Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drift freaq
well gee, let me see. If Joe runs into traffic on the freeway and gets a kick out of it, yet manages not to killed, I should do it to for the thrill of it? Not. I.E. your China analogy is just plain stupid and right up there with our current goverment that would not sign the Kyoto accord to cut down on global pollution.
Let me see, we are the worlds largest super power and we contribute 1/3 to the global condition pollution wise. So your reasoning is if China and third world nations don't do it we should not either. Well lets just accelerate down the road to our own demise a little faster in the name of corporate oversight and greed and choke ourselves on the way. Not.
Regardless of what other countries do or do not do the U.S. plays the role of world leader whether its liked or not. If we are going to do that we have to do that in every facet. Otherwise the other countries do not see a reason to do it themselves aka lead by example.
It is the U.S.'s obligation to the rule we have assumed that we need to do that. Otherwise no one agrees nothing gets done and we all die faster and our children are left with a world they cannot live in. You have great forsight. NOT!!
California is hated by a lot of you, just because it chooses to lead by example, in the pollution department. I know you guys don't like that. Fact is though and I have said this before, we have cleaner air now than 30 years ago for the sake of it.
I stated it before I will state it again, I have a cat on my RB car a high flow cat, why? Its the least I can do so there is cleaner air. Now if you guys are so self centered and egotistical, to not be able to care one iota about your fellow man or your possible children, well then you guys need to stop smoking your own crack and wake the fuck up.
|
That was not my reasoning, i meant was that even if you have a lot of emmision laws. On a Global Scale. It wouldn't matter as much becuase you do have those third world nations, who don't regulate it. Therefore on a world stage, will having one state with strict emmission laws affect global warming. Mostly not because there are other places in the world that have no emmision restrictions and still use leaded gas. As a matter of fact the Ozone hole has actually gotten bigger since i think 2003. Also you do have to take in consideration the rapid industral growth of places like China. In a decade or so they will use almost just as much resources as the United States and have the same amount of pollution. So on a global scale how much cleaner will our planet be. You said America controls 1/3rd of the pollution. What about the other 2/3rds? Yes we can lead by example. Yet how is that possible when most of Europe, after we invaded iraq, disagrees with our government and our policies. Let alone some people in our own governement think global warming is a myth. So im saying is it really worth it to have strict emmision laws? Not even the whole country abides by them and on a world scale will it even have an impact. Yes it will slow down global warming hopefully. But isnt global warming inevitable, since more countries are indrustrializing. Therefore polluting.We're only stalling the inevitable so you might as well stretch your legs alittle. Most people will probably not see global warming or pollution take dramatic effect on the climate in there lifetime anyway. so why do you bitch about it? Things tend to change. One year the air will be clean. One year it wont. Half the time you dont notice. so why does it matter?