^

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 1:54 AM. Reason : PS: Please STFU.]

2/12/2007 1:53:54 AM

WTF are you saying should be done?

Should the US attack China now?

If so, go fry in hell.

2/12/2007 7:03:50 AM

everything I own was made in China.

2/12/2007 9:14:57 AM

I don't think he's saying we should attack china



about this thread, I'm sure china has concerns for us and the enviroment... really


lol

2/12/2007 10:06:26 AM

^that was the topic of the thread (global warming and China), then hooksaw decided to take it off course by talking about war with China.

2/12/2007 11:19:41 AM

Do I have to explain the connection? Goddamn some of you are fucking dumb.

(1) PROPAGANDA--such as unfair criticism of the United States--is a tool of war and often of antebellum periods leading up to war. Clearly, China is working a strategy related to the United States, but it is less friendly than you might think. I recommend a book called Red Dragon Rising; you will learn much from it, young ones.

(2) If China really were so concerned about global warming, would they have refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty and be spending money the following way?

Quote :

"China’s military spending growth has been in the double-digits for almost two decades, and that isn’t including large portions that we know they are hiding [emphasis added]."

With today's threat matrix, ladies and gentlemen, one must learn to think in a three-dimensional manner. Deal with it.

[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2007 12:28:01 PM

3/20/2007 9:26:38 PM

Quote :

"so wait. global warming will cause flooding, but there will be water shortages... eh? irony is a bitch!"

learn the definition of irony


^foot binding is a major problem and the chinese government needs to do more to address it.

3/20/2007 10:20:46 PM

well, I think it's quite ironic that there will be water shortages despite massive flooding.

i know why those shortages would occur. doesn't change the irony of needing water while being surrounded by it

3/20/2007 10:34:10 PM

really, do you understand the definition of irony?

3/20/2007 10:37:41 PM

yes. do you?

3/20/2007 10:43:09 PM

do you consider it ironic that you cannot drink salt water when thirsty?

3/20/2007 10:46:34 PM

nope. BUT, that's why it's ironic. flooding doesn't have to be salt water. obviously flooding from global warming would mostly be salt water, but that doesn't matter. the point is that "flooding" implies "lots of water." the irony is when you combine that w/ the notion of "water shortage."

3/20/2007 10:54:00 PM

so you think it is ironic that people in the middle of the ocean who are thirsty cannot drink the salt water?

do you also think it is ironic that you cannot drink sewer water?

3/20/2007 10:58:11 PM

no, because they are in the ocean. you are adding more restrictions than I am, which removes the irony. stop trying.

3/20/2007 10:59:40 PM

so when it floods, do you drink that water? Do you drink water from mud puddles?

3/20/2007 11:03:39 PM

Quote :

"Over the past decade China has managed to keep its energy growth rate at just half the rate of GDP growth, a considerable achievement. Although energy consumption slumped in absolute terms and economic growth slowed during 1998, mainland China's total energy consumption may double by 2020 according to some projections. China is expected to add approximately 15,000 megawatts of generating capacity a year, with 20% of that coming from foreign suppliers. Beijing, due in large part to environmental concerns, would like to shift China's current energy mix from a heavy reliance on coal, which accounts for 75% of China's energy, toward greater reliance on oil, natural gas, renewable energy, and nuclear power. The PRC has closed some 30,000 coal mines over the past 5 years to cut overproduction. This has reduced coal production by over 25%."

Facts != what people in this thread say

Honestly, you are all full of crap.

3/21/2007 9:41:32 AM

Now tell me again ALL about how China is spitting on the Kyoto Protocol and we're amazing.

If you get the short end of the stick in terms of GHG reductions, that's because your diplomats suck, not an excuse to opt out.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 9:46 AM. Reason : a]

3/21/2007 9:44:56 AM

Quote :

"so you think it is ironic that people in the middle of the ocean who are thirsty cannot drink the salt water?"

Why is the concept of a desalination plant so difficult for some people? They are not that difficult to build, thousands of cities across the world use them.

3/21/2007 10:01:03 AM

two very interesting lists, and corresponding graphs:


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

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

3/21/2007 10:19:17 AM

America, fuck yeah!

Freedom is the only way!

3/21/2007 10:34:05 AM

well we had the freedom to cut down forests and burn coal in order to take our country from some old west bullshit into the advanced society we have in 2007

yet we want to tell other countries that they shouldnt cut down trees or burn coal

3/21/2007 10:35:33 AM

Freedom is a privilege you get by living in America and only in America. that's why all the Mexicans want in.

3/21/2007 10:59:37 AM

two three very interesting lists, and corresponding graphs:


World agricultural output


World industrial output


World services output

Surprise, surprise, surprise! Countries with greater economic output have higher emissions. Maybe we should just curtail the economic activity of the United States.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 2:02 PM. Reason : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition]

3/21/2007 1:42:08 PM

or maybe just maybe since they have so much economic output they could put some of that money back into cutting emmisions? I know that seems impossible for your "if it doesn't benefit my pocket i won't do it" capitalist sheltered mind to comprehend but its the right thing to do.

3/21/2007 5:13:17 PM

The point--which you missed--was that as long as the United States, or any other country, remains a leading producer, it will also remain a leading polluter. This will hold almost exclusively of the extent and efficacy of emmissions controls. The end result is that graphs showing productive industrial countries as leading total and per capita pollution emmiters are nearly worthless.

Something like emissions per factory or emissions per some unit of economic output would be much more meaningful.

3/21/2007 6:12:11 PM

how about pollution per capita?



[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 12:32 AM. Reason : exactly]

3/22/2007 12:31:41 AM

i get it now. its all so clear.

3/22/2007 12:36:43 AM

How about thousands of tons of CO2 produced per million dollars of GDP?

				Thous. Of Metric Tons	Millions of USD		CO2/GDP
World				 24,126,416 	 	44,384,871 		0.54
					
Russia				 1,432,513 		 763,720 		1.88
Iran				 360,223 		 196,343 		1.83
India				 1,220,926	 	 785,468 		1.55
People's Republic of China	 3,300,371 		 2,228,862 		1.48
South Africa			 345,382 		 240,152 		1.44
Thailand			 231,927 		 176,602 		1.31
Malaysia			 150,630 		 130,143 		1.16
Saudi Arabia			 340,555 		 309,778 		1.10
Indonesia			 306,491 		 287,217 		1.07
Poland				 296,398 		 299,151 		0.99
Pakistan			 108,677 		 110,732 		0.98
Czech Republic			 114,563 		 122,345 		0.94
United Arab Emirates		 94,163 		 104,204 		0.90
Algeria				 92,097 		 102,257 		0.90
Romania				 86,745 		 98,559 		0.88
Venezuela			 108,163 		 138,857 		0.78
Philippines			 73,779 		 98,306 		0.75
Argentina			 133,322 		 183,309 		0.73
Turkey				 207,996 		 363,300 		0.57
South Korea			 446,190 		 787,624 		0.57
Israel				 69,607 		 123,434 		0.56
Nigeria				 52,038 		 98,951 		0.53
Hungary				 56,647 		 109,154 		0.52
Australia			 356,342 		 700,672 		0.51
Mexico				 383,671 		 768,438 		0.50
Chile				 57,320 		 115,248 		0.50
Singapore			 57,471 		 116,764 		0.49
United States			 5,872,278 		 12,455,068 		0.47
Colombia			 57,375 		 122,309 		0.47
Canada				 517,157 		 1,115,192 		0.46
Greece				 94,117 		 213,698 		0.44
Brazil				 313,757 		 794,098 		0.40
Portugal			 62,288 		 173,085 		0.36
Finland				 62,659 		 193,176 		0.32
New Zealand			 33,995 		 109,041 		0.31
Germany				 804,701 		 2,781,900 		0.29
Netherlands			 162,739 		 594,755 		0.27
Spain				 304,603 		 1,123,691 		0.27
Japan				 1,203,535 		 4,505,912 		0.27
Italy				 433,018 		 1,723,044 		0.25
United Kingdom			 544,813 		 2,192,553 		0.25
Ireland				 43,187 		 196,388 		0.22
Austria				 63,701 		 304,527 		0.21
Hong Kong, PRC			 35,458 		 177,722 		0.20
Norway				 55,461 		 283,920 		0.20
Belgium				 70,592 		 364,735 		0.19
Denmark				 48,831 		 254,401 		0.19
France				 378,267 		 2,110,185 		0.18
Sweden				 51,901 		 354,115 		0.15
Switzerland			 40,854 		 365,937 		0.11

3/22/2007 7:43:39 AM

of course the dirtier you produce something the more money you make

3/22/2007 8:47:30 AM

Aristotle why don't you start by powering down your computer...using electricity makes you really look like a hypocrite

3/22/2007 9:19:05 AM

^^You know if every country was as efficient as we were in our $$$ to C02 production, the world would already meet the (worthless and unneccesary) Kyoto Protocol. Interesting...

3/22/2007 12:02:03 PM

^ somewhat agreed. US is ranked 39 on the link below, only slightly better than the world as a whole, raned at 46, while EU as a whole is ranked 15. (UK is 13, france 4, etc) why can't the US equal the european countries? out of the top 15, 12 are european countries. it is not as if these countries are any less developed, in fact, they are MORE DEVELOPED than the US. it is all the waste and the disregard for the environment by people and corporations in general in the US.

^^^^ that's a great list.

here is a longer version of it with 98 countries, and instead of CO2/GDP, it is GDP/CO2, so in this case, the bigger the value, the better it is:

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


so for eg, US is 0.47 on the list ^^^^ , and 1/0.47 = 2.12 on the link i just posted.


here is a graph:

[larger version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/GDPvCO2.png ]




[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2007 12:25:11 PM

Quote :

"why can't the US equal the european countries?"

You just can't help yourself, can you?

The answer: fossil fuels.

Quote :

"The data in Table 11 represent estimates of carbon dioxide emissions for the electric power sector. These emissions when taken as a whole account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions; in calculating sector-specific emissions, electric power sector emissions are distributed to the end-use sectors. The electric power sector includes traditional regulated utilities, as well as independent power producers whose primary business is the generation and sale of electricity. The industrial sector and, to a much lesser extent, the commercial sector also include establishments that generate electricity; however, their primary business is not electricity generation, and so their electricity-related emissions are included in the totals for those sectors, not in the electric power sector. Preliminary estimates indicate that carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector increased by 2.8 percent (65.6 MMT), from 2,309.4 MMT in 2004 to 2,375.0 MMT in 2005 (Table 11)."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

In the United States, nearly 40% of all carbon dioxide emissions are the result of burning fossil fuels for electricity production. Without that 40%, the US CO2/GDP ratio would be about 0.28; contrast with the European Union ratio of about 0.27.

			US		EU
Nuclear (MW)	 	 98,145		130,267
Fossil/Other (MW)	392,580		303,956
Total (MW)		490,725		434,223

3/22/2007 5:36:03 PM

geothermal heat pumps is the way to go. It severely cuts back on energy usage which in turn cuts back on co2 emmissions.

We need to quit talking about the cons (coal, oil, nuclear) and look towards the pros (renewable green energy)

3/22/2007 5:40:16 PM

I saw a report the other day that states that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol


I don't know if thats been discussed yet or not


jsut thought it was interesting

3/22/2007 5:41:56 PM

^^ Geothermal heat pumps are great for heating. They can't replace actual electricity generation, though. Many of the green sources have yet to be tested in any sort of large scale production. Nuclear is available now, and it's available where hydro, wind, and solar are not

^ There was a neat article in the IEEE Spectrum a few months ago that came to pretty much the same conclusion. Unfortunately, the corn industry is lobbying hard for it and a lot of people are dumb enough to jump on their band wagon.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2007 6:01:48 PM

Quote :

"We need to quit talking about the cons (coal, oil, nuclear) and look towards the pros (renewable green energy)"

I don't get it, what is wrong with nuclear. Please help me understand.

3/22/2007 8:43:15 PM

^ more and more green energy advocates are taking favorable positions on nuclear energy.

3/22/2007 8:50:11 PM

Fusion power is the way to go.

3/22/2007 9:20:10 PM

^^I'll believe it when I see it (actual votes in congress instead of NIMBY reactionary garbage).
^that'd be nice, but it is hypothetical (in terms of technological implementation) at the moment, we should keep researching it of course.

for now I'd use the technology we have and then work towards making "breeder" reactors which use the spent fuel to create further energy.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 9:29:31 PM