Will the USA green up its act?

[Rotax447]

Beetle;

I, for one, understand precisely what you are saying.  So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?

You started this thread with a proposal to introduce a small levy ... oh heck, let's just call it a tax shall we ... on Americans to cut back on our fossil fuel consumption.   Since you keep up with current events, I know you realize that our high technology civilization, you know, the one that supports some six billion people, is a fossil fuel civilization.  From everything I have seen in the scientific literature, it will probably remain this way for at least the next fifty years.  So, let's look at some numbers and see what you propose to address this problem in the near term.

US Per Capita Income      = $40,100
UK Per Capita Income      = $29,600
China Per Capita Income = $  5,600

The US Per Capita Income is, of course, derived from our $11,750,000,000,000 Gross Domestic Production ... a production which is, for all practical purpose, fueled by burning fossil fuels.

What should we Americans do Beetle?  Reduce our burning by, say, ten percent?  Then...

US GDP = $10,575,000,000,000
US Per Capita Income =  $36,090
UK Per Capita Income =  $29,600

And of course, there is now more oil in the pipeline, which the Chinese can buy free from any accords, so let's give them a five percent boost, shall we?

China Per Capita Income = $5880

Is the world starting to look better now through your glasses?  Yeah, I thought so...


-Rotax447

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by beet1e
Given that the US emits 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas output

Given those figures are guesses by hippies based on energy use I think you're screwed in this thread.

[lazs2]

so beet.... if we reduce our usage of oil then the third world countries with no emissions standards will use it.    They will not only produce as many greenhouse gases but other pollutants that destroy the air and water.

If that is not the case then we need to take all the pollution control devices off our cars right now to stop this global warming.  

Point is... there is no reduction of oil used.... It is not going to go unused... who would you like to see be the ones using it?

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Rotax447
Beetle;

I, for one, understand precisely what you are saying.  So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?

You started this thread with a proposal to introduce a small levy ... oh heck, let's just call it a tax shall we ... on Americans to cut back on our fossil fuel consumption.   Since you keep up with current events, I know you realize that our high technology civilization, you know, the one that supports some six billion people, is a fossil fuel civilization.  From everything I have seen in the scientific literature, it will probably remain this way for at least the next fifty years.  

Rotax, I started this thread as a discussion about the outcome of the UN Global Warming Summit held last week in Montreal. What prompted me to start it was this leading article in Saturday's Daily Telegraph newspaper, whose title was "US out in the cold at world climate talks", by which is meant that the US is isolated in its position of refusing to participate in changes to slow the trend of global warming. Your president, W, prefers instead to trust to some technological miracle which he hopes will come to our rescue on some future date.

My point was that the rest of the world sees the US is by far the biggest contributor to the world's output of greenhouse gases, and yet appears unwilling to address the problem. 157 countries have signed up to the Kyoto treaty, which shows that it's not all about China and Mexico.

I mentioned that in the immediate aftermath of hurricane Katrina which saw spiralling fuel costs, that potential buyers of gas guzzling road vehicles in the US were deterred from buying such vehicles which, I was told, bore a sticker price of some $42K. Their decision came as a direct result of these increased fuel costs. And yet, as I was able to prove in another thread, the increased annual fuel cost would have been only ~$500  for a 12,000 miles/annum user - a piffling amount for someone about to make a $42K purchase. How effective this small increase in costs was at steering people away from such 12mpg gas guzzlers is borne out by the fact that these vehicles had to be discounted to the tune of $15K to make them sell at all. If such vehicles were absolutely essential, their buyers would have swallowed the extra $500 annual expenditure. But no, they seemed quite happy to purchase alternative vehicles or to keep what they had.

We have guys on this board like Ripsnort, who insists that to tow his 21ft boat requires a special vehicle - some V8 monster truck. But I have an uncle who used to tow a much bigger boat (30ft) and who had only an ordinary car to do it. My point here is that folks claim they NEED gas guzzling monsters, which is of course bollocks.

US Per Capita Income = $40,100
UK Per Capita Income = $29,600
China Per Capita Income = $ 5,600

The US Per Capita Income is, of course, derived from our $11,750,000,000,000 Gross Domestic Production ... a production which is, for all practical purpose, fueled by burning fossil fuels.

It's not about money. It's about the freaking planet. Your own former president Bill Clinton spoke at the conference:

Mr Clinton referred to plans by 192 American mayors, representing 40 million people, to cut emissions by the amount America signed up to under Kyoto when he was president.

The alternative of further global warming and melting ice, he suggested, could lead to a future climate conference in Canada being held on "a raft somewhere".

LOL - a raft. OK, this isn't going to happen this year or next, but action needs to be taken sooner rather than later to safeguard the future of the planet. Your primary concern might be money, but you'd look kind of silly holding a suitcase full of $100 bills, standing ankle deep in water in the middle of Nebraska.

Lazs - I don't have the details as to what constitutes a "developing country" and quite what their exemptions are. My belief is that profligate wastage of fossil fuels now will only store up trouble for the future. YMMV, and probably does.

[Ripsnort]

Beet, committing economical suicide to make you happy is insane

Kyoto Treaty would have hurt economy

Luke Wake / Columnist

The Kyoto Global Treaty was aimed at reducing global warming by regulating carbon dioxide emissions of developed nations and the left has heckled the Bush administration for their choice not to sign into this international treaty, which would have had painful repercussions for the American economy. The Bush administration was wisely concerned with the failures of the treaty, which would not only burden all Americans with higher energy costs but would also be ineffective in its aim to reduce global warming. After all the Bush administration certainly does want a healthy environment and a green earth but the Kyoto Treaty would not have been an effective tool for bringing about a more healthy earth because the world's most powerful, and pollutant, economies would not be held accountable to this international treaty.

We cannot really refer to the Kyoto treaty as a "global" treaty because it was never meant to be a "global" treaty but rather a regulation on business in the industrialized world. The question is then, 'what is the industrialized world?' Surely we can agree that Ethiopia and El Salvador are far from developed nations but surely we cannot refer to a nation with a powerhouse economy as undeveloped; yet, the Kyoto Treaty leaves China, the largest industrialized nation in the world, exempt from the same regulatory controls that would be imposed upon the United States and other signing nations. Brazil and India, two other powerhouse economies, with the world's fifth and second largest populace respectively, would be unrestricted by Kyoto.

China alone emits nearly nine billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and without having such pollutant economically powerful nations sign on to the treaty it would have no net effect toward improving the atmosphere. These nations would then be allowed to continue at the same pace of pollution, while Americans pay a higher energy cost.

As we all know, energy costs have already grown exceedingly high. It is difficult for working class families to heat their homes during the winter as the cost of oil is tremendous and even the cost of gasoline has risen steadily. Enacting the Kyoto Treaty would have been devastating to working class families who would have seen their cost of living climb as energy costs rise.

The United States would have spent an additional $400 billion per year for energy according to a 1998 US Energy Information Administration report. Americans would have seen the cost of electricity rise by 86 percent and oil 76 percent if we had signed into Kyoto. We would have also seen a gasoline tax of 66 cents per gallon, which would have made commuting more costly for all of us. This would hurt the American working class the most, as the average household would spend an additional $1,740 in a year.

Recalling the mini-recession our nation was beginning to slip into, as Clinton was finishing his last term, it is a blessing that Al Gore was not in office when Kyoto was being pushed upon the United States. Clinton and Gore endorsed the Kyoto treaty and had Gore signed this bill into effect the recession would have been significantly worse.  The energy costs would have led to loss of American jobs and we would not have seen the same growth, economically, as we have seen under Bush and his strong economic recovery.

Certainly the Bush administration has done much for the environment during his first term and the environment is a top concern for all Americans. Yet we cannot subjugate ourselves to economically crippling international protocols, of which other nations will not join with us. It would simply not be fair for Americans to be forced to pay more for their energy, and for American industries to be hurt while unregulated Brazilian, Indian and Chinese industries continue to emit excessive pollution into the environment. Without the agreement of all large and economically powerful nations into such an agreement it would do nothing to improve the environment.

Lastly it has not been proven that global warming is occurring at all, or that it is a problem. Some scientists contend that the earth naturally goes through cycles and that, since 17th century, the world has been naturally warming. It is not for me to say that global warming is or is not a problem, but we should consider the possibility that the left has led a green-scare.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Beet, committing economical suicide to make you happy is insane

Erm... I don't think that choosing more fuel efficient vehicles could be construed as "economical suicide".

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... I don't think that choosing more fuel efficient vehicles could be construed as "economical suicide".

More fuel efficient does not mean less green house gases, Beet. Try again.

As noted by the National Research Council (NRC) in a 1992 report on automobile fuel economy, "Fuel economy improvements will not directly affect vehicle emissions." 15 In fact, the NRC found that higher fuel economy standards could actually have a negative effect on the environment:

Improvements in vehicle fuel economy will have indirect environmental impacts. For example, replacing the cast iron and steel components of vehicles with lighter weight materials (e.g., aluminum, plastics, or composites) may reduce fuel consumption but would generate a different set of environmental impacts, as well as result in different kinds of indirect energy consumption. 16

Nor will increasing CAFE standards halt the alleged problem of "global warming." Cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. According to data published in 1991 by the Office of Technology Assessment,

A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions. 17

The NRC additionally noted that "greenhouse gas emissions from the production of substitute materials, such as aluminum, could substantially offset decreases of those emissions achieved through improved fuel economy." 18

CONCLUSION
The CAFE program has failed to achieve its goals. Since its inception, both oil imports and vehicle miles driven have increased while the standards have led to reduced consumer choice and lives lost that could have survived car crashes in heavier vehicles.

The CAFE standards should not be increased. They should be repealed and replaced with free market strategies. Consumers respond to market signals. As past experience shows, competition can lead to a market that makes gas guzzlers less attractive than safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is the right way to foster energy conservation.

Charli E. Coon, J.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm

[beet1e]

Rip - maybe you should read your own link -

Consumers respond to market signals. As past experience shows, competition can lead to a market that makes gas guzzlers less attractive than safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is the right way to foster energy conservation.

Or do you maintain that by driving cars that do 12mpg will result in LESS greenhouse gas than cars that achieve 30mpg? Yeah right, and all 157 signatories to Kyoto are wrong!

Time for bed - TP

[straffo]

Kyoto Treaty would have hurt economy

Luke Wake / Columnist

would have , could have and perhaps will.

I call BS.


Hey Rip. do you have any document older than 1992 ?

I'm sure I can find a very very old document prooving earth is flat.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by beet1e
Rip - maybe you should read your own link -  Or do you maintain that by driving cars that do 12mpg will result in LESS greenhouse gas than cars that achieve 30mpg? Yeah right, and all 157 signatories to Kyoto are wrong!

Time for bed - TP

You should add the entire quote, Beet. You forgot this part:
They should be repealed and replaced with free market strategies. Consumers respond to market signals. As past experience shows, competition can lead to a market that makes gas guzzlers less attractive than safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is the right way to foster energy conservation.

Beet, that means let the free market control it, not Kyoto, not Government. Apparently you must agree with this paragraph, no?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by straffo
would have , could have and perhaps will.

I call BS.


 

He bases his article off facts and data, all provided in the Kyoto agreement.  Here is a good book about it, I've read it. Our economy would have collapse by now had we been forced to it.  
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691088705/104-4787837-7054321?v=glance&n=283155

Here is a brief synopsis of the book.

I believe the Kyoto is a step in the right direction, its just not the right treaty for keeping nations alive and thriving.

Oh, and FWIW< our CAFE standards have risen significantly. Unfortunately it does nothing for reducing Global warming because  the population of the earth increases. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that increasing gas milege is NOT going to reduce global warming. Now, reducing population, that certainly will!

Originally posted by straffo
Hey Rip. do you have any document older than 1992 ?

I'm sure I can find a very very old document prooving earth is flat.

July 11, 2001
Not sure what you're saying? Article was writtein in 2001.

[john9001]

greenhouse gases make the earth warmer.

a warmer earth means less fuel burnt to keep warm.

less fuel burnt to keep warm means less greenhouse gases.


it's simple really.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I believe the Kyoto is a step in the right direction,...

^^^

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
^^^

Ah, don't shoe-box me yet! I didn't mean to say its the right treaty, just a step in the right direction!  Yes, we need to reduce them, but not the way the treaty has it outlined.

I do like tax credits that our government gives the people for hybrids, that is a perfect example of  "Let the market drive it".

[Ripsnort]

Oh, and another FWIW, I'm about in the "middle" regarding cause for global warming. I believe it is a cyclic thing the earth goes through, and yes, I believe man can contribute to it, but anyone who believes that man accounts for the majority of global warming is either very arrogant or very misinformed.