| Why are we doing this?28-03-2014 16:26 | |
| hopboyd☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
nbvcxNew York Times, May 10, 2013: "China now uses more coal than the US, Europe and Japan combined, making it the largest emitter of gasses that are warming the planet." Reuters, June 10, 2013. "China led a rise in global CO2 to a record high in 2012 casting doubt over the chances of limiting global warming to what scientists regard as an acceptable level. Falls in CO2 emissions in the US and Europe were offset by China, lifting worldwide emissions by 1.4 % to 31.8 billion tonnes the IEA said on Monday." Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 25, 2013:" European leaders were shocked this spring in Brussels to see that since 2005, electricity prices had skyrocketed some 37% over that of the US. That led to the G8 dropping climate change from the agenda. Many EU states have cancelled subsidies to renewables or begun to tax them. Germany is building dozens of coal plants, after finding out renewables cannot supply their needs reliably or cost-efficiently." As of 2011 (latest I could find), the US emitted 17.7% of the world's total. Thus, 82.3% of emissions are beyond US ability to control. No world body has successfully persuaded the world's nations to reduce CO2 emissions . Those who initially tried are ceasing to do so, in view of economic realities. If the environmentalists are correct and CO2 will destroy the planet, then it is obvious that the US cannot prevent it, regardless of the measures taken. Existing regulations and more proposed through the EPA will have trivial to no impact on global emissions, but will guarantee a continuing rise in energy costs, a lessening of US competitiveness abroad, and the export of business entities and jobs to less restrictive nations.' For what are we squandering wealth and destroying jobs? ************************************************************************************* Both the New York Times and Reuters are notorious and accepted liberal shills, so these printed statements must have been extremely painful for them. The IEA (International Energy Agency) is a consortium of 28 nations, and calling them stupid or liars would be a bit much. The G8 is not funded by either the coal or oil industry. What is there about this that can be called into question? It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of global warming, but with the futility of the US taking devastating economic measures to curb CO2 emissions. It also legitimizes the statement that this whole GW business is a purely political hoax. What do you do when there is no solution to a problem (assuming you are not a total idiot)? You give it up!!! This post might be labeled "An Inconvenient Truth". |
| 08-04-2014 20:31 | |
| hopboyd☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
This is interesting. I have posted this four times previously on News-Groups, etc. and have yet to get a single comment from the global warming advocates. They won't touch it with a ten foot pole. What does this tell you? |