Epimonandas vs. Eamonn

Post Reply New Topic

Epimonandas, i was making a joke.
Have you ever heard of someone only being banned from one thread.
I was making a joke.
I try to all the right things, but its people, people like you, who make it so hard, you just keep drawing me back in.
i want to be friends i really do.

screw you.

Oooh behave you two. Raaar.

Sure some of the sites are, but they are the same kind of sites you and eamonn seem to have all the faith in. I have been struggling to find legitimate sources that have this info, and ones that are upto date. I have seen one quote or source claiming the U.S. as the biggest emmitter of CO2, but the source i have seen most people use, is like 9 years old.

And if the U.S. does not, then you have not read through my sources. The Kyoto agreement is not very effecient nor does it deal with all major polluters, Pacific agreement involves India, China, Austraila, U.S. and Japan. They offer to share environmental tech, i believe was part of that deal. In case you missed it, there have been efforts and measures put forth to increase engergy effeciency, if not out of Bush's and his administration's initial plans, then out of need regarding oil problems.

Even saying that the whole world outsside a few diehard republicans are wrong and that the US is not the worlds biggest polluter. Their refusal to join the kyoto agreement is because they have no intentions of cutting pollution if it will affect profit.

China and other poor developing nations refuse to sign it as well but they have a point when they say it's ok for rich nations to make the effort because they can afford it but they have yet to develop the comfortable standard of living we have here in the west. The US also has a much smaller population than China so is by far a bigger polluter per capita. The fact that oil supplies will run out and the issue of climate change is forcing the world to tackle the issue of pollution. My guess is that the oil running out is the only of those issues that concern Bush too much.

The reason why the major polluters have gone ahead with the pacific agreement is because it allows them to continue to rise their pollution levels and co2 levels unlike the kyoto agreement were they would have to tackle it in a substantial way.

Are you telling me you lack the mental capacity to understand that it suits the worst offenders to avoid cutting their co2 emmisions in line with the rest of the "first" world and instead come to an agreement that is nothing but a sop to the issue of pollution? There is no point in debating this issue with you (or any issue) any further because your obviously a clown of the first order.

Ironic, that now you seem to be using the "per capita pollution" argument after dissing mine. Is that hippocracy i smell? Why yes it is. I suppose you did not fully read or understand my prevoius post where i said, they did not sign Kyoto because for one IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM, nor does it address China, and if its too expensive for China, then how could Britain afford it or France? China as a nation is getting rich and powerful fast. Would being poor excluded them from responsibility for the planet? I think not. Oh, so since you can not win any arguments against me or convince me to see your flawed point of view, you lash out with personal attacks and insults, albeit before they were just more settle. I guess you just can not stand the heat. Resorting to insults so early suggests you have little proof for your side and thus weak foundation to set your points upon. Why are you saying the Pacific agreement does nothing? Clearly you know nothing about it. Its not that its based purely on economy, its simply a more feasible plan to follow, MORE REALISTIC.

Lets look at the economic side, just for your sake, suppose the U.S. did sign the Kyoto, how many jobs would be at risk? How much worse would unemployment be if the U.S. missed just a bit the marks set by those standards?

Anyway, why would any of it matter? The U.N. has pretty much worn out any usefulness or effectiveness it had long ago. Anymore its almost a joke it exists at all. The U.S. has a hard time taking seriously an entity as corrupt and hippocritcal as the U.N. has become. Most, if not all, its national efforts, aside perhaps from charity, are ignored by the nations they are brought against and the U.N. never does anything to back up any of its threats or sanctions. Many of them, like say Russia, France, and China, have themselves too much financial interest in risque nations like Iran to ever actually carry out a threat. Thats the way much of Europe is. You criticize us for problems and failures, yet your E.U. did not even pass, at least the first time it went to be voted by the member nations to be. Europe has too much money to risk harming their lucrative markets with enforced threats. So why should the U.S. ever listen to such biased, ineffective, impractical, and corrupt a organization like the U.N. The bribery involved in the Oil for Food scams are still under investigation, years after it was first discovered. The U.N. draws most of its money from the U.S. or at least it used to fairly recently. How silly is it to give a post like Humanitarian Rights to representatives from the worst offending nations? The U.N. is a joke. It never follows up its threats. It has too much descension to carry anything out or at least in a timely manner. Look at Yugoslavia, it was known for months if not years about how brutal Milosavich was, and it took them ages to even attempt to help or solve the problem. Its pointless to have an international body like that if it is more interested in personal wealth then with people. The U.S. maybe greedy like that too, but at least its on the face and most of the perpetrators admit they are. Not so in the U.N. where their function and purpose seems to hang on by a thread, i just wonder when it will snap.

Id be willing to discuss the many failings of the EU and the UN with someone who was willing to discuss the US's instead of backing it to the hilt. However you clearly are uninformed and hugely baised so there is no point.

You shouldnt insult people if you are going to run crying to the mods about "personal attacks" every time you get insulted.

We are not suppose to insult here, but to be civilized and logical. I do not back the U.S. to the hilt. Don't presume to know me, we have never even met. On the other hand, it bothers me to no end, when someone makes claims with less than authorative knowledge or no reliable unbiased evidence whatsoever. As you seem to be. Humans have a habit of making up their mind before doing research, and simply find things to support their view only. Sure the nation of the U.S. has made mistakes, what nation has not? If diplomacy were flawless, there would never be wars or pollution, nor immagration on the scale it exists today. I still look at the infamous "Trail of Tears" as an act of pure evil. I think the U.S. was either on the wrong side, did not support their peace terms strong enough to avoid WWII, or should not have gone to Europe at all in WWI. The U.S should not have invaded the Phillipines and let them have their freedom after the Spanish-American War.

I have said that, i have found sources that say the U.S. is the most polluted, but those sources, which i have seen quoted by others who say that of the U.S. is simply too old to still be used, its about a decade old data. That can not be used to support what the U.S. does or does not do today. And that data referred only to CO2 pollution, one of at least 5 different kinds of major air pollution. I have seen on tv news or learning channels that China is the more polluted than the U.S., i just repeated what i heard as the most up to date information available. I read in the past, and probably still not fully cleaned up, that Russia or the Soviet Union, was littered with the worst nuclear and some of the worst toxic wastes in the world, so much so, it was causing people to die younger or have health problems. That was a major article in Time magazine from about 1994. China burns lots of unclean coal for energy, the have 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world.

Im not saying this from first hand information that the U.S. has been displaced as the world leader of pollution, just basing it on the most upto date and reliable sources of information i have.

Any time i have read about it the sources say the biggest polluter is the uS but there is a more important issue. That of how we are going to tackle pollution. 156 countries have signed the kyoto agreement. There are a few notable exceptions in the US and Australia. The US position that they wont sign the protocol until it is signed by developing as well as industrailised nations is unfair on the majority of countries in the world who want to tackle climate change.

Even Russia has signed the agreement. Ideally we could get developing nations such as China to agree to it but China is an authoritarian country with a terrible record for human rights and disregard for pollution. I would have expected better from countries such as the US and Australia but the more i learn about world politics the less that surprises me about the actions of governments and organisations. They say that politics is a dirty game. So true.

SB2, in re: to what you said about Epi, I honestly did not see that as a joke. I was actually surprised when I read that........you might wanna be more careful next time.

Who rules the roost here, Paula? Because forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's you, is it? Or is there something you're not telling us all?

Paula, all i can say is that in this instance, as far as you are concerned, i am sorry.
I didn't mean to cause you or any other person to be alarmed. i thought that it so rediculous and non sensical that it would be taken for its intended meaning.

Unfortunately, i have to further apologize, but i cannot be more careful in the future. My black and white thinking processes make me think that everyother person sees it the way i do, or intended.
Also, another AS trait is taking things literally. And that would mean that no person should joke around since another person might not see the joke and take the litteral meaning. And humor is good. Although not much of mine is. But i keep trying.

Once again, i apologize for that misunderstanding. And the reason i do, is because i respect your opinions on these matters. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.

SB²

Post-Ante, my gosh, I was just making a suggestion not an order, I did contact Epimonandas, cause he's a friend of mine, and I was bit concerened as I'm sure he would question me also. SB2 thanks, I appreciate the apology, not a big deal what you said becuase you corrected yourself immediately, it just raised some eye brows because that type of behavior is out of character with Epi so I totally understand why he was so upset. We have all done the open mouth insert foot, I've inserted both..........it happens.

I would like to point out, that, whether you guys believe or not, (though i have certainly read or heard plenty of news about it), is that even if the U.S. is #1 at this time, its pollution pace is slowing down, as energy and tech get more efficient, some of that is made up for, however by the pollution clouds from China, and pollution from Mexico. Nearly a third, of air pollution at least, does not originate in the U.S. So, if the U.S. reduced its emissions by a third, it does us no good, as foreign pollution takes up the slack.

But back to my point, and to say, even if, that is if, other nations do not surpass the U.S., the speed of their growth to catch up, do, and so does their increasing rates of pollution. I myself, might have thought L.A. was the worlds most polluted city, i was surprised to find out it was a chinese city. Pollution is not just air either. Then again, one could also do accumulative pollution and conclude other nations, throughout history pass up all nations today. And that I would think, counts at least some measure, cause other wise the Earth would clean itself faster, the junkyards would dissappear in a few years, but dirt and pollution do not go away that fast. The ocean is littered with ships even as far back as ancient Greek and Roman times still.

Pollution is most likely responsible for destroying at least one civilization, the Mayans, or at least a combination of that and food shortages from their surrounding areas. Pollution has even been used as weaponry. Body parts, pigs, disease infested bodies, meat, or textiles, and even salvaging, would all qualify as pollution used as weapons.

One difference between Kyto and the Pacific pact i see, is that one requires emission reduction and the other requires cooperative tech development to find ways of reducing pollution. Is the purpose not the same, but the path to acheive it only different?

copied, pasted, archived, printed & commited to concious memory.

I'll definately need to use that one of these days (probably tomorrow, knowing me)- thanks mate!