The Law Dog was kind enough to pick up the discussion and a lively debate erupted on his comments, with the typical suspects arguing for us to curb our energy usage, etc. I replied that the whole environmental movement was nothing more than the old Reds now preaching Green. In other words, the old socialists wearing a different hat.
Now today, I see this article in a British paper telling us just that.
The article claims that if we only spend one TRILLION dollars over the next generation, then we, as in, the West, can reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Now, when you take into consideration that the total amount of manmade carbon dioxide in greenhouse gases equals .1 of 1 percent of all carbon dioxide produced, then you could see why I'm skeptical.
Now, the socialists come into play here:
Turbo-charged growth in emerging economies is helping to drag billions of people out of poverty across Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe. But according to PwC, the price will be paid by sharp rises in global energy consumption and carbon emissions. They say it means the rich nations that have done most to cause the problem must take more drastic action to reduce their environmental impact.
That's right dear readers - even though the West has already drastically reduced greenhouse emissions (keep that .1 of 1 percent in mind...), and the developing (as in, poor) countries are producing MORE greenhouse gases, it's up to the rich West (as in, the United States) to pay the bill.
Anyone read a copy of Marx lately?
Remember - the socialists turned environmentalists want us to spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from .1 of one percent to zero while the developing countries around the world pay nothing, and continue to emit more greenhouse gases. Just what do you think that will do to their economies and what do you think that would do to ours, comrade?
No comments:
Post a Comment