The Environmental Watchdog MasterThread

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'm well aware of the propaganda but you can repeat it a few more times if you want.

Nice strawman. I clearly said earlier that the U.S. and other countries need to change too. Maybe you just can't read?

**Frownland** · 08-09-2021, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Nice strawman. I made an empty disclaimer that absolves me from my general point. I parroted the right words, where's my cracker?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

If the goal is to actually reverse the trends we are seeing in climate change, you need to start with the country producing the most pollution and work your way down.

=put fully solving the multifaceted issue on the backburner because we gotta invade china real quick

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

right China could just find someone to replace...the entire United States

They won't, but the EU and India and others could always buy more if the U.S. empire took a nosedive. Their consumption rates are going up after all.

Oh and Frown...learn to code bro. You clearly can't read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

It isn't misleading. If their population size is the problem, then that's all the more reason for them to be the #1 priority as far as the U.N. is concerned. If the goal is to actually reverse the trends we are seeing in climate change, you need to start with the country producing the most pollution and work your way down. At the same time, the U.S., EU and India should change their consumption practices to accelerate that process.

**Frownland** · 08-09-2021, 09:39 AM

Ok he made the caveat fellas, invading china is now morally consistent with our beliefs.

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 09:41 AM

It is surprisingly satisfying to win in a 2vs1 situation like this.

We could invade China, but it won't solve climate change. I'm glad you remembered that joke though.

Lisnaholic · 08-09-2021, 09:42 AM

Thanks for this pie chart, Anteater. I was about to look for a similar one myself. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions
It shows US emissions at 15%, biggest single contributing country after China at 28%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

The U.S. could go to net-zero emissions tomorrow and it won't even make a dent. We need to send ecoterrorist mercenaries to China and India to tickle them until they stop using fossil fuels and start powering everything with leftover Tang from the 90's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

My point is that all of the world's greater goals to combat climate change are ****ed anyway unless something changes in China due to the sheer gulf in output between them and everyone else. The United States is a non-factor in comparison, bar utilizing their military power or leading the way in additional sanctions.

Frankly, I don't think your point is well made by describing a 15% reduction as "not moving the needle" or "not making a dent". 15% is a decent slice of the pie. If I'm given 15% of a birthday cake, I don't call that insignificant, but apparently you would. We are both seeing the same thing, right?

Spoiler for 15% of the pie:

This, on the other hand, is a very good point:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

we don't live in China

we live in the US

we can control what WE contribute, you start with that

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 09:49 AM

You are missing the point Lisna. The U.S. does make strides toward reducing emissions. The problem is when others do not do the same despite the fact their cumulative output is over double our own. Frownland and elph are not solutions-oriented people so you can't explain to them that in order to solve a problem you have to really focus at the top. Biden already is already pushing in regards to U.S. environmental policy. The U.S. (along with a bunch of others) are buyers in regards to China - China is both the primary producer and the seller. China has more leverage than everyone else by the very nature of this relationship. Therefore, if you can get China to evolve their operations, by extension you reduce every other associated issue. Why? Because the likelihood of these buyer-seller relationships changing at any point before we die of old age is zero, whereas it is more feasible to push China to become more innovative both domestically and otherwise in regards to the production of goods and services.

**Frownland** · 08-09-2021, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

Frankly, I don't think your point is well made by describing a 15% reduction as "not moving the needle" or "not making a dent". 15% is a decent slice of the pie. If I'm given 15% of a birthday cake, I don't call that insignificant, but apparently you would. We are both seeing the same thing, right?

It's passé to outright reject man-made climate change at this point, so the conservative think tanks that ant is parroting have shifted the focus to downplaying the efficacy of any proposed solution before they happen.

Anteater · 08-09-2021, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's passé to outright reject man-made climate change at this point, so the conservative think tanks that ant is parroting have shifted the focus to downplaying the efficacy of any proposed solution before they happen.

Are you actually capable of debating without constantly strawmanning and putting down other people?

**Frownland** · 08-09-2021, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Are you actually capable of debating without constantly strawmanning and putting down other people?

Not with someone who's either lying to me or themselves.

08-09-2021, 09:39 AM	#804 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Ok he made the caveat fellas, invading china is now morally consistent with our beliefs. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x