Will the USA green up its act?

[NUKE]

I think the US should  demand that all other countries at least equal the US standards for emission controls on all industry before we even consider taking this issue seriously.

[Skilless]

I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to reign in the US stronghold in manufacturing.  We already have some of the toughest pollution standards in the world and yet we produce 25% of the worlds greenhouse gases.  What the rest of the world is saying is that they don't care that we produce 33% of the worlds goods and only produce 25% of the wolrds greenhouse gases.  Their theory is that since we have 5% of the worlds population, we should produce 5% of the worlds pollution. How do we get to their goal?  Move more and more US industry abroad.  Like I said in an earlier post, if you want to know who the real heros and villians are, put each countries GNP up against their total pollution contribution.  I would be willing to bet the US is one of the "greenest" countries in the world.

As Lazs said "How can you not love your fellow man enough to sink down into the mud with him?"  This mindset is more widely believed than most Americans would care to know.

[Vulcan]

The reality of the situation is that cheap manufacturers like China and India should be TAXED on all exports against their emissions. In that way it would encourage them to clean up. Kyoto is the opposite, it taxes countries already making efforts to clean up (USA, Canada, UK, NZ, Aussie), then tries to give those taxes to the current pollutants producing cheap goods with high emmissions - not really encouraging them to clean up.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Curval
I question the Russia and China stats.

I belive that although the US does have very high levels of greenhouse gas output it also the HIGHEST quality control and STRICTEST in controling them...requireing scrubbers etc to filter the toxins out...whereas Russia and China have no such restrictions.  Given the boom of industry in China and in Russia I doubt that the US is higher than those countries.

Bless a thinking man, WTFG Curval! Our Bermudan Brittanica  How ya been?  

Karaya

[ravells]

Originally posted by NUKE
ravels, so why would any country want to impose emission controls?

Because the world is a place of competing interests. And electorates are getting nervous about climate change but they still want their toys.

Ravs

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Vulcan
The reality of the situation is that cheap manufacturers like China and India should be TAXED on all exports against their emissions.

erm, what main countrys produce massive (cheap) in China & India ?
their emissions? um think about it again.

[Vulcan]

sorry dude ya lost me.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You ever stop to think that maybe we aren't actually causing these weather shifts? [/QUOTE/]  
I would say that you are in what some term, "the denial stage"!  There are many species that over-whelmed their environment to point where it became harder for them to exist, the question is not whether we negatively affect our environment, but when it will catch up to us?

[Holden McGroin]

From 1988 to 1992 the North American continent's biomass absorbed more CO2 than industry produced.

At least during this period, we (the entire north american eco/industrial system) were responsible for reducing worldwide CO2.  If it increased in this period, it wasn't due to us.

source

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
ahhh... so it is a bs list cherry picked in order to make the U.S. look bad?   The U.S. does have the strictest controls in the world allready and any further reductions would be minor and at a great expense.   for instance... if you have a millionth of a part of hydrocarbons from car exhaust currently and reducing a million cars by half would have less effect than 4 guys mowing their lawn every week, and cost 2,000 per vehicle....

not hardly worth it.

We could probly cut the greenhouse gas the most by simply stopping all air travel except in emergencies and for produce.   Or... all pleasure boating....

lazs

Lazs, I think you're confusing greenhouse gases (some of which are harmless to humans) with toxic vehicle emissions. It's true, and as I've said earlier, the US has long required catalytic converters on cars. But CCs convert hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen (which are poisonous to us) straight into greenhouse gases - water vapour and carbon dioxide! Out of the frying pan and into the fire! AFAIK, CO2 and H2O vapour cannot be "scrubbed clean" by means of filtration. Using current technology, vehicles are always going to emit greenhouse gases. Until W's technological miracle comes along, the only thing we can do for now is to reduce the amount of hydrocarbons being converted into greenhouse gases by vehicles and by other processes by cutting consumption - and using energy more efficiently. Given that the US emits 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas output, has about 40% of the world's vehicles and that 12mpg is seen as "acceptable", this would seem like a good place to start.

The UK contribution to greenhouse gas output is only 2%, so my boating trip on the Oxford canal next year can go ahead as planned!

[Jackal1]

We are furiously working on the control of cow farts to reduce methane.

[lazs2]

rav... you have shifted the topic...  I thought we were talking about beets cherry picked list which showed countries emmisions.... now you seem to be talking about how much a country buys from another country that pollutes..  

soo... does your country not buy goods from third world countries?   do you personaly not buy goods from third world countries?

I am not sure what everyone here wants... do you all want the U.S. to make it as expensive or more expensive for third world countries to produce goods (much higher standards)   so that no one will buy em and they will remain third world or sink into the stone age when no one buys from them or....  Do you want the U.S. to simply support them so that they don't have to produce?

And all because.... there may be such a thing as global warming and it may have something to do with humans?  and... some scientists think that they have a pretty good theory on what things humans do that may be causing it?  Even tho... One good volcanoe erruption produces more greenhouse effect than ten years of human "pollution"?

Beet... you were the one talking about cars and 12 mpg and such... your boat trip is the same as 1,000 Americans all cutting the pollutants from their new suv tailpipes in half for a year... It makes much more sense for you to not take the frivolous boat trip.

lazs

[lazs2]

and... as nuke points out... as third world countries are "helped" along they will have higher energy demands...they will use up the oil... we have the strictest emissions standards so it is best if we are the ones who use all the oil instead of the ones who will keep every heap running no matter what.

The oil is gonna get burned... better we do it than yu.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
we have the strictest emissions standards  

No, you're STILL not getting it. Your vehicular emissions standards are indeed strict. They ensure that toxic emissions from car exhaust pipes such as carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen (NO2 and NO) - all of which are poisonous to humans - are converted by a 3-way Cat. into Nitrogen, water vapour, and carbon dioxide - none of which is poisonous to humans. The downside is - (and Lazs, please pay attention very carefully - here comes the important bit that you've failed to grasp so far) -  that although the gases which come from cars thanks to your emission control standards and catalytic converters are harmless to humans, they are "greenhouse gases" which are directly responsible for global warming. As I understand it, the CO2 acts like a warm blanket around the earth, trapping in heat (hence the nickname "greenhouse gas") and causing an increase in temperature, resulting in polar ice cap meltdown, rising sea levels, land erosion and loss etc. etc. Unless and until you can come up with a way to turn the toxic gases that cars used to emit into gases which are harmless to humans AND which are not "greenhouse gases", the only way to avoid the predicted ecological disaster is to go easy on the oil, until W can announce his long awaited technological miracle.

My boat trip is piddling stuff - the boat has a diesel engine, and the entire 1-week trip will be done on one tank of fuel.

Things could be worse - at least you guys aren't driving cars with 1950s technology which get 5-6mpg.

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
we have the strictest emissions standards

and if you have 10 the number of other you polute like them ...