Is North Korea the climate alarmist's utopia?

Well:

They have nothing to eat.

They have no fuel.

They are run by madmen with an agenda.

They all dress in boiler suits.

There is cannibalism.

Left wing theories have brought the lowest living standard in the world.

They are blinkered and believe what their leaders tell them.

They are constantly subject to nonsensical propaganda.

They have no private motor vehicles.

Yes it does sound like a place the Greenies would like us all to live in.

Alrighty, where to begin.

I guess I can see why you would ask this, but what I'm wondering is why North Korea? What about places in the first stage of the population demographic transition model (google showed me this: http://coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2012/P... with a completely undeveloped economy?

The thing about North Korea is that, like other dictatorships of the past such as Brezhnev's USSR, it has it's economic priorities all wrong. People are starving, yet they have nuclear weapons and the government is putting a great deal of time and money into making sure the rest of the world knows about it. Producing these weapons, along with the great deal of other products that don't primarily help improve the lives of the citizens of the country, would theoretically contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect. When anything industrial is produced, fossil fuels are burnt to create the energy to do so. It's true that the population's carbon footprints must be significantly smaller than those of other nations, however this is not by choice, as is proven by the government spending huge amounts of money on other things.

And I guess that's the thing - individuals living in North Korea have practically no say over what their country does or how they live. The repression is terrible. Their low carbon footprint isn't a choice, it's dictated by the government. So I wouldn't say that "North Koreans should be commended for saving the world from "Man Made Global Warming"" (enhanced greenhouse effect), because they aren't making the choices. It's the government that's making the choices, and it's not like they're trying to combat climate change. They just have their economic priorities so warped that the majority of the population is forced to live with a tiny carbon footprint and unexplainable living conditions while a small number of the elite enjoy privileges and having a military and weapons arsenal at their fingertips. They aren't NOT producing anything - they are. And yes, it's a lot less than other more developed countries, but I don't think you can commend a country for letting people live in poverty when it could be prevented.

This is basically a lot of rambling, I know, but my overall point:

No, it's not.

Yes, the footprint of the majority of individuals is very small but this isn't by choice, it's the result of the police state's oppression. And yes, North Korea manufactures less than other places (though again, there are very few measures put in place to prevent pollution because of the crappy economy so you can't say that they don't pollute) but they do still manufacture. You can't commend someone for the unintended bi-product of a regime of suffering. North Korea can barely feed its own people, so why the heck would it care about climate change?

That "stable atheism" tag is deceptive in that persons may well be Buddhist in North Korea and nonetheless technically count number as Atheist... yet do no longer permit info harm your delusions... Oh, and P.S. - Haiti is plenty greater poverty bothered than North Korea (The HDR ranks North Korea's HDI as .766 mutually as Haiti's is .340) and is 80% Roman Catholic. Is that a Christian utopia? "No, they kidnap South Koreans and eastern to make their movies..." Is that a Shin Sang-ok reference! Wow! did no longer think of everybody on right here might comprehend something approximately that. "curiously you do no longer understand that many Buddhists ARE atheist" Seeing as i comprehend greater approximately Buddhism than you ever will i think of your condescension is out of place. you recognize what the "utopia" spoken of in "Das Kapital" is, top? It became aberrant of religion, no longer purely God. faith, to Marx, became the undertaking. Buddhism, being a faith, would not in advantageous condition into the "utopia" dialogue and to that end your question purely explicates one element; your guy or woman idiocy. "Lol, amazing attempt at changing the area." incorrect. The Communist utopia is outfitted upon an aberrance of religion. North Korea is a communist state. the reality that North Korea isn't aberrant of religion ability your use of the notice "utopia," returned, purely exhibits how ignorant you're of the area you're discussing. Please end embarrassing your self.

No. The left is never going to be satisfied until everyone on the planet has a standard of living that they deem is enough to keep all human beings fed, warm, comfortable, educated, have the opportunity to live in a way that develops their potential not only to their own benefit but for the good of all mankind, and protected from harm ranging from those that threaten their health to assaults of all types, both physical and psychological. And they want to do all of that without harming the environment...they want to maintain the environment for future generations by keeping it as clean as possible and not wasting resources.

These are aggressive and some would say-especially on the extreme right in the United States today- ridiculous goals. In fact, here in the U.S. there are those on the conservative right who say the goals of the left run totally counter to the simple and unalienable rights of people everywhere-that human beings are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that is why people everywhere on the planet need to be bombed until they accept this very simple premise. In fact, some believe that deciding how to bring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is best reserved to the people who have it because they best know how to achieve it, so the power to do so must be vested primarily in while males with the highest morals in the finest Judeo-Christian traditions.

Unfortunately, in the United States, the liberal left has not been able to figure out how to pay for their agenda and the conservative right has not been able to figure out how to enforce theirs without killing a lot more people than the liberals think is necessary and spending more money on that interpretation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the liberals have spent on theirs. My outlook is both sides should sit down and talk, give a little on each side and compromise, and the people who elect the leaders should avoid getting sucked in by too much unbalanced rhetoric driven by one-sided money during campaign seasons.

But no...the premise that North Korea represents Utopia to anyone based only on carbon footprint is mistaken, and I'd say it would be a pretty fair bet that you knew that before you asked the question and only posed it the way you did to make a point that you thought needed to be made that is only marginally-if in fact at all-related to the issue of climate change. Personally, I think this would be a very interesting question in the politics category, as would be a very, very high percentage of the questions and answers that are posted here in this one.

Will you people ever put a lid on the snarky denial? Read this article and learn something you'll never hear on Fux News:

"CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature"

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

"Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level."

Look, we all know that deniers and skeptics see any form of environmentalism as a 'Communist Plot to Raise Taxes and Destroy The Economy, and Represents a Threat to Our Freedom, Liberty and the Very Values on which This Great Nation was Built' (tm) but that doesn't mean us Warmons / Warmists / Whatever would like to live in North Korea nor would we hold that nation up as a paragon of virtue and green living.

So the answer to your question is No.

Is a state of anarchy, such as that experienced after the fall of the Iraqi government, a climate denier's utopia? Though a bad example, a state of anarchy would give people total freedom. No taxes, no nothing. Sounds like heaven eh? As it is all I hear coming from your side is constant jabbering about the possibility of increased taxes due to greener energy production.

Talk about straw man arguments. Who is saying that we shouldn't use electricity?

From your first link.

"As an economic power, however, North Korea is a laughingstock that can barely feed its own people."

1. If I wanted people to be hungry, all we would need to do would be to let Earth warm, and let droughts do the rest.

2.. To combat global warming, yes, we need emerging nations like China and India to come one board. To encourage them, we would need for our economies to be strong.

So, this is how conspiracy theories form in the minds of ignorant, fearful people.I'm not a doctor, but I think you should begin drinking heavily and continue as needed until the scary thoughts go away.

======

edit --

>>I don't get it.<<

Amazing - there is something we agree on, after all.

=====

Cyclops --

You didn't read the directions and took more than the recommended dosage, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU

Not only that since they are starving, they eat less food, and most of that is vegetarian stuff.

Also since they are so small they take up less space of the atmosphere.

And their nukes are certified to be CO2 and CFC free. The greenies are orgasmic over that one.

I do hope you let the idiot answer this one.

booM: What good will it do if people die from your agenda before they can spawn? There will no future generations to enjoy your Utopia.

Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of **** Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.”