We should burn the Amaznia rainforest and build a parking lot

We should burn the Amazônia rainforest and build a parking lot

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    calling carbon dioxide "carbon gas" is like calling water "liquid hydrogen"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i can tell by your post that you are completely retarded and know nothing of science. Co2 warms the atmosphere causing permafrost to melt which releases Methane, which is over a 100 times a more dangerous warming gas. Due to its structure, methane traps more heat in the atmosphere per molecule than carbon dioxide (CO2), making it 80 times more harmful than CO2 for 20 years after it is released. I got an idea, read a book and stop masturbating to CP!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hey chicken little why don't you show us the math.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My analogy is accurate. You're indoctrinated in an anti-human, anti-science cult, and you are very low IQ for not realizing that.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Co2 warms the atmosphere
        Co2 is amazing. fusion is useless. just get some Co2 and run your car on that. If you made a planet out of Co2 it would kick the sun's ass.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You have a very low understanding of a subject you are heavily invested in emotionally.
        Don't you feel ashamed?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Elements are bad

    Dear God please raise humanity out of this fucking dark age.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      retard

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >wah carbon bad wahh
        carbon is the backbone of sugar, carbohydrate, protein, fat and of course DNA, it is the breath of life for plants and makes the deserts green.

        let me guess, venice is flooded and you plame the climate? maybe blame the sinking pylons.

        i can tell by your post that you are completely retarded and know nothing of science. Co2 warms the atmosphere causing permafrost to melt which releases Methane, which is over a 100 times a more dangerous warming gas. Due to its structure, methane traps more heat in the atmosphere per molecule than carbon dioxide (CO2), making it 80 times more harmful than CO2 for 20 years after it is released. I got an idea, read a book and stop masturbating to CP!

        Methane burns, it is reactive and non-lasting.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is wrong, only emissions in Europe, north America and Australia cause climate change. Asia is irrelevant. China and Indias emissions dont cause climate change.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Australia cause climate change

      our native people don't cause shit, it's our immigrants from india who cause the pollution.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No argument there, climate change is a load of bullshit. Im just pointing out how serious the climate changers are about their doomsday prophecies. They let the biggest emitter of the hook.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the biggest emitter is termites anon. But unironically. Earth's termite biomass creates more CO2 than all of human industry combined.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, the activists really believe it, they really are brainwashed, it's a cult, and when you think about it climate change really is like a religion, drawing alot from Christianity. Asia is off the hook for emissions because western rulers know it's bullshit and are only interested in pushing it because it's an insane tool for social and economic control, there is nothing more powerful than threatening the apocalypse, you can justify any policy with that no matter how immoral or totalitarian.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Our biggest cause of emissions is aluminium smelting. So instead of us doing it they'll ship raw bauxite to China along with coal for their coal power plants and have them do it. That will save the planet.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nuclear energy can save the world.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Now show per capita values. China has close to 20% of world's population, so 30% of the emission is 50% higher than that.
    Usa only has about 4% of the world's population. 13.5% is 240% higher than that. Historically usa is the country who emitted the most co2 by far. Looking at only the last 1 year, 2 years etc. is extremely unlogical.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Climate change is a ploy to keep the rest of the world underdeveloped and enslaved to the west but it's backfiring because 3rd worlders aren't buying it so the west is just accelerating its own decline. Now AI is the next big thing but that's also overhyped as fuck because at the end of the day people need to eat, live somewhere and go out.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >people NEED to go out

      uhh honey watching the sunset is not an essential activity.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Climate change is a ploy to keep the rest of the world underdeveloped and enslaved to the west but it's backfiring because 3rd worlders
      I wish you were right, but NPC here in brazil still believes in those bullshits. Green politics are still trending around here. Even lula, close to brics, is a scary bitch that advances green hysteria around.
      It only applies to China, India and maybe Russia
      Maybe when the sissies of germany, norway, france and USA are fallen and weak enough to no throw us sanctions, then a leader here might be able to not give a fuck about green shits and restart Brazlian industrialization.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Green politics

        I can't tell the difference between the green party and the technocrat party. they both want robots to kill our freedom of movement and spending.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But there is a difference indeed. Green policies go well beyond the issue of production and profit, and directly interfere in other areas, including the social one.

          I don't doubt that green policies are also aimed at profit, mainly due to the amount of taxes and scarcity they cause. But in the absence of these alarmist demagogic policies, everything becomes more accessible.
          I live in a sub-industrialized country that has increasingly adopted green policies, perhaps out of fear of sanctions from the first world. Maybe you don't understand what I'm telling you because your country industrialized enough before the global environmentalist hysteria, so even with carbon taxes and production shortages, things are still affordable there.

          The point is that in an industrializing society, without this green mental retardation, the only thing that matters will be production. Automation may even take away and make jobs more difficult, but green policies will make production more difficult, they will take away jobs and everything will become more expensive.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lmao I'm from Tasmania. It has about 40% of land locked up in rainforest "reserves" that are routinely logged by government-approved criminals. It's ALL nepotism. The wood is from ancient forests, it goes to Japan to become paper for government workers. The whole process is pure evil. Of course, we need firewood. So we don't bully all the lumberjacks. But we completely understand having a balanced forestry industry. If you cut everything down, the winds will blow off the mountains and fuck your shit.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you dont need firewood, moron. burning wood so much more polluting and inefficient than burning gas, if you regularly burn wood you should kill yourself.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who gives a fuck about the environment lol, eat shit gayboy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Who gives a fuck about the environment lol
                Your government does. Western Europe and USA are often imposing sanctions on here.
                It doesnt matter if it is a WEF agenda, because most of sanctions come from you and EU, and not from the whole world. Picrel

                https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/266638

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The clearing of forests in America was a major factor in the dustbowl years in 1930s.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The question is not even about real, fateful environmental consequences that can be calculated with environmental engineering. The only danger that Brazilian deforestation would cause would be the oxygen production crisis, of course, if you believe that the Amazon forest is the lungs of the world, which I, personally, think is nonsense and a pure international campaign of industrial sabotage.

              International NGOs, especially from Germany, the USA, France and even Norway, around here say that people like me are conspiracists because they believe in international sabotage of industries, but when the current president proposed financial aid so as not to cause an unemployment crisis here , the so-called governments above did not promise anything.

              There are a couple of reasons why they insist so much on production from the Amazon. First, countries know about the concentration of important minerals there, so they set up NGOs with the supposed motive of protecting the forest. It is not uncommon for there to be scandals involving the sending of illegal timber to the same countries where the NGOs come from.

              The second reason is simply to avoid competition and multipolarity. Although I spoke about Western countries, I do not rule out the interference of China and India in Brazil's industrial sabotage, for the simple fact that they do not want a competitor in the BRICS.

              I feel that my country is condemned to be an eternal farm dependent on food exports

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you falling for it? In the west beyond just fucking our shit up some believe it will boost economy by forcing people and governments to spend money, but that's because our traditional vectors for growth are exhausted threatening the line to stagnate or even fall. But in underdeveloped countries there is still infrastructure to build, still industries to develop.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > But in underdeveloped countries there is still infrastructure to build, still industries to develop.
              I partially agree. The problem is that medium and large industries can already afford automation. I must assume that the population of my country is a bunch of impulsive idiots who only think in the short term; investment in urban structural improvements, construction of railways, technological research institutes, all of this is out of the question. My country isn't shit for nothing. The truth is that everything will continue in the hands of the consolidated oligarchy that will use green policies to prevent the emergence of competition. To be honest, I don't see a solution for my country's shit. All I see are green policies being used to keep this place from being the shit it already is.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Ameirmutts pollute 4 times as much as Chinese and 2 times as much as white people
    >quick make a chart that blames people in China for Americas pollution
    >and use some coloring and arrangment tricks to make china look bigger than muttland than it objectively is
    >nooooo the climate doesnt care about per capita and historic pollution, it cares only about borders!
    Why are amerimutt bugmen like this

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Riddle me this
      >China doesn't pollute with their 75% of world's manufacturing industry
      >America pollutes with their 75% of world's service industry

      Is service pollution? Is industry healthy? WHAT A RIDDLE

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh carbon emission
    what they don't say is 1. china has 4x as many people as USA so it has therefore 4x as much room to emit
    2. the US has emitted over the 1900s 100x as much carbon as china has in total

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *