Sfdebris.net

More than 10,000 people died in the US due to drunk driving in 2016, of which more than 10% are children 14 and under.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/ ... sheet.html

If you think that's bad just wait until 75% of the planet ages into an upside down pyramid like Japan, China, and Russia. Things will really go to shit then.

Hey, environmentalist have been saying not to have children to save the Earth for a while now. Maybe a massive depopulation of the planet will fix everything.

I wish. If climate change were only going to kill thousands, then frankly it wouldn't be worth worrying about. Cancer will kill a thousand people in this country before the day is out.

Climate change as we currently understand it will kill millions, quite possibly billions. Humans are an adaptable lot and we'll no doubt adapt to a new climate, but many of our favorite adaptation methods involve killing lots and lots of other humans, so...yeah.

Funny thing about Trump's vendetta against immigrants whilst simultaneously pulling out of every major climate change agreement: Wait until the sea levels rise to the point that every coastal city on Earth is submerged if you really want to see what mass immigration looks like. He won't live long enough to see it, nor will most of his voter base, but the poor f- of 2100 will.
But, sure, there is no evidence. Its not as if 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have all been in the 21st century or anything...

clearspira wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:35 pm Funny thing about Trump's vendetta against immigrants whilst simultaneously pulling out of every major climate change agreement: Wait until the sea levels rise to the point that every coastal city on Earth is submerged if you really want to see what mass immigration looks like. He won't live long enough to see it, nor will most of his voter base, but the poor f- of 2100 will.
But, sure, there is no evidence. Its not as if 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have all been in the 21st century or anything...

Antiboyscout wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:23 pm If you think that's bad just wait until 75% of the planet ages into an upside down pyramid like Japan, China, and Russia. Things will really go to shit then.

Hey, environmentalist have been saying not to have children to save the Earth for a while now. Maybe a massive depopulation of the planet will fix everything.

I very much look forward to a reducing population. It's only a problem to handle if it happens too rapidly (which means it'll need to happen over a couple of centuries at least). And if people are living longer, if children aren't dying young - and those are both very good things - the shape of the demographic pyramid will change from now even if the population is stable (and anyone defending increasing populations as a good thing is bonkers IMO). That's simply something that has to be accepted and coped with, we've easily got the means of supporting everyone with that changed demographic although not the social and economic systems to do so sensibly.

Antiboyscout wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:38 pm

clearspira wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:35 pm Funny thing about Trump's vendetta against immigrants whilst simultaneously pulling out of every major climate change agreement: Wait until the sea levels rise to the point that every coastal city on Earth is submerged if you really want to see what mass immigration looks like. He won't live long enough to see it, nor will most of his voter base, but the poor f- of 2100 will.
But, sure, there is no evidence. Its not as if 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have all been in the 21st century or anything...

And that disproves what exactly? Do you want a hand clap for your moderate reduction in CO2 whilst pulling out of an agreement that would have brought about a massive reduction in CO2? Oh, and BTW, you have conveniently missed out the fact that the US is still the second biggest polluter on Earth by CO2 emissions even with the reduction. Its easy to drop forty rungs down a ladder that you were at the top of, buddy.

Changes are something you need to be a bit careful with, otherwise you can rather unfairly demonise a developing country that's still putting out far, far less than a developed one.

Another thing to be careful with is ignoring the size of countries. A large country and a small one with equal emissions per capita are obviously going to have very different totals but IMO it doesn't make sense to condemn the latter and not the former. Even that has its problems of course, a large, empty country could legimitately claim it's doing its part by not cramming itself so full of people as a small, empty one (would per capita per unit area work as a measure?)

clearspira wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:54 pm And that disproves what exactly? Do you want a hand clap for your moderate reduction in CO2 whilst pulling out of an agreement that would have brought about a massive reduction in CO2? Oh, and BTW, you have conveniently missed out the fact that the US is still the second biggest polluter on Earth by CO2 emissions even with the reduction. Its easy to drop forty rungs down a ladder that you were at the top of, buddy.

The Paris accords is non binding, it lets China and India pollute all they want, and both France and Germany have had minor CO2 emission increases. Even if it is minor an increase is not a decrease.

How's that new fuel tax working out for France by the way?