Amazing stat on CO2 emission per $1 of GDP

YellowSnow

And, beyond a certain level of wealth, countries become greener. Worldwide, between 1990 and 2014, CO2 emissions per $1 of GDP fell from 0.76 kg to 0.32 kg — a 58% decline. In the U.S., they fell from 0.81 kg to 0.30 kg — 63%. There needn’t be a trade-off between the environment and continued economic growth.

Imagine if we used innovation to continue to make splitting atoms safer and more efficient.

http://www.startribune.com/we-live-in-the-luckiest-era-in-history-and-here-s-why/566445002/

UW_Doog_Bot

Imagine that moving off of 18th century technology could be good for the environment.

YellowSnow

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Imagine that moving off of 18th century technology could be good for the environment.

There a numerous reasons where it makes sense to keep as much carbon in the ground as possible, besides climate stuff. And we can do w/o getting hysterical and being smart about technology.

MikeDamone

Nuclear won’t happen because it takes power (lol) from the leftists. They want solar and wind so they can ration power and by extension, control people.

UW_Doog_Bot

YellowSnow said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Imagine that moving off of 18th century technology could be good for the environment.

There a numerous reasons where it makes sense to keep as much carbon in the ground as possible, besides climate stuff. And we can do w/o getting hysterical and being smart about technology.

As discussed before, at the heart of the left and socialism is the idea that resources are finite(not just scarce). Efficiency, technology, and economic gain make preserving more and more natural resources possible where as rationing doesn't. It's pretty universal that once societies move past basic survival preservation of the natural environment becomes a priority.

MikeDamone

YellowSnow said:

And, beyond a certain level of wealth, countries become greener. Worldwide, between 1990 and 2014, CO2 emissions per $1 of GDP fell from 0.76 kg to 0.32 kg — a 58% decline. In the U.S., they fell from 0.81 kg to 0.30 kg — 63%. There needn’t be a trade-off between the environment and continued economic growth.

Imagine if we used innovation to continue to make splitting atoms safer and more efficient.

http://www.startribune.com/we-live-in-the-luckiest-era-in-history-and-here-s-why/566445002/

RaceBannon

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Oh an we can't do nuclear because the communists fucked that up. Or Japanese putting the generators in the wrong place.

MikeDamone

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Oh an we can't do nuclear because the communists fucked that up. Or Japanese putting the generators in the wrong place.

Yes, the leftists crowd thinks going nuclear would involve using soviet technology from the 1960’s

GrundleStiltzkin

MikeDamone said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Oh an we can't do nuclear because the communists fucked that up. Or Japanese putting the generators in the wrong place.

Yes, the leftists crowd thinks going nuclear would involve using soviet technology from the 1960’s

But CHERNOBYL

2001400ex

Either some of you are trying to troll or you really are that dumb. I'm pretty sure I know which it is.

MikeDamone

GrundleStiltzkin said:

MikeDamone said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Oh an we can't do nuclear because the communists fucked that up. Or Japanese putting the generators in the wrong place.

Yes, the leftists crowd thinks going nuclear would involve using soviet technology from the 1960’s

But CHERNOBYL

Anyone who claims to be concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere and isn’t 100% on board with nuclear is lying about being concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere.

GrundleStiltzkin

MikeDamone said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

MikeDamone said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Oh an we can't do nuclear because the communists fucked that up. Or Japanese putting the generators in the wrong place.

Yes, the leftists crowd thinks going nuclear would involve using soviet technology from the 1960’s

But CHERNOBYL

Anyone who claims to be concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere and isn’t 100% on board with nuclear is lying about being concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or, they don't like people.

MikeDamone

GrundleStiltzkin said:

MikeDamone said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

MikeDamone said:

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Oh an we can't do nuclear because the communists fucked that up. Or Japanese putting the generators in the wrong place.

Yes, the leftists crowd thinks going nuclear would involve using soviet technology from the 1960’s

But CHERNOBYL

Anyone who claims to be concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere and isn’t 100% on board with nuclear is lying about being concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or, they don't like people.

They like people they can control. They think they know what is best for everyone.

SFGbob

RaceBannon said:

I'm not a college prefessor or anything but I couldn't help but notice that the Soviet Block when it collapsed was an environmental disaster on multiple levels. Meanwhile the US between 1960 and 1990 got much cleaner and more energy efficient because they could. And the customer demanded it - that would be us who drink the water and breathe the air. Capitalism could foot the bill and did.

And yet the leftists to this day promote the system that polluted the planet and still does in the worker's paradise of China. It isn't about the environment


That's the only logical conclusion

Yeah but, that’s not real Communism/Socialism

Southerndawg

The most poignant point of the article.

"Enrichment rooted in capitalism has made life better in so many ways, including ones that touch very close to home. It's worth considering if you favor systemic change.

In 1860, the share of the global population that died in the first five years of life was 41%, the author writes. In 2017, it was 4%."



Capitalism works. Suck it Tug Commies.

HustlinOwl

MikeDamone said:

Nuclear won’t happen because it takes power (lol) from the leftists. They want solar and wind so they can ration power and by extension, control people.

And eventually rule the world! (Evil Laugh) Bwahahahhaaha!

YellowSnow

Southerndawg said:

The most poignant point of the article.

"Enrichment rooted in capitalism has made life better in so many ways, including ones that touch very close to home. It's worth considering if you favor systemic change.

In 1860, the share of the global population that died in the first five years of life was 41%, the author writes. In 2017, it was 4%."



Capitalism works. Suck it Tug Commies.

I hate capitalism for ruining college football. It’s also the worst economic system, except for all the others.

MikeDamone

HustlinOwl said:

MikeDamone said:

Nuclear won’t happen because it takes power (lol) from the leftists. They want solar and wind so they can ration power and by extension, control people.

And eventually rule the world! (Evil Laugh) Bwahahahhaaha!

Commies agree. There is a book on it. You should read it.

MikeDamone

YellowSnow said:

Southerndawg said:

The most poignant point of the article.

"Enrichment rooted in capitalism has made life better in so many ways, including ones that touch very close to home. It's worth considering if you favor systemic change.

In 1860, the share of the global population that died in the first five years of life was 41%, the author writes. In 2017, it was 4%."



Capitalism works. Suck it Tug Commies.

I hate capitalism for ruining college football. It’s also the worst economic system, except for all the others.

If it would have ruined it, it would be out of business. They are making more money than ever because people are choosing to watch and buy products more than ever.

Your statement more accurately is that it was ruined for you. As it was for me.

PurpleThrobber

MikeDamone said:

HustlinOwl said:

MikeDamone said:

Nuclear won’t happen because it takes power (lol) from the leftists. They want solar and wind so they can ration power and by extension, control people.

And eventually rule the world! (Evil Laugh) Bwahahahhaaha!

Commies agree. There is a book on it. You should read it.

The progs aren’t commies. They are ideological contrarian hipsters with bad skinny jeans that they think look good.

Their asses are still fat and they’re still douche bags.