Global warming green langaugae?

Question

If you think about it and try to decifer the green language behind it don't you see thats theres elements of anti capitalism, anti development, anti industrialism, anti car, anti USA? Am I wrong about this? i'm a skeptic so help me out a little and noone try to prove AGW is right please i get enough of that somewhere else!

Answer 1

good question, i suggest you continue to question self appointed 'authorities' who invent crusades to influence the weak minded and to further their own twisted notion of what the USA should be like.  Here is a good example, the clown, who uses the moniker, 'albino HP', if you read his diatribes, it is heavily laced with socialism and leftism bordering on communism.  He hates the United States as a country, he makes false statements, such as the one he just wrote, " the USA is the only country to refuse to sign the Kyoto.".. which anyone who can reads knows there are several other nations who have refused to sign, but here is the big rub, the treaty requires the USA to give up a lot more than the other countries.

Then of course he exposes his ignorance, and his prejudice when he states, "the USA is already industrialized..."  how silly as if he is an authority on anything, the country must continue to grow our economy, or we will stagnate, like for example the country of France, where your income tax is 1/2 of your salary.  Is this what the albino and those like him want??

Answer 2

There really isn't much of a consensus among AGW deniers, is there? You say global warming is just a money making scam and then you pull a 180 and say it's an "element of anti capitalism."

"anti-usa"? As in the USA is the only country to refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Yeaahhhhh, nice try. If anything, we've got an advantage over the rest of the world because of the protocol. If anyone's being screwed, it's the entire rest of the world.

"anti-development, anti industrialism"? Does the USA really need to grow any more? We've already industrialized, the only countries this 'dilemma' applies to are developing countries, who are exempt from most Kyoto limitations, anyways.

"anti-car"? The future oil shortage makes this 'dilemma' an inevitable, anyways--perhaps even moreso than AGW legislation (which we've seen almost nothing of, here in the states)

mikey: lol, I love how you attack my 'diatribes' using, of all things, a diatribe.

By the way, your answer had nothing to do with the actual question.

Answer 3

It's anti-fossil fuel, and anti-profit.  That's the beauty of the carbon tax, it'll force the richer countries to give away their economies to the poor countries.

I'm all for helping my fellow man, but there are much better ways to do it.

Answer 4

You are right.

Answer 5

I think the real problem is global warming will require that countries cooperate with each other to accomplish the goals of reducing emissions and slowing warming.  Part of this will likely mean that developed countries share some conservations technologies (and others as well)  with the developing countries to meet reduction goals.  Since many developing countries can't pay a huge amount, the industries that invested to create the technologies may in part need to be compensated by developed countries.  This is going to be a major issue and will require a political solution. The lobbyist will be out in force to get a huge piece of pie.  I think the developed countries can request things like more moderation in landscape conversions, agricultural systems that are a little less destructive, urban planning reduces the need for cars, etc.  But we will also need to provide access to some of the needed technologies at reduced prices if the developing countries find technologies they can use.  I think that is the anti-capitalist, anti-development, anti industrialism, anti car thing.  Instead of anti, try to substitute the word "smart."  This is the true goal, - smart development, smart capitalism, smart industrialization. The developed nations have learned a lot through the years through trail and error and can do a lot to help the developing world to improve living standards without consuming as much energy.  But nothing is free, so how much will this cost, and how will the cost be split.  These are the things we really need to discuss.

The anti-American stuff - I think it stems from the fact we contribute about 1/4 of all greenhouse gases but we refused to acknowledge the problem for so long.  I think once this administration is out of power, is we take positive steps to reduce emissions and start dialogs to help the developing countries  (show some true leadership instead of obstructing progress), we'll be seen in a much more favorable light.  We'll get there again.