U.N. says 2005 set greenhouse gas record

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Nov 3 2006, 09:24 AM) [snapback]343286[/snapback]</div>

Why wouldn't it? Nearly all the pontificating Europeans missed their Kyoto targets.

 

Don't forget Canada. Their GHG emissions are well above 1990 levels and rising fast as they look to expand their oil sand production.

 

For the record, the US is at 19% above 1990, though emissions per unit of GDP have declined.

"Since 1990, US CO2 emissions have risen by about 19 percent. The report also finds that US GHG emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004 declined 2.1 percent from 2003."

As for Europe:

" Eleven have reported increases since 1990, with huge rises seen in Spain (41.7 pct), Portugal (36.7 pct), Greece (25.8 pct), Ireland (25.6 pct), Finland (21.5 pct) and Austria (16.5 pct).

Of the industrialised nations, only Britain seems to be having little trouble meeting its commitments, having even surpassed its target of 12.5 pct by cutting emmissions 13 pct.

Germany also reduced its emissions impressively, by 18.2 pct, but was short of its target of 21 pct, while France (1.9 pct), Luxembourg (16 pct) and Sweden (2.3 pct) also cut emissions. "

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 5 2006, 10:09 PM) [snapback]344365[/snapback]</div>

Of course, the unfortunate thing is that our 19% increase is probably substantially worse than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Finland, and Austria combined (that doesn't make them right, however). The Austrians, I know, have had a surge in population due to immigration. Of course, that's also true here. Do you have figures for GHG vs GDP for those countries that saw increases?

 

What do you expect? The Ad man still says we need LOTS of power in are cars ... mileage (and smog) be damned. The funny thing is they blame the public, saying, "oh, we just advertise what folks want". Then again, that argument finally went away with tobacco, so hopefully Auto ad folks will wise up too,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Nov 7 2006, 08:05 PM) [snapback]345272[/snapback]</div>

Oh come on - blaming the "ad man"? :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 5 2006, 10:10 PM) [snapback]344377[/snapback]</div>

I don't - but found this.

But I should note that the article is "disputed" in terms of accuracy. Anyway, the U.S. ranks about middle of the pack, for what that is worth.

 

Acutally, we're pretty high on that list (per capita, anyways). What I found interesting was that many of the countries that are higher than us were arab states (and a few carribean states). Oman had over twice our CO2 per capita. That's brutal!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 13 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]348241[/snapback]</div>

Probably because oil fields often have to "flare" or burn off the natural gas received from the well head.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1962...f.foresight.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 13 2006, 10:37 AM) [snapback]348261[/snapback]</div>

Blimey. I knew about flaring but I had no idea that THAT much was wasted. I remember reading something about Qatar really jumping of the NG thing. It wonder if their numbers will come down as they expand their NG processing facilities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 13 2006, 03:34 PM) [snapback]348334[/snapback]</div>

I should have pointed out that that particular article is really old. I mean really, really, really old. As in 44 years old (April 1962). It just happened to be the best description of the practice that I found with the quick google search.

I'm far from an expert (in fact even farther than that), but I would assume that flaring does still go on to some degree, particularly in major oil fields such as in the middle east, although probably not as much as it did 40 years ago. However, when coupled with the tiny populations that Arab Gulf countries have, I'm sure it plays havoc on the per capita emisson statistics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 13 2006, 11:46 AM) [snapback]348343[/snapback]</div>

That's my understanding as well. Certainly they have no other real industrial production in most of those countries, so it is either that or the low-mpg luxury cars driven around by sheiks! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 14 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]348876[/snapback]</div>

Well, that and their electricity production is (naturally) tilted towards oil and gas. No hydro or nuclear (but also no coal) or other low carbon sources. I did hear somewhere once that Saudi has been installing wind turbines but I don't know what the installed capacity is or how aggressively they're pursuing such things.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 14 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]349001[/snapback]</div>

I've heard that they're putting in some solar as well.

This chart shows CO2 emissions per capita, U.S. isn't so favorable there (not sure what's up with the Caribbean - is it all the tourists flying in and out?), but as you go down the list, it's very roughly in order of wealth per capita, which is why it makes sense to crunch the numbers for the chart listed earlier. Still, I wouldn't mind living in some of the countries much lower in the list - Norway or New Zealand, for example.

 

I'd LOVE to live in NZ or the UK. Yeah, the Carribean is a bit of an enigma. Maybe all of their power plants are styrofoam fired?

CSP makes lots of sense in the middle east. PV not as much since the OAT will hurt efficiency I would think.

 

At the start you mentioned the UN. You are talking about the vacation resort for legislators in New York sponsored by the US. The quickest way to loose your cushy UN job is to do something useful. The people there have a great record. No one has ever been caught doing something. And the good hearted Americans keep the club going. We're such nice people.