[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump - Steely_D - Aug 7, 2022 - 2:57pm
 
Portishead S. O. S. - geoff_morphini - Aug 7, 2022 - 2:27pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Aug 7, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2022 - 1:11pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Aug 7, 2022 - 12:09pm
 
Ridiculous or Funny Spam - Steely_D - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:47am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:18am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:13am
 
China - haresfur - Aug 7, 2022 - 9:00am
 
Wordle - daily game - Proclivities - Aug 7, 2022 - 9:00am
 
Joe Biden - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2022 - 7:29am
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Aug 6, 2022 - 5:06pm
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Aug 6, 2022 - 3:17pm
 
Environment - Manbird - Aug 6, 2022 - 3:05pm
 
Name My Band - Manbird - Aug 6, 2022 - 2:41pm
 
Things that make you happy - Manbird - Aug 6, 2022 - 2:33pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Aug 6, 2022 - 12:49pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 6, 2022 - 9:27am
 
The Abortion Wars - black321 - Aug 6, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 6, 2022 - 4:34am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Aug 5, 2022 - 9:38pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - BlueHeronDruid - Aug 5, 2022 - 8:37pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 5, 2022 - 4:44pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Aug 5, 2022 - 12:58pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 10:09am
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - geoff_morphini - Aug 5, 2022 - 9:19am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 5, 2022 - 8:23am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - miamizsun - Aug 5, 2022 - 7:09am
 
Favorite Flags - Proclivities - Aug 5, 2022 - 6:33am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Aug 5, 2022 - 6:25am
 
Afghanistan - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 5:29am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Aug 4, 2022 - 7:34pm
 
The Obituary Page - haresfur - Aug 4, 2022 - 3:16pm
 
What are you listening to now? - westslope - Aug 4, 2022 - 3:00pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 4, 2022 - 2:01pm
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Aug 4, 2022 - 11:48am
 
Breaking News - westslope - Aug 3, 2022 - 5:06pm
 
Saudi Arabia - westslope - Aug 3, 2022 - 4:45pm
 
Congress - Red_Dragon - Aug 3, 2022 - 2:19pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Aug 3, 2022 - 2:00pm
 
Message To Lucky - black321 - Aug 3, 2022 - 12:03pm
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - miamizsun - Aug 3, 2022 - 11:40am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - sirdroseph - Aug 3, 2022 - 10:39am
 
Things You Thought Today - GeneP59 - Aug 3, 2022 - 9:34am
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - geoff_morphini - Aug 3, 2022 - 9:08am
 
Infinite cat - Red_Dragon - Aug 3, 2022 - 7:36am
 
Flower Pictures - haresfur - Aug 3, 2022 - 7:13am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Aug 2, 2022 - 8:19pm
 
It's the economy stupid. - Red_Dragon - Aug 2, 2022 - 6:52pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 2, 2022 - 1:58pm
 
Favorite Beauty Products - Tried and Tested! - Proclivities - Aug 2, 2022 - 10:58am
 
Favorite Quotes - ptooey - Aug 2, 2022 - 10:21am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - miamizsun - Aug 2, 2022 - 9:15am
 
Local Scenery - rgio - Aug 2, 2022 - 5:20am
 
Health Care - R_P - Aug 1, 2022 - 11:10am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - GeneP59 - Aug 1, 2022 - 5:14am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 31, 2022 - 9:46pm
 
ATTN: Kate Bush Fans! - Steely_D - Jul 31, 2022 - 8:34pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - Proclivities - Jul 31, 2022 - 4:26am
 
You might be getting old if...... - Manbird - Jul 30, 2022 - 6:26pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Jul 30, 2022 - 10:07am
 
Mr Peabody's Coal Train Broke - oldviolin - Jul 29, 2022 - 6:21pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Antigone - Jul 29, 2022 - 5:01pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Isabeau - Jul 29, 2022 - 4:43pm
 
Seattle Q&A - Manbird - Jul 29, 2022 - 1:31pm
 
Russia - Steely_D - Jul 29, 2022 - 9:33am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - GeneP59 - Jul 29, 2022 - 9:08am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Jul 28, 2022 - 7:41pm
 
International broadcasting - jp33442 - Jul 28, 2022 - 5:13pm
 
American Revolution - oldviolin - Jul 28, 2022 - 2:56pm
 
Things Forgotten. - Steely_D - Jul 28, 2022 - 1:30pm
 
David Gray in concert - oldviolin - Jul 28, 2022 - 11:20am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - Manbird - Jul 28, 2022 - 10:40am
 
hallucinogenic drugs - kurtster - Jul 27, 2022 - 8:10pm
 
Bike! - miamizsun - Jul 27, 2022 - 3:48pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Chaos Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Post to this Topic
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 8:55am

Any ideas if this debate is as active in other countries, or just here in these United States?
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 7:37am

 steeler wrote:


Not sure I am following this last paragraph.  The downside is wasting resources on something we cannot stop.  And the  downside on the flipside is that we would be wasting resources that could be used "to cope with the costs of climate change." 
Is coping with the costs of climate change different than trying to mitigate the effects of climate change?

     
      

 
Right, not much of an argument.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 7:10am

 black321 wrote:

 

The "worst that can happen" is that we spend trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we can't do anything to stop; that we misallocate scarce resources in a way that slows economic growth; that slower growth leads to less economic opportunity for Boston College grads and especially the world's poor, and that America and the world become much less wealthy and technologically advanced than we would otherwise. All of which would make the world less able to cope with the costs of climate change if Mr. Kerry is right.



 

Not sure I am following this last paragraph.  The downside is wasting resources on something we cannot stop.  And the  downside on the flipside is that we would be wasting resources that could be used "to cope with the costs of climate change." 
Is coping with the costs of climate change different than trying to mitigate the effects of climate change?

     
      


black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 6:08am

I dont know how many Boston College grads are planning on getting into the oil and gas business, as opposed to new entrepreneurial alternative energy ventures, but apparently the Wall Street Journal thinks a lot. And apparently any alternative energy business is doomed to fail. 

p.s. it's responses to Kerry like this that are going to keep us bogged down...and then we'll see how many jobs are lost and the full economic toll of not doing anything about it. 

Secretaries of State may want to stop making statements in the form of questions, à la "Jeopardy." First Hillary Clinton declared "what difference at this point does it make?" regarding the reasons that four Americans died in Benghazi. Then on Monday John Kerry told graduates of Boston College that even if he's wrong about climate change, it won't cost a thing.

"The solution is actually staring us in the face. It is energy policy. Make the right energy policy choices and America can lead a $6 trillion market with four billion users today and growing to nine billion users in the next 50 years," Mr. Kerry said in his commencement address, referring to climate change. Then came the odd poser.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers the Commencement Address at Boston College. Reuters

"If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge—and supposing I'm wrong or scientists are wrong, 97% of them all wrong—supposing they are, what's the worst that can happen?" Mr. Kerry said. "We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence—that's the downside."

So the "downside" of addressing climate policy is more jobs, cleaner air, more energy security, and we save the planet too. Makes you wonder why there aren't already 100 Senate votes for this miracle. Perhaps that's because the "energy policy" Mr. Kerry is talking about includes vast new political control over the economy, starting with taxes and limits on carbon energy, subsidies for his favored energy sources, and new and costly regulations on much of the American Midwest, South and West.

The "worst that can happen" is that we spend trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we can't do anything to stop; that we misallocate scarce resources in a way that slows economic growth; that slower growth leads to less economic opportunity for Boston College grads and especially the world's poor, and that America and the world become much less wealthy and technologically advanced than we would otherwise. All of which would make the world less able to cope with the costs of climate change if Mr. Kerry is right.


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 5:26am

 kurtster wrote:
  
In the discussions here and out in the media at large here in the US, that appears to be the case (China is ignored)

Its not about if the Chinese are pulling their own weight, its about why they are given a pass.

....
 
I am willing to go on the record saying that the climate is changing (which I have never denied), yet I see no crisis that justifies the actions being demanded of the US and its citizens in particular.  I'm not talking about the will of the world.  I'm talking about what our government is trying to impose on ourselves.  The fate of the world does not hinge on what the US does or does not do, or does it (in terms of GHG) ?

I'm not picking on China.  With a crisis, I just think the fate of the earth is most dependent on what China does more than anyone else at this point in time.
 
You are contradicting yourself. 
a. you get all huffily about China being given a pass (which implies you think there must be a problem otherwise why get upset?)
then
b. you say there is no crisis, or at least not such a severe one that merits any action by the US.

You can't have it both ways. If you think China needs to respond to the crisis then logically the US must too. By any measure, historical, per capita, total emissions or whatever, both the US and China are way up there amongst the world's biggest polluters.  
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 5:04am

  NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Kurtster, nobody is ignoring the Chinese. Why do you think anybody is? 
Not even the Chinese are ignoring GHG. Look at their nuclear program and hydro projects like the Three Gorges Dam project, etc. 
Why do you think they are not pulling their weight? The fact that they have three times the population must surely factor into the equation somewhere, don't you think? Otherwise it's like comparing Detroit to Rarotonga. Makes. No. Sense.

Some points for the record:
1. Everybody has to clean up their act. Including the US and China.
2. Reducing GHG does not imply you are going to cripple the economy. On the contrary. Look at the UK or Germany both of which have saved 22% GHG and met or bettered their targets and still have pretty robust economies (ever check out the net transfers from the UK to the EU? Everyone thinks Germany bankrolls the EU but it is by no means the only one)
3. Per capita GHG emissions remains a valid check if you accept that people are created equal and we all have a right to wealth, health and happiness.
4. US performance should be measured over a longer time period to smooth out any savings due to the economic cycle as there are signs that recent savings are just due to the downturn.

 

  
In the discussions here and out in the media at large here in the US, that appears to be the case (China is ignored)

Its not about if the Chinese are pulling their own weight, its about why they are given a pass.

Careful about comparing Detroit to anywhere else in the world.  No one can exaggerate how bad it is there.

I.  Agreed

2.  The economies of scale and land masses involved are relevant factors in internal activity that produces GHG.  That is independent (mostly) of population variables.

3.  see 2 above.

4.  The US economic trend is up (if you believe the numbers coming from the White House) while the emissions trend is still sloped downward.  It remains to be seem if that trend continues, without further government intervention and with an established period of equilibrium for measurement.

And on 4 is where the rubber meets the road.  Is there or is there not a crisis ?  Without a moratorium on new policies, how do you measure the effects on the current ones ?  But the excuse seems to be that we cannot wait for these answers because of the crisis.

The US and France made a joint statement, 500 days to Climate Chaos.  Does that not imply a crisis at hand ?  500 days to the last chance of saving the earth under the auspiciousness of the UN ?  That is what it means to me. 
 
I am willing to go on the record saying that the climate is changing (which I have never denied), yet I see no crisis that justifies the actions being demanded of the US and its citizens in particular.  I'm not talking about the will of the world.  I'm talking about what our government is trying to impose on ourselves.  The fate of the world does not hinge on what the US does or does not do, or does it (in terms of GHG) ?

I'm not picking on China.  With a crisis, I just think the fate of the earth is most dependent on what China does more than anyone else at this point in time.

So a crisis or some geological events that need more time for consideration for a properly measured response ? 


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:25am

 kurtster wrote:

... 
Everyone is giving China a pass in spite of this fact.  The excuses made are by per capita comparisons or that it is still a developing nation.  Per capita figures are valid in certain circumstances, but when dealing with a crisis, they lose their relevance.

... why is China being ignored.

 
Kurtster, nobody is ignoring the Chinese. Why do you think anybody is?
Not even the Chinese are ignoring GHG. Look at their nuclear program and hydro projects like the Three Gorges Dam project, etc. 
Why do you think they are not pulling their weight? The fact that they have three times the population must surely factor into the equation somewhere, don't you think? Otherwise it's like comparing Detroit to Rarotonga. Makes. No. Sense.

Some points for the record:
1. Everybody has to clean up their act. Including the US and China.
2. Reducing GHG does not imply you are going to cripple the economy. On the contrary. Look at the UK or Germany both of which have saved 22% GHG and met or bettered their targets and still have pretty robust economies (ever check out the net transfers from the UK to the EU? Everyone thinks Germany bankrolls the EU but it is by no means the only one)
3. Per capita GHG emissions remains a valid check if you accept that people are created equal and we all have a right to wealth, health and happiness.
4. US performance should be measured over a longer time period to smooth out any savings due to the economic cycle as there are signs that recent savings are just due to the downturn.

 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:12am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

shoot yourself in the foot why don't you?  Even the WUWT article you linked to associated the reduction in US CO2 emissions with a stagnant economy and not any particular savings mechanisms. If you call economic collapse "leading the way forward" then you are one hell of a leader.

Not to rub your nose in it too much, but in the period from 1990 to 2004 Germany reduced its CO2 output by 17.2% (half of which admittedly was due to the collapse and reunification of Eastern Germany (closure of lots of dirty coal plants) but still that is effectively more than 8% in a period when the economy was booming.  The US was categorically not the first country to meet the targets in the Kyoto protocol.

For better comparison, look at this report from the UNFCCC. This is a better table, showing percentage comparisons with the Kyoto targets. 

In the period from 1990 to 2010 (20 years), the USA, far from leading the way forward actually increased its CO2 emissions by 10.4%, admittedly topped by a number of other countries including Canada, Australia and New Zealand (hey, what's up with that??) . In that same timeframe Germany reduced its emissions by 24.8% and the United Kingdom by 22.6%. More to the point you guys are sitting on a base line that is way up somewhere in the stratosphere in terms of per capita emissions. (see Richard's links). Just about all the former Soviet bloc countries easily exceeded their targets which we can put down to economic restructuring more than anything else, but still, the point is made. Far from leading the way forward, the US has put into a shabby performance overall, particularly when you consider your high base line to begin with.

And now, instead of taking responsibility for a problem in your own backyard that is staring you in the face, you start whinging and complaining about the boy next door being much worse when in fact he is not.

EDIT:
and if those figures are too outdated for you just remember that the US economy tanked in 2008/2009 which explains most of the recent reductions. 

 
No I am not shooting myself in the foot.  I have been all about the here and now.  Richard was the one who started the distraction of using a chart showing per capita co2 in the year 2000.  I didn't bring it up.  But I did do an analysis of the data and found that the US did in fact  reduce its per capita output in the time in question by 20% while China increased its by 300%.

I rightly said that the US met its Kyoto goals.  That it did not sign on does not change the fact.  There is didspute over whether or not it was the first or as the WUWT article stated as the first major industrialized nation to do so.  To me, that does not matter.  The US did meet and exceed its goal, regardless of how it was accomplished.  There are no KP charts that include the US's  numbers, so I have no idea how it compares to the others.

The UN charts you provided do not even mention China, so no comparisons can be made in that regard.

So I will try to refocus.

The overwhelming consensus in the other two threads is that we are in a dire crisis and that we are either running out of time to act or its already too late to act.  The crisis is so bad that it justifies immediate and drastic actions ASAP.  The 2 or 3 that say not so fast are dismissed as deniers.

The US is the primary focus of the discussion and is the most major offender on the planet and based upon that indictment must act, even if it means crippling itself in the process.  It is also the charge that the US has done little if anything to date to correct its past sins against the world.

Until now in this thread, no one will talk about the other major offenders, such as China, even though China produces twice as much GHG as any other single country or even the collective EU.  No one has willfully acknowledged that the US met and exceeded its KP goals.  That has only been acknowledged here in this thread and grudgingly.

Everyone is giving China a pass in spite of this fact.  The excuses made are by per capita comparisons or that it is still a developing nation.  Per capita figures are valid in certain circumstances, but when dealing with a crisis, they lose their relevance.

How is it that China is still called a developing country when it is the second largest economy on the planet, poised to be the first in just a couple more years.  It is the oldest continuous civilization on the planet.  It is a permanent member of the UN with one of only five veto rights.  It has a space program that is most likely to be the next and only second nation to put a man on the moon ?  This is a third world developing nation worthy of endless excuses and passes on its contribution to this apparent crisis ?  Palease ... y'all have got to be kidding.

So in the other two threads, there is a dire crisis.  Over here, well no one is willing to come out and say that it is a real crisis, when confronted with the China question.

If we are in a crisis, we do not have the luxury of discussing the past sins of various players.  We only have the here and now.  The crisis cannot be discussed nor resolved without including the largest single gross polluter on the planet. 

So before we go any further ...

Is there a real crisis or is it the invention of those with an agenda using a trumped up or manufactured crisis to use it as the means to an end that being of social change and social justice ?  

If its the former, how can China be justifiably ignored ?  If its the latter, it is clear why China is being ignored.


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 10:18pm

 kurtster wrote:

You change time references to suit your needs. From the long ago past to the recent past.   2007 is too far ago for a meaningful number today.  
You act as if the US must pay for its sins in the past, even though it has led the way to meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocols.

 How much more do you want the US to do in order to satisfy your desire to see us punished for our past sins ?  Do you want the US to cease to exist ?

 
shoot yourself in the foot why don't you?  Even the WUWT article you linked to associated the reduction in US CO2 emissions with a stagnant economy and not any particular savings mechanisms. If you call economic collapse "leading the way forward" then you are one hell of a leader.

Not to rub your nose in it too much, but in the period from 1990 to 2004 Germany reduced its CO2 output by 17.2% (half of which admittedly was due to the collapse and reunification of Eastern Germany (closure of lots of dirty coal plants) but still that is effectively more than 8% in a period when the economy was booming.  The US was categorically not the first country to meet the targets in the Kyoto protocol.

For better comparison, look at this report from the UNFCCC. This is a better table, showing percentage comparisons with the Kyoto targets. 

In the period from 1990 to 2010 (20 years), the USA, far from leading the way forward actually increased its CO2 emissions by 10.4%, admittedly topped by a number of other countries including Canada, Australia and New Zealand (hey, what's up with that??) . In that same timeframe Germany reduced its emissions by 24.8% and the United Kingdom by 22.6%. More to the point you guys are sitting on a base line that is way up somewhere in the stratosphere in terms of per capita emissions. (see Richard's links). Just about all the former Soviet bloc countries easily exceeded their targets which we can put down to economic restructuring more than anything else, but still, the point is made. Far from leading the way forward, the US has put into a shabby performance overall, particularly when you consider your high base line to begin with.

And now, instead of taking responsibility for a problem in your own backyard that is staring you in the face, you start whinging and complaining about the boy next door being much worse when in fact he is not.

EDIT:
and if those figures are too outdated for you just remember that the US economy tanked in 2008/2009 which explains most of the recent reductions. 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 7:35pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

That is according to your reading. I don't see me saying/writing anything like that. I do see you mostly making the case that the US shouldn't have to do anything, even though it's still the second largest polluter (after China). China has over 300% more people... {#Mrgreen}



And as for that cumulative aspect again, using data from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

 
You change time references to suit your needs. From the long ago past to the recent past.   2007 is too far ago for a meaningful number today.  

This is the now.  Its a crisis, right ?  The US has turned things around.  You do not approve, still keeping the focus on the US while downplaying the biggest culprit today who is out producing the US by a factor of 2 times.  

You act as if the US must pay for its sins in the past, even though it has led the way to meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocols.

 How much more do you want the US to do in order to satisfy your desire to see us punished for our past sins ?  Do you want the US to cease to exist ?
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: May 20, 2014 - 5:36pm

 kurtster wrote:

Digging deeper into 2012, the US has reduced its output in the same time since 2000 by nearly 20% per capita while again China has increased its by about 300%.

In gross pollution, China has roughly 100% more or twice as much than the US does now (as of 2012)

With the crisis so dire as you say things are, this cannot be ignored, even though you argue that it should.
 
That is according to your reading. I don't see me saying/writing anything like that. I do see you mostly making the case that the US shouldn't have to do anything, even though it's still the second largest polluter (after China). China has over 300% more people... {#Mrgreen}



And as for that cumulative aspect again, using data from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 3:17pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Kurtster, while China is a huge economy and rapidly growing I don't think a policy of targeting them per se for burning so much carbon is a very good approach. The entire western world has been doing it for decades if not centuries.

If
a) you seriously think climate change is a threat and
b) you accept that it is a global issue that needs a global response
then
c) we must get a global consensus on the way forward.  

Dissension, which is inevitable in the approach you are taking of blaming China, is not going to cut it. This is not an ethical argument I am making. Purely practical. 

But if you want to make an ethical argument, I suggest you find another country to do it from.

EDIT:
and btw China also has a robust nuclear energy program if you are such an opponent of fossil fuels (which I hope)
 
Let's make it an ethical argument.  While the US did not sign on, we still went ahead and became the first country to meet and exceed the goals established for it.

USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it


I must admit that I was wrong on when I said the US met the Kyoto Protocol.  I was off by 8 years, but still correct about having met and exceeded the KP goals.  Just because the US did not sign on does not mean that it did not do anything.


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 3:12pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

Those are all snapshots in recent time. As someone pointed out below, it's about accumulation over a longer period (and who contributed to that accumulation), not about who is the greatest villain at the moment (there are several).

Per capita and per total are merely two ways of looking at data and both provide insight.

 
Digging deeper into 2012, the US has reduced its output in the same time since 2000 by nearly 20% per capita while again China has increased its by about 300%.

In gross pollution, China has roughly 100% more or twice as much than the US does now (as of 2012)

With the crisis so dire as you say things are, this cannot be ignored, even though you argue that it should. 

 
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: May 20, 2014 - 2:40pm

 kurtster wrote:
The year 2000 is meaningless.  Try again.  Or better yet, show the current map and we can compare 2000 to 2014 and see who is doing what.  

Besides, when one is comparing per capita data  with the two biggest polluters whose populations exceed a billion, that skews the numbers in favor of the point you would like to make.  Lets talk about gross pollution by country and then see where the chips fall.  You are trying to make an excuse for these two countries or as I mentioned earlier, giving them a pass.  That is part of the agenda I speak of.  Thank you for hilighting it for me.
.
Edit:  looking at the data behind your map. the US has cut its levels by 10% while China has increased theirs by over 300%   You are giving China a major pass on this.  Tsk, tsk ...
 
Those are all snapshots in recent time. As someone pointed out below, it's about accumulation over a longer period (and who contributed to that accumulation), not about who is the greatest villain at the moment (there are several).

Per capita and per total are merely two ways of looking at data and both provide insight.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: May 20, 2014 - 2:31pm

 kurtster wrote:
The US as a whole has exceeded the demands of the Kyoto Protocols 10 years ago.  Our greenhouse gas emissions are now a small fraction of what they were in 2007.  We have done a tremendous amount to reduce our part already.  We need to let our industry catch a breath and adjust to the new realities before we move on and also to allow the rest of the world to catch up.  US business will find ways to pollute less, but it must do so without offshoring the part(s) that contributes. 
 
The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol (unlike 191 countries), so why boast about it? (and present it as if it were a conscious and serious effort that required concessions/sacrifices to meet a goal. Maybe that's what speculative bank(st)ers had in mind all along. To bring down the amount of greenhouse gases by affecting economic growth!)

Are now a small fraction? Surely you mean they've decreased by a small fraction... (though what is a small fraction?)
7325 - 6526 = 799. -10.9% or 0.109 of the total. Now if today's output was 799 compared to 7325 in 2007...
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 2:15pm

 RichardPrins wrote:
CO2 emission per capita per year per country (2000 data)

 
The year 2000 is meaningless.  Try again.  Or better yet, show the current map and we can compare 2000 to 2014 and see who is doing what.  

Besides, when one is comparing per capita data  with the two biggest polluters whose populations exceed a billion, that skews the numbers in favor of the point you would like to make.  Lets talk about gross pollution by country and then see where the chips fall.  You are trying to make an excuse for these two countries or as I mentioned earlier, giving them a pass.  That is part of the agenda I speak of.  Thank you for hilighting it for me.
.

Edit:  looking at the data behind your map. the US has cut its levels by 10% while China has increased theirs by over 300%   You are giving China a major pass on this.  Tsk, tsk ....

Plus it would nice of you to reduce the size of your map so as not to bork the thread.  I am sure that was an oversight on your part.  Thank you in advance for the resize.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 2:06pm

 aflanigan wrote:


The carbon trade proposals I have seen from scientists, are clear on the fact that they will be unworkable unless the entire world essentially buys in. Weart acknowledges this specifically, stating "Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust.". Where do you find anything in his recommendations stating that we need to make our actions unilateral?

 

 He is asking us to cede power to the government.

Why is he asking us to cede power to the government ? 

By asking us to ask the government to do more and transfer the judgement solely to the government and the bureaucrats who will administer these programs which will default into a unilateral one size fits all sledgehammer approach with the usual unintended consequences.

 Ceding to the government control over anything ends up with unilateral results, domestically more often than not..  That is part of the problem I have with the EPA.  The EPA is establishing a history of non compliance with SCOTUS rulings and lower levels of the federal court system.  Personally, I feel the EPA needs to be abolished and replaced with a different approach and primarily because of its lawless behaviour.  It writes its own policies and rules of conduct and does not recognize any external authority over it.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 1:48pm

 steeler wrote:


Under your reasoning, unless something significant can be done to curtail pollution by China, nothing should be done by other countries on any global scale. So, no international agreements unless those agreements can be effectively enforced against China.

Ist that your position?     
  

 
Yes and no.  Regarding international agreements and China, yes.  

No on further US internal policy changes for the time being.  So actually a qualified yes on this part as well.

We have done enough already, legislatively.  In fact too much.  Take gasoline for example.  We have put mandates for fuel additive content (ethanol and other ingredients) which are not even feasible to manufacture with today's technology.  In our quest for renewable energy, it is now permissible to kill bald eagles with windmills.  But if you or I do it we go to jail and get a really hefty fine.  By this standard, wind technology is not friendly to the environment.  It is a double standard,with the ends justifying the means.  Not acceptable, at least to me.

The US as a whole has exceeded the demands of the Kyoto Protocols 10 years ago.  Our greenhouse gas emissions are now a small fraction of what they were in 2007.  We have done a tremendous amount to reduce our part already.  We need to let our industry catch a breath and adjust to the new realities before we move on and also to allow the rest of the world to catch up.  US business will find ways to pollute less, but it must do so without offshoring the part(s) that contributes.  
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: May 20, 2014 - 12:27pm

 kurtster wrote:

If there is a consensus on that, doesn't it at some point become relevant as to who is offending the most ?  All the politically motivated arguments seem to totally ignore that part of the debate as did the personal note link.  It calls for more intervention of government here and no mention at all of offshore threats to our environment that will undo everything we can even think of doing, let alone succeeding.  And these offshore threats over which we have zero influence, because if for no other reason, it requires a committed foreign policy.  Something of which with the current administration is impossible.  Lead from behind, waiting for what will never happen is not how things get done.  That is also related to political will.  The problem in that then goes to having any standing and leverage.  While we have the standing of leading by example, due to our debt and foreign policy (lack of) we have no leverage (with China).

And incorporating politics, there is more interest in changing society in the US in the name of Climate Change than there is in calling China on the carpet and drawing a red line.  The red line that so many here want to impose on us, but not on the main offender.  That is where the legitimacy of the agenda ends and the suspicion begins.

 

The carbon trade proposals I have seen from scientists, are clear on the fact that they will be unworkable unless the entire world essentially buys in. Weart acknowledges this specifically, stating "Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust.". Where do you find anything in his recommendations stating that we need to make our actions unilateral?
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: May 20, 2014 - 11:14am

CO2 emission per capita per year per country (2000 data)
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next