|
On September 28 2013 07:25 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more pollution per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. I am in no way arguing that the refusal of the Bush administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol was disastrous, one of the low points of modern western democracy. But still, the blame game solves nothing, it only procrastinates. Nature does not care about who did what.
And history mistake there. The US Senate voted a sense of the Senate on the Kyoto Protocol and it came up 95-0 that the Senate would not sign Kyoto. This was during 1997, so the Clinton Administration. Which doesn't cover the fact it was never going to pass here.
As to going back to the topic itself, enforced actions simply won't do much of anything. The only countries that'll sign on to accords are ones that think they gain something from it. Even with Kyoto, the Europeans were mostly gaming the numbers in the first place (there's a reason 1990 was set as a baseline, after all), so it meant little to them. This is the nature of International Politics.
If you want to see things change, you better be bringing online very good & industrial scale technology. And not just through massive subsidization. The only way countries, as a whole, will "buy in" is if something serves their needs & interests. So, get cracking on those Fusion Reactor designs! (Fracking & next-gen Nuclear Reactors are the way to go, for the time being. That's simply reality.)
|
On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher?
Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country.
On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. Waaah, poor Americans aren't constrained by factors such as pollution. Waaah. Boo hoo for them, poor dears.
|
On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison.
What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison?
|
On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country.
Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car.
Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html
"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis."
|
On September 28 2013 08:16 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison?
I am saying that because they CANT (ie: individuals do not have the money to live comfortably and own a car) they dont.
If you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. What happens?
Am I honestly being this unclear or are you being dense?
|
On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions?
This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family, father, mother, daughter and son, all have cars of their own and that's why their carbon emissions are so high?
As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes.
|
On September 28 2013 07:08 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Hasn't earth undergone more dramatic changes and survived? And has been undergoing changes for millions of years? I honestly never understood the real issue with Climate changes. I thought it were completely natural for the earth to drop and rise in temperatures.
Or is this just a matter of "saving humans" because if that's the case, then how can we change what has been going on for millions of years. Yeah, drastic changes and stuff. And billions of species went extinct, you forgot to mention that.
This isn't about saving the Earth or saving life because the Earth will keep on turning and life will keep on adapting just like it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years. This isn't even about saving humans because we will continue to adapt and exist as well. What this is about is saving your god damn pretty life within our wonderful civilization.
|
On September 28 2013 08:19 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison? I am saying that because they CANT (ie: individuals do not have the money to live comfortably and own a car) they dont. If you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. What happens? Am I honestly being this unclear or are you being dense?
I think you're missing the context here of using per capita comparisons. The point is not to look at right now, but to look forwards to changes in pollution per capita related to economic development.
Lemme use your example: if you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. Country B is growing, but if more than 100 people in both countries combined have cars, global warming occurs. What happens? Do you blame Country B for growing? Do you accept the inevitability of global warming? Do you attempt to negotiate a deal to avoid said problem? In such a deal, looking at the long run in which the people of country B will be able to afford cars, is it fair for an agreement to give the people of Country A a greater right to have cars than the people of country B?
|
On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes.
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions.
Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm
Regardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made.
28% of american emissions are from transportation
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
China has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars.
QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison.
|
On September 28 2013 08:30 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 07:08 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Hasn't earth undergone more dramatic changes and survived? And has been undergoing changes for millions of years? I honestly never understood the real issue with Climate changes. I thought it were completely natural for the earth to drop and rise in temperatures.
Or is this just a matter of "saving humans" because if that's the case, then how can we change what has been going on for millions of years. Yeah, drastic changes and stuff. And billions of species went extinct, you forgot to mention that. This isn't about saving the Earth or saving life because the Earth will keep on turning and life will keep on adapting just like it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years. This isn't even about saving humans because we will continue to adapt and exist as well. What this is about is saving your god damn pretty life within our wonderful civilization.
It might be about having your great grand children, which you're likely to never have, having a less wet environment. None of this stuff is near term, as the climate has far too many cyclical events for them to be impacted by any measurable amount for a very long time.
This is also why few people actually care past platitudes. It's never really going to effect you. Ah, the joys of externalities.
|
On September 28 2013 08:35 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:19 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 08:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:01 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:
[quote]
This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. You failed to explain why not. Because if people could afford a car instead of a bicycle/scooter, they would drive. More drivers = more time on the road due to traffic = more pollution. On September 28 2013 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:55 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:
[quote]
This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Also, basing it on per capita isnt entirely fair since so many chinese simply cant afford what americans have. If they could afford it, china would easily be the #1 polluter. So, they've got to stop polluting because if they were as rich as the US, they would be polluting more? How does that make any sense? Where did I say that at all? I just said that you cant use per capita as a pollution comparison metric. Per capita is a great pollution comparison metric. It's not because an american individual can afford more that he also has the theoretical right to pollute more. Edit: I'm using "right" in the broadest of senses. In strict sense international restrictions to polluting are minimal, hence the situation the world's at. It is not a "right" it is a choice. A choice that everybody would make because living your daily life in a convenient fashion is important for people. If I took away 80% of the cars in the US and made cities so that you could walk/bike everywhere in a reasonable time you can be damned sure we would be polluting less per capita. Basically, China CANT pollute more so they dont. Which is why PER CAPITA it is not a fair comparison. What do you mean China can't pollute more? They're closing in to the US per capita level of pollution (they're still ways off, but getting there steadily). When they get close to US per capita level of pollution, they'll likely be living confortable lives as well (like it or not, it is exceedingly difficult to escape the economic development = pollution formula). What's wrong with using per capita as comparison? I am saying that because they CANT (ie: individuals do not have the money to live comfortably and own a car) they dont. If you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. What happens? Am I honestly being this unclear or are you being dense? I think you're missing the context here of using per capita comparisons. The point is not to look at right now, but to look forwards to changes in pollution per capita related to economic development. Lemme use your example: if you have 100 people in two different countries (so 200 people total) and all of them want a car, but in Country B, only 5% of them can afford it while in Country A 85% can afford it. Country B is growing, but if more than 100 people in both countries combined have cars, global warming occurs. What happens? Do you blame Country B for growing? Do you accept the inevitability of global warming? Do you attempt to negotiate a deal to avoid said problem? In such a deal, looking at the long run in which the people of country B will be able to afford cars, is it fair for an agreement to give the people of Country A a greater right to have cars than the people of country B?
I have not mentioned rights in this at all. I am not saying whether it is fair for one country to have one thing while another cant. I am PURELY SAYING that comparing carbon emissions on a PER CAPITA basis from an already developed nation with one that is still developing (especially when 28% of ALL emissions from one of them is from transportation).
|
On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy.
But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself".
|
On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself".
Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person.
Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse.
|
On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 06:37 Rassy wrote:
FInd this whole climate thing a bit hypocrite tbh.
The biggest contributers to global warming (the usa and the west in general) are also the ones who make the biggest problem out of it lol. We get these reports over and over yet the usa still has not even signed kyoto threaty, let alone actually started with lowering their greenhouse gas output. This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison.
So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita.
|
On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 06:42 Squat wrote:
[quote]
This is not quite correct, China is very quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world, and has shot down every attempt to get them to rein in their industrial expansion. They have more or less said straight out that they don't care. India is poised to follow in their steps before long. No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action. The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita.
It is an imbalanced comparison.
EDIT: It is like comparing any country to India's per capita. Their population is so high it waters down the comparison in favor of India
|
On September 28 2013 08:54 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action.
The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita. It is an imbalanced comparison.
Because the US pollutes more per capita? That's not an "imbalanced comparsion", that's the result of the comparison itself. "But China would pollute more if they could!", great but let's talk about the here and now.
|
On September 28 2013 08:54 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:23 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]No, that's not what they said. That's what the Americans said. The Chinese, rightly, don't think it's fair for them to take action before the US takes action.
The Americans have far more carbon emissions per capita than the Chinese, and it's the Americans (along with their vassal state Canada) that deserve almost the entire share of the blame for being the only country in the developed world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. It takes us back to the point about right-wing think tanks and the climate-change-denying propaganda they spread. The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita. It is an imbalanced comparison.
I'll try and explain it like this:
You have a chinese living in a village with a minimum of luxury, emitting 10 pollution.
Then there is an westerner living in a suburb and emitting 100 pollution.
Now because the westerner can afford a car and the chinese can't, the fair way to reduce the global pollution according to you (or you posts so far at least) is to make them both stay at 10 and 100 pollution respectively.
I'd think that a more appropriate way to reduce emission would be to force the westerner to find a way to reduce his pollution (which would benefit the chinese as well when/if he gets to the same level of luxury), while making less harsh demand of the chinese (it's hard to limit pollution when you are struggling to even make a living)
edit: what you are saying is basicly: "we got rich first but accidentally the planet. Now you can't be rich as well because then pollution"
|
On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity.
We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. American living standards are just stupendously higher than those of the Chinese at the moment.
None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions.
|
This thread is so depressing lol. I don't know if it can be seen as a microcosm for humanity at large, but I'm guessing that it probably can be and that most people don't believe the science because of their own intuitive belief supported by their youtube-video-watching education, or they just don't care because they won't live long enough to see the effects.
I wonder if we'll see any serious effects 50 years from now? What butterfly effects could 2 degrees of warming have? It was mentioned earlier on in the thread that there could be specie extinctions, and if they happen to be crucial then the effects will clearly be significant. But the threat was never elaborated on so I'm not sure what to make of the possibility. Besides that there's the potential for massive drought, but from this report the magnitude is very uncertain.
Our only real saviour now is technology. We have had great developments in the area of computer processing power and miniaturization over the past few decades. Who knows what advanced information processing capabilities will give us? Maybe we will design a neural network and create "thought" machines that can craft a solution?
It seems like the only major issue might be the next 50-100 years. If we can survive that and keep advancing at the rate we're going...assuming that the difference between the 2000s and the 1900s is an indicator of the differences to come between now and 2100, after we survive long enough global warming probably won't matter as we can just alter the climate ourselves back to a stable temperature.
Or just live in arcologies  .
|
On September 28 2013 09:04 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:54 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:26 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:14 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:05 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 07:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 07:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
The US is developed as a completely different country than the EU. Many cities are not designed with reducing pollution, and many of these cities were designed decades ago (this among other reasons are why the US didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol) Lol...the most utterly ridiculous apologetics for corporate-crony denialism that I have yet seen. What? What kind of cop out is that? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htmThe average american drives ~37 miles/day. The average person in the UK drives ~16.7 miles/day http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325262/Rise-super-commuter-Number-Britons-travelling-hours-day-work-soars-50-cent-years.htmlThen you also have all of the mileage from trucks/trains going cross country, planes going cross country etc. Could have something to do with the fact that fuel is more than twice as cheap in America, even as living expenses are lower and average salary is higher? Most cities in the US were actually planned before cars were invented. Stop making excuses for the rampant climate change denialism in your country. Most downtowns were planned before cars (and they are densely packed), the cities and urban growth grew very quickly after the car. Also, to further drive home my point of why per capita isnt a fair comparison http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html"China would have to increase the number of cars on its roads nearly sixteen-fold to equal the number of cars in the U.S. on a per capita basis." And you're seriously trying to use this as a reason why the US needs more carbon emissions? This fact that the Chinese need their carbon emissions for work, whereas in the US the whole family have cars and that's why their carbon emissions are so high? As I said before...that is what happens when such a premium is placed on the acquisition of money, and nothing but the acquisition of money. Normal standards of morality no longer apply and we're led to these paradoxes. Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. Huge amounts of farmland, cross country shipping, daily driving ALL add up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionshttp://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htmRegardless, my point is in relation to PER CAPITA comparisons that you made. 28% of american emissions are from transportation http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.htmlChina has (per capita) 1/16th the cars because they cant afford cars. QED if chinese citizens could afford cars their per capita pollution would be higher. But, they CANT so it isnt a fair comparison. So because China would, but can't, pollute more, per capita comparisons are... unfair? Bad? Immoral? I seriously don't get your argument at all. It doesn't logically follow at all that it is unfair to look at pollution at a per capita level. Fact is the US does pollute more per capita. It is an imbalanced comparison. edit: what you are saying is basicly: "we got rich first but accidentally the planet. Now you can't be rich as well because then pollution"
No. I am not saying this at all. I am saying it is not a proper comparison because the two countries are different. I am not talking about future, I am not talking about changes, I am not saying what one can or can not do. I am saying it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Compare apples to apples. Find a similar scenario. Compare the emissions of California with Spain (roughly equivalent sizes/population)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
