Yes they are whispering. They are bringing a new coal-fired power plant online, using OLD technology, EVERY WEEK. The technology exists to clean the coal-fired plant and lessen its impact, that is what they should be doing. It took us 100 years or so to get where we are today, they are trying to do within a decade or two. Why? If you have to ask..

Skip

Quoting whispering:

Quote:

I think you missed my point, China is not a big polluter by capita not even by a long shot. My point was that since you already have you're living standrad, and the chinese are building it. You are currently denying the right of the luxuries you yourself enjoy. If a chinese man produces 4 times less pollution then you do (by statistics) then imagine what you would have to do to get to the same level? You cant ask more then you yourself are giving, in my opinion.

I understood your point perfectly the problem is, you missed mine.  The 'per capita' spin is just that, spin...and extremely short sighted.

Because China is 'less developed', China is allowed to pursue a more flexible model for rapid economic development.  Some estimates claim that China's per capita emissions of carbon dioxide will remain below US levels until at least 2025.  As it sits right now, China won't tighten environmental regulations or reduce emissions until then.

Previous estimates, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the region that includes China will see a 2.5 to 5 percent annual increase in CO2 emissions between 2004 and 2010. A new UC analysis puts that annual growth rate for China to at least 11 percent for the same time period.

From this article:
The researchers' most conservative forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000. This growth from China alone would dramatically overshadow the 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions pledged by all the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol.

Do you see my point now?  What good is the Kyoto Protocol if it allows this?  Allowing them to negate the reduction pledged by all the developed countries is one thing, but to allow them to completely tip the scales in the opposite direction is beyond idiotic.

As I said, if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, there is a better way.  The technology exists.  Allowing China to hide behind 'per capita' statistics is short sighted and only serves to make the situation worse.  But that isn't a very 'PC' point of view, now is it?

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rander:

Quote:
So why do almost all americans have a car with automatic transmission? Well, I guess it (once again) comes down to laziness. The manual transmission also makes it a whole lot easier to control the car in snowy and icy conditions - by watching the videos with americans driving in such weather, it is more than clear that they have absolutely no clue what they're doing! And yes, I know that this probably applies mostly yo people in New York or such places, that doesn't get snow every year...

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting whispering:

Quote:

I think you missed my point, China is not a big polluter by capita not even by a long shot. My point was that since you already have you're living standrad, and the chinese are building it. You are currently denying the right of the luxuries you yourself enjoy. If a chinese man produces 4 times less pollution then you do (by statistics) then imagine what you would have to do to get to the same level? You cant ask more then you yourself are giving, in my opinion.

I understood your point perfectly the problem is, you missed mine.  The 'per capita' spin is just that, spin...and extremely short sighted.

Yes, it is a spin. It must be, because it means we do not have a right to consume more energy than for example someone from China. That can't be true, because we are obviously more important (yes, this was sarcastic).

Quote:

Because China is 'less developed', China is allowed to pursue a more flexible model for rapid economic development.

Makes sense. After all Rifter was arguing that the worlds strongest economy could not affort to be slowed down by environmental issues. So obviously a far weaker economy can affort it even less.

Quote:

Some estimates claim that China's per capita emissions of carbon dioxide will remain below US levels until at least 2025.  As it sits right now, China won't tighten environmental regulations or reduce emissions until then.

Which is indeed unfortunate, but all we can do is show the way.

Quote:

Previous estimates, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the region that includes China will see a 2.5 to 5 percent annual increase in CO2 emissions between 2004 and 2010. A new UC analysis puts that annual growth rate for China to at least 11 percent for the same time period.

From this article:
The researchers' most conservative forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000. This growth from China alone would dramatically overshadow the 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions pledged by all the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol.

Do you see my point now?  What good is the Kyoto Protocol if it allows this?  Allowing them to negate the reduction pledged by all the developed countries is one thing, but to allow them to completely tip the scales in the opposite direction is beyond idiotic.

It can obviously be discussed if Kyoto is good enough, but a reduction of 116 tons is a reduction of 116 tons. Yes, combined the emissions might still go up, but it still better than not saving 116 tons.

Quote:


As I said, if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, there is a better way.  The technology exists.  Allowing China to hide behind 'per capita' statistics is short sighted and only serves to make the situation worse.  But that isn't a very 'PC' point of view, now is it?

Why is the US allowed to polute more than the Vatican State? Are you guys hiding behind "per capita" statistics in a short sighted effort to make it appear you are not poluting more than others? Clearly the US, China, and the Vatican are all three independent states, so if you can compare US/Chinese emissons without taking per capita into account you can obviously compare US/Vatican emission levels as well.

The good news is that I live in a small country. No matter what I do this country will never reach the levels of the US (or the larger European countries), so we can polute just as much as we want and not feel guilty at all. Great....

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting Sir Knight:

Quote:
I've tuned and adjusted the Diesel engine of my Skoda. Today a can not only drive on Diesel but also on Vegitable oils. 1 liter of Sunflowerseed costs me 59 euro cents. A Liter diesel about 1,40 euro's
So the choise was quickly made. And.... no CO2 emisions. The car drives fine even on a cold star. (in winter 30 liters of oil needs 10 liters of Diesel for a cold start.
Anyway. Its cheaper and enviromentaly friendlier.

I don't get that. If burning vegetable oil doesn't cause CO2 emissions, then what does it burn into? Carbon monoxide?

I think the story is that the CO2 emisions are countered by the plants used to produce the oil consuming C02 as they grow. No, I didn't google the detail, so I don't know if they claim the CO2 emissions are countered 100%.

Since the United States Supreme Court has decided that they understand thios well enough to be able to declare CO2 a pollutant, we must all make sure that we do not exhale.

Skip

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
it means we do not have a right to consume more energy than for example someone from China. That can't be true, because we are obviously more important (yes, this was sarcastic).

Sarcasm doesn't deserve an answer so I won't bother.

Unicus, you're not going to win this argument.  It is like trying to tell a radical Islamist that western culture is not the evil that they have been brainwashed to believe.

I wonder if anyone has the statistics on the percentage of the global goods and services that are produced in the U.S. relative to other countries?

Sorry, but this is just another way for the have nots to slam the haves!

Like I said earlier, we have the resources available to us (if congress would get the hell out of the way) and we should develop those resources for our own consumption and let the rest of the world fight over Arabian and South American oil!

INCOMING!