At the same time what did Russia contribute to humankind, other than misery? Stalin killed many more people than Hitler did. And Hitler was horrible. But the greenies emulate Hitler's propaganda machine as do the communist countries. In fact we have a regular on this site, Prico, that salivates over Hitler's gas chambers. Just imagine what kind of carbon footprint those ovens had.
This is one of Prico's heros, Harncutt, "I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers."
That is definitely not a Capitalist philosophy. It is more in line with a Communist philosophy.
You see, Capitalism sees a new born baby as an asset. One who will either assist in building or advance technology. Communism sees it as a liability. One who the government will have to feed and care for.
So it is only natural that Communism will pollute more than Capitalism because Capitalism has a higher respect for humankind in general.
EDIT. Keep digging, Prico. Your hole is up to your neck. Pretty soon you'll be in over your head. I particularly like that part about you being your own man. You have to be the puppet of someone, because no one can be that stupid and live. Well, maybe you can. Dork is a great example of that. OK, no one, except Dork, could be that stupid and live.
Also you say you are your own man. Then why do you emulate Goebbels so much?
Joseph Goebbel,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
You are following the course he laid out. Facts and data that don't fit your agenda are meaningless to you. Yet you keep on with that same old un-provable tripe. You emulate who you admire, or more exactly, who your hero is.
Countries with enforced environmental regulations have the best environmental records - and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the only reason that the US is not on your cesspool list.
=======
edit ---
>>Gary F - I would say we had a better record even before the EPA existed.<<
Technically true, but truly dishonest because you are leaving out the most important part of the story.
By analogy: a story followed by (your) comment.
A person attempts suicide by jumping from the top of the world's tallest building. His suicide attempt is broadcast on TV and everyone is a witness - including emergency responders who are already racing to the scene as the man jumps. They arrive at the very last possible moment that they can deploy the safety net. By a matter of just seconds, they are able save him from becoming a splattered grease spot on the pavement.
While everyone else in the crowd is cheering the successful job that the responders had done - you attitude is, "So what? The guy was alive before they got here."
That's hard to quantify since you're trying to compare an economic model with a political one. Moreover, most of the environmental initiatives taken over at least the last several decades have been greeted with complaints of creeping socialism. And finally, if you look at the most progressive countries around the world in terms of environmental protections, most of them are, by many measures including your own in declaring the U.S. 'about 60% of the way to full socialism...' socialist.
In fact, two of the biggest polluters-Russia and China-have long been described as Communist, although one could argue that recent surges in their development are as a result of responding to capitalist influences and adopting those practices.
BTW, I am a capitalist. And a pretty good one by most measures.
EDIT: No, I'm not misinformed, but I could have put it a little clearer. What I was trying to say was quantifying two different systems in terms of environmental impact was difficult to do. Actually I did say that...it's like the comparison between socialists and communists. It theory communism, socialism and capitalism are one thing (each) but in practice something often entirely different than the theories that define them. You say it yourself in your analysis of the United States as being '60% socialist." Arguably, the U.S. is one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of environmental protections-equally good cases can be made for many European countries. Was it an economy based in capitalism that drove that...social policies and legislation, or a combination of both? Look at the argument from the other side of the spectrum with countries like Russia and China, which are utilizing principles of capitalism more to develop and are among the worst polluters on the planet. What drives that? The failure of (communism or socialism), or the development of capitalism as an economic driver. Then look at 100 years ago vs. today...and compare stages of development irrespective of calendar dates...you can see the difficulties your question imposes. I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to call someone uniformed when the question is so broadly open to interpretation and you have no more idea who you are talking to than I do.
Well as an AGW denier, I must admit Capitalist's have a poor record when it comes to the environment, profits come first, what comes to mind is Japan's Minamata disease (mercury), google Chisso corp mercury for the story, checks and balances are definitely needed when it comes to industry whether capitalist or Communist's.
This is why this crusade against CO2 upsets me so much, CO2 is not a toxin it is not much of a danger, it might cause a little warming even but I don't see that as a problem, but in the meantime attention is diverted from so many other environmental issues, cancer rates in the US are climbing, smoking is at a minimum but lung cancer is up 300% there are PCB's, hormones, pesticides in the water supplies, all kinds of chemicals in our foods, but all anyone goes on about is climate change.
That is an easy question on its face...Socialism. Socialism destroys creativity, productivity and production by enslaving the masses for the elite few. Capitalism is similar except it allows those not in the elite freedom to work hard and become better off...to a limit. The government then uses taxation of income and regulation to prevent anyone gaining access to the protected elite class. In the end it does not matter...a good war will come along and wipe out the environment anyway.
Capitalism doesn't help or harm anything. It just is. It does what it does,a nd what is does is what people will spend money on. The environment is going to get better. Electric cars are coming out, less trees are being cut down as more recycled paper is being used, ecosystems are protected as less insensitive development occurs. Air is less polluted as factories gain better technolgy, and non coal sources are used. So in its currents atte no. The eco socialists are just mad that they will never ever ever get elected to government in any country.
I'd say socialists. Socialist policies tend to be bad for the economy, and reduced economic activity means less environmental damage.
Edit: China is hardly a socialist country anymore. They like to say they are, but in fact they're now like any other capitalist country, albeit with a quite overbearing government.
Neither has a good record. Some of the worst environmental track records in the world belonged to members of the former Soviet block. On the other hand
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/04/...
But the truth is that physics does not care about politics. People who thing that global warming must be false in order not to be a threat to the free enterprise system have no faith in the free enterprise system. Otherwise, they would try to come up with free enterprise solutions to global warming. And I think that they will succeed. Therefore, I have more faith in free enterprise than you do.
Russia has not been socialist since 1991.
http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/19...
China is Communist in name only. It's current system is based more on the philosphy of Nietzsche and Mussolini, rather than that of Marx, Lennin and Mao.
I think Capitalism spoils people. I had the opportunity to visit Gemany. I spent time in many cities. Some were more tourist oriented. Others were big cities or little towns. Generally the people of Germany seemed much happier than Americans. Many of the houses there had windmills and solar panels. They are taxed heavily, but they get generous tax rebates for improving their homes ecologically. I wish more Americans could visit other countries. It changes your perspective.
Consumerism is capitalism at it's finest and that has resulted through the years with increased production of goods, but it was the consumer that created the waste made production a bad thing. I would rather trust the socialists than the DA deniers, but the only mention of socialism and communism comes from you paranoid deniers
Maxx I am a capitalist through and through I just prefer socialism to denilaism
-----------------------
Ecosocialists are saying that "capitalism is killing the planet" do you believe them?
http://ecologicalsocialists.com/about/
-----------------------
I believe them. Capitalism has never been about responding to the real needs of the land. There's nothing hippie or mystical about this either. For example, fish and other marine life depend on clean water, and dumping waste into rivers and oceans to reduce costs and maximize short-term profits is a great way to kill them.
Umm, Who cares about you communist phobia, Jim, oh sorry Maxx
What has this to do with climate change
Capitalism is basically: slash and burn, if it move shoot ot if it doesn't cut it down. You work it out
which was record by stile light
