The Age of America is OVER

[User]

On 7/4/2025 at 9:03 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

Exactly,  China is still a developing country but investments in clean energy tech outpaces all other countries by quite a lot.  Trump on the other hand doesn't give a damn about the environment and prefers to go backwards with his megabill that ends tax credits for solar and wind tech and opens federal land and water for fossil fuel exploration and tax credits.  That is backwards thinking...

China also outpaces the entire world combined in use of coal...

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, User said:

China also outpaces the entire world combined in use of coal...

You figure we should try to catch up - close the coal gap?

[User]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You figure we should try to catch up - close the coal gap?

I figure people should stop bragging about China... 

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, User said:

China also outpaces the entire world combined in use of coal...

They do, but also they're still a developing nation with 1.4B people that is diversifying it's energy mix to renewable faster than most countries. 

 

1 hour ago, User said:

I figure people should stop bragging about China... 

Don't believe anyone is bragging....just stating facts

[User]

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

They do, but also they're still a developing nation with 1.4B people that is diversifying it's energy mix to renewable faster than most countries. 

Why do you care about their diversifying energy mix? I presume climate change, but then you sit here making excuses for them destroying the planet. 

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Don't believe anyone is bragging....just stating facts

No, they are bragging. That is why they selectively state facts. 

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, User said:

Why do you care about their diversifying energy mix? I presume climate change

You confuse stating facts with being emotionally invested.  But yes, I do care about the environment.

[User]

15 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You confuse stating facts with being emotionally invested.  But yes, I do care about the environment.

So... you only care about climate change because of your emotions or because of facts?

 

[LinkSoul60]

9 minutes ago, User said:

So... you only care about climate change because of your emotions or because of facts?

Is this really supposed to be a question?  Climate change is not based on emotions, it's based on fact.

[User]

14 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Is this really supposed to be a question?  Climate change is not based on emotions, it's based on fact.

Then why did you bring up emotions?

[LinkSoul60]

11 minutes ago, User said:

Then why did you bring up emotions?

'You confuse stating facts with being emotionally invested'.

If you read the comment then you would be asking this question....

[User]

10 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

'You confuse stating facts with being emotionally invested'.

If you read the comment then you would be asking this question....

I know. That is why I am asking this question... 

You say you care about climate change, you think it is based on facts, but then you sit here excusing China. 

It doesn't add up. 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

'You confuse stating facts with being emotionally invested'.

If you read the comment then you would be asking this question....

But you did say "I do care about the environment."

And your arguments appear to be based on emotion. You haven't presented a lot in the way of facts.

Here's a fact, you and your liberals supported the hell out of the carbon tax even though it could not possibly have achieved anything significant. And didn't. And now we're not going to achieve our paris accord agreements or even come close.

So that appears to be an example of something that was 100% emotion driven and 0% fact driven. In fact so much so that the liberals didn't even bother to set goals for what they hoped the carbon tax would achieve or any mechanism to track or follow how well it was doing.

Would that be an example of your fact-based approach to climate change?

[Barquentine]

On 7/1/2025 at 3:55 PM, User said:

China has no renewable tsunami. 

Maybe not but at least they're moving in the right direction.

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au

Wondering how the world’s largest carbon emitter can also be a leader in renewable energy? It may seem counter-intuitive, but China is the global renewable energy leader hosting nearly half of the world’s total operating wind and solar capacity. China is on track to double its utility-scale solar and wind power capacity, shattering the central government’s ambitious 2030 target of 1,200 GW five years ahead of schedule.  They’re also the biggest investor in renewable energy worldwide, where nearly half of the world’s low-carbon spending took place in China in 2022 (US$546 billion).

So are the Saudis:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/business/saudi-arabia-electric-vehicles-eviq-hnk-spc
It (Saudi Arabia) wants 30% of the cars in its capital Riyadh to be electric by 2030. But Saudi isn’t just adopting EVs, it’s “building an entire industrial ecosystem” around them, said Seitz. The country is embracing “eMobility as a strategic lever to decarbonize, diversify its economy, and localize manufacturing at scale.”

While Trump wants to go backward....

On 7/1/2025 at 6:30 PM, CdnFox said:

the tax would solve the problems, all we had to do is pay the tax and increasingly large amounts and things would be fine we would achieve our climate's goals.

Nobody said a carbon tax alone would mitigate climate change. Just one tool among many. And nobody said anything would happen within 10 years. That's just you straw man.

Remember the ozone hole. It's still there but:

unep.org
The UN-backed Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances quadrennial assessment report, published every four years, confirms the phase out of nearly 99% of banned ozone-depleting substances. The Montreal Protocol has thus succeeded in safeguarding the ozone layer, leading to notable recovery of the ozone layer in the upper stratosphere and decreased human exposure to harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays from the sun.

If current policies remain in place, the ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 values (before the appearance of the ozone hole) by around 2066 over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world.

These corrections will take decades but they can be achieved.

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, User said:

but then you sit here excusing China.

You should probably go back and try to find one comment I made "excusing' China's emissions.  Look but you won't find.

Stating that they lead the world in clean energy investment is not excusing anything.....It's simply fact.  Are you able to understand that now?

[LinkSoul60]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But you did say "I do care about the environment."

And your arguments appear to be based on emotion. You haven't presented a lot in the way of facts.

Here's a fact, you and your liberals supported the hell out of the carbon tax even though it could not possibly have achieved anything significant. And didn't. And now we're not going to achieve our paris accord agreements or even come close.

So that appears to be an example of something that was 100% emotion driven and 0% fact driven. In fact so much so that the liberals didn't even bother to set goals for what they hoped the carbon tax would achieve or any mechanism to track or follow how well it was doing.

Would that be an example of your fact-based approach to climate change?

It's been a conversation for many years.  Try google, it works.....

[herbie]

From the perspective of a USA doing everything but criminalizing any attempt to decarbonize, criticism of China is most hilarious indeed.
The boards of GM, Ford and Stellantis aren't afraid to admit the US is shamefully behind China in automobile tech and EV adoption/production.

Look forward to taking an Indian rocket to the Chinese owned vacation resort on Mars.

[User]

14 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Maybe not but at least they're moving in the right direction.

Yeah, and putting a piece of paper over my head is "moving in the right direction" for protecting myself from a meteor... 

 

14 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You should probably go back and try to find one comment I made "excusing' China's emissions.  Look but you won't find.

Done:

" but also they're still a developing nation with 1.4B people"

 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You should probably go back and try to find one comment I made "excusing' China's emissions.  Look but you won't find.

Stating that they lead the world in clean energy investment is not excusing anything.....It's simply fact.  Are you able to understand that now?

Yes it is excusing china when you say that. Especially seeing it's as we discussed it was not true. Both in actual investment and as a percentage of their expenditure on new energy and as a total amount of energy produced they are far behind. But you present them as if they are doing enough or you are satisfied with their efforts.

And this is a common theme. We can't demand more of china that would be mean!! But at the same time you claim there's a climate crisis that if we don't address will result in calamity, So unless you're suggesting that the climate will stay cool despite china's pollution just on general principles then you are excusing china or admitting that there really isn't that big a problem to worry about

14 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

It's been a conversation for many years.  Try google, it works.....

Oh look, a nothing answering you run away and fear again when cornered with some simple facts

Google agrees with me. The best you can say for the carbon tax is that it slowed the growth of greenhouse gases by about 5%. It did nothing to help us achieve our climate targets, it did nothing to actually stop global emissions, it was a complete waste of time and money and damaged our economy for no good reason other than to put money in the pockets of the liberals

But you supported it. Despite the fact that you had no reason to believe that it was going to do any positive good. That would appear to be emotional. You support china despite the fact that their situation is absolutely deplorable and infinitely worse than our own. And you do so because they are an emerging economy etc. That appears to be emotional

You haven't even presented any credible evidence that there's an actual climate crisis or the global warming demands an immediate response of some species. So it was seeing you're being emotional there.

And so far you haven't been able to address any of these points other than having little angry hissy fits.

 

Did you want to try and do so now? Or are you just going to get mad and run away again?

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Maybe not but at least they're moving in the right direction.

 

Are they?

I realize there's a number of sources putting out what appears initially to be positive numbers with regards to china but the reality when you look at it doesn't really live up to what you're saying.

For example last year was by far and away the largest amount of money they spent on renewable resources. Can't remember off the top of my head but it was like over a trillion dollars. Sounds good right? Moving in the right direction right?

But the problem is that still only 40% of the money they spent on new energy, the rest went to carbon producing investments. In other words they are still expanding their carbon footprint faster than they are increasing their Renewables

And at the end of the day what does it matter? If we need to get carbon output below a certain percentage and they represent by far and away the world's largest carbon emitter, then it doesn't matter if they're moving in the right direction or if they are an emerging nation or blah blah blah, something has to be done immediately or else nothing else that gets done will matter.

The fact that you guys are so eager to give china a cakewalk when they are clearly the problem suggests strongly that you don't really believe there is a climate crisis. If you did then you wouldn't give excuses for china, you would say they have to change and now

[Army Guy]

32 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Maybe not but at least they're moving in the right direction.

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au

Wondering how the world’s largest carbon emitter can also be a leader in renewable energy? It may seem counter-intuitive, but China is the global renewable energy leader hosting nearly half of the world’s total operating wind and solar capacity. China is on track to double its utility-scale solar and wind power capacity, shattering the central government’s ambitious 2030 target of 1,200 GW five years ahead of schedule.  They’re also the biggest investor in renewable energy worldwide, where nearly half of the world’s low-carbon spending took place in China in 2022 (US$546 billion).

So are the Saudis:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/business/saudi-arabia-electric-vehicles-eviq-hnk-spc
It (Saudi Arabia) wants 30% of the cars in its capital Riyadh to be electric by 2030. But Saudi isn’t just adopting EVs, it’s “building an entire industrial ecosystem” around them, said Seitz. The country is embracing “eMobility as a strategic lever to decarbonize, diversify its economy, and localize manufacturing at scale.”

While Trump wants to go backward....

Nobody said a carbon tax alone would mitigate climate change. Just one tool among many. And nobody said anything would happen within 10 years. That's just you straw man.

Remember the ozone hole. It's still there but:

unep.org
The UN-backed Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances quadrennial assessment report, published every four years, confirms the phase out of nearly 99% of banned ozone-depleting substances. The Montreal Protocol has thus succeeded in safeguarding the ozone layer, leading to notable recovery of the ozone layer in the upper stratosphere and decreased human exposure to harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays from the sun.

If current policies remain in place, the ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 values (before the appearance of the ozone hole) by around 2066 over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world.

These corrections will take decades but they can be achieved.

All the major car manufacturers have just stated in the media this week they could not meet the 20 % of all cars to be EV's set our by the liberal government , that figure is "unobtainable"...the market does not support it, consumers do not support it. And the Government has not support it....no rebates, no special tax break,not enough infrastructure in place , weak power grid,all of which has not plans to improve any of this...

Nobody whom ever he is, somebody in the liberal government possibly ONLY had one plan to meet our climate change goals we had signed onto ,carbon tax on consumers and industry was it...if there was another plan please let me know i'd be interested to read about it...

[Barquentine]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

the market does not support it, consumers do not support it. And the Government has not support it

Yet.

[Barquentine]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you did then you wouldn't give excuses for china

Show me where I made excuses for China. You're such a weak debater you use every fallacy in the book.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Show me where I made excuses for China. You're such a weak debater you use every fallacy in the book.

Literally the road post I replied to along with others

The fact is I'm a strong debater and as a result you have to rely on cheesy tactics pretending you didn't say things you very clearly said.

And you can't deal with any of the facts I addressed or the points I raised so this is the best you could do

You're such a child. Do you not realize how embarrassing you must be to people who actually believe in climate change and come here and see you representing that side of the argument in this fashion?

You said china was moving in the right direction. I pointed out that they're probably not and explain why with details. But you can't address any of that, all you can do is lie and pretend that you've never suggested that china is doing the right thing when they are very clearly not doing the right thing

You can add the rest of your teachers along with your parents and yourself to the list of people who should be thoroughly embarrassed by you

[Barquentine]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Literally the road post I replied to along with others

And as usual you can't come up with a quote. Just your weasel words and deflections.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And as usual you can't come up with a quote. Just your weasel words and deflections.

I did come up with a quote. I pointed out literally the post I replied to. It's right there, it's on the same bloody page

And again because you are a lying sack of crap who knows he's wrong with no morals and no ethics rather than address the issues raised you run and hide and pretend that you weren't given the very information you asked for.

At this point your parents should really just shoot themselves.