blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|7109
Bitter disagreements between rich and poor countries over climate change have emerged into the open as China and India refused to adopt the G8's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent.

This aim was adopted by the world's eight wealthiest nations, including America, during the G8 summit on Japan's northern island of Hokkaido.When China, India and the leaders of six other large economies joined the G8 for the gathering's final day, they pointedly declined to do the same.

The developing countries argue that rich, industrialised nations have caused global warming through their carbon emissions over the last century. This gives them a special responsibility to act.Meanwhile, developing countries do not want to hamper their own future economic growth by signing up to binding cuts in greenhouse gases.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j … ag8109.xml
stkhoplite
Banned
+564|6943|Sheffield-England
https://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/Nuke2.JPG
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7307|Reykjavík, Iceland.
Declined to do the same? The way I heard it, China, India and those other countries wanted to cut more, 25% by 2015 or something.

Wait, that seems illogical, I bet the reporter fag must have mixed up those environmentalists that he interviewed earlier who had the same statistics.

Yeah must be.

Last edited by Sydney (2008-07-09 13:36:39)

SamTheMan:D
Banned
+856|6438|England

nuke em
The#1Spot
Member
+105|7004|byah

SamTheMan:D wrote:

nuke em
US wouldn't do it because we are their bitch and if someone else did it we would have war with them.
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6927|meh-land
nothing unexpected, no one will do anything about it anyway
MGS3_GrayFox
Member
+50|6631

SamTheMan:D wrote:

nuke em
And that means the country doing the nuking would get raped.

Last edited by MGS3_GrayFox (2008-07-09 14:50:29)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6617|what

Nukes can't be good for the environment anyway. Although there are a few exceptions, if they are dropped in the right place...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Guy.Buddy.Friend
coks
+71|6330

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Nukes can't be good for the environment anyway. Although there are a few exceptions, if they are dropped in the middle east.
I so agree.
Wallpaper
+303|6458|The pool

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Nukes can't be good for the environment anyway. Although there are a few exceptions, if they are dropped in the right place...
Considering Chinas air I dont think it will make much of a difference.

CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7034|Portland, OR, USA

SamTheMan:D wrote:

nuke em
Hah, say bye bye cheap parts, cheap labor and what's left of the American economy.


Claiming 'Global Warming' and making industrializing nations find other alternative fuels is a really convenient way to make sure that potential future superpowers die economically..
GR34
Member
+215|7009|ALBERTA> CANADA

Guy.Buddy.Friend wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Nukes can't be good for the environment anyway. Although there are a few exceptions, if they are dropped in the middle east.
I so agree.
I also agree.





     I am thinking with in the next Ten years, before 2012 there is going to be war, I mean a real war non of this Iraq Afganistan Non-sence, not that they are not wars, they are more of Conflicts. We all know what happens in 2012.....

https://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k288/josheyG34/2012.png

Last edited by GR34 (2008-07-09 20:02:53)

blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|7109

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

SamTheMan:D wrote:

nuke em
And that means the country doing the nuking would get raped.
yeah we have a nukes to destroy the planet if U.S. uses the nuke other countries will retaliate unless U.S. destroys them first and lunches like a lot of nukes but then everyone else will die from all of the extra gasses in atmosphere.
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6830|California
without china you wouldnt even be typing right now kthx
CrazeD
Member
+368|7137|Maine
Who cares.

It makes no difference.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard