COMMENTS:
Voted : china pollutes more and should be forced to cut their pollution
China is still a developing country in the sense that its economic potential is still far from being realised. However, China and other developing countries should not be exempt from environmental treaties such as Kyoto simply because they are still developing industrially and economically. What’s the fucking point in having the Kyoto treaty when the world’s biggest polluters are allowed to ignore it for the sake of future economic prosperity? If the world really is in as much trouble as all these scientists and political lobbyists are saying then they should force China and India to comply as well. What’s the point in developing your industry if the consequences destroy all the development i.e. the end of the world, ice age, natural disasters and all the other stuff that comes with global warming?
China is still a developing country in the sense that its economic potential is still far from being realised.
^ huh? than we're all developing countries if our economies grow. anyone could easily argue that russia is a developing country then.
china is not a developing country. they're developing only because they have an unmanageable population. thats it.
Voted : wha? huh? umm, i must always be irrational, so i say china does not have to reduce pollution
America was allowed to pollute willy nilly on its path to global domination. All other countries should be allowed to follow suit. America set the template for successful developing nations, and this template includes burning ungodly amounts of fossil fuels. Until AMERICA can develop an alternative for other countries, there is no reason they should not be allowed to follow in America's dirty footsteps.
P.S.- I commend you on your very fair ballot choices. we-todd-ed
Summary: All any country wants is to create quality lifestyles for its people. People look to America for how to do this. America burned a lot of shit on the way. It is up to US to find another way, or shut the hell up about other countries who are polluting in the same way we did on our rise to power.
Voted : china pollutes more and should be forced to cut their pollution
I would have an Asthma attack and i die if i stepped foot in that country. Eww
America was allowed to pollute willy nilly on its path to global domination. Until AMERICA can develop an alternative for other countries, there is no reason they should not be allowed to follow in America's dirty footsteps.
P.S.- I commend you on your very fair ballot choices. we-todd-ed
by ThisIsNate on Tue Dec 04, 07 8:27am
^ uhh, yeah. great logic. we didn't have over 6 billiont people on the globe then, now did we? as for the ballot choices we-todd, you could have added your own. duh! 
Summary: All any country wants is to create quality lifestyles for its people. by ThisIsNate on Tue Dec 04, 07 8:29am
^ oh yeah, forgot. huh!? at the expense of the rest of the world? and what quality of life? i can already tell you've never even been to china. go. i have. bring a gas mask and wear a hazmat suit. and get some sun! 
FUCK CHINA!
China needs to...
A. Stop snuff video productions
B. Stop the fur trades
C. Stop the international SLAVE trade
D. Stop the pollution
E. Stop thinking they're smarter than the U.S. even though you can't set a fucking coffee cup on a shitty coffee table that is made in China without it falling a part!
So i say...FUCK CHINA in it's neck!
^ So, don't you like China then?
You will have to forgive my shitty logic kev. I was more or less paraphrasing the ideas of one of the world's most progressive authorities on global warming, michael shellenberger. what the hell would a guy like that know anyways, amirite?
p.s.- If I knew my opinions were going to be invalidated because I'd never been to China, I wouldn't have commented. Be a doll and specify next time.
"anyone could easily argue that russia is a developing country then."
I would say a country that cannot afford to give children local anaesthetic for minor operations like having tonsils removed is a developing nation. The point I was trying to make is that China’s economic and industrial growth is still rising rapidly at something like 11% compared to Europe and America’s 3%. I would still classify China as a developing nation, but I can see your point.
“Until AMERICA can develop an alternative for other countries, there is no reason they should not be allowed to follow in America's dirty footsteps.”
I disagree. We know a great deal about the damage caused and the consequences of pollution now while the western world were unaware of the dangers when the Industrial revolution sprung into life back in the 19th century. The world is a different place now. If the consequences of China’s pollution only affected China then I wouldn’t give a toss, each to their own and all that, but the fact is China’s pollution affects the rest of the world, so the rest of the world has the right to condemn it and impose sanctions on China. It comes across as hypocritical I know, but if the world really is in as much danger as the scientists say it is then we should not be afraid of being called hypocrites. China has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our planet just as much as the rest of us.
nate the logic seems flawed for many reasons. if we all lived our lives like that it would be more chaotic than it is now.
so england polluted during their industrial revolution, so that means america should be able to as well. since we did, that means china should be allowed to as well. since china does, india should be allowed to. since india is allowed to, brazil should be allowed to.
logic like that is what's wrong with the world.
as for invalidating your views, not at all. but actually seeing the situation does in fact give a new perspective. that's all. now relax! chill. 
There is a short essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," I would recommend to you. It's shorter than 1/2 the ballots you make, so time is no excuse.
p.s.- I still believe my logic to be spotless. But then again, I haven't been to China have I.
/yellowheadpokingblueheadwithstick
^ most of my ballots are very short so this can't have too much information in it. besides, you're of your opinion and i am of mine. you believe your logic (or is it really this guy michael shellenberger's logic?) either way, if you subscribe to it, so be it. i just don't happen to. and give this whole "but then again, i haven't been to china" bit a rest. if you want to base your opinions on this guy's, feel free. i've done enough reading of my own and seen it first hand. why don't you just accept that you feel one way and i feel another? 
and i checked out the essay. it's 37 pages long so your "it's shorter than most ballots you make" snippy remark just shows you don't read very well. stop with the insults. it's beneath you (or is it??) 
Voted : We can ask them to consider the benefits of "going green"
Who is going to force China to do WHAT ? Everyday makes it that much more improbable unless China can be reasoned with and agrees to. Force ? I don't think so...Secretary Gates was just over there "demanding" answers on why they were building up their military and he left with no answers but he was a prop for a lot of photo shots...see ballot #117577
^ apparently there are lots of ways that do not include use of force. afterall, surely you must be aware that many people/countries used the word "force" when it came to criticizing the united states for not signing, right? so there you have it -- they freak when we don't sign cuz we say it's not a fair agreement, but silence on china. till now of course. but yeah, there are punitive measures that can be used.
If the west stopped buying all their junk maybe that would make them clean up, China's economy and pollution is growing because they are the worlds factory .
^but of course consumers are not going to do that, they look the other way concerning China's human rights policies.... as long as prices are low the world will keep buying, putting certain environmental standards on their factories will cause prices to go up, another thing consumers wouldn't like.
This is opinion on this matter.
^ a very wise and on-target opinion. i agree.
Nothing is below me. But by the way, adding a smilie icon after your insults doesn't make them less insulting than mine.
And you'll have to forgive me if I get snippy on a ballot like this. Majoring in the natural resource sciences has given me very strong and inflexible opinions on things like this. And these opinions are as you implied opinions of Shellenberger that I happened to wholeheartedly agree with when I saw him give a presentation awhile back.
p.s.- kudos to you if you read that whole essay. i don't recall it being that long.
|
