The US is not the world's worst polluter

Contrary to what algore would have you believe, the United States of America is not even close to claiming the title of biggest polluter on Earth. That distinction goes to Uzbekistan. Despite making up only 0.03% of the World's GDP, or how productive the country is on a Global scale, they pump out 0.51% of the Earth's hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. That is a ratio of 19.3:1. It's just plain a dirty country.

The US, though by far the most productive country on Earth, ranks only 104th on the polluter scale out of 180 nations with a ratio of 0.87:1. Switzerland and France are by far the cleanest industrialized nations on Earth with a ratios of 0.20:1 and 0.33:1. These nations also have the bulk of their power coming from nuclear energy, 40% in Switzerland, and 77% in France. France is especially notable because it is a nation with heavy industry - automobile, military and aerospace factories, yet the pollution remains extremely low.

Nuclear power in the US only makes up about 20% of our grid. It is clear that if algore really wants to "Make A Difference," lobby the Department of Energy and the NRC to get dozens and dozens of new Nuclear Power Plants online in the next 10 years, not 2 or 3 new plants in the next 20.

Because Uzbekistan pollutes more, as long as you don't pollute as much as them, it's OK.

as a 'green' can i take this opportunity to respond to your troll...

I quite agree!  As long as you can make SAFE (small) nuke shops (i'm thinking pebble bed, proper disposal of waste, etc) then it's probably the only way we can create the power we need.

Co2 isn't the problem of course, increase that and the plants will grow better (hence pumping Co2 into grow rooms) and produce more oxygen!  This will help us with the food shortage too!

If everyone that makes things (i.e. the manufacturers) were to think about power consumption and the rest of us tried not to waste power/gas then we would only need a few nukes to power the industrial sector while the rest of us could use solar, wind, kinetic, etc for everyday purposes.

it's not a one or the other question, its how do we mix them properly thats the real question.

>>2
Did >>1 say that or are you just putting words in >>1's mouth because you are butthurt and don't want to face the facts?

>>4
Are you retarded, unable to read, and make conclusions or your problem just one of these aforementioned issues?

As >>3 states, Co2 isn't the problem.  Unfortunately, industry produces other forms of real pollution...

I'd be happy if the Green crowd would stop bitching about carbon and make more of fuss over GMOs, pesticides, and chemical dumping.  But I guess those aren't politically advantageous.  It's a shame too, since any of those is easily more scary than climate change.

I smell a troll.

>>3 is entirely too reasonable and intelligent to be a real Green.

Under a libertarianism the content of the atmosphere would be bought and sold by companies whom would sell the burning privileges to major users of CO2 and thus have the incentive to replace lost CO2. It would not be as big of a business as global warming scarefags make it out to be, but it would make climate change impossible.

major users of O2 rather

>>8
I can no longer differentiate between trolling and genuine libertarian retardation.

PRIVATIYZ MY PENIS

BEKUZ OF EEVIL SOSHALISTS I KAN'T GET LAID - IF MY PENIS IS BOUGHT AND SOLD AS A COMMODITY GIRLS WILL SUCK IT AND THE INVISIBLE HAND WILL JERK IT OFF.

>>10
Under a libertarianism new ideas by innovative entrepeneurs would not be stifled by narrow minded bureaucrats.

>>12
I hope under several libertarianisms people would notice the difference between innovation and retardation spurted out by epically moronic uneducated drones.

>>13
Yes, market forces would decide whether the new idea is innovative or retarded. Unlike in a planned economy where some unmotivated state bureaucrat in a stuffy office with no sense of reality makes such decisions.

>>14
Ahh, those MAGIK MARKAT FORSAZ again, ignoring reality and thinking economics is just UNMOTIVATED BUROKRAT OR INNOVATIV ENTREPENUR!! MERIKA FREEDUM!!! Too bad history has already proven you wrong in this issue, retarded loser. Morons like you buy the retarded stuff if given to you with enough shiny trinkets around and marketing, stopping the real innovation. Cry more.

>>15
Are you unaware of the concept of supply and demand?

>>16
Supply and demand is disproved, retarded LIBERTARYAN economics.

>>15
>>17
Typing in all capital letters has been proven to be strongly associated with grade schoolers who can't make real arguments.

>>18
>>17
>>16
>>15
>>14

Maybe a primarily market system with limited government interference to prevent fraud, monopoly, and print and promote a stable monetary system would be best?

inb4 GET OUT OF HERE FRIEDMAN

>>18
That's the point, showing libertarians are grade schoolers who can't make real arguments, repeating bullshit like parrots.

>>17
Supply and demand is "disproven"? So you believe the supply and demand of goods and services are irrelevant?

>>21
Supply and demand alone being a sufficient model to represent a modern economy is yes, disproven - though this doesn't mean they are irrelevant, retard. However it is natural for morons with no knowledge over the field to go for simplistic half-assed explanations because they are the only ones their tiny minds can barely grasp.

>>22
Come on now, we know you're dying to bust out your caps lock copy pasta of "ownage."  Don't hold back.  Tell everyone here how little they know in a fury of misspelled exaggerations while offering up no contrary ideas or supporting evidence.

>>23
Why, you seem to have finally gotten it. I hope you'll use this piece of insight to actually learn rather than cry on like this on /newpol/.

>>22
But I never said it was the only factor whereas you explicitly stated...

"Supply and demand is disproved"

>>25
Actually, I didn't say that, but I see that you are trying to yet again drag on the dialogue ad infinitum with retarded bullshit to run away from ownage stemming from your own ignorance. The point of the post you cried about was that "supply and demand" doesn't explain why free market fails in situations like >>15, and it is a known fact that retarded libertaryans like yourself like to believe supply-demand solves everything, like your "magic market forces" without actually knowing what is really going on. So there, enjoy your failure and crying yet once again.

>>26
>Actually, I didn't say that
>>17

>in situations like >>15
"MAGIK MARKAT FORSAZ UNMOTIVATED BUROKRAT OR INNOVATIV ENTREPENUR!! MERIKA FREEDUM!!!"

You have fulfilled >>23's prophecy.

>>27
I meant someone else wrote that post, but clearly as a pathetically retarded loser who believes such crap you didn't have the intelligence to comprehend that also.

Your retarded crying had lost making sense a while ago, but you could try looking less butthurt by at least pretending to have real arguments instead of simply crying when facing facts, or even better - accepting reality for a difference.

>>28
So why were you arguing in favour of it?

>>28
Bear in mind your accusation is that I believe that supply and demand is the only factor which I have never said. Besides, I'm pretty sure I know what I think so it's unlikely you will ever prove to me I don't know what I think, I fail to see why you are continuing this futile effort.

>>29
Because it was true. Cry more.

>>31
So why are you claiming you didn't write it in response to my proof that it isn't true?

>>32
As a retarded loser, you clearly missed the posts disproving your "proof", and as a retarded loser who shares unique delusions like BUSH IS SOSHALIST I can understand why you can see something like people agreeing with each other as something unimaginable, but it is true. Supply and demand doesn't explain the issue posted, and is irrelevant for that - so you have lost there, and if you claim that it does explain it, then you're implying the economic theory that revolves around supply and demand, which is disproven - but as a retarded loser who knows nothing, you didn't realize these facts even when stomping your face. Keep crying, retarded loser.

>>33
You will have to remove all words like "retard" or I have no choice but to assume you are a troll.

>>34
You will have to face facts when shown rather than run away when someone calls you a retard because you believe in completely retarded things. Until you can answer with factual arguments, I have no choice but to assume rightfully that you are a retarded loser.

>>35
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>36
You will have to face facts when shown rather than run away when someone calls you a retard because you believe in completely retarded things. Until you can answer with factual arguments, I have no choice but to assume rightfully that you are a retarded loser.

Welcome to 4chan, where people think "RETARD" "STORMFAG" "LOOZER" "NO U" "CRY MOAR" "LOLOLOLOLOL" "PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS" constitutes actual debate.

It doesn't.

>>38
Butthurt retard crying, ignoring the fact that the reason he is being called a retarded loser is  because he failed to recognize facts in countless preceding debates. But such a memory should be expected from such a mind.

>>39
no u!!!!1

There.  I win and my Internet penis is bigger than yours.

Isn't this game fun?

>>38
>>40
Protip: You don't need to spend much time explaining to him why he fails. Just make a copypasta and he will spend hours responding to something that took you less than a second to post.

>>37
>>39
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>41
>>42
Still crying... Retarded libertaryans never quit denying reality, simply because if they do so they'll have to face their own retardation aswell...

>>43
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>44
Still crying? I know you are butthurt about the exposure of your retardation again and again, but I figured you'd have gotten over it by now...

>>45
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.

>>46
I understand, if I was that retarded too and got owned with facts every time I opened my mouth to spurt out my ignorance, I too would choose to cry and run away when someone pointed out the obvious truth that I was retarded.