kira Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, Muloghonto said: So more than 30-40 years ago, from 2017, is not 1950s/60s ?? Seems like your comprehension skills need a better brush-up than anything else at the moment. lol you write more than 30-40 years but you refer to 50s and 60s more than 30-40 years go could even refer to even 1800s by that logic, it is common sense if you are referring 30-40 years ago then you mean 30-40 years ago, why would you say more than 30-40 years instead of 50-60 years if you wanted to refer to 50s and 60s, just accept you made a mathematical mistake, this is really embarrassing how you are trying to justify the error you made lol Just now, Muloghonto said: 1. It is not widely accepted You continue to embarrass yourself, common but differentiated responsibility is literally enshrined in the various climate deals and it has been endorsed by most nations, yes even by the gora nations, again read a freaking book Just now, Muloghonto said: 2. It is still an opinion. They carry as much historical responsibility for global warming as you carry a historical responsibility for untouchability or sati. Just now, Muloghonto said: Ie, stupid opinion. One does not carry responsibility for anything one did not contribute to. Basics of law and ethics. Which is why none of these 'so-called accepted notions' have a leg to stand on in any legal forum. This is also why no country has been able to force another to pay 'historic reparations'. Pick up a damn book on law and ethics first. This only thing stupid here is your lack of understanding of this subject, you idiot, have you even read text of any of the climate accords? You are literally arguing over a thing you have zero knowledge about, it takes a special kind of idiot to take a stubborn stance on topic he has little knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 53 minutes ago, kira said: lol you write more than 30-40 years but you refer to 50s and 60s more than 30-40 years go could even refer to even 1800s by that logic, it is common sense if you are referring 30-40 years ago then you mean 30-40 years ago, why would you say more than 30-40 years instead of 50-60 years if you wanted to refer to 50s and 60s, just accept you made a mathematical mistake, this is really embarrassing how you are trying to justify the error you made lol I didnt make any mistake, since i did say 'more than 50-60 years ago'. yes, more than 50-60 years ago can mean even 2000 BC. Which is why i said 'more than 50-60 years ago...ie, 50s and 60s' so i provided the range of my 'more than context'. Just accept it that you are having basic comprehension trouble and move on. There is no 'error' in my statement, since my statement is completely internally consistent. Quote This only thing stupid here is your lack of understanding of this subject, you idiot, have you even read text of any of the climate accords? You are literally arguing over a thing you have zero knowledge about, it takes a special kind of idiot to take a stubborn stance on topic he has little knowledge. I have plenty of knowledge of law and ethics to know that blaming people for stuff they are not responsible for, is a silly and legally invalid concept. There is a reason why no climate deal today has 'historical culpability' argument in it, in terms of reparations or commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kira Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: I didnt make any mistake, since i did say 'more than 50-60 years ago'. yes, more than 50-60 years ago can mean even 2000 BC. Which is why i said 'more than 50-60 years ago...ie, 50s and 60s' so i provided the range of my 'more than context'. Just accept it that you are having basic comprehension trouble and move on. There is no 'error' in my statement, since my statement is completely internally consistent. lol enroll yourself in both mathematics and comprehension classes at the earliest, yaha to phir bhi chalta hai, kal kisi ke saamne besati karvayega apni Quote I have plenty of knowledge of law and ethics to know that blaming people for stuff they are not responsible for, is a silly and legally invalid concept. There is a reason why no climate deal today has 'historical culpability' argument in it, in terms of reparations or commitment. Hahah You are just making it too easy for me to embarrass you, you are absolutely wrong when you say that no climate deal that has historical culpability argument in it, the kyoto protcol not only had this principle enshrined in the agreement, but proper financial and technological mechanism were put in place to donate and transfer technology to developing and least developed countries. In fact this principle is also enshrined in the paris agreement but not as hardcore as the kyoto one, read something before you comment again or you'll get embarrassed even more Edited June 4, 2017 by kira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 What is ridiculous is that the Paris Accord is the minimum one could do, even then, those accepting the Paris Accord, are still shirking their duties. Countries' Carbon emissions per capita, with India being the floor. Spoiler Country Per Capita Carbon Emissions (Tonnes) Qatar 40.1 Trinidad & Tobago 37.78 Kuwait 34.24 Netherlands Antilles 23.55 Brunei Darussalam 22.96 United Arab Emirates 22.31 Aruba 21.59 Luxembourg 21.34 Oman 20.56 Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 19.56 Bahrain 19.18 United States 17.5 Saudi Arabia 16.92 Australia 16.75 New Caledonia 15.63 Kazakhstan 15.52 Canada 14.67 Faeroe Islands 14.6 Estonia 13.67 Montserrat 12.98 Russian Federation 12.18 South Korea 11.78 Norway 11.71 Finland 11.53 Greenland 11.07 Netherlands 10.96 Czech Republic 10.65 Palau 10.55 Turkmenistan 10.52 Cayman Islands 10.49 Belgium 10.17 Israel 9.52 Libya 9.29 Japan 9.25 South Africa 9.18 Germany 9.06 Ireland 8.95 Denmark 8.34 Poland 8.29 Bosnia & Herzegovina 8.28 Nauru 8.19 Seychelles 8.14 Austria 7.97 United Kingdom 7.96 Iran 7.73 Greece 7.63 Malaysia 7.63 Bermuda 7.35 New Zealand 7.22 Bahamas 7.19 Cyprus 6.98 Venezuela 6.96 Italy 6.71 Ukraine 6.71 Equatorial Guinea 6.68 Slovakia 6.61 Belarus 6.48 Malta 6.22 China 6.18 Iceland 6.13 Andorra 6.09 Bulgaria 5.96 Spain 5.85 Antigua & Barbuda 5.78 France 5.75 Martinique 5.62 Sweden 5.6 Barbados 5.5 Macedonia 5.28 Reunion 5.16 Hong Kong (China) 5.15 Hungary 5.07 Switzerland 5.06 British Virgin Islands 5.03 Azerbaijan 4.98 Portugal 4.9 Lebanon 4.83 Niue 4.77 Saint Kitts and Nevis 4.75 Croatia 4.74 Serbia 4.66 Suriname 4.54 Argentina 4.47 Anguilla 4.3 Thailand 4.27 Chile 4.22 Turks & Caicos Islands 4.2 Mongolia 4.18 Turkey 4.1 Montenegro 4.09 Lithuania 4.08 Mexico 3.91 Uzbekistan 3.81 Guadeloupe 3.77 Romania 3.66 Iraq 3.62 Algeria 3.48 Cook Islands 3.45 Cuba 3.41 Maldives 3.4 Latvia 3.38 Jordan 3.37 French Polynesia 3.26 Mauritius 3.17 French Guiana 3.03 Syria 3.03 North Korea 2.94 Panama 2.74 Singapore 2.66 Botswana 2.61 Jamaica 2.61 Egypt 2.52 Grenada 2.49 Tunisia 2.47 Saint Lucia 2.31 Ecuador 2.26 Guyana 2.25 Brazil 2.15 Dominican Republic 2.11 Dominica 2.01 Peru 1.98 Uruguay 1.97 Marshall Islands 1.91 Saint Vincent & Grenadines 1.91 Macao (China) 1.89 Indonesia 1.81 Gabon 1.71 Viet Nam 1.71 Costa Rica 1.67 India 1.64 We emit only 1.64 tons per capita, but Modi is already trailblazing on diversifying our energy sources through nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, etc. Look at all the countries above India, their levels of pollution, and then see how few of them actually even try to diversify their energy sources, let alone target low hanging fruit like cutting meat consumption. On the other hand, a country like China, which emits comparitively less than Middle Eastern and Western countries, is heavily investing in renewables, particularly solar, and its government has already devised a plan to cut meat consumption by 50%. Off topic response to political comments made in the thread Spoiler I'm not sure why a few trolls are popping up and turning this into a political issue. The Paris Accord isn't a solution to climate change, it only temporarily regulates pollution. There are numerous further steps that are still left to take. Steps that most countries have shown little, if any, willingness to take. Western Gliberals: Trump is a grade A idiot for getting out of the Paris Accord, but anyone pretending gliberals have done major steps to solve the issue or even give 2 fooks about this issue, aside from virtue signaling to their votebanks, are legendarily ignorant. Name anything significant idiots like Hillary, Obama, Trudeau and other assorted gora gliberals have done exactly to fix their emissions. Hillary is on record supporting the disastrous Keystone pipeline, and her and Obama both created the TPP which curtailed environmental protections, most importantly regarding deforestation. Indian Gliberals: You lot are legendary for your cognitive dissonance. You can't pretend to care about mitigating climate change on one hand, and then murder cows--> promoting beef/meat consumption and protest nuclear plants on the other. At least have some shame and learn about an issue before making fools of yourselves. Left-liberalism relies on the same underlying Abrahamist myths and assumptions that the Christian and Muslim right wings in most of these countries do. If you honestly think that the Democrat, Labor, Liberal, etc parties are any different than the Republicans, Conservatives, etc parties in terms of their unchecked consumption of resources, then you are woefully ignorant. surajmal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 ^ Trinidad & Tobago in second place. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 8 hours ago, mishra said: ^ Trinidad & Tobago in second place. How? T&T's main industry is apparently oil, gas, and petrochemical which generates over 60% of their revenue as a country. Those industries along with power generation causes 80% of their emissions. mishra 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts