1. No one's is making a case against technology here. I signed off on my last post by claiming the solution probably lies in a technocratic miracle rather than a hopeless bureaucracy.
2. Nice irrelevant factoid on EPA. What's your point? I can also do that, watch me: let's count number of police officers let off scot-free for murdering people of colour. ooooooh. :O worthless organization this policing business lets scrap them yooo... your turn.
3. Your Analysis of Energy and Water Crisis are... how do I describe it, inspired bullshit. Again no beef against industrialization, but rising sea levels rendering Bangladeshi floodplains uninhabitable, or increasingly irregular weather patterns drastically risking food security and water table stress are very real; they are direct effects of climate change. As great as industrialization is, it is unsustainable and impossibly non-ubiquitous in it's current form. As a thought experiment imagine if everyone on Planet Earth were able to suddenly access the same quality of life and resources as an average bloke living in London or New York, the planet would buckle under its own load and become a wasteland in a matter of months. That's how high the consumption-cost is for the few nations that ARE industrialized. It's the luxury of the select at the cost of many.
tl;dr: don't strawman this out as an assault on industrialization just because you suck at actually making a case. Sustainable spread of technology (that bring all these great things you mentioned) are possible only if these technologies reduce their carbon footprint and go green. A climate change skeptic in bed with the coal/oil lobby isn't going to help this. Or is lobbying and vested interests also a liberal propaganda?
3. The above cannot happen if "idiotic" carbon taxes are discounted and fossil fuel industries are allowed to sabotage green efforts.
the binary between "pollution" and "climate change" is a false one, and honestly as far as I can tell one you've pulled out of absolutely thin air to sustain a ridiculous delusion. The speed-up of greenhouse gas warming and the wanton severeness of weather are directly linked to emissions from factories and cars among a host of other complex causal relationships. And even otherwise I don't understand your retarded case anyways. Green technology stays well below the carbon footprint stipulations, and are perfectly capable of developing and even thriving under such stipulations. For example stipulations have ensured that solar technology are about to break even on cost v. performance and collateral environmental impact it causes during production. A technology that would have failed to to reach this stage if the state hadn't incentivized certain sectors to invest in this technology through intervention.
How is innovation of green technology in westernized nation hampered by regulations? Write one substantiated line. Go on.
Tell us, is the Tesla Model S - an electric that can perform
on par better than any gasoline car while having a 70% smaller carbon footprint even when using coal generated electricity - is that also a vile propaganda?
Where is the link? Why are you so confident about posting this absolute rubbish? God.
oh also, almost forgot,
4. Nope, man-made climate change is real. There is hard data to back it up, I not even going to engage your prosaic perversion falsely equating it to a fucking volcano or a meteorite.
Climate Change (the natural process by which nature renders the weak and maladapted unfit while the flexible and adaptive survive) is real.
ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL MATE. That's the singe-most conceited, misinformed, and arrogant line I have read in this forum in a long time. BEING RANDOMLY BORN INTO AN INDUSTRIALIZED NATION
ISN'T DARWINISM, WTF. Let's have you move to Sahel and see how your ultra-adaptive highness survives.
Cite evidence - legitimate and peer reviewed, or don't make blatantly false claims. This isn't a matter of opinion. It only serves to derail an otherwise potentially constructive discussion.