why is it communist countires produce 1000 times less carbon in the air then capitalist ones?
828552
your abosolutly right, china and inda hve been industrial powers for only the past 10 years so they can't be blamed for the pollution ,capitalsim is the root of all evil,
906881
The problem here is what is meant by the word 'communism'. What used to obtain in the Soviet Union had little resemblance to anything that was reflected on or seen as desirable by Marx or Engels.\n\nThis business about 'good in theory but bad in practice' is hog-wash inasmuch as the practice in Eastern Europe had little to do with the theory, if by the latter is meant the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx himself- by far the more interesting writer of the two- did not produce blue-prints of post-revolutionary society, but was indeed very clear about the evils of capitalism. These are present still, and are clearly in evidence. We live in a grossly exploitative and unequal world economy.\n\nHere it would be better to question capitalism, rather than communism!
402718
Communism will never work.  Why would you bother to work hard when you get the same for your hard work as some lazy ass?  The biggest problem with communism is it doesn't take into account one simple factor:  human nature
403729
go to\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
577924
No, communism only works on paper. In real life application it fails miserably
691021
You are confused. There is nothing more materialistic than communism. Communism began as a reaction to the selfish big capital corporations in the mid 19th century-early 20th century that seriously abused workers, including women and children. China is unique in using capitalism to fight the "free" world. Ultimately, it will win because the US has forgotten the lessons of the early 20th century about runaway capitalism.
1002178
Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas at all altitudes. You are correct that it is heavier than air, and therefore is less prevalent at higher altitudes.
1117649
several things are at work:\n\n1) the mass of the trees & coal in any area is comparatively insignificant when contrasted against the mass of the earth\n\n2) conservation of matter (which roughly translates in this instance to conservation of mass): the involved processes are not nuclear in nature\n\nfor instance, a pound of coal is taken from the Black Mesa, AZ and burned in New York, NY.  in New York, it leaves behind 0.8 ounces of Mercury, 1.2 ounces of carbon black and 0.5 ounces of material retained in the formation of ash: 13.5 ounces were converted to components of exhaust gases -- commonly, carbon dioxide and water.\n\nNow imagine the total mass of the earth is 2000 tons and the average density is 4 g/cm^3 (just over 249.71 lbs/cu ft): the average radius of the earth would then be very slightly less than 15.638 feet (roughly 27,680,013 cu ins).\n\n\nWithout going into the slight deformation of our oblate spheroid, and imagining the pound of coal had an average density of 1.5 g/cm^3, the extracted coal had a volume of roughly 18.453 cu ins.\n\nThe distance those 18+ cu ins were moved amounts to just under 93 inches along a great circle route describing a 1179.07-inch circumference (almost 28.387 deg).\n\nObviously, this is going to have negligible effect on the mass of the overall body, even with it rotating at 1/4 deg per minute (1 revolution per 24 hours). \n\nthese gases disperse, and are usually absorbed by various organisms.  however, some of these gases are further converted (for instance, lightning can separate water and other compounds into their constituent atoms, and provide the energy for reforming other compounds such as ozone).\n\nfor those unfamiliar with it, ozone is the triatomic form of oxygen (which is why i get a kick out of ads like the one for the "ionic breeze" that "converts ozone to oxygen")\n\nthe point is that the masses of the constituent elements never changed: they were simply redistributed -- arguably, in a way that mitigates against the creation of even a very slightly unbalanced condition.
1141352
It is a myth thought up by the tree huggers to get money from the federal government of the USA to do studies. they had to have a reason for the grants. Over all, although it seems warmer the earth has actually warmed only about 1 degree. It is warmer in cities because of the concrete and asphalt.\n\nThey have tried to blame the depletion on fluorocarbons, but that is a out  and out lie because Mt. Pinatubo (hope that is spelled close) has put out more fluorocarbons than all the air conditioners, aerosol cans and refrigerators have combined since before WWII.\n\nAlso H.A.A.R.P. is to blame for the changes in weather. If you don't know what that is...look it up and find out.\n\nReading some of the answers given no wonder the bad guys are winning...quit believing the garbage put out by the news media and learn for yourselves. I keep giving information and sites and yet you don't look at them or try to learn...no wonder this world is going the way it is...too many young people just parrot what they hear and never check out for themselves...get with it kids because you are fast loosing your country and world! Now read below!
124824
Communism and Marxist theory is no longer considered to be a threat, mostly due to the Soviet Union's fall from power. China is the last large Communist nation and has the fastest growing economy in the world.\n\nAlthough communism has given socialism in general a bad name, many Western European countries have been able to effectively utilize various socialist ideals in capitalist societies. Unfortunately, Americans still feel somewhat threatened when hearing the label 'socialist.' \n\nThe problem with communism wasn't its connection to socialism; the spread of communism became a problem due to fascist regimes and movements. Fascism is a current worldwide threat, in addition to existing societies based on religious fundamentalism.
347913
a communist system could be democratic...there are, for instance, socialist countries now in south america where their leaders were elected.\n\nbut communism differs from capitalism in that in a communist society the means of production (factories) are woned by the state.  in a capitalist country - like the US - private individuals own factories etc. and make profits from them.\n\nin a communist country money is supposed to be distributed equally....the state makes the money and distributes it equally.
978884
The regime collased in Russia.  China's regime is strong.  And they're Communist in name only.  Communism means no private capital, no private profit.  But I myself have owned shares in TWO Chinese companies, one of which I sold for a profit and both of which pay dividends.  That's capitalism!  They're too embarrassed to admit that they abandoned Communism years ago, but they did.
108581
The only way you reform Capitalism is to move toward a Socialist or Communist type of government then you will find Capitalism practicing the largest self control to the point of becoming noncompetitive.  Under those types of government most people are poor and without hope.  In a Capitalist Economy maybe everyone is poor, but there is hope of climbing out of it.  It is Capitalism's Greed that feeds the machine and makes it healthy.
37896
The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS." \n\nSocialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism. \n\nCommunism is the point where the state "withers away." In other words, it's quite a few years in the future. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 10 generations of established Socialism has to occur before people evolve enough to realize that hurting others or the system ends up hurting themselves. \n\nAs Communists we advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism. In other words, it's not that we've given up on building a house, we just realize there is a need for a sturdy foundation first. \n\nCommunists believe in human evolution. We evolve in accordance to the system we live within. Capitalism has allowed us to evolve out of our feudalistic ways (for the most part), and slavery does not exist in our country anymore (for the most part). But Capitalism, which is driven by the need to always increase profits, founders a "dog eat dog" mentality. This is not a sustainable system, either for humankind or for the environment. \n\nUnder Socialism people will evolve to the point where they care about each other regardless of their location or race or whatever. If we are to survive as a species, we need to evolve. That's one of the many reasons I'm a Communist. \n\nFinally, one misconception people often have about Communism is that we are looking to make everyone poor. On the contrary, we want everyone to enjoy as much as possible the fruits of our vast wealth.
876114
And there are some in the Caribbean as well. These are just small countries that have petrochemical reserves and use them for the most part to produce products for export to developed countries. So really the developed countries are the ones indirectly responsible for the relative large emissions of these small countries, and maybe the CO2 emitted in producing the finished product should count against the importing country.
613038
an event that is effecting the atmosphere today was the mass production of cars and industrial sites in the world. this is hurtin the atmoshperic ozone layer.the carbon monozide coming out of these things is whats doing all the damage
678999
Very noble thoughts but hypocritical! Who would leave his car at home and ride a bicycle to work? Would u? The world is too entangled in the interests of different groups to let go of the facilities it has even if those facilities pollute our air. Big business clearly doesn't bother--Has there been a decrease in number of cars manufactured in the world? OK they're more energy efficient, but that doesn't solve the problem--Energy efficiency doesn't change the gases released into the atmoephere. Until now we should have developed and started mass producing a car using some other source of energy.Generatios to come will look back and definitely blame us for our inability to react fast enough to a looming danger.