NationStates Jolt Archive

Taking full advantage of the “pass” given it by Kyoto, China has now overtaken the United States as the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions:

Full story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285272,00.html

Oh, and for all you NSG Fox-o-phobes, the post is from the Associated Press, which cites the latest report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. So save your breath whining about Fox’s “bias.”

Now that the PRC’s carbon emissions exceed those of the US, I fully expect the abuse that has been directed at President Bush for not adopting Kyoto to be redirected toward the PRC leadership. I’m sure Algore is even now planning to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Right?

Right. The blame-America crowd is even now racing to come up with excuses for China and reasons to keep complaining about the US:


But the issue isn't just current emissions, but carbon dioxide stuck in the atmosphere, where it lingers for about a century trapping heat below, said Jay Apt, a professor of engineering, business and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Apt and a colleague calculated the share of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere that can be attributed to each country and determined that the United States is responsible for 27 percent, European nations contributed 20 percent and China only 8 percent.

"The planet does not respond to emissions, the planet responds to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," said Apt. "It means the U.S. will have the lion's share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the foreseeable future. In fact, even if China's exponential growth continues, China will not surpass the U.S. in the numbers of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere, that is concentration, until at least 2050, which is too late to start anything."

An apt statement, indeed: let’s ignore what’s happening now and focus on what happened over the last hundred years.

Right?

Right.

per capita, US still pwns.

China: Over 1 billion people and growing!

America: 300 million.

Hmm... which would you assume uses more energy, hence producing more CO2?

I wonder.

China: Over 1 billion people and growing!

America: 300 million.

Hmm... which would you assume uses more energy, hence producing more CO2?

I wonder.
The problem with that is most of China's population is rural and poor, meaning far less energy consumption.

The US consumes far more in terms of percentage than China does.

This pattern of post and run is boring.

This is quite funny actually, first the conservatives say GW doesn't exist and rumble randomly about oil companies etc, and now that the evidence is in their next step is 'blame China!', of course this is ignoring the fact that the US majorily created GW before China was really industrialised. Nice blamemongering neocons/

per capita, US still pwns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Eh....not quite, though it is far larger than any of the nations above it, so it's a fair enough statement.

The problem with that is most of China's population is rural and poor, meaning far less energy consumption.

The US consumes far more in terms of percentage than China does.

Very true...but unlike China, American citizens, companies, and politicians (some of them anyway) are making concious efforts to reduce our collective impact on the environment.

Can the same be said of China? How long do they get this "free pass"??

Very true...but unlike China, American citizens, companies, and politicians (some of them anyway) are making concious efforts to reduce our collective impact on the environment.

Can the same be said of China? How long do they get this "free pass"??

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Can the same be said of China? How long do they get this "free pass"??

Until they have reached the same levels of consumptions as the imperialists do.

:p

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Actually, US greenhouse gas emissions did fall last year despite economic growth of over 3%. We have made some progress, even if our president isn't doing much to take action on it; the private sector is doing a great job of it now that it pays to be green.

China deserves a bitch slap.

But the US also deserves the continuing bitch slaps being rightfully directed its way.

You both need to get your shit together.

This pattern of post and run is boring.

That's for sure.

Actually, US greenhouse gas emissions did fall last year despite economic growth of over 3%. We have made some progress, even if our president isn't doing much to take action on it; the private sector is doing a great job of it now that it pays to be green.

Still, solar subsidies and other government incentives to go to Green technology both on an individual level and in business/public sphere (as shown in Germany) have produced great results. Germany for an example is close to phasing out nuclear technology. What really annoys me in this debate that saving the environment means killing your economy, I think with government welfare support on an individual level and corporate welfare at a business level it would open up new regulated carbon markets etc.

Still, solar subsidies and other government incentives to go to Green technology both on an individual level and in business/public sphere (as shown in Germany) have produced great results. Germany for an example is close to phasing out nuclear technology. What really annoys me in this debate that saving the environment means killing your economy, I think with government welfare support on an individual level and corporate welfare at a business level it would open up new regulated carbon markets etc.

The trend in the US that pays it's top tiered management too much, contributes a lot in this, I think, while the Chinese get screwed from top to bottom by their gov't.

Push more production! MORE MONEY! (mo puh-woh-lems)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I fail to see what is humorous about what I said.

There are many Americans who need to be doing more, and many who are making an effort, but can do more than they are currently...and also many who are doing all that they can.

What, exactly, is funny about the fact that some of us actually give a shit?

China deserves a bitch slap.

But the US also deserves the continuing bitch slaps being rightfully directed its way.

You both need to get your shit together.

If you check the link I posted, you'll note that Canada isn't doing much better, on a per-capita basis anyways.

Another nation in need of a bitch slap?

This is quite funny actually, first the conservatives say GW doesn't exist and rumble randomly about oil companies etc, and now that the evidence is in their next step is 'blame China!', of course this is ignoring the fact that the US majorily created GW before China was really industrialised. Nice blamemongering neocons/
Especially since the 'part I' of this whatever you want to call it is, "It's not happening." So in single breath, so to speak, is "It's not happening and if it is, it's China's fault."
China deserves a bitch slap.

But the US also deserves the continuing bitch slaps being rightfully directed its way.

You both need to get your shit together.
True enough. We have the capacity to do something about it, what with that ingenuity we keep going on about. We can go to the moon but we can't work on a alternative, to borrow from an old cliche...

And I don't really understand China and India's position on this. They know that fossil fuels are on the way out, why in the hell would they scramble to build an infrastructure that they would have to replace before the life of the first one is lived out? They have a chance to actually take the lead over the nations they're going to compete with and put themselves ahead of the game for the next economy. Why do they insist on bringing up the rear?

Still, solar subsidies and other government incentives to go to Green technology both on an individual level and in business/public sphere (as shown in Germany) have produced great results. Germany for an example is close to phasing out nuclear technology. What really annoys me in this debate that saving the environment means killing your economy, I think with government welfare support on an individual level and corporate welfare at a business level it would open up new regulated carbon markets etc.
I have a hard time buying this anti-growth thing all together. American car companies whined till they where blue in the face that building cars with good gas mileage would ruin them. Meanwhile, Toyota built cars with good gas mileage and out sold them all.

In the long run renewable energy is cost effective. And isn't someone going to make money off the industry of renewable energy? Seems the only economy at risk is the one that insists on sticking to the old way of doing things, and frankly they're going to take a hit sooner or later no matter what. Isn't the motto of business innovate or die? Why isn't it applied here?

I have a hard time buying this anti-growth thing all together. American car companies whined till they where blue in the face that building cars with good gas mileage would ruin them. Meanwhile, Toyota built cars with good gas mileage and out sold them all.

In the long run renewable energy is cost effective. And isn't someone going to make money off the industry of renewable energy? Seems the only economy at risk is the one that insists on sticking to the old way of doing things, and frankly they're going to take a hit sooner or later no matter what. Isn't the motto of business innovate or die? Why isn't it applied here?

I agree.

China deserves a bitch slap.

But the US also deserves the continuing bitch slaps being rightfully directed its way.

You both need to get your shit together.

Ayup!

This pattern of post and run is boring.

And sometimes cowardly.
Trollish too.

Least, it seems that way.

This pattern of post and run is boring.

FYI: shortly after I posted, the board went down for its nightly maintenance. I went off to do other things, like have a life. Now it's back up and I'm back on.

Sorry you're so bored. Maybe you could find yourself another activity to engage your interest.

And sometimes cowardly.
Trollish too.

Least, it seems that way.

See post #20.

The problem with that is most of China's population is rural and poor, meaning far less energy consumption.

The US consumes far more in terms of percentage than China does.

If you're truly concerned about the impact of carbon emissions, the significant figure is total emission, not emission per capita. China now leads in total emission. Thus, those who complain about it should focus on the leading emitter. And one whose total emission continues to trend upward.

See post #20.

Yup, boring.
:)
BTW, you might consider scooping the archives a bit on this topic.
There's a few people here who might consider taking this argument to task, if they've got the time. I don't. Today, anyway.

I went off to do other things, like have a life.

And that only took a little over two hours?

FYI: shortly after I posted, the board went down for its nightly maintenance. I went off to do other things, like have a life. Now it's back up and I'm back on.

Sorry you're so bored. Maybe you could find yourself another activity to engage your interest.

I do have my photoshop on, but I seem to be drawing blanks on my wacom.

If you're truly concerned about the impact of carbon emissions, the significant figure is total emission, not emission per capita. China now leads in total emission. Thus, those who complain about it should focus on the leading emitter. And one whose total emission continues to trend upward.
China just got ahead of us what, this year? In any case, I was neither addressing you nor that point.

Please, take it else where 'cuse we ain't buying.

This is quite funny actually, first the conservatives say GW doesn't exist and rumble randomly about oil companies etc, and now that the evidence is in their next step is 'blame China!'

Two different issues, two different posts.

In Part I, the subject is scientific evidence against "global warming," and in favor of a competing theory (and indicative of a lack of "consensus"). In my opinion, the evidence in favor of the former is unpersuasive, while the evidence in favor of the latter is persuasive if not conclusive.

In Part II, the subject is the failure of the Al Gore global-warming Amen Corner and the rest of the global-warming Chicken Littles to apply the same standards to China as they apply to the US in general and President Bush in particular. I don't buy their arguments, but, assuming arguendo that they have a case, their failure or, IMO more likely, refusal to be even-handed exposes them as inconsistent, dishonest and/or hypocritical.

I'm sorry if you can't distinguish the two arguments.

of course this is ignoring the fact that the US majorily created GW before China was really industrialised. Nice blamemongering neocons

You are assuming facts definitely not in evidence. Nice try.

Very true...but unlike China, American citizens, companies, and politicians (some of them anyway) are making concious efforts to reduce our collective impact on the environment.
Not enough, but it is a start, yes. It's still rather silly a topic though. It's like two fat men screaming at each other over the dinner table and one saying, "See? HE took one more drumstick than I, proving he is a far worse glutton!"

Can the same be said of China? How long do they get this "free pass"??
China does indeed have a lot of problems and hopefully they will be addressing them.

Sadly though, I am neither Chinese or live in China so I doubt very much the CCP cares two whoops in hell about my opinion on the matter. Given I'm an American though, I'm hoping the same isn't true of my government who I can ask to address China and our own consumption.

New Mitanni's tactic though is that of a two-year-old's "But he did it too!" cry.

Yup, boring.
:)
BTW, you might consider scooping the archives a bit on this topic.
There's a few people here who might consider taking this argument to task, if they've got the time. I don't. Today, anyway.

Take it to task all you want. Take the facts to task while you're at it.

And that only took a little over two hours?

Go to gym. Come home. See if site's back up. Yep, about two hours or so.

Go to gym. Come home. See if site's back up. Yep, about two hours or so.

Sooo, you're life is the gym?

China just got ahead of us what, this year? In any case, I was neither addressing you nor that point.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the ruling that I needed your permission to comment on one of your posts.

But to the point, China is now, today, the leading emitter. And I am still waiting for an appropriate level of outrage from those who so loudly complain about the US. I'm sure I will continue to wait, maybe until the next Ice Age.

Please, take it else where 'cuse we ain't buying.

Whether you are "buying it" or not is your business. I'll keep posting on issues of interest as I see fit.

Sooo, you're life is the gym?

Physical fitness is definitely a part of my life. Mens sana in corpore sano.

Dammit! And I had chinese food for dinner! :(

Not enough, but it is a start, yes. It's still rather silly a topic though. It's like two fat men screaming at each other over the dinner table and one saying, "See? HE took one more drumstick than I, proving he is a far worse glutton!"

New Mitanni's tactic though is that of a two-year-old's "But he did it too!" cry.

Not at all. I'm criticizing the Kyotophiles for their inconsistency. I've already stated that I do not subscribe to their theory. Thus, I have no need to somehow justify the US by saying "China did it too," as you suggest.

The Chinese are obsessed with money (and most will readily admit that, too)

But I find it a little hard to blame them for just that: most Chinese were or -usually- are poor, but they are living in a country where the economy is growing faster then ever before, where more products are being produced then anywhere in the world, where quite a number of enterprising individuals have become rich with a good idea, a fair bit of daring and lots and lots of hard work...

The Chinese are really living "the American dream"- and all that in a communist country, how weird is that.

Biut back to the CO2 emission thing... know China emits more CO2 then the US- but the thing is, curbing their CO2 emission will harm the Chinese far, far more then it would the Western countries. Which is not to say that they shóuldn't, but what would be their incentive...? Not the foggiest idea, and no idea either how we would be able to provide them with one :(

And?

good-ol copy and paste from wiki (kyoto protocol)


France
In 2004, France shut down its last coal mine, and now gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power.[50] Because of this, France now has the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity bills in all of Europe.[51] Under various assumptions, including the use of breeder technology, the earth has enough uranium to provide all of the world's energy needs until the sun blows up in 5 billion years.[52]


This is what ALL countries should do. Go nuclear NOW!
Vive la France, vive la République!

The Chinese are obsessed with money (and most will readily admit that, too)

But I find it a little hard to blame them for just that: most Chinese were or -usually- are poor, but they are living in a country where the economy is growing faster then ever before, where more products are being produced then anywhere in the world, where quite a number of enterprising individuals have become rich with a good idea, a fair bit of daring and lots and lots of hard work...

The Chinese are really living "the American dream"- and all that in a communist country, how weird is that.

Biut back to the CO2 emission thing... know China emits more CO2 then the US- but the thing is, curbing their CO2 emission will harm the Chinese far, far more then it would the Western countries. Which is not to say that they shóuldn't, but what would be their incentive...? Not the foggiest idea, and no idea either how we would be able to provide them with one :(
You just answered your own question, money.

We live in a global economy. China is making what the West demands. China makes the vast majority of world steel production. Steel production emits huge amounts of CO2, there's not much way around that. So if the OP want's to complain about Chinese CO2 emission then he should consider his own consumption and where the vast majority of it comes from.

You just answered your own question, money.
True that- but who is going to pay, and how and for what?

Well, or of course instead of a "carrot" approach, we could invent some sort of " stick" approach. But I'd like to see us in the West pull that off, China is so much more powerful then most people realise... it is not just the USA who are dependent on that country! I dare even say that my own country (Netherlands) would have less trouble surviving a collapse of the US economy then a collapse of the Chinese one.

(Oh, and as for why nag the Americans more then the Chinese= for a very large part because it is much easier to communicate with -and thus nag- Americans. It's important to nag first those who are nagged best ;) )

Taking full advantage of the “pass” given it by Kyoto, China has now overtaken the United States as the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions:

Full story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285272,00.html

Oh, and for all you NSG Fox-o-phobes, the post is from the Associated Press, which cites the latest report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. So save your breath whining about Fox’s “bias.”

Now that the PRC’s carbon emissions exceed those of the US, I fully expect the abuse that has been directed at President Bush for not adopting Kyoto to be redirected toward the PRC leadership. I’m sure Algore is even now planning to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Right?

Right. The blame-America crowd is even now racing to come up with excuses for China and reasons to keep complaining about the US:

An apt statement, indeed: let’s ignore what’s happening now and focus on what happened over the last hundred years.

Right?

Right.
CO2 Emissions (per capita) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita):

#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people

#80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people

You were saying????

If you're truly concerned about the impact of carbon emissions, the significant figure is total emission, not emission per capita.
Ummmm, it would appear that your thoughts on this matter are totally screwed up? The US is 10 times worse then China on a per capita basis.

This is what ALL countries should do. Go nuclear NOW!
Vive la France, vive la République!

Well I'm not in favour with that idea (especially if fusion gets off the ground in about 80-100 years) but I can see the benefits of nuclear space travel.

Dammit! And I had chinese food for dinner! :(

Stalinist Clown!

Ummmm, it would appear that your thoughts on this matter are totally screwed up? The US is 10 times worse then China on a per capita basis.

Isn't China's population at best only 4x the U.S' ?

snip

People don't bother to criticise China because we can't expect a country that doesn't care about human rights to care about carbon emissions.

We live in a global economy. China is making what the West demands. China makes the vast majority of world steel production. Steel production emits huge amounts of CO2, there's not much way around that. So if the OP want's to complain about Chinese CO2 emission then he should consider his own consumption and where the vast majority of it comes from.
Not to mention that around 1/3 of the exporter companies in China are wholly US-owned. (which in itself makes a mockery of the whole trade-imbalance issue, as a good portion of that winds it's way back to the US eventually, but that's another thread).

The NAS (US National Academy of Science) recently published a research article that shows that GW is happening 3x faster than previous estimates.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2609305.ece

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/24/10288

now to wait for NM to state that the NAS aren't really scientists or some such mealy-mouthed bs.

Not to mention that around 1/3 of the exporter companies in China are wholly US-owned. (which in itself makes a mockery of the whole trade-imbalance issue, as a good portion of that winds it's way back to the US eventually, but that's another thread).

The NAS (US National Academy of Science) recently published a research article that shows that GW is happening 3x faster than previous estimates.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2609305.ece

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/24/10288

now to wait for NM to state that the NAS aren't really scientists or some such mealy-mouthed bs.Ooh, I didn't know that about the exporter countries.

Though I did orginally read GW as 'George Walker (Bush)'. Which made your comment about the NAS research rather amusing.

Still, solar subsidies and other government incentives to go to Green technology both on an individual level and in business/public sphere (as shown in Germany) have produced great results. Germany for an example is close to phasing out nuclear technology. What really annoys me in this debate that saving the environment means killing your economy, I think with government welfare support on an individual level and corporate welfare at a business level it would open up new regulated carbon markets etc.
um.. How is that a good thing? Isn't the whole point behind this, to move to more sustainable forms of environmentally friendly ("green") energy?!

Let's all go to Mars and avoid this whole "Global Warming" thingy

then we can pollute Mars for years, while the Earth fixes itself....

Let's all go to Mars and avoid this whole "Global Warming" thingy

then we can pollute Mars for years, while the Earth fixes itself....

"Mars Day much better. You can throw trash anywhere. Big empty planet."
- Pappa Wong, Futurama

Germany for an example is close to phasing out nuclear technology. .


Yeah and Belgium did that when the greens got into the colition government there, then noticed they'd have to build 6 gas or coal powered stations to replace them and blow their commitment to kyoto right out of the water
(or import their electricity from France... where oddly it would be generated by nuclear power )


Still gives me a nice warm feeling that since kyoto was signed EU emmissions have risen dispite the pledge to cut back :headbang:

Let's all go to Mars and avoid this whole "Global Warming" thingy

then we can pollute Mars for years, while the Earth fixes itself....

Er, we have a long long way to go ruining this planet before it will even approach Mars for inhospitability. I mean, we could live in domes of refined air, recycling everything while robots do our mining and building ... but if that's practical, why not do it here? How does lifting ourselves and all the terrestrial crap we would need all the way out there make it more practical?

In short, fuck Mars.

China pollutes more that the U.S.

Therefore........what? What does this have to do with global warming?

China Passes US in Gas Emission

I'm sure that cabbage is the main culprit.

New Mitanni, you forgot the part where China has 1,329,349,388 people, versus the United State's 301,923,000 people. If all men are created equal and it's right and good that Americans use the amount of energy they do, then China should be able to have roughly 4.3 times the amount of gas emissions of the United States.

New Mitanni, you forgot the part where China has 1,329,349,388 people, versus the United State's 301,923,000 people. If all men are created equal and it's right and good that Americans use the amount of energy they do, then China should be able to have roughly 4.3 times the amount of gas emissions of the United States.

And you are forgetting that the GDP of the U.S. is about 6 times that of China.

And you are forgetting that the GDP of the U.S. is about 6 times that of China.

And you're forgetting that we're a postindustrial economy, which by definition already had it's pollution-heavy industrial phase and runs now on services and information.

We can keep doing this, I'm sure of it. Or perhaps we can agree that high emissions are bad, and that both China and the US are culpable - China because she's industrializing with very little concern for the environmental consequences, the US because she's already industrialized and has very little concern for environmental consequences.

People don't bother to criticise China because we can't expect a country that doesn't care about human rights to care about carbon emissions.

That's a profound observation. And I think it says something about global-warming types: they're not motivated so much by a genuine desire to solve the problem as by a desire to attack the US.

So the challenge to Goreans, Kyoto-philes and other GW types: demand reductions in carbon emission from all sources. Carbon emissions should, according to you, have the same impact regardless of who emitted them. So stop making excuses for "developing" nations like China.

Again, I think I'll be waiting a long time to see anything like consistency or intellectual honesty from the GW types.

New Mitanni, you forgot the part where China has 1,329,349,388 people, versus the United State's 301,923,000 people. If all men are created equal and it's right and good that Americans use the amount of energy they do, then China should be able to have roughly 4.3 times the amount of gas emissions of the United States.

So, even though GW types are panicking about the amount of carbon emissions worldwide, it's OK for China to emit four times more total carbon than it's already emitting so it can catch up to the US on per capita emission?

That makes no sense, even from Algore's point of view. It would also indicate that GW types really aren't that concerned about the total amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere after all.

So what is it, GW types: "equality" in per capita carbon emission, or reduction in the total amount of carbon added to the atmosphere?

CO2 Emissions (per capita) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita):

#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people

#80 China: 2.65908 per 1,000 people

You were saying????

Per capita emission is meaningless. According to you GW types, it's the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere that influences global climate. A million tons of carbon (say) is a million tons of carbon, whether 300 million people put it there or 1.5 billion did.

So, even though GW types are panicking about the amount of carbon emissions worldwide, it's OK for China to emit four times more total carbon than it's already emitting so it can catch up to the US on per capita emission?

That makes no sense, even from Algore's point of view. It would also indicate that GW types really aren't that concerned about the total amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere after all.

So what is it, GW types: "equality" in per capita carbon emission, or reduction in the total amount of carbon added to the atmosphere?

Nice strawman.

Ahhh...the good ol' kintergarten playground defence for being caught acting like a little shit:
"But he's doing it too!!" (best said in a high-pitched whining voice)

yep. No need to do anything about your own or your country's) contribution to GW, as long as there's another country out there that's worse.

Nice strawman.

Nice evasion of the question. Apparently you don't have an answer to the challenge.

Ahhh...the good ol' kintergarten playground defence for being caught acting like a little shit:
"But he's doing it too!!" (best said in a high-pitched whining voice).

Wrong as usual. See post #35.

NM, to quote someone else here, in response to your multitude of threads on this subject where you continually and consistently ignore each and every post which details why you are wrong in your claims about GW:
"Nice evasion of the question. Apparently you don't have an answer to the challenge."

NM, to quote someone else here, in response to your multitude of threads on this subject where you continually and consistently ignore each and every post which details why you are wrong in your claims about GW:
"Nice evasion of the question. Apparently you don't have an answer to the challenge."

I've stated my position. I've cited evidence in favor of it. You and others have done likewise. That's the extent of it. The issue remains in dispute, regardless of how conclusively you imagine you have "detailed why I am wrong".

And you have yet to explain how it makes any difference to you GW believers whether a given quantity of carbon emission is attributable to a larger or smaller population. Which was the question I raised above.

Nude Mitanni lives in a fantasy world, and so to hypersensitive eco-freaks. Why are you wasting time trying to make one another see your points?

Agree to disagree and get on with life.

So, even though GW types *snip*
GW types really aren't *snip*
So what is it, GW types: *snip*

Three paragraphs. Three statements which carry no meaning of their own, other than opposition to strawmen you call "GW types."

I'm trying to see it as art. I really am. :headbang:

Three paragraphs. Three statements which carry no meaning of their own, other than opposition to strawmen you call "GW types."

I'm trying to see it as art. I really am. :headbang:
Yeah, that's what I have wondering too, who are these 'GW types', are they just people who read?

Yeah, that's what I have wondering too, who are these 'GW types', are they just people who read?

To be honest, I haven't finished Dem Ham's links (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12795838&postcount=46) yet. A few "real life" issues of my own ...

But as far as I can tell, something called an Algore is a variety of GW type. ;)

But I will say this: Global Warming, the fad of consciousness about carbon emissions and climatology, is a test case for the human race.

We can ace this one. It is not an unanswerable question from the dawn of time. It is Human interacting with Environment. We will manage, we will win this one.

This isn't even a really hard one. It isn't one of the top five threats to our existence: Immortality, Total War, Stone Age regression, Hostile Aliens, and Whoops. I'm most worried about Whoops. :cool:

We will probably waste most of the worlds topsoil. We will extinct every wild species in the oceans. We will poison the biosphere with rare elements which we went to great lengths to remove from the lithosphere. We will interfere in the genetic legacy of almost every creature we permit to exist on "our" Earth. And we will probably extinct ourselves for the grande finale.

So what? We are just people (well, a really enourmously big lot of people, but ...) and all we want to do is live a little life. And we do.

And I don't really understand China and India's position on this. They know that fossil fuels are on the way out, why in the hell would they scramble to build an infrastructure that they would have to replace before the life of the first one is lived out? They have a chance to actually take the lead over the nations they're going to compete with and put themselves ahead of the game for the next economy. Why do they insist on bringing up the rear?

I know for India, it is denial regimes in nuclear energy - controlled by the US.

Per capita emission is meaningless. According to you GW types, it's the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere that influences global climate. A million tons of carbon (say) is a million tons of carbon, whether 300 million people put it there or 1.5 billion did.It is you ostrich types that are the biggest part of the problem. Instead of looking for viable solutions for GW, you bemoan that striving for environmental reforms will destroy the economy. Either that, or you live in complete denial and have the temerity to suggest that GW is a myth and even further suggest that the earth is going through a stage of global cooling.

When all of your arguments get shredded to pieces you point fingers at other countries who are also guilty of causing GW. That is a total copout.

We wrecked it and we need to fix it. You appear to be reluctant to be part of the solution.

It is you ostrich types that are the biggest part of the problem. Instead of looking for viable solutions for GW, you bemoan that striving for environmental reforms will destroy the economy. Either that, or you live in complete denial and have the temerity to suggest that GW is a myth and even further suggest that the earth is going through a stage of global cooling.

When all of your arguments get shredded to pieces you point fingers at other countries who are also guilty of causing GW. That is a total copout.

We wrecked it and we need to fix it. You appear to be reluctant to be part of the solution.

Again you fail to answer the question, so I will take your failure as agreement that per capita emission is irrelevant. Again you repeat a silly argument about "finger pointing" that has been repeatedly refuted.

As for "shredding" arguments, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel superior. The facts remain in dispute.

And as for having the "temerity" to "suggest that the earth is going through a stage of global cooling," the study I cited in part I speaks for itself. You'll just have to deal with those "inconvenient truths."

Has anyone else noticed that GW true believers seem to characterize their opponents in terms typically reserved for religious heretics? Remarkable.

The Great Barrier Reef ain't dying because of Global Cooling.

Hurricane frequencies aren't picking up because of Global Cooling.

Indigenous natives and polar bears aren't being driven out of their natural habitats because of Global Cooling.

Sea levels aren't rising because of Global Cooling.

The only Global Cooling that's taking place involves the braincells of corporate whore Busheviks.

Per capita emission is meaningless. According to you GW types, it's the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere that influences global climate. A million tons of carbon (say) is a million tons of carbon, whether 300 million people put it there or 1.5 billion did.

You're forgetting that a million tonnes of American CO2 is far more evil than any chinese CO2
I've heard american CO2 retains 150% more heat than any other and goes round mugging any poor ozone molocule it can.:eek:

Well what else can explain the rampant predujice of the global warming lobby?

China pollutes more that the U.S.

Therefore........what? What does this have to do with global warming?

Anybody?

Ahhh...the good ol' kintergarten playground defence for being caught acting like a little shit:
"But he's doing it too!!" (best said in a high-pitched whining voice)

yep. No need to do anything about your own or your country's) contribution to GW, as long as there's another country out there that's worse.

Ah well, this is why I support not doing anything--I'll be dead before the world is, anyway.

Anybody?

greater CO2 omissions apparently equals global warming.

Taking full advantage of the “pass” given it by Kyoto, China has now overtaken the United States as the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions:

Full story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285272,00.html

Oh, and for all you NSG Fox-o-phobes, the post is from the Associated Press, which cites the latest report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. So save your breath whining about Fox’s “bias.”

Now that the PRC’s carbon emissions exceed those of the US, I fully expect the abuse that has been directed at President Bush for not adopting Kyoto to be redirected toward the PRC leadership. I’m sure Algore is even now planning to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Right?

Right. The blame-America crowd is even now racing to come up with excuses for China and reasons to keep complaining about the US:



An apt statement, indeed: let’s ignore what’s happening now and focus on what happened over the last hundred years.

Right?

Right.

Let me see if I can reach my non-pure-white, non-pure-American, quasi-liberal, publically educated brainstem around the scope and depth of your impressive use of logic here.

X is bad.
Y is worse.
Therefore, X is not bad.

Did I get that about right?

Let me see if I can reach my non-pure-white, non-pure-American, quasi-liberal, publically educated brainstem around the scope and depth of your impressive use of logic here.

X is bad.
Y is worse.
Therefore, X is not bad.

Did I get that about right?

X is bad.
Y is worse.
Therefore, Y should be criticised as much as X.

Yes. that's it.

What a disgrace.

New Mitanni, you have utterly lost your chance to persuade me (or probably anyone) that there is any scientific doubt about anthropogenic global warming.

Nice work. Turn off the lights when you leave. :mad:

Let me see if I can reach my non-pure-white, non-pure-American, quasi-liberal, publically educated brainstem around the scope and depth of your impressive use of logic here.

X is bad.
Y is worse.
Therefore, X is not bad.

Did I get that about right?

Yeah, I think I'm too liberal an non-American to understand it. But I'm sure to New Mitanni the fact that China pollutes more than America does somehow prove global warming to be a grand liberal conspiracy.

New Mitanni,

Rather than point out the irony of your repeated slanderous attacks on those you call 'GW true believers'. I would like to look at your points:

1. China is now producing more carbon emissions than the USA.

This is a bad thing, for many reasons. Now people will blame the US and China for increasing the amount of carbon based pollutants in the air. However, you claim that this is not the case. You have yet to provide proof that no one is trying to pressure China into reducing carbon emissions. Nor have you pointed out that China is already doing quite abit to reduce emissions:

China's record on carbon dioxide emissions compares favorably to worldwide averages, Ma said. Until 2004, global average carbon dioxide emissions grew at a rate of 0.6 percent for every 1 percent increase in global GDP. China's growth rate was 0.38 percent.

``It baffles me to hear that people are putting the blame on China's emission of carbon dioxide when both our average and our elasticity were below the global average,'' Ma said.

China's National Climate Change Program commits the country to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions through the increasing use of hydropower, nuclear energy and recycling of methane from coal production for industrial use.

Under the plan, China expects development of hydropower resources to cut emissions by 500 million tons of carbon dioxide by 2010, nuclear energy development to account for 50 million tons of reduction, and biomass energy to help lower emissions by 30 million tons.

More efficient thermal electricity production and transmission, including developments in the cogeneration of heat and power, will reduce emissions by 110 million tons. The reuse of coal-bed and coal-mine methane for electricity generation will reduce them by 200 million tons.

The document is part of China's obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aM8H5XjNVbFQ&refer=us

I find it odd that a developing nation with limited technological capability and an open disregard for civil rights is making more progress in terms of limiting its pollution than developed countries with the world's best technology and democratic governments.

yes, China is now leading in emissions. Many environmentalists feel that that has to change, regardless of what you believe their opinion to be.

That fact does not change the fact that the developed world is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Nor does it affect the obligations that developed countries have in terms of reducing emissions.

You are correct that total emissions are more important than emissions per capita, from an ecological perspective, but from an industrial or technological perspective, more people equals more resource consumption. If you want to talk about total emissions, we should be asking the question: why do developed nations have such a high quantity of total emissions, when we have superior technology and lower populations?

And just to drive home the fact that environmentalists are getting on China's case, here's some links:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/china_cars.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/public_shaming.php
http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373242
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7770
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/China-climate-change
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/134

This is quite funny actually, first the conservatives say GW doesn't exist and rumble randomly about oil companies etc, and now that the evidence is in their next step is 'blame China!', of course this is ignoring the fact that the US majorily created GW before China was really industrialised. Nice blamemongering neocons/

Actually, the majority of global warming would've been caused during the 19th century. Y'know, what with the massive and unrestricted burning of coal, oil, etc. in quantities far exceeding ANYTHING we do today.
In which case, global warming would be the fault of Great Britain, France, Germany (or Prussia, if you will), the United States and Russia. Japan and China to a lesser extent.

I vote we pass sanctions on the 19th century until it cleans up its act.

X is bad.
Y is worse.
Therefore, Y should be criticised as much as X.

Yes. that's it.

Mmmm. Nah. Because X and Y are not equal in terms of "criticism's" effectiveness.

Most of NSG lives in a democratic (ostensibly) and free nation. We can write our legislators, vote, all that shit. We can even lobby and have special interest groups and campaign funding. So in the end, we have a damn good chance of effecting environmental changes through government, in the US or similarly governed nations.

However, most of us here do NOT live in China. And even if we did, theirs is not a democratic and free nation. So what exactly is the point of us discussing Chinese policies we can't change as much as US policies we can?

Put it this way. Traffic conditions in Los Angeles are horrible. And they are in Beijing too. Does that mean news broadcasts in California should ALSO report Beijing's traffic problems, detours, accidents? Why?

Mmmm. Nah. Because X and Y are not equal in terms of "criticism's" effectiveness.

Most of NSG lives in a democratic (ostensibly) and free nation. We can write our legislators, vote, all that shit. We can even lobby and have special interest groups and campaign funding. So in the end, we have a damn good chance of effecting environmental changes through government, in the US or similarly governed nations.

However, most of us here do NOT live in China. And even if we did, theirs is not a democratic and free nation. So what exactly is the point of us discussing Chinese policies we can't change as much as US policies we can?


I dunno. Why do we stage protests against the inhumanities of Darfur? Against the policies of North Korea? of Iran? We certainly won't make any effect, but we can hope that our government takes notice, which can actually do something. Living in the free world, particularly the US, means influence far beyond our own borders.

What a disgrace.

New Mitanni, you have utterly lost your chance to persuade me (or probably anyone) that there is any scientific doubt about anthropogenic global warming.

Nice work. Turn off the lights when you leave. :mad:

Well, if last years record breaking hurricane season didn't persuade him, obviously he's just dead wrong to think that there is a rabbit away with the current theories.

X is bad.
Y is worse.
Therefore, Y should be criticised as much as X.

Yes. that's it.

Too bad that's not what the OP is actually advocating.

Of course, the irony of this whole thing is that the vast majority of Chinese CO2 emissions are being produced because they are manufacturing so many goods for export to the developed world. I mean, that CO2 isn't really domestic; the vast majority of Chinese still can't afford cars, air conditioners, computers, or anything else, and the majority of their energy and investment consumption is in export-geared industries.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason why we are producing less CO2 per unit of GDP these days is because our economies have shifted to a post-industrial, technology/service base and our heavy manufacturing has relocated to more cost-competitive areas around the world.

Of course, the irony of this whole thing is that the vast majority of Chinese CO2 emissions are being produced because they are manufacturing so many goods for export to the developed world. I mean, that CO2 isn't really domestic; the vast majority of Chinese still can't afford cars, air conditioners, computers, or anything else, and the majority of their energy and investment consumption is in export-geared industries.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason why we are producing less CO2 per unit of GDP these days is because our economies have shifted to a post-industrial, technology/service base and our heavy manufacturing has relocated to more cost-competitive areas around the world.

That's not entirely true. I won't say that there aren't dirt poor places in china, but companies like Haier (sp-?) started with the domestic market and then spread into the export market. Also, the chinese have several domestic car marques that are not exported either.

But, yes, we have offshored a lot of manufacturing which has resulted in keeping the energy consumption down.

That's not entirely true. I won't say that there aren't dirt poor places in china, but companies like Haier (sp-?) started with the domestic market and then spread into the export market. Also, the chinese have several domestic car marques that are not exported either.

True. Actually, these days it has more to do with the country's stubbornly high savings rate rather than necessarily poverty; people still save a lot of money rather than spend it, and so are not spending money on these kinds of luxuries. It's accelerating rapidly, but they still have a while to do before consumption approaches levels in the US or even Japan.

I dunno. Why do we stage protests against the inhumanities of Darfur? Against the policies of North Korea? of Iran?

Do we?

Well, some people protest against anything.

But then again, such protests can make the government do something about such places. China is a rather different case. We could plausibly attack Iran or even North Korea. No chance in hell of doing that with China, and everyone knows it.

I was wondering when China would use more CO2 than this country. Expect that number to balloon with their economy, and probably at a faster rate.

Anybody?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

Is anyone getting a little bit annoyed with Mitanni's 'drive by shooting' threads?

Is anyone getting a little bit annoyed with Mitanni's 'drive by shooting' threads?

Yes.

Is anyone getting a little bit annoyed with Mitanni's 'drive by shooting' threads?

I wouldn't call it a drive-by. Drive-bys always hit something, whether or not it's the intended target.

Take it to task all you want. Take the facts to task while you're at it.

I've already done more than my share. Ask DM.
That's why i suggest you read up a smidge.

"Mars Day much better. You can throw trash anywhere. Big empty planet."
- Pappa Wong, Futurama:fluffle:

Again, I think I'll be waiting a long time to see anything like consistency or intellectual honesty from the GW types.

You can live in this illusion,
You can choose to believe.
You keep looking but you can't find the woods,
While you're hiding in the trees.- Right Where It Belongs

Yeah, that's what I have wondering too, who are these 'GW types', are they just people who read?George W. Bush types?

:rolleyes:

."

Has anyone else noticed that GW true believers seem to characterize their opponents in terms typically reserved for religious heretics? Remarkable.Nothing like the fucking rightwingers have ever done in the United States to their opponents, eh, oh noble one?