PDA

View Full Version : Chinese CO2 Emissions


patteeu
06-21-2007, 06:32 AM
China has now overtaken the US as the world's leading CO2 emitter. (http://tinyurl.com/yu4q3a)

Discuss if you want to.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2007, 07:37 AM
Who knew the rickshaw was such a massive polluter.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 07:40 AM
ROFL ROFL

banyon
06-21-2007, 07:54 AM
Discuss what? This has been known to be an eventuality for years.

It's like saying "The Baby Boom Generation is very large and going to cause Gen X a lot of financial problems, Discuss."

jAZ
06-21-2007, 08:04 AM
I think what patteeu is trying to say is...


http://www.anhtrvl.com/images/Wahoo.jpg

(Translation: "Wahoo! We're Off The Hook!")

(Translation II: "They're #1! They're #1!")

Fishpicker
06-21-2007, 09:12 AM
its because of all the people in China that exhale CO2. this has probably been true for a long time.

Cochise
06-21-2007, 09:32 AM
Developing countries tend to have terrible environmental problems. I don't think that is news to anyone.

SBK
06-21-2007, 11:25 AM
So is China the great satan now, or is that still us?

Libs, anyone?

Pitt Gorilla
06-21-2007, 01:17 PM
CO2 is good. I saw that in an ad once.

Fishpicker
06-21-2007, 01:22 PM
it is good. vegetation thrives on CO2.

save a tree,
emit CO2

tiptap
06-21-2007, 02:08 PM
Ok I'll shoot the first salvo. How much of the GDP of China and therefore need for coal burning, goes to the consumptive wants of importing Developed Nations. How much of our consumption is off shored?

ChiefaRoo
06-21-2007, 03:13 PM
I've been to Northern China on business. I've seen Acid rain residue so bad that plant leaves have burn holes in them and doors and windows screech from the oxidation of the metal. I've seen unfiltered coal smoke stacks that put out so much coal dust it mats your eyes shut at night and when you wake up in the morning your eyes peel open. I've seen Green stuff coming out of smoke stacks, ORANGE stuff and red as well. Northern China is an environmental disaster which makes the old US rust belt from the 60's look tame. Nearly every river or body of water in China is unsafe for drinking and is polluted. They've cut down so many trees and destroyed so much of the eco system during the bad old Mao days that the Gobi desert is expanding.

China is getting very close to NOT being a developing country anymore. Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong are or are nearly world class cities. It's time they acknowledged their problems instead of whining and get on the ball. They can grow their economy without having to destroy the environment.

Brock
06-21-2007, 03:22 PM
If only we had signed the Kyoto treaty, none of this would be happening...

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2007, 07:29 PM
This is bullshit! No fair!

Logical
06-21-2007, 08:33 PM
I guess I am not suprised, does this give the US a free pass to up our pollution levels. Woot Woot

mikey23545
06-21-2007, 10:10 PM
Ok I'll shoot the first salvo. How much of the GDP of China and therefore need for coal burning, goes to the consumptive wants of importing Developed Nations. How much of our consumption is off shored?

Incredible!!!!!

It's <i>still</i> America's fault!!!
ROFL ROFL

tiptap
06-22-2007, 07:50 AM
Incredible!!!!!

It's <i>still</i> America's fault!!!
ROFL ROFL

I brought this up as a discussion. The Chinese authorities bring this argument up themselves. They claim that the energy expenditure (COtwo production) spent on Chinese consumed materials is still third world. The export production represents the bulk of the increase in energy use.

In becoming part of the world economy, integrating into world markets, there is a world need to share the burden of addressing Global Warming. And the US has two prong control. One is to reduce COtwo production in US controlled energy systems and 2nd we can reduce demand for imports from China.

For years I had thought that our negative trade imbalance was OK because we are the Saudi Arabia of Coal and when oil was in decline our status would be as a net exporter and we would regain our outflow. But the level of COtwo production has to absolutely decline. Not just less growth in COtwo but true reduction in COtwo. This puts a stain on the RATE of export from coal in the future. As such out trade debt becomes more economically ominous. We need to address this more pressingly now.

As we are becoming a global economy then the movement of manufactoring to low wage settings can not be divorced from the demand that buys the material. The US has been instrumental in creating the world economy. As such we are responsible for leading in addressing the physical results.

ChiefaRoo
06-22-2007, 03:22 PM
I brought this up as a discussion. The Chinese authorities bring this argument up themselves. They claim that the energy expenditure (COtwo production) spent on Chinese consumed materials is still third world. The export production represents the bulk of the increase in energy use.

In becoming part of the world economy, integrating into world markets, there is a world need to share the burden of addressing Global Warming. And the US has two prong control. One is to reduce COtwo production in US controlled energy systems and 2nd we can reduce demand for imports from China.

For years I had thought that our negative trade imbalance was OK because we are the Saudi Arabia of Coal and when oil was in decline our status would be as a net exporter and we would regain our outflow. But the level of COtwo production has to absolutely decline. Not just less growth in COtwo but true reduction in COtwo. This puts a stain on the RATE of export from coal in the future. As such out trade debt becomes more economically ominous. We need to address this more pressingly now.

As we are becoming a global economy then the movement of manufactoring to low wage settings can not be divorced from the demand that buys the material. The US has been instrumental in creating the world economy. As such we are responsible for leading in addressing the physical results.

Tip Tap is full of it. Canadian Scientists are now saying the sun is getting ready to go into a lesser solar cycle that may cool the Earth on or around 2020. Last time I brought this up Tippy spoke like the Sun wasn't a variable. Tippy, I think you are too smart by half. I hear Al Gore has a spot on his staff just waiting for a you. Too bad your degree is in Animal Husbandry.

Direckshun
06-22-2007, 05:48 PM
Seeing how they have four times the people we do, that's not much to celebrate.

tiptap
06-22-2007, 08:00 PM
Tip Tap is full of it. Canadian Scientists are now saying the sun is getting ready to go into a lesser solar cycle that may cool the Earth on or around 2020. Last time I brought this up Tippy spoke like the Sun wasn't a variable. Tippy, I think you are too smart by half. I hear Al Gore has a spot on his staff just waiting for a you. Too bad your degree is in Animal Husbandry.

Can you give me your source on this. The Animal Husbandry comes into play with my horses.

My contention is that the variability in the sun on the 11 year cycle is less than .1%. Now when in the elliptical orbit of the earth we are closer and there is more land exposed to the sun and tilting angles exposes more land to sun rays are the usual driving forces in big climate changes. These changes are pretty predictable from orbital knowledge and plate tectonics. The Milankovitch cycles sort of talk about this.

The GW deniers articles talk about the 11 years cycle influencing weather based upon data from British Columbia Fiords. That we are due for a big increase in solar spots over some longer cycle. But that should mean higher temperatures not lower since the energy content goes up with sun spots. Indeed the only way to argue contrary to this is to include the totally new and completely unsubstantiated notion that Cosmic Rays influence cloud production by seeding. And this increases during heavy sun spots. Throw two weak hypothesis at best stir and see what sticks. Only correlation is suggested. That there is evidence that there were more sun spots last advance in really cold weather as in ICE AGE 10,000 years ago. But the data only goes back to then and no further to see if this correlation holds up in other dated Interglacial periods. This is real, real weak stuff ChiefaRoo.

ChiefaRoo
06-22-2007, 08:03 PM
Can you give me your source on this. The Animal Husbandry comes into play with my horses.

My contention is that the variability in the sun on the 11 year cycle is less than .1%. Now when in the elliptical orbit of the earth we are closer and there is more land exposed to the sun and tilting angles exposes more land to sun rays are the usual driving forces in big climate changes. These changes are pretty predictable from orbital knowledge and plate tectonics. The Milankovitch cycles sort of talk about this.

The GW deniers articles talk about the 11 years cycle influencing weather based upon data from British Columbia Fiords. That we are due for a big increase in solar spots over some longer cycle. But that should mean higher temperatures not lower since the energy content goes up with sun spots. Indeed the only way to argue contrary to this is to include the totally new and completely unsubstantiated notion that Cosmic Rays influence cloud production by seeding. And this increases during heavy sun spots. Throw two weak hypothesis at best stir and see what sticks. Only correlation is suggested. That there is evidence that there were more sun spots last advance in really cold weather as in ICE AGE 10,000 years ago. But the data only goes back to then and no further to see if this correlation holds up in other dated Interglacial periods. This is real, real weak stuff ChiefaRoo.

You can google it or check the link on Drudge.

Mr. Laz
06-22-2007, 08:14 PM
So is China the great satan now, or is that still us?

Libs, anyone?
what does it matter .... global warming doesn't exist and who give a shit about the enviroment/GOP

tiptap
06-22-2007, 08:22 PM
I quoted the work. It is the group out of Carleton that does research in BC. The guy is credentialed. But his thoughts are depended upon the Cosmic Ray stuff. The Danes said that Cosmic Rays increase clouds and increase albedo. That should lower temperatures. And the notion was that the increase in magnetic field from the sun during heavy sun spots would deter cosmic rays reduce clouds decrease albedo and make it warmer viola GW. Now Cosmic Rays are suppose to be pulled in and increase clouds and reduce warming, even give us another little ice age. Which is it? I get confused. Let's just see more substantiated research that cosmic rays actually work. My understanding is that the cascade charged particles are too, too small and too, too short lived to act as seeding for clouds and certainly in the atmosphere near the surface where weather takes place.

Mr Luzcious
06-22-2007, 08:36 PM
Man, this can not stand! We can't let china keep beating the US in everything! Fire up the hummers, boys.

Mr. Kotter
06-22-2007, 08:44 PM
I guess I am not suprised, does this give the US a free pass to up our pollution levels. Woot Woot

No but it exposes the hypocrisy of those on the FAR left, whose real motives are to ensure that America....repent and engage in gratuitous self-flagellation as the world's EVIL empire. That's all that really matters to those folks.

Fishpicker
06-22-2007, 09:08 PM
No but it exposes the hypocrisy of those on the FAR left, whose real motives are to ensure that America....repent and engage in gratuitous self-flagellation as the world's EVIL empire. That's all that really matters to those folks.

I think the real driving force behind this is taxes. I dont know how many times I have heard about global carbon taxes. If we give the government the ability to tax our carbon emissions, they will take it to new extremes . And we will probably end up being taxed for breathing.

there's a real disconnect between advocates of global warming and what they are willing to do about it. They would rather pay a tax than make any other sacrifice. That way, they can keep the general public from polluting, so we dont spoil their fun.

mlyonsd
06-22-2007, 09:11 PM
I wonder if when they voice over algore's movie into Chinese if it will look the same to them as a Godzilla movie from the 60's looked to us.

Mr. Kotter
06-22-2007, 09:49 PM
I think the real driving force behind this is taxes. I dont know how many times I have heard about global carbon taxes. If we give the government the ability to tax our carbon emissions, they will take it to new extremes . And we will probably end up being taxed for breathing.

there's a real disconnect between advocates of global warming and what they are willing to do about it. They would rather pay a tax than make any other sacrifice. That way, they can keep the general public from polluting, so we dont spoil their fun.

Yeah....that's exactly right, "Carbon Credits"--isn't that the coolest in leftist hypocrisy these day....THEY make it all "okay," don't you know? Just ask Hollywood types or Al Gore flying his charters... :shake:

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:29 AM
Discuss what? This has been known to be an eventuality for years.

You don't have to discuss it and, of course you are right that most people who have been paying attention knew this was going to happen eventually. Thankfully, those who rejected Kyoto were apparently aware of it. However, this eventuality has occurred much more quickly than most anticipated. From the OP article:

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.

BTW, I fixed the OP url for anyone who wants to read the article.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:33 AM
Ok I'll shoot the first salvo. How much of the GDP of China and therefore need for coal burning, goes to the consumptive wants of importing Developed Nations. How much of our consumption is off shored?

Who cares? If they want to save the world, they can quit exporting and let those of us who consume their current output fend for ourselves. It's global warming and catastrophic climate change that we face, afterall! When I'm stranded on the roof of my nearly submerged house in gale force winds with violent bolts of lightning all around, I'm not going to care whether I can get cheap clothes at Walmart or not. :p

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:50 AM
I guess I am not suprised, does this give the US a free pass to up our pollution levels. Woot Woot

What it should do is give a reality check to those who have been giving China and India a free pass while trying to put the lion's share of the burden for reducing CO2 emissions on the back of the US. Namely, those who crafted the Kyoto treaty and those who are critical of the US for failing to ratify it.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:56 AM
I brought this up as a discussion. The Chinese authorities bring this argument up themselves. They claim that the energy expenditure (COtwo production) spent on Chinese consumed materials is still third world. The export production represents the bulk of the increase in energy use.

In becoming part of the world economy, integrating into world markets, there is a world need to share the burden of addressing Global Warming. And the US has two prong control. One is to reduce COtwo production in US controlled energy systems and 2nd we can reduce demand for imports from China.

Why should it be the US's responsbility to reduce demand. We don't force anyone to become a supplier. We certainly don't insist that they use production processes that choke our planet with CO2 that will, I'm told, soon bring us to the tipping point.

For years I had thought that our negative trade imbalance was OK because we are the Saudi Arabia of Coal and when oil was in decline our status would be as a net exporter and we would regain our outflow. But the level of COtwo production has to absolutely decline. Not just less growth in COtwo but true reduction in COtwo. This puts a stain on the RATE of export from coal in the future. As such out trade debt becomes more economically ominous. We need to address this more pressingly now.

As we are becoming a global economy then the movement of manufactoring to low wage settings can not be divorced from the demand that buys the material. The US has been instrumental in creating the world economy. As such we are responsible for leading in addressing the physical results.

Always America's fault. :shake: