America is not a Planet

[constitutionman]

Does it end after Jose has 5 children and buys a gas guzzler truck?

Jose and his 5 kids collectively have lower carbon footprint than Billybob and Billyanne with their supped up F150 and Dodge Charger.

PS. Jose has a higher IQ than you.

 

[LacesOut]

I'm not addressing ending air travel; just the idiotic notion that the world can't be linked by railroad through the ocean.

Lol. They can’t even build a train line from LA to Vegas.

 

[futurecurrents]

So she never said we should build bridges across the oceans, nor did she say we should rebuild all the buildings and as usual the Trumptards are fucking morons.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

Jose and his 5 kids collectively have lower carbon footprint than Billybob and Billyanne with their supped up F150 and Dodge Charger.

PS. Jose has a higher IQ than you.

Fuck you constipationman, go take a dump on the street like a good Californian. That is a very popular thing to do in LA and San Fran right now. Jose has a higher IQ than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and YOU combined. Jose would bitch slap your stupid ass for wanting socialism along with your stupid world wide railway ideas.

 

[Cuddles]

are we debating whether we can bridge the Bering strait w/a track?

Me:
I bring up it's possible to build bridges on oceans, poking holes at the mocking of such feat.

When you Democrats said "build bridges, not walls" you were not kidding. Tell me, which country is on the other side of the Bering strait?

You:
Brings up the geopolitics of it, disregarding feasibility which is the basis of the mocking.

<1st turn

34 mi

The Bering Strait is about 82 kilometres (51 mi) wide at its narrowest point,
The Diomede Islands are often mentioned as likely intermediate stops for the hypothetical bridge or tunnel (Bering Strait crossing) spanning the Bering Strait.[4]

Suggestions have been made to construct a Bering Strait bridge between Alaska and Siberia. However, despite the unprecedented engineering, political, and financial challenges, Russia green-lighted the US $65-billion TKM-World Link tunnel project in August 2011. If completed, the 103 km (64 mile) project would have been the world's longest.[18] China considered construction of a "China-Russia-Canada-America" railroad line that would include construction of a 200 km (120 mi) long underwater tunnel that would cross the Bering Strait.[19]

Me:
Addresses we do business w/our enemies, hence possible.

The true idiotic notions are laid out in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal". I am still waiting to hear how and why China is not Priority #1 for addressing climate change? China emits more carbon dioxide than the USA and EU combined. Why is that not Priority #1? How will China be stopped?

You:
China is still producing a ton of c02, and even though I mock the premise of it causing global warming, I suddenly care about their levels
<2nd turn

That's moving the goal post of what I am arguing, but the Chinese are making massive changes to reduce C02 output (mostly by going nuclear), so issuing sanctions for them to fall in line would be dumb. They're still the largest polluter at present, most likely.

Me:
Addresses China is doing their part, and acknowledges their C02 production.

Since the USA has the largest "per capita" numbers then why do you want more people to move to the USA? Shouldn't we freeze all immigration in the name of climate change? Why would you want new people who arrive to the USA to increase their carbon footprint?

You:
Says per capita is high in the US, and bringing more people would somehow increase per capita c02 output(ignoring the meaning of per capita)
<3rd turn

because third worlder's footprint is much lower? duh

Me:
Addresses that 3rd worlders likely would bring down per capita c02 levels

Enough joking around, is the climate overall hurt or helped when the population of the USA goes up?

You:
Changes from per capita to net C02 production w/population increase
<4th turn

Immigrants undoubtedly bring down the per capita footprint of the USA as they bring their customs and miserly ways. Now, if the premise is "if the population goes up" and is not just at replacement levels, then no, having more people anywhere never brings it down, especially as upward mobility increases one's footprint.

Me:
no shit

Why are you being purposely obtuse? There is no need to guess about what the premise is, I gave it to you when I asked "is the climate overall hurt or helped when the population of the USA goes up?"




Great, show me some research to back up that statement. You must have arrived at this opinion some how? I would also be concerned with the environmental impact of the 2nd generation of these immigrant families. How long does this grace period of low carbon emissions last? Does it end after Jose has 5 children and buys a gas guzzler truck?

You:
What about their childre and their 5 kids
<5th turn

me:
aw fuck this shit

 

[fan27]

It does, but poor New Zealand... they are way fvcked.
I think Elon will figure it out though.

.

We can dig tunnels through the center of the earth and send people in tubes to various locations. This will reduce our carbon footprint because traveling via a straight line (the tube) is a shorter distance than traveling around a circular object.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

Me:
I bring up it's possible to build bridges on oceans, poking holes at the mocking of such feat.



You:
Brings up the geopolitics of it, disregarding feasibility which is the basis of the mocking.

<1st turn



Me:
Addresses we do business w/our enemies, hence possible.



You:
China is still producing a ton of c02, and even though I mock the premise of it causing global warming, I suddenly care about their levels
<2nd turn




Me:
Addresses China is doing their part, and acknowledges their C02 production.



You:
Says per capita is high in the US, and bringing more people would somehow increase per capita c02 output(ignoring the meaning of per capita)
<3rd turn



Me:
Addresses that 3rd worlders likely would bring down per capita c02 levels



You:
Changes from per capita to net C02 production w/population increase
<4th turn



Me:
no shit



You:
What about their childre and their 5 kids
<5th turn

me:
aw fuck this shit

Give yourself a hand....across your face. You haven't dissected anything. Your assertions are ridiculous and you cite no sources. You some how (again no data to back it up) make claims about immigrants

Me:
I bring up it's possible to build bridges on oceans, poking holes at the mocking of such feat.



You:
Brings up the geopolitics of it, disregarding feasibility which is the basis of the mocking.

<1st turn



Me:
Addresses we do business w/our enemies, hence possible.



You:
China is still producing a ton of c02, and even though I mock the premise of it causing global warming, I suddenly care about their levels
<2nd turn




Me:
Addresses China is doing their part, and acknowledges their C02 production.



You:
Says per capita is high in the US, and bringing more people would somehow increase per capita c02 output(ignoring the meaning of per capita)
<3rd turn



Me:
Addresses that 3rd worlders likely would bring down per capita c02 levels



You:
Changes from per capita to net C02 production w/population increase
<4th turn



Me:
no shit



You:
What about their childre and their 5 kids
<5th turn

me:
aw fuck this shit

You haven't dissected anything. Your friend constipationman brought "per capita" into the conversation as a metric before I did. If you actually cared about climate change then you would be concerned with the overall output of a nation as a whole. None of your stances on immigration help the USA in terms of climate change.

Notice how your comments on immigrants and climate change are based on nothing more than presumptions and assertions, you have no data to back up anything you are saying. Any increase in population is an automatic net increase in carbon emissions. You know that I am right on that.

So what if you proved in your own mind that building a bridge or tunnel from the USA to Russsia is possible. Do you think that is somehow a victory? You are not even factoring in all of the environmental damage for building this stupid project. Fine, your proved that a tunnel can be built from the USA to Russia. How do you feel about building bridges or digging tunnels the whole world over? Do you really want to allow Russia to have the power over the USA's ability to travel internationally?

All of these Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "Green New Deal" ideas are stupid. If you want to defend them then fine. The untold environmental damage that a Wall would cause must be nothing in comparison to this world wide railway system. It is too difficult and expensive to build a Wall but now I am suppose to believe that all of this is suddenly feasible?

Let's just wait until Ocasio-Cortez comes up with a teleportation machine.

 

[traderob]

I just returned from a ski trip to Switzerland (almost record levels of snow), and knowing that lefties frown on the freedom to travel makes it a little more satisfying.

 

[UsualName]

The same way it will all be paid for... "somehow".

I’m reading this from a trump supporter like:

 

[carrer]

People sometimes wonder if AOC is a Trump plant. A person could not be that naive. I am also surprised by the number of people who support her.

By the way, it's not easy to have a railway track across the ocean. Thunderstorms, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FThe_Donald%252Fcomments%252Fao95x9%252F