Al Gore Sides With China Instead Of U.S. On Global Warming (Reported by The AP, h/t Drudge

NewsBusters ^ | Feb 8, 2007 | Noel Sheppard

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Concerning your posts (#28 and #36) there are several things which must be dealt with.

Al Gore and the United Nations do not have the right to dictate to us how much energy we have a right to. Nor do they have a right to dictate to use how much energy each country should get. The United Nations is not the rationer-in-chief.

One must look at the amount (x amount) of Co2 that China is pumping into the atmosphere, not the amount per capita.

China will pass the United States very soon in the amount (x) of Co2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere. If China pumps an equal amount, then they should be held to the same standard that the U.S. is being held to. Oh, but some might say that this nation is 4 times as large as the U.S., so they get to pump more Co2 into the atmosphere. No, we go by the amount (x), so that we do not go down the road of other nations and entities deciding what we can do and what we can't regarding our economy.

The informal fallacies and junk science that is being touted by the media, Gore, and other socialists (the UN) are being implemented to try and lead the U.S. to the Kyoto Treaty.

There the United Nations can dictate to us how much Co2 that we can pump into the atmosphere. If we wish to keep our economy chugging along, then we must buy "credits" from other nations (most of them poor ones). Income redistribution.

Based upon what I have read from you, and your comments concerning Gore, you do not belong here at FR. Socialism not allowed.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Please read #41.

Thanks.

[ponder life]

Al Gore and the United Nations do not have the right to dictate to us how much energy we have a right to. Nor do they have a right to dictate to use how much energy each country should get. The United Nations is not the rationer-in-chief.

I don't believe that is what I was promoting; UN or any dictations to US emissions. However, I'm glad you said what you said. So, with that in mind, do you also believe the US also shouldn't dictate to China how much carbon THEY (China) should be emitting?

One must look at the amount (x amount) of Co2 that China is pumping into the atmosphere, not the amount per capita.

China will pass the United States very soon in the amount (x) of Co2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere. If China pumps an equal amount, then they should be held to the same standard that the U.S. is being held to. Oh, but some might say that this nation is 4 times as large as the U.S., so they get to pump more Co2 into the atmosphere. No, we go by the amount (x), so that we do not go down the road of other nations and entities deciding what we can do and what we can't regarding our economy.

Well, in that case, should we compare the US to carbon emissions of Canada, Finland, or Australia? The US pumps many many times more carbon into the atmosphere than these countries. On a per capita basis, it may be in similar amounts, but since the US is much larger than any of these countries, should the US not be allowed it's already large volume of carbon or should the US also be held to the same volumes as Finland? Lets make that "x-amount" to what Finland or Australia is emitting. BTW, Finland is about 2% the size of US population and Australia about 7%.

The informal fallacies and junk science that is being touted by the media, Gore, and other socialists (the UN) are being implemented to try and lead the U.S. to the Kyoto Treaty.

There the United Nations can dictate to us how much Co2 that we can pump into the atmosphere. If we wish to keep our economy chugging along, then we must buy "credits" from other nations (most of them poor ones). Income redistribution.

I don't believe I was promiting Gore's agenda nor stating whether I agreed or disagreed with the affects of greenhouse gases (I do have my opinion, but was not stating it here). My point was, given the overall acceptance of the effects of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2), China, overall, should be allowed more for the reasons I stated (i.e., based on per capita).

As far as buying credits, I never said I agreed with the process.

Based upon what I have read from you, and your comments concerning Gore, you do not belong here at FR. Socialism not allowed.

Perhaps not. However, I never expoused socialism on this post nor anywhere else on FR. I believe in free market and limited government as you do. I believe success comes from it. It just boggles me that as China moves down that road (greater free market and less government) China gets singled out more and more for every hot button issue. And many postings on FR is very visceral about anything to do with China's growing influence.

Despite your defensiveness about the US being dictated to about carbon emissions by the UN, it will be, in the long run, China being dictated to by the US about China's carbon emissions. And when that happens, this FR board will be filled with hawkish opinions about China's environmental handlings. And ironically, by those who were most appalled by any suggestions that the US sign the Kyoto protocol.