It is interesting that the French President is talking to our President Trump about "global warming". They all seem to lack the facts. That is what this blog is about.
I checked on the internet to see what different country's population density was. If no one ever told you, people are the ones who affect global warming. Plants on Earth take carbon dioxide out of the air and the more plants the better. The more plant growing land per person the better. That means the countries who are causing the most problem with global warming are the ones with the most people per square mile. With me so far?
If it is population density that is the problem, then why are we not concentrating on the real problem? So that you have some facts to work with, I looked up the numbers on the internet. Here are some:
* Russia--------------------9
* Canada-------------------4
* USA---------------------33
* France------------------124
* Germany---------------231
* Italy--------------------210
* Mexico------------------63
* Hatti--------------------411
* El Salvador------------313
* Nicaragua---------------52
This is just a sampling, but I think it will show you the real problem. You have to ask, "Why would Germany invite another million people into their country when they are already over populated and are clearly a global warming problem?" Look at El Salvador where many of the immigrants are coming from and trying to get into the USA. We all know that Hatti is a "shit hole" and El Salvador is not that far behind. Most of us would not like to live in Mexico while it has only 1/5 th of the population density of El Salvador.
I just picked this number out of the air, but what if the Paris Accord was changed so that all countries with a population density of more than 150 per square mile should have to pay a head tax of $10,000 for every new child born until such time as they get their population density down to 150 per square mile. The Paris Accord could be changed to make them pay a $5.00 per gallon of gas tax until they got their population density down to the goal of 150 per square mile.
What Obama pushed thru for the USA was to by 2025 get the car mileage up to 54 miles per gallon. It is my opinion that this would have little affect and here is why. If cars get more miles per gallon, it will encourage people to drive more, thus canceling out much of the gain. Further, these new type of cars will have to cost much more and in a prior blog I pointed out the "cost" is a good measure of pollution. More expensive batteries will require more pollutions to produce. It is true that an electric car will have less pollution in the city where it is driven, but out in the rural area where the power plant is, there will be more pollution. What people need to do is to consider the total picture, not just what happens on the main street in front of your house.
The bottom line is that the United Nations needs to get off the backs of countries like the USA, Canada and Russia because we are not the problem. Look at places like Europe, India and China. They are the real problem and the solution is cheap------birth control!
PS---It costs more than $10,000 to send a kid to kindergarten in the USA. Maybe the tax should be larger!
PS---Did you ever hear anyone explain how El Salvador ever got its population density up to what it is? I think that it might have had something to do with the Catholic Church who followed the Spanish army into Central America and was against any kind of birth control. Why doesn't the Catholic Church take some of the blame for our global warming problem?
I checked on the internet to see what different country's population density was. If no one ever told you, people are the ones who affect global warming. Plants on Earth take carbon dioxide out of the air and the more plants the better. The more plant growing land per person the better. That means the countries who are causing the most problem with global warming are the ones with the most people per square mile. With me so far?
If it is population density that is the problem, then why are we not concentrating on the real problem? So that you have some facts to work with, I looked up the numbers on the internet. Here are some:
* Russia--------------------9
* Canada-------------------4
* USA---------------------33
* France------------------124
* Germany---------------231
* Italy--------------------210
* Mexico------------------63
* Hatti--------------------411
* El Salvador------------313
* Nicaragua---------------52
This is just a sampling, but I think it will show you the real problem. You have to ask, "Why would Germany invite another million people into their country when they are already over populated and are clearly a global warming problem?" Look at El Salvador where many of the immigrants are coming from and trying to get into the USA. We all know that Hatti is a "shit hole" and El Salvador is not that far behind. Most of us would not like to live in Mexico while it has only 1/5 th of the population density of El Salvador.
I just picked this number out of the air, but what if the Paris Accord was changed so that all countries with a population density of more than 150 per square mile should have to pay a head tax of $10,000 for every new child born until such time as they get their population density down to 150 per square mile. The Paris Accord could be changed to make them pay a $5.00 per gallon of gas tax until they got their population density down to the goal of 150 per square mile.
What Obama pushed thru for the USA was to by 2025 get the car mileage up to 54 miles per gallon. It is my opinion that this would have little affect and here is why. If cars get more miles per gallon, it will encourage people to drive more, thus canceling out much of the gain. Further, these new type of cars will have to cost much more and in a prior blog I pointed out the "cost" is a good measure of pollution. More expensive batteries will require more pollutions to produce. It is true that an electric car will have less pollution in the city where it is driven, but out in the rural area where the power plant is, there will be more pollution. What people need to do is to consider the total picture, not just what happens on the main street in front of your house.
The bottom line is that the United Nations needs to get off the backs of countries like the USA, Canada and Russia because we are not the problem. Look at places like Europe, India and China. They are the real problem and the solution is cheap------birth control!
PS---It costs more than $10,000 to send a kid to kindergarten in the USA. Maybe the tax should be larger!
PS---Did you ever hear anyone explain how El Salvador ever got its population density up to what it is? I think that it might have had something to do with the Catholic Church who followed the Spanish army into Central America and was against any kind of birth control. Why doesn't the Catholic Church take some of the blame for our global warming problem?
