“climate emergency”

Factor in as the population grows, so do cities, leading to more deforestation to create room for expansion. That's less plant life to absorb CO2. Also, more people means more overall emissions. Overpopulation really is the root problem of most "climate disaster".

And more people means more food needed leading to more cow farts.

But there's an upside to the genius of people like Kerry. If we were to eliminate all the carbon dioxide, then nobody would have to burn forests for new farm land ... there's a little downside there, too, that John failed to take into account which would help with both overpopulation and cow farts.
 
Factor in as the population grows, so do cities, leading to more deforestation to create room for expansion. That's less plant life to absorb CO2. Also, more people means more overall emissions. Overpopulation really is the root problem of most "climate disaster".

And more people means more food needed leading to more cow farts.
So really if we limit our immigration and our declining population trend is ongoing we are saving the planet and we don't have to do anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
So really if we limit our immigration and our declining population trend is ongoing we are saving the planet and we don't have to do anything.
Depends on if overall world population declines. The Earth needs fewer people. Science would support this statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
But there's an upside to the genius of people like Kerry. If we were to eliminate all the carbon dioxide, then nobody would have to burn forests for new farm land ... there's a little downside there, too, that John failed to take into account which would help with both overpopulation and cow farts.
John Kerry is the biggest hypocrite that ever walked the face of the earth and he should be one one of the first to leave it.
 
We're already being "encouraged" to provide other countries the vaccine, at our expense.

Ever had the thought that the "evolving" dem position is never evolutionary even though dems are the "party of science" and the great believers of evolution? Dems consistently seem to espouse the inconsistent while claiming to be scientifically pragmatic.
 
I don't disagree, I just don't think Americans should have to pay for other countries to reduce their population or encourage them to come here.

To libs, america should not be a sovereign nation but a borderless country that's part of the global community so our money isnt our money.
 
To libs, america should not be a sovereign nation but a borderless country that's part of the global community so our money isnt our money.
Ties into a conversation I've had in another thread. When then the country was founded, we were sovereign states united. As time has pushed, the federal government has amassed more and more power to where state identity pales to national identity. Now we're seeing a push toward globalization, and the erasure of national identity.
 
Ties into a conversation I've had in another thread. When then the country was founded, we were sovereign states united. As time has pushed, the federal government has amassed more and more power to where state identity pales to national identity. Now we're seeing a push toward globalization, and the erasure of national identity.
Globalization by which countries?
 
Other than having a lot of fake money, what does the US bring to the table? We don't manufacture much of anything for export anymore. We have a fiat economy and it's close to collapsing.

Huge and advanced military and natural resources
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Our country is screwed regardless. It’s all over, we’re in our death throws now.
Not quite yet, I refuse to think that we have surrendered our country to a bunch of pussies. The coastal girly boys don't get to tell me how to behave without a fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
Not quite yet, I refuse to think that we have surrendered our country to a bunch of pussies. The coastal girly boys don't get to tell me how to behave without a fight.

75 - 100 years max and we’re done
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
absolutely not - we need to reduce emissions but letting the government pull all the levers is the worst way to do it.
I think just reducing emissions may not be the best way to look at it. If we reduce emissions but then create a toxic battery issue, both in manufacturing and waste, then we've really accomplished nothing but trade one issue for another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and AM64
I think just reducing emissions may not be the best way to look at it. If we reduce emissions but then create a toxic battery issue, both in manufacturing and waste, then we've really accomplished nothing but trade one issue for another.

The big issue there is that every trade in energy has losses associated with the transformation of one state to another. You can't get something from nothing, and you can't win by swapping energy from one form to another.

Same deal with a service economy, too. Every transaction is taxed in some manner so economic energy is drained whether by a government tax or an overhead tax ... and it's all subject one way or another by energy use, and that doesn't get swapped from hand to hand. No free lunch, and no perpetual motion in trading services.

A nation can build wealth using the sweat equity of its citizens to improve raw materials and sell them ... we exported that to China. They are eating our lunch for free basically. Globalism is a shiny thing that fascinates the weak minded ... and lures the greedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom

VN Store



Back
Top