Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't answer for my country.

Then you have nothing to say.

About countries? Of course not.

Caught in the lie.

mean what can Western environmental organizations do if China doesn't want to cooperate?

Mister Can doesn't speak about nations and what they should do, or what reasons they might have. He only talks about what he is doing in his garden now.

Actually, I talk about both.

[Immanuel Can]

Then you have nothing to say.

About countries? Of course not.

Caught in the lie.

So stupid. Are you really this thick? I can't imagine -- you must be trolling.

Of course I have opinions. I just have no say...as in, no power to make the changes you are talking about.

Like you, actually.

Now I have no time for trolls.

[FlashDangerpants]

How so? What access of knowledge do you have to what I do?

None, obviously.

Your country does not what it can to not pollute the environment.

I don't answer for my country.

An individual citizen is only responsible for two things: one, what he does personally, and two, his vote in the general election. If he does those two things well, he's done all he can.

So you could have answered whether or not Canada should pursue lower emissions just because it is the right thing to do instead of only doing the right thing is some other country does it too. You simply chose to pretend you couldn't and now the act is inconvenient for you, you want to selectively drop it.

[FlashDangerpants]

2023 CO2 emissions by Country, Per Capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Nation.....%of Global Average....Emissions(Tons p/a)
Canada..................307%............14.91
Australia................293%............14.21
United States..........285%.............13.83
China...................190%..............9.24
New Zealand...........149%.............7.22
Germany................145%.............7.06
United Kingdom.......91%...............4.42
India....................43%...............2.07
Angola..................16%...............0.78

There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

[Immanuel Can]

So you could have answered...

No time for trolls.

[FlashDangerpants]

caught in the lie

[Immanuel Can]

So you could have answered...

No time for trolls.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is this some sort of last word thing?

[mickthinks]

Manny’s trying to pretend that his position is strong enough for him to walk away and leave you to attack it impotently.

Except that he can’t afford to leave. He has to keep coming back to prevent you having the last word. It’s yet another lie he’s caught in, but this time he sprang the trap himself.

[MikeNovack]

There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

Actually there is some argument about Canada, whether or not net emissions. Remember, Canada has lots of tree removing CO2 from the air, a lot of tree per person.

In terms of Canadians living within THEIR ecological base, doing better than most places. Remember, they have a lot of "base" compared to their population. How we measure, what's an ethical way to measure, all debatable.

In terms of the planet as a whole. Canadians have `more than a fair per capita share of the environment. I believe if we only had to consider Canada, Canadians perhaps could get to a sustainable solution without a reduction in population. Unfortunately for them, no defensible border against the much more powerful and populous neighbor to the South. So come the crash, they will be overrun.

[Impenitent]

no defensible border...

the RCMP is very cool but how many times has Dudley caught Snidley only to have Snidley escape?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Canada has lots of tree removing CO2 from the air, a lot of tree per person.

Technically, the greenest country on earth, if you balance number of inhabitants against amount of greenery.

But the larger point is this: China and India and the rest are going to keep polluting at an exponentially-accelerating rate as they industrialize. Western countries have plateaued, and henceforth will be reduced to a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall pollution.

So any solution lies in the Developing World, not in the West. Whomever imagines himself to be "green" must henceforth have some suggestion of what to do with countries in which he does not live.

I see no such suggestions here. What I see instead is a whole lot of Western-bashing that stands to change absolutely nothing about the real problems of pollution.

[FlashDangerpants]

There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

Actually there is some argument about Canada, whether or not net emissions. Remember, Canada has lots of tree removing CO2 from the air, a lot of tree per person.

In terms of Canadians living within THEIR ecological base, doing better than most places. Remember, they have a lot of "base" compared to their population. How we measure, what's an ethical way to measure, all debatable.

In terms of the planet as a whole. Canadians have `more than a fair per capita share of the environment. I believe if we only had to consider Canada, Canadians perhaps could get to a sustainable solution without a reduction in population. Unfortunately for them, no defensible border against the much more powerful and populous neighbor to the South. So come the crash, they will be overrun.

Did you have a couple drinks before you wrote that?

Are you trying to make a case that Canadians shouldn't be asked to help out because they have some trees so they are lumberjacks and they're ok?

If there is major problem affecting the whole world, and I put it to you that there is. And if it is one in which all countries could either do something to help by reducing their emissions, or do nothing and be a burden on the rest. Then I suggest that any nation which chooses not to help but to burden is behaving badly. This fallacious notion that IC perpetuates would suggest that only developing nations should aim for lower emissions is lazy and foolish.

[MikeNovack]

Did you have a couple drinks before you wrote that?
Are you trying to make a case that Canadians shouldn't be asked to help out because they have some trees so they are lumberjacks and they're ok?

If there is major problem affecting the whole world, and I put it to you that there is. And if it is one in which all countries could either do something to help by reducing their emissions, or do nothing and be a burden on the rest. Then I suggest that any nation which chooses not to help but to burden is behaving badly. This fallacious notion that IC perpetuates would suggest that only developing nations should aim for lower emissions is lazy and foolish.

No, I was trying to start discussion on the local vs global SOLUTIONS issue. Was I not clear enough that I was relating what the ecological base of an "area" was versus its population. It's a really important question, are we asking localities to decide what their population and consumption per person will be given their base? OR, are we looking for a GLOBAL decision to be imposed on all (or agreed to, if you can imagine global agreement). I was including that a "locality" might not have a choice push come to shove.

I realize that Canada did not CHOOSE "let's have a small population" to get into their current situation but they are choosing to remain low population. In fact, at the moment set to severely reduce thier population (2024 birth rate only 1.24/woman.

Take another look at what you just said. Do you not see that it is denial of the right of people of a locality to make the choice "we'll have more consumption per capita even though that means we must have fewer babies"

Remember -- NO MEASURES TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION WORK IF THE BIRTH RATE IS > 2.0/woman. (yes I know, actually about 2.1to allow for some deaths,etc.)

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you not see that it is denial of the right of people of a locality to make the choice "we'll have more consumption per capita even though that means we must have fewer babies"

I guess I will have to take your word for it that you are writing this stuff sober. It would be better if you weren't. I won't touch this Stalinist monstrosity with a shitty stick.