26 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessChina is "the world's manufacturing base"?
The world cannot expect China to be the world's manufacturing base AND cut emissions at the same time.
We are being ridiculous.
We're the ones cutting back factory jobs so WE shoudl be the ones doing the emissions cutting.
We're a bunch of hypocrites.
http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by kmax87How much has the temp gone up.
I think you are wrong. If your basic argument rests on the premise that its futile to do anything unless everyone does it together ignores one thing. Influence. Sometimes you need to just do the right thing and use your influence to get others to do the same.
If the British had taken that view with the abolition of slavery, then lord knows how long it wou ...[text shortened]... Stockholm then the rest will just have to follow, especially if they give the concorde 'teeth'
How much of that rise (if any) is man responsible for.
What difference would something like KP, which let's face it was an abject failure, have made to the above?
26 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessYes, we're hypocrites. Agreed.
The world cannot expect China to be the world's manufacturing base AND cut emissions at the same time.
We are being ridiculous.
We're the ones cutting back factory jobs so WE shoudl be the ones doing the emissions cutting.
We're a bunch of hypocrites.
So, now all we have to do, if we're serious about cutting emissions, is to agree on a Worldwide strategy to contain emissions growth and then start reducing them. If you want to say that the developed World should reduce now, which China should merely stabilize now or even just reduce growth of emissions for X years until it can stabilize emissions and then reduce; fine. Whatever. Negotiate all of that.
But to simply leave China and India on the sidelines is a joke. Whatever we do to curb emissions won't get the job done unless China and India are in the disucssion and are factored into the effort.
Look, either you believe it's a problem or you don't. If you don't, then who cares? If you do, then fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant. If you want to save the planet and you believe that increasing emissions will do that and you concede that leaving China and India out of the disucssion will cause an increase in emissions that will dwarf any decrease that the US and Europe can effect, then that's the situation need to deal with.
BTW, to address some of the other points:
1) I have no problem with China's one child policy. On the contrary, it makes a lot of sense.
2) If you want to discourage overpopulation, then you simply cannot allocate carbon emission rights based on population alone. I would think that would be fairly obvious. Either allocating emissions by habitable area or some combination of population and habitable area would make more sense.
It's common sense that more densely populated areas, all else being equal, are going to have lower emissions per capita than less dense populations. It takes more energy to heat 100 houses than 1 house with 100 apartments. People that live in more densely populated areas are much less reliant on the automobile. To expect someone who lives in rural Alberta or Montana to live on the same carbon emissions as someone who rents a flat in a New York high rise doesn't make any sense.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76I don't know about India, but China is already doing their part - more than the US certainly.
But to simply leave China and India on the sidelines is a joke. Whatever we do to curb emissions won't get the job done unless China and India are in the disucssion and are factored into the effort.
Look, either you believe it's a problem or you don't. If you don't, then who cares? If you do, then fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant.
Why is per capita irrelevant?
2) If you want to discourage overpopulation, then you simply cannot allocate carbon emission rights based on population alone.
What do carbon emission rights have to do with discouraging over population?
I would think that would be fairly obvious. Either allocating emissions by habitable area or some combination of population and habitable area would make more sense.
What has habitable area got to do with it? Why should Brazilians get more carbon emission rights than Egyptians? It just seems like an arbitrary criteria you have chosen for the sake of making the US look better.
It's common sense that more densely populated areas, all else being equal, are going to have lower emissions per capita than less dense populations. It takes more energy to heat 100 houses than 1 house with 100 apartments. People that live in more densely populated areas are much less reliant on the automobile. To expect someone who lives in rural Alberta or Montana to live on the same carbon emissions as someone who rents a flat in a New York high rise doesn't make any sense.
Then maybe we should encourage denser populations. In general denser population is far more efficient in almost every way - and it should therefore be encouraged.
I am willing to bet that if half the Chinese moved to the US you would instantly reverse your "habitable area" idea.
27 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadArguing that 'per capita is irrelevant' is a key part of ongoing U.S. hypocrisy. So too is arguing that the U.S.'s hypocrisy in the past is irrelevant.
sh76 - Look, either you believe it's a problem or you don't. If you don't, then who cares? If you do, then fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant.
twhitehead - Why is per capita irrelevant?
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by Wajomahttp://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/#
How much has the temp gone up.
How much of that rise (if any) is man responsible for.
What difference would something like KP, which let's face it was an abject failure, have made to the above?
Have a read, it gives a history of the development of the techniques used for measuring global temp, It explains the rationale why global temps were sought in the first place, including some of the expectations of the scientists involved at the time. It includes an explanation for the observed cooling trend between the 1940's-1970's.
Hansen the scientist responsible for much of this research at NASA theorizes that the observed cooling trend was as a result of an increase in aerosols in the atmosphere(aerosols-particulate matter such as soot from fossil fuel burning) that accompanied the rapid industrialization that occurred during the second world war and continued on after that.
I know many wont bother going to the source so I've pasted some of the more salient points and leave the rest of the discovery up to you.
In 2007, Michael Mischenko, of NASA GISS, published a paper in the journal Science in which he reported tropospheric aerosols have indeed declined slightly over the last 30 years. The net effect is that more sunlight passes through the atmosphere, slightly brightening the surface. This increased exposure to sunlight could partially account for the increase in surface temperature that Mischenko and Hansen observed over the same time span. Over the course of the twentieth century, Hansen and other climate scientists estimate aerosols may have offset global warming by as much as 50 percent by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Scientists call this phenomenon "global dimming," although the change was too gradual and too slight to be perceived by the human eye. (Aerosols' dimming potential has been observed, of course, after dramatic events like the Agung Volcano eruption that Hansen noticed during the lunar eclipse of December 1963.)
Hansen describes the global dimming effect of human-emitted aerosols as a "Faustian bargain"—a deal with the devil. "Eventually you get to a point where you don't want aerosols in the atmosphere because they're harmful to human health, harmful to agriculture, and harmful to natural resources," he stated. "So in the U.S. and much of Europe, we've been reducing aerosol emissions."
But we haven't seen a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, humans' use of fossil fuels rose rapidly (about 5 percent per year) from the period after World War II until 1973. After the oil embargo and price shock of oil in 1973, annual average consumption continued to increase, but at a slower pace (between 1.5 and 2 percent per year). A byproduct of that rising fossil fuel consumption has been a corresponding rise in carbon dioxide emission. Because greenhouse gases reside in the atmosphere for decades, while aerosols usually wash out over a span of days to weeks, the warming influence of greenhouse gases gradually won out.
"For much of the twentieth century, both types of human emissions were on nearly equal footing, and aerosols were able to compete with greenhouse gases," Hansen said. But that balance has tilted increasingly in favor of greenhouse gases in the last 30 years.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by kmax87So let me get this straight, when it's cooling it's warming and when it's warming it's cooling?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/#
Have a read, it gives a history of the development of the techniques used for measuring global temp, It explains the rationale why global temps were sought in the first place, including some of the expectations of the scientists involved at the time. It includes an explanation for the observed ...[text shortened]... creasingly in favor of greenhouse gases in the last 30 years.[/i][/quote][/b]
27 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFGeez!
Arguing that 'per capita is irrelevant' is a key part of ongoing U.S. hypocrisy. So too is arguing that the U.S.'s hypocrisy in the past is irrelevant.
Look at the context every once in a while, will you?? 🙄
I said that it's irrelevant insofar as the fact that any agreement regarding global warming has to include China and India or be ineffective; that exempting them based on the fact that their per capita emissions are still low will render ineffective any agreement
If you would take the time to read my posts rather than just lying in the weeds waiting to pick out little out of context snipets that you can attack, it would lead to a much more constructive discussion.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhitehead===What do carbon emission rights have to do with discouraging over population? ===
I don't know about India, but China is already doing their part - more than the US certainly.
[b]Look, either you believe it's a problem or you don't. If you don't, then who cares? If you do, then fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant.
Why is per capita irrelevant?
2) If you want to discourage overpopulation, then you ...[text shortened]... half the Chinese moved to the US you would instantly reverse your "habitable area" idea.
Because if you allocate higher allowable emissions to countries with higher populations, you encourage, or at the very least, miss a golden chance to discourage high population growth.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Arguing that 'per capita is irrelevant' is a minute detail/point?
As an aside, why don't you try making your own points every once in a blue Moon, rather than just trying to pick apart the minute details of every right of center poster's points?
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhitehead===What has habitable area got to do with it? Why should Brazilians get more carbon emission rights than Egyptians? It just seems like an arbitrary criteria you have chosen for the sake of making the US look better.===
I don't know about India, but China is already doing their part - more than the US certainly.
[b]Look, either you believe it's a problem or you don't. If you don't, then who cares? If you do, then fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant.
Why is per capita irrelevant?
2) If you want to discourage overpopulation, then you ...[text shortened]... half the Chinese moved to the US you would instantly reverse your "habitable area" idea.
No, strict per capita allocations is an arbitrary criterion. Some combination of population and habitable area is the best way to allocate allowable emissions.
27 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFBecause I was saying it in the context that it's irrelevant only insofar as that it's not a reason to exempt them completely from any agreement.
Arguing that 'per capita is irrelevant' is a minute detail/point?
Yes, when you pull it out of context like that it looks ridiculous, but that's not what I meant; and if you read my posts you'll see clearly that that's not what I meant.
27 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I didn't "pull it out of context". Your "fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant" IS the context of pretty much everything you are saying on this thread. I drew attention to it because it IS ridiculous. The "habitable area" thing and the "fault (i.e. the West's recent track record) is irrelevant" and "per capita calculations are irrelevant" seem to be merely waffle in service of playing down U.S. hypocrisy on this issue and nothing much else. No picking at "miniscule details" here. Quite the contrary. Getting to the heart of it, indeed.
Because I was saying it in the context that it's irrelevant only insofar as that it's not a reason to exempt them completely from any agreement.
Yes, when you pull it out of context like that it looks ridiculous, but that's not what I meant; and if you read my posts you'll see clearly that that's not what I meant.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFIs it or is it not true that an agreement to reduce emissions without India or China being involved will be ineffective at solving the problem of man made global warming (assuming one exists)?
I didn't "pull it out of context". Your "fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant" IS the context of pretty much everything you are saying on this thread. I drew attention to it because it IS ridiculous. The "habitable area" thing and the "fault (i.e. the West's recent track record) is irrelevant" and "per capita calculations are irrelevant" ...[text shortened]... "miniscule details" here. Quite the contrary. Getting to the heart of it, indeed.
If you're really interested in "getting to the heart of it," you'll answer that question.
Otherwise, you can continue to pick at peripheral (I'll use that term instead since irrelevant seems to bother you) details and avoid "getting to the heart" of what this thread is about.