questioner, I won't argue with you over this one. At least you seem to recognize that there is a problem.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Come on, D3, you gotta give me this one.
Just shows how a different perspective puts a different light on a situation.
(Not that we shouldn't have a concern for ecology--we are responsible for care of the earth)
But with that, I believe I am about done with this issue. (And I feel much better about us/US)
SO don't argue!
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Perhaps capitalism is the “greenest” of economic institutional arrangements for creating material prosperity in society. It is worth a look.
Wow, huh? Different perspective for sure.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Using data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Database, we can divide the above greenhouse gas emissions statistics by the country’s respective GDP (corrected for purchasing power parity to ensure a more direct comparison). This will reveal the environmental footprint that each nation imposes on the world per unit of economic prosperity created for its citizens.
In this way, if Russia generated $2.0 trillion of GDP in 2012, this means Russia produced 16.25 tons pf greenhouse gasses per dollar prosperity it created for its people. China ($8.2 trillion) produced 0.73 tons of greenhouse gasses per dollar and India ($1.8 trillion) produced 0.72 tons per dollar. The U.S. ($16.2 trillion), that poster child for capitalist countries perennially accused of acting as bad world citizens, produced the lowest level of greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of economic prosperity: just 0.36 tons per dollar of GDP.
TripleD (and all), I read a very very interesting article. I hope it is something all can be okay with and glad about. I will need to continue it.
If greater economic activity is essential for raising the material prosperity of a society, and the level of material prosperity is roughly reflected by a higher level of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, then this means we should be less concerned about reducing aggregate pollution and be more concerned about producing economic prosperity with the smallest environmental footprint. In other words, a much more meaningful statistics would be:
Which country produces the least amount of greenhouse gasses per dollar of GDP that is generate for citizens to enjoy?
Lt. Col Allen West will be a guest on Tracy & Friends tomorrow!! WSOM 9am-noon.
"Redistributing money to the 3rd World by taking it off us. Just what I said at the start." Just what part of phony story / conspiracy did you not understand and why do you continue to pump such BS? Why not tell me how you have now backed me into a corner now? :>)
God will take care of the planet, just ask the snake guy.
"including the creation of a global fund set up to help poor countries tackle climate change. "
"Johnson also claimed that the agreement mandates that the West pay “reparations” for climate change — a claim that is entirely misleading. "
Redistributing money to the 3rd World by taking it off us. Just what I said at the start.
"WatchDog, You are right, what ever you say. :>)"
"If you think about it, it is really a silly statement. It is what idiots always say when they are feeling so insecure and so desperate they cannot think of anything else to say."
"I am sixty years old and I believe I may be dead long before this affects me, but I hate to see people just giving up. "
Hey, if ya want to cut down on CO2 emissions, stop breathing now.
Good news in 2009 numbers Australia and 10 other countries are worse than that the U.S. in per capita CO2 emissions. :>)
OK, nevermind I see.. "According to the UN it is the US because it should be looked at as per capita"
Still I do not think that is the U.N. singling us out per se. I think the numbers probably do point to us being a per capita worst.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
OK, So then where did you get that it was the U.N. 'making the US out to be the "baddest" guy in terms of climate change.'
Everything I see says "U.N. climate change report points blame at humans" not the United States in particular, except for a little bit of the crackpot fringe that says they are gunning for us to pay damages.
I don't do FOX, have no idea what you're talking about.
No, no, no. I can't copy and paste from here. But look at Kerry's comments where he says the US and China are the worst with emissions--leaving out Europe. I then looked to see who has the worse emissions. According to the UN it is the US because it should be looked at as per capita--of course that bumps China down quite a bit.
Not old news, current news, not conspiracy, fact.
Actually that is another one of the more famous U.N. conspiracy myths. In December 2011, the UN convened in Durban, South Africa to try and hammer out a deal over climate change. The deal stipulated that countries were “to begin a new round of talks on a new agreement in the years ahead,” noted theWashington Post. There were some other provisions as well hammered out in Durban, including the creation of a global fund set up to help poor countries tackle climate change.
But Fox News wasn’t having any of that, despite the fact that climate change threatens the long-term viability of the planet. On Fox and Friends, legal analyst Peter Johnson claimed that the agreement in Durban would set up an “international climate court of justice.” There is no mention of such a court in the final draft of the UN agreement. Johnson also claimed that the agreement mandates that the West pay “reparations” for climate change — a claim that is entirely misleading.
Beijing should, and if so, I'm glad.
State dept personnel in China get quite a bit extra pay because the air there is so bad--kinda like hazard pay.
We recycle, reuse. We try to reduce waste.
We looked at solar houses in home state of WI and checked into building here, but we're so overcast it didn't make sense.
I even tried the water conservation thing (about 30 years ago) of "if it's yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down"--and my kids don't let me forget that. (Sorry, gross but true.)
But I refuse to accept that cows are making the difference now in the weather, nor the industrial age.
And I resent the UN making the US out to be the "baddest" guy in terms of climate change. (And, yes, they do-- no conspiracy.)
Time will tell how serious Beijing really is but the fact that they made a big thing about publicizing this gives me some hope for the future.
Keep in mind that many of these factories are actually run by powerful state-owned companies, with links to politicians in the upper echelons of government. But for the first time, there is a requirement to publicly acknowledge the environmental impact of mass-scale production…and to take steps to go green.
"Kerry making an agreement yesterday with the Chinese to decrease our car emissions, I'm not as on board with that." Yes and that will mean another loss in Horse Power for cars. I am glad I have my Road King Classic. It gets 40 plus mile per gallon and I can twist that throttle and hear those pipes roar.
I heard that China was going to force Chinese Companies to reveal their level of pollution.
Beijing has ordered 15,000 factories to report details about their emissions: in public, and in real-time. The decree also calls for details on the release of pollutants like wastewater and heavy metals. This is a real first in China – an unprecedented mandate for transparency.
Or we could keep doing things like we just did in forgiving debt owed us from Indonesia. There was a "debt-for-nature" swap--they agreed to conserve forests better.
Again, I'm not as on board with that.
Hey, the research sounds positive-- I think most of us can get behind that.
Kerry making an agreement yesterday with the Chinese to decrease our car emissions, I'm not as on board with that.
D3, I was simply quoting the next paragraph from the 1999 (!) article that Truth used to try to make republicans look bad. Just pointing out the stupidity there. Glad you caught it.
"What would you like the USA to do about this global climate change?" The first thing we should do is stop living in denial and recognize there is a real problem here. There may be solutions that can be found in science. An example of that is UK researchers have developed a porous material that can preferentially soak up CO2 from the atmosphere. NOTT-202 is a "metal-organic framework" that works like a sponge, absorbing a number of gases at high pressures. Not a total solution, I know but promising research.
I know we cannot reduce our carbon footprint to zero and even if we could, developing nations would continue to raise the levels anyway. Does that mean we should throw up our hands and say their is nothing we can do about this? We need to understand the problem. I am sixty years old and I believe I may be dead long before this affects me, but I hate to see people just giving up.
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |