Originally Posted by JackYang
BLAME IT ON CHINA!!!
I hate to break it to you, (even if you are taking the piss), but China actually emits a much lower percentage of pollution per person than other leading countries; it's just that China is also a lot BIGGER (isn't it the third biggest country in the world?), and thus obviously it's going to emit more pollution than smaller countries. But, on the whole, it's not that bad - Britain is tiny and per person, emits a lot more. Also, as China becomes more developed IT IS polluting our environment more - but, as it claims, it has a certain right to. America and Britain have had their fair share of polluting the environment, and there are now regulations in place which allow China a certain amount of emmition; similar to Britian's levels gone before it. The other countries know full well they can't criticize China for something they themselves, have also been responsible for. Basically, if China wasn't so big it wouldn't pollute our environment so much.
Also, it's interesting that no-one has yet mentioned Global Dimming - the new environmental phenomena; the opposite to Global Warming. Global Dimming is basically the environmentalists way of saying; "we're f*cked either way". Basically, if we decrease the level of harmful gases we release into the atomsphere (such as Sulphur Dioxide), we'll decrease the earth's temperature which will incite Global Dimming - it's to do with random droplet clouds and reflection, I can't be arsed getting into (and frankly, I can't recollect it all)...
There's a kind of selfish part of me that sometimes thinks; "can I be arsed saving the environment?", and I like the fact that I'm honest enough to admit that, but then I think of my future kids, and their future kids., and so on....and then I'm thinking, something must be done. If the Americans would sign the Environmental Treaty; we'd get a lot further, but - despite the fact that the US is the biggest contributer to the Warming process - Bush refuses to promise to decrease the levels of Sulphur and Carbon he emits. What a gimp. I can't believe he won the recent election. Also I think the environmental scientists are being a little too optimistic, and thus, are setting us up for failure - which does no-one's confidence any good. For example, Britian alone was expected to reduce it's pollution emission by 30% within a time period of just two years, and by a whopping 70% within the next five (or something)! Obviously, we did not meet these ambitious targets; which sent out the disconcerning message of failure. If it felt like measures were being successful, perhaps more people would bother with trying to conserve the environment.
On the topic of "when will they make environmentally friendly cars", to which someone answered; "never". They already have. Cars which run on electricity can be bought, though for ridiculous amounts of money, and obviously they are not wide-spread yet; but they conserve a lot of important resources such as oil. (If we continue using that at the rate that we do we've only got 45 years of the stuff left. I think we've got about 240 years left of coal).
Finally, the thread-starter post mentions the new book by the Jurassic Park author; I think it's worth noting that although (without having read the book) I am lead to believe it contains solid scientific information, I am still informed that it is classed, nonetheless, as fiction. And thus, we can't be expected to believe all it entails. (C'mon he's the author of JURASSIC PARK for god's sake....when was the last time you saw a T-Rex walking down ya street?!)