China: We're not interested in curbing our emissions

Originally posted by sh76

Did you notice that Canada and Australia have substantially the same emissions per capita as does the US? Should they also join the US in taking the lead in cutting emissions?


====USA have emmission on about 19 units per capita, China only 4.6 per capita. This says to me that USA, not China, should start and lead the way. When USA begin to show some prog ...[text shortened]... sions while China stabilizes them, or at least promises to take steps to keep its rise in check.

Canada contributes 2% of the total ghg emissions worldwide. Our current gov has stated that it won't enact reductions because without US and worldwide agreements, any reduction by canada will be meaningless. Even a 50% reduction by canada will only result in a 1% drop.....and that's if everyone else stayed at the same level which of course won't happen.

Be aware, though that the opposition parties in canada have all said that reducing emissions would be there goal if they got into power. Canada right now has a right wing Conservative government in power so it's no big surprise that they won't do anything to reduce emissions.

Originally posted by sh76
You want to know why "no one seems to want to talk about" that issue? I'll tell you why. Because it's an issue on which the US cannot be blamed. The US has one of the lower population densities per habitable square mile.

per square mile makes no difference!

It's CONSUMPTION per capita that is the problem! Americans consume WAY more per person than everyone else.

Lower your consumption levels and you lower your ghg footprints.

Originally posted by uzless
Canada contributes 2% of the total ghg emissions worldwide. Our current gov has stated that it won't enact reductions because without US and worldwide agreements, any reduction by canada will be meaningless. Even a 50% reduction by canada will only result in a 1% drop.....and that's if everyone else stayed at the same level which of course won't happen.

...[text shortened]... overnment in power so it's no big surprise that they won't do anything to reduce emissions.

Great. So now we have it both ways.

When I bring up the fact that China exceeds the US in emissions, I get told that's irrelevant because they have a larger population.

Now, Canada's per capita emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are low because of their low populations.

Which is it folks? Does raw emissions matter or per capita emissions? If it's neither, what, pray tell, is relevant?

Originally posted by sh76
Great. So now we have it both ways.

When I bring up the fact that China exceeds the US in emissions, I get told that's irrelevant because they have a larger population.

Now, Canada's per capita emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are low because of their low populations.

Which is it folks? Does raw emissions matter or per capita emissions? If it's neither, what, pray tell, is relevant?

No i told you china's numbers are mostly irrelevant because we expect them to be the future of manufacturing for the world in the near future. All they can do is find ways to slow their rise.

Canada's emissions are irrlevant because their total emissions are miniscule.

Anyone who tells you different is just wrong.

Originally posted by uzless
No i told you china's numbers are mostly irrelevant because we expect them to be the future of manufacturing for the world in the near future. All they can do is find ways to slow their rise.

Canada's emissions are irrlevant because their total emissions are miniscule.

Anyone who tells you different is just wrong.

China is investing heavily in nuclear and solar power, so my guess is they won't reach current US per capita levels.

Originally posted by uzless
Canada's emissions are irrlevant because their total emissions are miniscule.

So, why look at the US as one entity? It's 50 sovereign states.

Alabama's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Alaska's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Arkansas emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Connecticut's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.

etc.

Heck, why should I reduce, re-use, recycle? My emissions are miniscule.*





* GRANNY, if you can't do anything with that one, it's time to retire.

Originally posted by sh76
So, why look at the US as one entity? It's 50 sovereign states.

Alabama's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Alaska's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Arkansas emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Connecticut's emissions are irrelevant because their to ...[text shortened]... iniscule.

etc.

Heck, why should I reduce, re-use, recycle? My emissions are miniscule.

Yikes, a prisoner's dilemma. You're hurting Wajoma's feelings!

Originally posted by sh76
So, why look at the US as one entity? It's 50 sovereign states.

Alabama's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Alaska's emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Arkansas emissions are irrelevant because their total emissions are miniscule.
Connecticut's emissions are irrelevant because their to ...[text shortened]... iscule.*





* GRANNY, if you can't do anything with that one, it's time to retire.

Come on, don't pull the classic palynka and forget why YOU brought canada up in the first place!

YOU mentioned that canada had increased it's emissions...I merely pointed out that canada only accounts for 2% of the total ghg worldwide and that for canada, AS A COUNTRY, to even drop it's emissions by even 50% would only amount to a 1 % dip in global emissions. If you want to go province by province it woudl be even lower but the total for the COUNTRY would be 1%

Your "example" of each state being miniscule is just not correct, and in fact many US states produce more greenhouse gases than most other COUNTRIES!! Plus, taken as a whole, all the states add up to 1 country emitting a massive amount of ghg..

So, again, your "example" holds absolutely no validity and isn't a worthy arugement. Pathetic really.

Perhaps we see from the "quality" of your argument that if even the more educated of americans can't form a proper argument then it is folly for the rest of the world to assume the average US citizen can be trusted to make the right decision.

Perhaps you guys really do need a "decider" to make up your minds for you.

😛

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's karmic payback for the opium wars ...

.......you can only chase the dragon so far until it turns on you...?

Originally posted by uzless
Come on, don't pull the classic palynka and forget why YOU brought canada up in the first place!

YOU mentioned that canada had increased it's emissions...I merely pointed out that canada only accounts for 2% of the total ghg worldwide and that for canada, AS A COUNTRY, to even drop it's emissions by even 50% would only amount to a 1 % dip in global emissio ...[text shortened]...

Perhaps you guys really do need a "decider" to make up your minds for you.

😛

===YOU mentioned that canada had increased it's emissions...I merely pointed out that canada only accounts for 2% of the total ghg worldwide and that for canada, AS A COUNTRY, to even drop it's emissions by even 50% would only amount to a 1 % dip in global emissions. If you want to go province by province it woudl be even lower but the total for the COUNTRY would be 1%===

An agreement has to include everyone, especially one of the highest per capita emissions producing countries in the world: your innocent, beloved Canada.

===Your "example" of each state being miniscule is just not correct, and in fact many US states produce more greenhouse gases than most other COUNTRIES===

Canada also produces more emissions than most other countries. Sauce for the goose...

=== Plus, taken as a whole, all the states add up to 1 country emitting a massive amount of ghg..===

My point is that "defending" Canada on the grounds that its gross emissions aren't high compared to other countries doesn't make any sense. Political borders and divisions when it comes to issues like greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant and arbitrary. The only things that make sense to look at are emissions per capita and/or emissions per area of habitable real estate. To say the US should do something to curb emissions but Canada should be exempt is absurd. That's like saying that Al Gore should recycle but I shouldn't have to.

===So, again, your "example" holds absolutely no validity and isn't a worthy arugement. Pathetic really.===

Your resort to a meaningless quasi-personal slight is irrelevant.


====Perhaps we see from the "quality" of your argument that if even the more educated of americans can't form a proper argument then it is folly for the rest of the world to assume the average US citizen can be trusted to make the right decision.

Perhaps you guys really do need a "decider" to make up your minds for you.====

If you were really so convinced you were right, you wouldn't feel the need to resort to such meaningless personal attacks.

If you're just trying to get under my skin... well, it's gonna take more than that. Try making a coherent argument though. That might work.