-
Oh boy...this has probably been explained to you 15x but since you like to deflect trump into a Hillary:
Now you tell me how that timeline is the same thing as the MULTIPLE guilty pleas from members of the trump campaign, campaign members private messaging with the GRU, a presidential candidate asking for Russia to hack another presidential candidate.... ETC
Comment
-
Sooooooooooo. We signed a treaty in 1967 to not militarize space. Adios Spaceforce?
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
[IMG]https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/my350z.com-vbulletin/550x225/80-parkerbsig_5096690e71d912ec1addc4a84e99c374685fc03 8.jpg[/IMG
Comment
-
We also signed the Iranian denuclearisation treaty and the Paris climate agreement too... Obviously treaties don't mean shit to generalisimo trumpo
Sent from my XT1710-02 using TapatalkComment
-
Haha. Did you really think that Iran ever even slowed down on production? Do you stop to wonder how North Korea's nuke program made yuge leaps very quickly? I mean is it really that hard to put 2 and 2 together....
The Paris treaty is complete shit too, we have to abide by certain rules, but China and India which are some of the biggest polluters dont have to for another 13 years????
Obama made that stupid ass 50mpg average across the brand requirement by 2025 that is totally asinine. Ole jug ears was wishing that electric cars would be the huge change, but failed to realize that combustion engine tech isn't there yet annnddd that corn juice fuel isnt as effective as proper gasoline. Also the electric cars are just transfering pollution from the exhaust tips of cars to the power plant, and the mines used to pull the materials for the batteries are fucking terrible to the environment. So currently it's a wash and smoke in mirrorsComment
-
I don't really feel like commenting on the nuclear programs of Iran and N. Korea because I don't honestly know too much about either of them (nor do I think Americans in general know much about them), however, I think there is some merit to what is being said about Fuel efficiency standards and the Paris Agreement. There really hasn't been a way presented yet that completely eliminates pollution, it's more of a transfer, which is why I don't really see the current EVs as being anything more than interesting engineering because the ecological cost to produce the batteries actually harms the environment more in some cases than a combustion engine vehicle. Just depends on which part of the environment you want to harm...
If you look at the Paris Agreement in a literal sense, you will think that it is penalizing certain countries while others are allowed to pollute. If you view it in relation to developmental timelines, however, you may see the agreement in a different light because it recognizes that not all countries are on the same "economic timeline". China and India are not economically and socially as advanced as the Western world, and so the pollution standard reflects that. If you view the agreement in relation to where the countries are in their development than it makes more sense, but you have to have that perspective.
It really is a matter of how you wish to judge each country, should they all be judged by the same pollution standard at the same date, or should they all be judged by the same pollution standard at the same stage in their economic development? There's plenty to argue on both sides there so there isn't a clear-cut solution, so I don't think that either side can outright win the day.Comment
-
Hey pal, I havent watched fox news in over a year, but hey you do you and puke out that CNN bullshit.
Ohhhh noesss!!!! He backed out of a treaty!!!! Who gives a shit? I mean really does it personally affect you, no it doesnt because we arnt going to turn into China and carelessly let factories pollute with no repercussions.Comment
-
I see and understand your point, but here's the thing. The advancement of technology is much different than in decades past, and these countries are participating in advancing tech. How hard would it be for China to adopt similar emissions on new cars like we have? There are plenty of foreign car manufacturers that build cars in China and they dont have to meet as high emissions requirements. But they could because they have to do it in other countries. Hell they could require emissions testing on all those nasty 2 stroke scooters, and stop making 2 stroke scooters. To me it's more of the government not caring. Look at all the trash that is in the rivers and coastal waters of those countries. Why is there trash in the water? Why cant they incinerate the trash? It's because no one cares and there is no incentive to take care of your trash there. If you dont care about trash you arnt going to care about anything else.Comment
-
You
Sent from my XT1710-02 using TapatalkComment
-
I can understand this argument, however, from the Chinese and Indian perspective, they are trying to pull millions of people out of poverty and cheap transportation is one way that people can get to jobs that make money that will allow them to get out of poverty. The argument from China and India is that they will eventually be able to get to the point where people can afford the cleaner technologies, but they need to get to that point quickly so that they can raise emissions standards and so forth, which is why their emissions goals were set further out than the developed world.
I'm not saying that I completely agree with that argument, it's just the one that they've made and they point to the US and say, "look, you were able to modernize your country using dirty technologies, why can't we?" Obviously the counter-argument is that times have changed and it's no longer the beginning of the 20th century when America made great leaps forward for its citizenry using that dirty technology.Comment
Comment