both ways? Develope the technology to reduce greenhouse gases (and other assoicated pollutants) here in the good ol' USA and SELL them to other countries. Heck, just pitch it to the Chinese to reduce pollutants before the 2008 Beijing Olympics and if you have the right idea you could make a fortune. Even if you are wrong you still might make money.
No you can not have it both ways! Your hypocricy slip is showing. If you believe the CO2 is the doom's day precursor than you must sacrifice everything to halt the process.
Chalk this one up for TAWL
"The facts are that the supporter (sic) such as China, India, Russia few other countries are producing almost same amount of CO2 per capita as USA...." is also poppycock. The TOTAL emissions are approaching that of the USA but the per capita emission are miniscule compared to the USA (about 1/10th in the case of China and about 1/20th in case of India).
As you freely admit that we are the #1 producer of CO2, and TAWL inherently causes this, you must than give up TAWL completely. We all know the use of fossil fuel is the #1 culprit of increasing [CO2], will you then propose the cessation of fossil fuel? Or slowly ease into the usage of alternative energy with the economic and geo politics of fossil fuel <sic> petroleum, <sic> crude oil, <sic> gulf states as guidance. Scary eh! For your conscience's sake. let's
Chalk this one as neutral for TAWL.
Even if you are wrong you still might make money
Being a capitalist as your last statement suggest if you have the right idea you could make a fortune, then the idea of promoting global warming to profit financially is outright opportunistic. Brother,
Chalk this one up for TAWL
And yes I know that arguing total emission vs per capita emission may be a moot point.
It may seems that way at first glance, if you will not take the impact of deforestation, overpopulation, warfare, poverty etc into consideration. We may be producer of the major quantity of CO2. However if you factor efficiency, and productivity into the equation that will really make your argument moot. One produce as much waste working or not working.
Neutral for this one on TAWL?
I have tried to be tactful in my responses to posts in this thread, but your post is poppycock.
Not applicable to TAWL? Sure reflect the restraint consistent with TAWL to me.
It is legitimate scientific research that may determine the fate of future generations
.
Make sure you are absolutely certain that the reseach paper you read PERSONALLY are legitimate. At least the abstact of the reseach paper that you have read. Giving you all the benefits of doubt
Chalk this one down for TAWL.
So we have
2 for, 1 against and 2 neutral on TAWL & 1 N/A OUI, NONE?
There is still hope
