a question potential brawl

[malleefarmer]

Wether these figures are correct or remotely correct who knows but why is france so low on the emmisions is it nuclear generated power or combination of green and nuclear, or just a lack of industry?

[grassfarmer]

It'll be the nuclear generation. I believe about 3/4 of their electricity is generated by nuclear.

[redleaf]

Wether these figures are correct or remotely correct who knows but why is france so low on the emmisions is it nuclear generated power or combination of green and nuclear, or just a lack of industry?

[ATTACH]3540[/ATTACH]

My question is how did France end up so high on the production end ? What do they do there ?
Didn’t think they did much of anything except some pretty good wine and formerly some pretty good gunsmithing.

[samhill]

Sooo, it begs for the answer to the question”what portion of CO2 sequestration is done by these countries “

[15444]

My question is how did France end up so high on the production end ? What do they do there ?
Didn’t think they did much of anything except some pretty good wine and formerly some pretty good gunsmithing.

Your thinking of the Netherlands, where all they do is milk cows, grow flowers and smoke weed.

[grassfarmer]

My question is how did France end up so high on the production end ? What do they do there ?
Didn’t think they did much of anything except some pretty good wine and formerly some pretty good gunsmithing.

Big country, big population large agricultural sector but their biggest thing that most people probably wouldn't suspect is chemical production.

[sumdumguy]

Saskatchewan and Texas are about the same size as France.

[grassfarmer]

Saskatchewan and Texas are about the same size as France.

Same size as SK with nearly 67 million population!

[bobofthenorth]

This perfectly illustrates the fact that if the whole glowbull warming nonsense was even remotely about reducing emissions we'd go nuclear tomorrow. Glowbull warming is just a proxy for world government and wealth transfer, it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment.

[grassfarmer]

This perfectly illustrates the fact that if the whole glowbull warming nonsense was even remotely about reducing emissions we'd go nuclear tomorrow. Glowbull warming is just a proxy for world government and wealth transfer, it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment.

Er, there is a slight palatability issue in consumer confidence with everyone going all nuclear. There is a lot to be said for using more nuclear but try selling that to a populace that doesn't like pipelines or chemicals in their food.

[malleefarmer]

I entirely agree with grass.

There is a bit of a groundswell happening about nuclear in australia, seems like its at least getting to mthe stage lets look at this again.

Stand corrected think in australian we are number 3 or 4 in world for known uranium deposits think canada and russia sit above us.

Even a "middle" ground green politician is open to looking at it.

We export heaps to france and they tirn it into power.

[jazz]

Curious why Australia with no oil and no winter and only 24 million people all on the coast has emissions nearly the same as Canada.

[grassfarmer]

Curious why Australia with no oil and no winter and only 24 million people has emissions nearly the same as Canada.

First the figures shown expressed by GDP are a deliberate attempt to skew the message and make the countries with large populations like India and China bad. If you look at actual per capita emissions which I think are more relevant Australia is higher than Canada - maybe it's a factor of wealth, lifestyles, distances to travel? or maybe need for air-conditioning lol as Saudi Arabia is higher still.

[jazz]

Same size as SK with nearly 67 million population!

We can have 67 million people too, if you dont mind 30 million more coming in from the poorest countries in Africa and the ME. France has been reverse colonized.

[malleefarmer]

First the figures shown expressed by GDP are a deliberate attempt to skew the message and make the countries with large populations like India and China bad. If you look at actual per capita emissions which I think are more relevant Australia is higher than Canada - maybe it's a factor of wealth, lifestyles, distances to travel? or maybe need for air-conditioning lol as Saudi Arabia is higher still.

Niether agreeing or disagreeing grassfarmer its perception of figures i guess. So if australia had a influx of immigrants say 7 million our emmisions per capita would fall despite fact extra population would use more fuel and electricity.

does that make sensnce?

could also mean canada and australia are export based economies?

actually were almost all having a rational discussion rare indeed