... now the single biggest source of carbon dioxide (8% more than the US)

of course China is a 'developing nation' so they are exempt from having to do anything

6/20/2007 3:38:13 PM

China has a massively larger population as well.

6/20/2007 3:40:16 PM

woot

it's good to be off the hook

6/20/2007 4:02:32 PM

Maybe we can finally relax.

6/20/2007 4:03:45 PM

Guess I can go buy my new Hummer now.

6/20/2007 4:17:52 PM

ha and a billion more people

gg

they should be given a fuckin medal

6/20/2007 8:51:58 PM

I enjoyed the news blurb on the radio talking about how some european nation was saying that China shouldn't be held accountable for its CO2 production because it is "less wealthy" than the US and Europe. I was like "so, even though GW is allegedly a problem, we should let a major producer of the problem off the hook because they don't have as much money as another one does." then I thought to myself "gee, what will the incentive be for China to improve itself? with the restrictions imposed on other countries, China will be able to sell widgets at cheaper prices than the US, because China won't have to invest money in reducing CO2. what a great idea!"

6/20/2007 9:09:06 PM

which is why the Kyoto Accords are fucking retarded

6/20/2007 9:34:24 PM

That said, carbon taxes make a lot of sense; assuming they are used to eliminate payroll taxes.

6/20/2007 10:26:11 PM

^^^ nice commie logic

In the real world, the more money a country makes (from selling a shit load of widgets), the more its citizens demand cleaner technology. That's what happened in the US and every other fucking country, after all. You don't believe that the Chinese inherently love living in filth, do you?

The fastest way for a country to become a non-polluter is for it to develop economically.

Since the OP didn't post an actual link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm

Quote :

"It is estimated that the average American still pollutes between five and six times more than the average Chinese person."

FYI, china is already building a lot of nuclear power plants to cope with the air pollution problem. They plan to build 32 by 2020. I wonder what their incentive is ?????


[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ad]

6/20/2007 10:30:42 PM

Maybe we should have China's safety standards as well

6/20/2007 10:54:07 PM

^^ too bad that they are building twice as many coal plants, too... and, who gives a fuck if their per capita CO2 is lower? The point still stands that they pollute MORE. if the concern is that CO2 is bad, then clearly you want to target the biggest source.

6/20/2007 10:58:34 PM

Quote :

"The fastest way for a country to become a non-polluter is for it to develop economically."

LOL, I like this logic. Because, you know, all of our economic development has led to huge decreases in carbon dioxide emissions

6/20/2007 11:04:45 PM

Good thing CO2 isn't a major contributer to global warming.

6/20/2007 11:06:56 PM

^ shhhh. you'll burst the GW bubble with that kind of nonsense

6/20/2007 11:09:27 PM

Two possible corrections to your sophistry. Which position does your feigned indignance mask?:

Quote :

"who gives a fuck if their per capita CO2 is lower? The point still stands that they pollute MORE. if the concern is that CO2 is bad you want to come up with irrational excuses not to fix your own problems, then clearly you want to target the biggest source blame someone else"

OR

Quote :

"who gives a fuck if their per capita CO2 is lower? The point still stands that they pollute MORE. if the concern is that CO2 is bad, then clearly you want to target the biggest source propose "solutions" that have an actual chance of being implemented"

China will NEVER end up at a level of pollution that is disproportional to it size. It's an economic and technological impossibility. It's patently specious to argue that some other country could become as developed as the US but not pollute as much per capita as the US. You might as well argue that the chinese should sprout wings so that they don't have to drive around as much.

-----------

^^^ The growth in C02 emissions by developed countries has flattened out and reasonable indications are that developed countries are technologically able to grow GDP without growing greenhouse gases. This is where everyone needs to be. The US could arguably become cleaner, as well. For one, we have the stupid moratorium on building nuclear power plants. Our recent increases in emissions are due to population growth.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 11:29 PM. Reason : l;]

6/20/2007 11:19:15 PM

Obiviously Chinese CO2 emissions dont cause as much damage as evil US corporate CO2 emissions

6/20/2007 11:31:52 PM

According to E.A, they'll speak Russian in a few years, so you don't have to worry about the Chinese.

6/21/2007 12:31:30 AM

Im pretty sure I had some long ass arguement with Lonesnark about how countries in industrial transitional phases dont have to make labor laws because they need kids working in factories.

if that is to ever correct itself then by the same logic they should clean up their popultion issues as well.

6/21/2007 8:04:18 AM

most co2 emissions are from power production and industry.... i wonder what the actual breakdown is, like how much from transport, commerce, industry, power, etc.

funny part is the entire worlds co2 production is less than 1 volcanic eruption...

6/21/2007 11:06:16 AM

Don't forget to take into account that the majority of China's population still rural (not sure of exact number, but a good bit above 50%). Of course, they're taking a major u-turn towards urbanization. So, their carbon footprint can only increase from here on out.

6/21/2007 12:01:33 PM

Quote :

"funny part is the entire worlds co2 production is less than 1 volcanic eruption..."

source?

i have read the same, but only about the huge volcano eruption (st. helens?). and eruptions of such magnitude occur once every handful of decades.

"volcano eruption" is like "size of dogs". there is huge variation.

6/21/2007 12:13:47 PM

I don't know where the source is, but I've heard this before. And its been well documented that major volcanic eruptions in the past have altered the climate of the earth for several years to follow.

6/21/2007 1:27:50 PM

Volcanic eruptions produce huge amounts of methane and CO2, but they also spew thousands of tons of sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. Sulphur dioxide reflects sunlight back into space, which produces a dimming effect that lasts for a few decades.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

6/21/2007 1:31:04 PM

Quote :

"CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years."

what? there is and has been afair always some CO2 in the atmosphere... plants kinda need it...

6/21/2007 1:33:06 PM

Volcanoes do not emit more co2 than human emissions.

Quote :

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. "

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html


The eruptions of major ones, like Pinatubo, have more of a dimming effect on the climate from the suspended ashes. This dimming effect only lasts a couple of years. For volcanism to have the effect on the climate as much as co2 emissions, there needs to be an major eruption every couple of years.

6/21/2007 1:48:42 PM

god i hate to be that person sometimes but i read this like over a month ago

6/21/2007 1:52:49 PM

We still DESTORY everyone in co2 emmissions PER CAPITA.

And most of it is wasted because we are wasteful while china on the other hand is developing.

6/21/2007 2:51:10 PM

do the ice caps and atmosphere care about per capita

6/21/2007 3:58:07 PM

The US does not emit the most CO2 per capita.

6/21/2007 5:06:30 PM

^ You are right, it is not.

In fact, it is #11, however, the first 10 are tiny tiny countries/islands which are just a blip on the world scene.

So, among countries that matter, yes, the US is number 1 (per capita).

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


But perhaps, we should be looking at GDP per emissions, i.e., that tells us how much the country produces for all the CO2 emissions it releases.

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

US is #39. Reasons? I guess SUVs, too many cars per household, country is too spreadout, burning of oil to produce electricity, etc.

6/21/2007 6:35:43 PM

^ coal to make electricity, coal makes more co2 than anything and we have a lot of it, cheap too...

china by GDP/co2 emission is very very poor.... we aren't 'great' but we are about 4 times more effective at producing wealth vs emissions than China.... that is also out of date.... (numbers from 2002)

Quote :

"god i hate to be that person sometimes but i read this like over a month ago"

no, no you didn't

the report in question is from the Netherlands (BILTHOVEN, The Netherlands, June 19, 2007)

and it seems that June 19th was not "over a month ago"

Quote :

"We still DESTORY everyone in co2 emmissions PER CAPITA. And most of it is wasted because we are wasteful while china on the other hand is developing."

developing?

ahahahahahahahahha yeah they are, but that's not a 'get out of jail free card' .... as for waste... china is a communist country, notorious for all sorts of waste, they are probably the single largest water, air and environmental polluters in the history of the planet now...

the us is rather un-wasteful, we have extremely high productivity which equates to efficiency which usually means less waste... (overall we make a lot this is true)

if you had said excessive then you would have had a point, but as it is, you don't

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : date]

6/22/2007 12:02:50 PM

does it really matter? either CO2 is bad or it isn't. and if it is bad, then it does us no fucking good to ignore a major producer of it simply because "they are developing." if they are "developing," then we should expect it to GET WORSE, not better. but hey, it's china, so I guess their CO2 is ok, right?

6/22/2007 1:03:42 PM

^that simple logic is why we didnt ratify kyoto...although common sense isnt that common anymore obviously...i mean apparently its ok to pollute as long as you buy credits

6/22/2007 1:05:26 PM

Quote :

"either CO2 is bad or it isn't. and if it is bad,"

IF??? it is bad? say what?

Quote :

"we have extremely high productivity which equates to efficiency which usually means less waste"

ROFL. You just don't get it, due you. Building hummers counts as production. Anybody can take numbers and sprinkle icing on them. Ironic enough, most of the "waste" we commit actually helps "production". Asshole.

6/22/2007 2:05:43 PM

emission waste?
solid waste?
chemical waste?

what the fuck are you talking about....

not only are you not specific enough, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are arguing about

6/22/2007 2:08:06 PM

All this time i've been talking about wastful as in driving hummers, keeping the newest electronics for a month and all the millions of other things welded into american culture. I wasn't talking about actual waste (n) like trash, nuclear waste I'm talking about "waste"(v).

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : noun vs verb]

6/22/2007 2:10:45 PM

waste as it pertains to driving hummers = production solids and chemical wastes, (paint, paint production, steel, mining etc) and emission wastes from it's use

the electronics thing is more the same, and then landfill waste when they become discarded...

as you are using it in a 'verb' sense you're argument is even more unfounded and subjective

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : for instance, you're a waste of space, air, and food]

6/22/2007 2:14:19 PM

Thats a whole nother monster, nother thread about America's carelessness.

I'm speaking of waste that inflates production numbers so that when you do that carbon/gdp or whattever it is you do to try and justify our nasty carbon numbers it makes it look better so you can say "well o we're producing all this carbon but we're doing it for good reason" bullshit.

And being a developing country IS in essence a "get out of jail free card" because they are doing what it takes to survive. If coal is all they can use and still be able to eat then its fine. We could easily clean up our act and still be well off. Denmark and other places that aren't as rich as us do it and still are fine so theres really no excuse. Its just cheap, greedy American mentality keeping us back. Then again, they also take care of their poor and ill so maybe this is a much larger, more serious topic...

edit

theres a difference between waste as in leftover material and then material that didn't need to be created in the first place.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : the latter]

6/22/2007 2:22:23 PM

if you like the fact that Denmark tax rate is about double ours, then sure....

and we are not as 'wasteful' as you think...

production is the measure of how many man hours it takes to produce a certain amount of wealth (or rather how much wealth can be developed from a man hour)

Quote :

"And being a developing country IS in essence a "get out of jail free card" because they are doing what it takes to survive."

i think many would argue that china is not a developing nation....

so you would give them the right to fuck the world over just b/c they are a "developing nation"

Quote :

""well o we're producing all this carbon but we're doing it for good reason" bullshit. "

good reason? no, but it takes a certain amount of C02 to produce anything, and we (I think) do it at a better rate than many other countries, regardless of your ethereal views of 'waste', as in we make less co2 than china to make the same thing

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM. Reason : ,,]

6/22/2007 2:42:54 PM

Quote :

"theres a difference between waste as in leftover material and then material that didn't need to be created in the first place."

Who are you to say what I should be producing with my efforts? What makes your view of the universe inherently superior to the rest of us? To use an old saying, who died and made you king?

If you want to go live without the decadent comforts modern society produces, go right ahead. Until then, mind your own business.

6/22/2007 3:17:29 PM

^ lol that's a less nice, succinctly condensed version of what i wrote

6/22/2007 3:18:56 PM

if only CO2 emissions did anything dangerous to the environment.

China still leads the world in Sulfur emissions, and unlike the rest of the world they have let their sulfur emissions soar during the last two decades.

6/24/2007 4:25:00 PM

Quote :

"If you want to go live without the decadent comforts modern society produces, go right ahead. Until then, mind your own business. "

There are nations that live at high standards AND do it cleanly.

Quote :

"if only CO2 emissions did anything dangerous to the environment."

Either an idiot or a troll. Either way, a waste of time

Quote :

"China still leads the world in Sulfur emissions, and unlike the rest of the world they have let their sulfur emissions soar during the last two decades."

Only because they have yellow coal which is rich in sulfur. Its not their fault they were dealt that hand and unless we want to dig up yellowstone and give them the good coal. We don't really have room to criticize because we use ALOT of coal ourselves and we don't even have to, they have to so don't even go there.

6/24/2007 7:39:16 PM

Quote :

"There are nations that live at high standards AND do it cleanly."

Yep, us. Diesel engines are so popular in Europe that smog is a permanent fixture of many European cities.

6/24/2007 7:46:20 PM

NO WAY! USA #1!

U
S
A
!

U
S
A
!

6/24/2007 8:33:30 PM

Quote :

"no, no you didn't the report in question is from the Netherlands (BILTHOVEN, The Netherlands, June 19, 2007) and it seems that June 19th was not "over a month ago""

ok since you want to act like i didnt read something i said i did i'll spend an hour and try to find the article

ok actually it only took like 3 minutes...i'm pretty sure this is what i read back in April

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37487

Quote :

"the country is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) this year"

6/24/2007 10:02:15 PM

Quote :

"Only because they have yellow coal which is rich in sulfur. Its not their fault they were dealt that hand and unless we want to dig up yellowstone and give them the good coal. We don't really have room to criticize because we use ALOT of coal ourselves and we don't even have to, they have to so don't even go there."

not quite, we have scrubbers to remove sulfer from our coal plants emissions, mercury in the coal is the big issue actually...

Quote :

"the country is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) this year"

=! C02 amount surpassing

you read someone's prediction of it. not the actual event. but good try

Quote :

"BEIJING, Apr 25 (IPS) - China has delayed the release of a long-expected national plan on tackling global warming amid warnings that the country is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) this year -- much earlier than forecast -- because of its runaway economic growth. "

6/24/2007 10:49:39 PM

dude edit your post....your html took away my post

what i said before you fixed your attempted ghost edit was that this thread is not new information to me, i read this on april 25th....this may be news to others though

6/24/2007 10:50:52 PM