US, yes the USA, green lights Climate Plan!

And there right there was the problem with Kyoto and is the ongoing problem. Unless India and China are held to the same standards as those in G8, what's the point? They are probablly at the levels of the 1950s industrialized world in terms of pollution, and getting far worse. In fact last week, I read an article in the NYT about the damages to the Chinese air quality from trucks -- and one only need to look at the extra-ordinary efforts the Chinese are taking to clear the air for the Olympics. However, none of the actions by the Chinese are aimed at stopping or regulating it's growing manufacturing industry, instead they are short term and superficial. In fact, if one wants to talk about greed and enviromental waste and destruction: let's examine Russiaand China. All three of consistently absconded from their moral duty to begin curbing emissions (not to mention basic human rights) in favor of allowing industries and their economies to grow. My dear friends, the US is NOT the sole problem in this world, it IS the underdeveloped nations and China and India. However, as always it is much more convieniant to come after the US.

 

I'm not sure what's the point of you driving a Prius either (tongue-in-cheek)

I'm sorry but international relations just don't work that way. While I am all for federal legislation increasing fuel economy and curtailing emission requirements, I am extremely hesitant to agree to a binding international treaty which will be made into US law once ratified by the Senate, without those nations agreeing as well. Once we sign, where is their incentive to come on board? Where is the agreement from other countries to commit tp pushing these folks to adopt these global standards? Furthermore, this comes down to $. These underdeveloped countries expect the US to found aid for them to get them to meet these standards. Once again, why do we have to fund the development of the third world, and if we do, how about a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t.

Here's a better article btw: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/world/16climate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

The incentive

The incentive is, this is the global environment. We all work together for our own contribution, at the individual or the national level, so that our children can have a better life. I know that's idealistic, but that is the incentive. Also, if it's like Kyoto, there's a clause that it's only binding after a certain number of the countries involved actually ratify it.

The real question is, what is binding? Are there actual incentives and sanctions for members who meet or don't meet the limits, or do we just lay some ground rules and hope we meet the numbers?

 

Now hang on a minute sunshine.
Before you lay all the blame at the feet of the Chinese people have a look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
When it comes to CO2 emissions per person USA is in number 10 and above this are either small countries or countries know to supply the energy needs of the west, (read USA).

USA number 10 (20 tonnes CO2 per person in 2004)
Australia number 13 (producing 75% of the average US citizen 16 tonnes CO2 per person in 2004)
Canada number 11 (20 tonnes CO2 per person in 2004)
Now lets look at the "bad guys"!!
China number 91 (4 tonnes CO2 per person in 2004)
India number 133 (1.2 tonnes CO2 per person in 2004)
Russia number 30 (10.5 tonnes CO2 per person in 2004)

This is the reason Kyoto seemed to pick on the advanced nations like USA and Australia while leaving the less advanced to catch up. Why shouldn't USA, Canada and Australia bear the lions share of the solution when their people bear the lions share of the blame?
All men are created equal but Americans are above all other men.

The USA only agreed to the Bali agreement after targets were removed from the document.

It seems very convenient for Americans to blame poorer developing countries.

 

Pointing the finger of blame away from oneself is the American way.

 

There are less than 10 million people on this planet that live in countries that have a larger per capita carbon footprint than the USA!

 

Keep in mind that China's industrial growth is far higher than ours. They are catching up, but not in a good way. They will surpass us in emissions within the next decade. They are very close to the US in terms of CO2 output right now when you do the math. They have 1.3 billion people, the US has 300 million. They will need to deal with their emissions soon enough. I'm not saying we can just sit on our asses and pollute, we can't. However, I am glad to see that focus is being put on industry rather than cars, since auto emissions are a very small slice of CO2 output.

 

Actually, I think they've already surpassed us in total emissions. Per capita they're behind, but the rate of change is alarming. India, too, though to a lesser degree. If we could just re-import some of our manufacturing somehow (weak dollar?) we'd get a more accurate representation of our emissions (we outsource quite a bit). The counter argument is that the Chinese still have a responsibility to their own citizens and need to improve drastically in the environmental department. It's really essential for their own existence. China is going to be severely f*cked up if they stay on their current path. As they get more affluent I'm hoping that they can turn this around.

 

Agreed!

According to the reports I've seen they have surpassed us in CO2 emissions as a whole yet are still lower per capita like you stated.

 

I think we all need to do everything we can, it's too easy to push responsibility onto industry but you also have a part to play.

Well what are you doing to offset the increase? Do you really think it's fair that you can go on pumping 20 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year when you want the Chinese not to catch up to you? I would expect you will strive to minimise your carbon footprint to come down toward their current level. I understand where you are coming from with your concern about the number of Chinese who are increasing their emissions but don't you think USA and Australia should be leading the way in green house gas reduction? After all the USA is the greatest country in the world isn't it?

 

What can we do to help China and India catch up to our lifestyle while still producing less emissions than us? How do we tell them to stop at 10 tonnes each while we continue to produce up to 20 tonnes each?

Leaders lead, it's time for the people of wealthy countries to take a lead roll in reducing reliance on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Demonstrate and offer incentives to then to reduce emissions.

 

Actually, your neighbor could probably care less. Does he look to you for leadership? I doubt it.

The US leading by example? To what nation? Nobody follows the lead of the US. Nations only "follow the lead" of other nations when forced to do so either militarily or financially. World history has been clear on that subject. That's just world politics.

It has been stated here in no uncertain terms that most, if not all, nations despise the US. Even many residents of the US who post on this board openly despise the US. And you think China or India will even remotely "follow" our lead? You may get lip service from the politicians if you are lucky, but I can assure you that's it.

We, along with other advanced nations, are decades ahead of other nations such as China and India for standards of living. Why should they put a halt to their progress or slow it significantly at a high cost to atone "for our sins" and unchecked growth of the past? Trust me, they won't. And no politician would be foolish enough to put our country at a disadvantage to cut our CO2 while other nations burn cheap coal and other forms of energy to gain a significant advantage on the US with regards to economic output.

Significant or even moderate CO2 and other gas reductions as specified in treaties or agreements are a pipe dream. Does anybody really think the entire world will cut CO2 output by even double digit percentages in a few decades?? I think it would be a miracle if it even remained at present output. In reality, humans will simply have to adjust (and they will quite handily) to a warmer world (if indeed the world is actually warming) regardless of AGW or natural causes.


Rick
#4 2006

 

I don't think the raw data tells the whole story. How much of the pollution in China is generated to produce goods for export? Wouldn't it be more accurate to assess the emissions on the basis of consumption, rather than production?

 

Nope, they could choose to conduct their activities in a more sustainable matter. They don't cause they want to maximize their profits.

Yes and no. His neighbors might notice and ask. They might learn a thing or two about hybrids and buy one next time they buy a car. People follow by example all of the time. Where do you think the term "keeping up with the Jones'" came from?

I think the best way to think about it is this... by investing in and improving technologies such as efficiency and various renewables we 1.) develop viable goods and services 2.) improve our trade balance and security 3.)lower our health costs 4.)show the rest of the world that this stuff works. 5.) as the cost of fossil fuels rise we'll be able to export metric shite loads of this technology all around the world.

And that's why we should be doing this stuff. It benefits us economically on many levels and insulates us from a lot of other issues (price spikes, embargoes, etc).

 

We've outsourced a large portion of our pollution to manufacturing plants in China and India. If you want to see those countries pollute less, buying less stuff from them would be a good start.

 

You don't have to ask me twice.

 

It is easy, but it doesn't change the fact that if every American driver bought a Prius, and industry went on unchecked, the impact would be almost too small to measure.

Me? 20 tonnes? Surely you jest. That figure is arrived at by dividing the CO2 output by the population, meaning all of us, even little children who's CO2 output consists of only what they exhale. Once again, industry puts out the most. China has less industry and over 4 times as many people as the US, so their figure will naturally be lower.

Absolutely they should.

That's debatable! If your great nation was easier to gain permanent resident status in, I'd already be there. I don't hate my country, but when I watch the news and hear our current crop of likely candidates for pres open their mouths, I worry. A lot.

 

So what are you doing to influence industry? Do you blatantly wear your environmental heart on your sleeve, or drive it to work to show industry you care about the environment and want them to do the same? Do you buy products manufactured in a sustainable way? Do you avoid furniture made from rain forest timber which is harvested in unsustainable ways? Do you write to local companies asking what they are doing to offset their carbon emissions? Do you ask the salesman which flat panel TV has the lowest power consumption? Then buy that one even though it costs a little more? Do you write to companies you have purchased goods from and asked them to reduce their use of plastic packaging?

Yes you, you consume and you benefit from the production of industry. You might have shares or a retirement savings account that is invested so you are an owner of industry. As a consumer you can influence, as a citizen you can advocate and show you mean business. Sure you are only one but there have to be leaders before the majority can follow, be a leader. Have you sent a message to GM that they need to clean up their act buy buying only their cleanest product or buying a cleaner product from another manufacturer?

And what are you, an American citizen doing?

That was me showing I wasn't bashing the USA and that the USA is a strong nation that can, if it's people chose to, lead the way on climate change reform. I know where I would rather live myself, clue, not interested in living in the US, I like not having a gun under my pillow at night.