|
On September 28 2013 11:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote: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. 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. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. I already highlighted urban sprawl as a problem earlier in the thread. And yes, we do use a ton of oil. This is largely because we rely on it for power. I would be ecstatic if we could utilize more wind and nuclear power. Even moreso if Bill Gates project comes to fruition. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:09 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems. Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea. You act like we arent doing anything to combat urban sprawl... meanwhile we are. Again, refer to previously linked article.
And I was just giving a sarcastic remark to the guy who responded to my post. I wrote that without any actual regard as to what is currently being done today to solve urban sprawl as an issue.
|
On September 28 2013 11:09 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]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. 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. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems. Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea. The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. Magically transforming American society and culture in that respect would have only the slightest modifier effect on the rate of C02 growth. It would in fact accomplish nothing, except discourage a culture of individuality and family. Your reliance on planners is about six decades intellectually outmoded im afraid.
As to the happiness issue: South Korea isnt America [thank god], nor is France Britain, or Germany italy. We have different cultural expectations, and different preferences. I cant stand cities and would be completely miserable within them, doubly so within the context of European culture; which is by order of magnitudes less family oriented, less religious, less individualistic, and less free. As I said, if you want a city like that, go to one that creates it organically and not through government (see: violence) machinates.
|
Science confirms the obvious...
Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions.
If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals.
|
On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant.
On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals.
Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account....
|
On September 28 2013 12:01 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals. Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account....
Is theGuardian reliable? I heard this fact on QI which is pretty good at fact research.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
I'm not saying cars are not a a big impact but flights do generate a huge amount of emissions unrealized by the general public since a plane seems like "carpooling in the sky"
|
On September 28 2013 10:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC? Do you realize that you're dismissing a paper written by hundreds of scientists, authors and editors; containing information drawn from thousands of scientific publications and devised using the fruits of more than 2 million gigabytes of numerical data about the climate? Do you realize that you're dismissing this paper on the SOLE basis of the IPCC agreeing with their own opinion?
It has a history. It's not some bright-eyed dispassionate scientists sitting down to investigate. They came under heavy criticism for letting climate change activists work alongside the scientists and represent that panel's findings.
STEWART FRANKS, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNI. OF TASMANIA (On Q&A): The IPCC, since 1990, has been arguably the sole voice for climate and yet there are thousands of dissenting scientists.
HAYDEN COOPER: Professor Stewart Franks is a reviewer for the latest report and think it's time for a change from the consensus approach.
STEWART FRANKS: By creating this elite body, you polarise the sight of a community. If you criticise it or if you disagree with aspects of its statements, then you're going against the IPCC. You know, when science is actually about diversity of opinions and then testing those opinions, those hypotheses with evidence and with data, and I think the consensus approach of the IPCC is actually very artificial.
HAYDEN COOPER: The credibility of the organisation has been challenged during the past decade. London-based author and journalist Fred Pearce covered what became known as "Climategate", the leaking of emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia, which raised questions about honesty behind the scenes.
FRED PEARCE, ENVIRONMENT WRITER: Some of the climate scientists were cutting corners, were being rather bitchy with each other and especially bitchy with some of their critics, and sort of - it wasn't the sign of a great conspiracy, but it did undermine confidence that scientists are kind of dispassionate viewers of the data.
DAVID KAROLY: They do not indicate a conspiracy or in any way shake the foundations of the IPCC. However, the media misreporting of Climategate has probably led to some people wondering about, if you like, the strength of the IPCC and has probably led to some people losing faith in the IPCC as well. source
Some of the criticism of Chairman Pachauri
The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.
Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years. source
I accept the releases from the scientific journals, and many of them have laid various temperate changes of oceans and the rest on the anthropogenic CO2. IPCC has been responsible for wild predictions on what was going to happen this century and hype leading to the EU/US global regulation of climate change at the Copenhagen conference.
|
On September 28 2013 12:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC? Do you realize that you're dismissing a paper written by hundreds of scientists, authors and editors; containing information drawn from thousands of scientific publications and devised using the fruits of more than 2 million gigabytes of numerical data about the climate? Do you realize that you're dismissing this paper on the SOLE basis of the IPCC agreeing with their own opinion? It has a history. It's not some bright-eyed dispassionate scientists sitting down to investigate. They came under heavy criticism for letting climate change activists work alongside the scientists and represent that panel's findings. Show nested quote +STEWART FRANKS, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNI. OF TASMANIA (On Q&A): The IPCC, since 1990, has been arguably the sole voice for climate and yet there are thousands of dissenting scientists.
HAYDEN COOPER: Professor Stewart Franks is a reviewer for the latest report and think it's time for a change from the consensus approach.
STEWART FRANKS: By creating this elite body, you polarise the sight of a community. If you criticise it or if you disagree with aspects of its statements, then you're going against the IPCC. You know, when science is actually about diversity of opinions and then testing those opinions, those hypotheses with evidence and with data, and I think the consensus approach of the IPCC is actually very artificial.
HAYDEN COOPER: The credibility of the organisation has been challenged during the past decade. London-based author and journalist Fred Pearce covered what became known as "Climategate", the leaking of emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia, which raised questions about honesty behind the scenes.
FRED PEARCE, ENVIRONMENT WRITER: Some of the climate scientists were cutting corners, were being rather bitchy with each other and especially bitchy with some of their critics, and sort of - it wasn't the sign of a great conspiracy, but it did undermine confidence that scientists are kind of dispassionate viewers of the data.
DAVID KAROLY: They do not indicate a conspiracy or in any way shake the foundations of the IPCC. However, the media misreporting of Climategate has probably led to some people wondering about, if you like, the strength of the IPCC and has probably led to some people losing faith in the IPCC as well. sourceSome of the criticism of Chairman Pachauri Show nested quote +The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.
Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years. sourceI accept the releases from the scientific journals, and many of them have laid various temperate changes of oceans and the rest on the anthropogenic CO2. IPCC has been responsible for wild predictions on what was going to happen this century and hype leading to the EU/US global regulation of climate change at the Copenhagen conference.
First source just had a bunch of guys give their opinions. Means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Second source... well... it has a bias. In the related articles in climate change, I found such gems as "The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end" and "Ignore the doom merchants, Britain should get fracking." On a similar note, this article really only talks about how the IPCC overestimated the melting of Himalayan glaciers by a long shot (one mistake in a three thousand page report), covers how people want Pachauri to step down primarily for PR's sake, then finishes the article with a pathetic ad hominem attack about how Pachauri had written unspecified "steamy novels" in the past.
I'll do some more research on the guy, but these two sources you've sent me are... suboptimal.
|
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source?
|
On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source?
I can't imagine that's true. Anyway, Capitalism is all about growth, so even if we could throttle our emissions, it would impair our growth in a very significant way, which would in all likelyhood be significant enough to screw with the economic system enough to have some serious negative effects, especially if we aimed to have no measurable efffects on the temperature.
|
On September 28 2013 12:22 Mykill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 12:01 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals. Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account.... Is theGuardian reliable? I heard this fact on QI which is pretty good at fact research. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissionsI'm not saying cars are not a a big impact but flights do generate a huge amount of emissions unrealized by the general public since a plane seems like "carpooling in the sky"
You bring up an interesting point, that natural disasters could be worse than artificial emissions and that airplane emissions may be more than cars. However, you have to consider the scale of CO2 emission. I did a bit of research on this, using predominantly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as my source.
As a preface, based on the website you linked (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions), the amount of emissions not released by planes was 2.8 million metric tonnes of CO2 during the duration of the volcano event. Simultaneously, the volcano was emitting approximately 150,000 metric tonnes of CO2 per day. At this rate, it would only take 18.67 days or eruptions for the volcano to spew out more CO2 than it saved by grounding those planes. According to the website, volcanoes also account for about 200 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Those number may seem massive, but based on studies conducted by the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/transportation.html), the amount of artificial emissions released during 2011 in the USA alone was 6,702 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This means that volcanoes are equivalent to about 3 percent of what we use in human usage in the USA alone. Another way to look at that is that volcano would have to erupt for 122.3 years straight to match USA's output in a single year.
Getting back on topic and on to airplanes, based on another EPA study, as found in this Department of Transportation (DoT) article (http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html), in 2006, transportation of all kinds accounted for 28 percent of the emissions. Further, of that 28 percent, 63 percent resulted from light vehicles, whereas only 9 percent was caused by airplanes.
Combining the 2006 percentages and the 2011 maxes, air planes emitted a total of 168.9 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2011 or 2.5 percent of total artificial emissions in the USA. Given that volcanoes release 200 million metric tonnes per year, I can safely say that air planes in the USA alone account for less emissions than all the volcanoes on Earth.
Cars, however, is another matter. Using the same data presented in the two studies, light vehicles emit a total of 1182 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent in the year 2011 or 17.6 percent of all artificial emissions in the USA. This may not be a majority or a overwhelming chunk - that is apparently reserved for another overly abused American commodity known as electricity production - but it is still substantial.
EDIT: I just read some final parts on that study regarding the break down of transportation. Apparently the study doesn't include international flights or shipping. Additionally, because emissions are released into the upper atmosphere, it has different effects than automobiles. I will have to look into this more after I get some more sleep.
EDIT 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html
This article goes into comparisons between flying and driving. Flying is considerably worse. The only reason I can see cars having a greater impact than airplanes is due to number of cars travelling vs. number of planes travelling.
Regarding Dazed_Spy's comments:
As I cannot ascertain your sources, I cannot validity your claims. Likewise, as I do not know how you judge significance, both objectively and subjectively, even with sufficient data, I still could not assert whether your statements are valid. I can, however, still strongly reject your statement regarding the significance on the basis of my quick research and my objective consideration that 17.6 percent is a large portion that can be reduced.
Regarding happiness and discarding my academic pseudo-babble, I don't think happiness plays a factor at all. When it comes to these things, only one thing matters; money. If prices or taxes hike up as a result of lack of resources or artificially through the EPA or other central government power, companies will have to increase their prices. As prices increase, affordability goes down. If this occurs over a long enough period of time, people will have to start living differently to accommodate the change in pricing.
I don't know what you have against Korea and I don't care if you think Europe's stabbing the heart of the traditionally smallest social cell, practicing satanism (or atheism), forcing dependence upon big government or other neutering characteristics of leaning on big brother, or enslaving its population, they have a system that generates less emissions. If we need or wish to plan for a system that reduces our oil/energy consumption or our emissions, your individual happiness and inconvenience is the last thing that matters. Your individual wants and preconceived and immutable expectations for personal happiness should not force the country to follow a practice that is potentially unsustainable or endangering to future generations of humans.
|
On September 28 2013 12:01 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:47 Dazed_Spy wrote: The amount of pollutive impact that come from cars is, in comparison to total emissions, completely insignificant. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:57 Mykill wrote:Cars aren't even a heavy contributor if you consider plane emissions. If my memory serves me well, the Iceland volcano eruption netted negative carbon emissions because of all the planes it grounded even though it released megatonnes of ash/acid/chemicals. Do both of you have a reliable source for this claim? From what I've read (like in "Green Illusions", Top-20 Nonfiction pick for 2012 in the Goodreads Reader’s Choice Awards), cars do have a significant impact on the environment when the emissions from making them are taken into account.... Someone else can find the total calculated amount of emissions relative to each particular country, I'll just give you a breakdown of the rates [cant find a total calculated source]
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/its-official-western-europeans-have-more-cars-per-person-than-americans/261108/
Thats the ownership rate of cars in just some selected countries, more complete database: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.NVEH.P3
Heres a source saying its 15% of total emissions: http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8468
And heres a source showing some data on avg distance travelled with a car, for what thats worth http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/end-car-ownership-developed-world-least/3452/
Obviously theres something of a gap of data here, namely the efficiency of cars and how long each of these cars are actually just stalled in urban congestion instead of moving. Hell, most reports ive seen show urban congestion to be bad for the environment due to that very reason. 15% is relatively insignificant especially when you breakdown Americas percentage of total car ownership, and whatever impact centralizing population in cities and [massive, incredibly expensive, and ultimately incompetent] building "public" transit will have, is minor in the world. Were talking about reducing global c02 emissions by a fraction of a percent, all in the context of wildly transforming the landscape of a continental sized country. And at that, it would fail-- precisely because America is continental sized.
It's not just a matter of people living in the suburbs, but a matter of transporting goods from place to place. A hell of a lot of the actual c02 emitted from motor vehicles is transportation, and America cant suddenly shrink its country into a small pocket like France, nor can we even build trains in a lot of areas due to mountains, deserts, forests, lakes, indian reservations and so on and so on. It aint going to happen, it would have almost exactly no impact on global warming if it did-- though the push to do so would rape our pocket book and enrich corrupt politicians and their friends, surely.
This is the 'useless' social mobilization for global warming initiatives I talked about. Were better off simply going about our business and waiting for technology to improve fuel economy, THAT will lower the contribution in a more meaningful way.
edit: Especially a useless activity given car ownership and use rates are falling in the western world but exploding in China, precisely the part of the world that uses less efficient cars. Yes yes, lets radically transform society and pump billions of dollars into central urban planning to make a completely meaningless impact on a part of our lives that are already naturally transforming from market pressure and technological innovation! Gotta love Greenies, no brains but a lot of thirst for power.
|
|
|
On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US.
The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring).
I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions.
|
On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions.
Tell me, what have you done to cut carbon emissions?
|
On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote: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. 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. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. I'm sure you'd adapt quickly enough. Car-sharing, bicycles, trains, trams...it's hardly an insoluble problem as a certain self-centred individual in this thread is trying to argue. Maybe the convenience lifestyle might be slightly impacted for a while, but I'm not sure that's going to sit well with the suburban Chinese, many of whom don't even have access to electricity.
|
On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote: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. 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. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. Thank you for putting the issue quite plainly.
Now everyone can see what the real point is here, and what these apologists for American exceptionalism on the environment really mean between the lines.
They'd rather continue to pollute the planet than alter their lifestyle of convenience and live in a "huddled town" like most of the rest of the world.
|
On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions.
I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion.
EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that.
|
On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source?
Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's an easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live.
It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations.
|
On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.)
As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment.
|
On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment.
So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here"
They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money.
Here is some food for thought:
The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
It cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land
A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.html
Another 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253
Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there!
It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK.
It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane).
EDIT: Also, I am done responding to your weak troll posts. If you want to discuss something, bring facts and evidence to the table outside of comparing one country to another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
