Interesting article about CO2 gas emissions/Global warming

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by beet1e
No, I didn't say we did no trade with China. But the UK's greenhouse gas emissions are only 2% of the world total, not 25%. I was merely pointing out that when noting a slight drop in US greenhouse gas output, an allowance has to be made for the fact that many goods consumed by the US (and figure in the GDP) are actually now produced by China. But oh, I can see the way that Jack-all is trying to steer this debate. I'm turning in now, but no doubt when I check this thread in the morning, attention will have shifted from the 7bn tons of greenhouse gas that the US emits each year, and will be focussing instead on the ~200 litres of diesel fuel that my boat trip will consume in one week sometime next August.  

 

Apparently, greenhouse gas emissions from the US reached an all time high in 2004 - 2005 figures not yet known. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1672325,00.html   And with that, it only remains for me to check the thermostat, and bid you all... toodle-pip!

Beet, do they teach math and statistics in the UK?  

UK Pop.=50,000,000
US Pop=300,000,000

UK avg. distance commute=5 miles.
US avg. distance commute=20 miles.

Our freaking country is 5 times the size of yours! We have to move stuff 5 times as far!

Beet, here, take baby steps: 2+2=4. You're on your own now.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Beet, do they teach math and statistics in the UK?  

UK Pop.=50,000,000
US Pop=300,000,000

UK avg. distance commute=5 miles.
US avg. distance commute=20 miles.

Our freaking country is 5 times the size of yours! We have to move stuff 5 times as far!

Beet, here, take baby steps: 2+2=4. You're on your own now.

Nice try Rip, but flawed. First, the US is not 5 times the size of the UK, it's about 40 times bigger. Second, the UK population hasn't been as low as 50m in my lifetime. It's now around 58m. Third, the average vehicle mileage in the US is 12,000 miles, which is not significantly higher than our own, which used to be 12,000 but is now generally quoted as being 10,000. Fourth, where do you get those commuting figures from? "Commuting" is what people do to get into cities. I know that people commute into London from 100 miles away or more. But.......................

.............WTF does any of that have to do with the fact that greenhouse gas emissions in the US were at an all time high in 2004, despite your claim that the total had actually fallen during W's presidency?

Do try to stay on topic!

[Jackal1]

See Rule #4

[straffo]

I don't understand why saying : look chinese got it wrong make the american right.

Well I guess the C02 don't cross borders

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
The 2% Vs 25% thing is a dead horse, as has been explained to you over and over, but you keep saddling up anyway and make beleive that everyone is brain dead if it makes you feel any better.

Nope. Just saying that the US has a higher GDP isn't going to do anything for the planet. That would be as much use as my "joining a group" to discuss global warming, in accordance with your earlier, fatuous suggestion. The real point is that if the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is to be addressed effectively, the countries that emit the lions share are the ones which must be targeted.

200 liters ( litres)? Must not be much of a trip.

I just phoned the boat basin to make a tentative booking. We're going to be cruising the Oxford canal for a week. The estimated cruising time is 48 hours for the week long trip, or about 7 hours per day. The boat will look something like this.




So I asked the lady taking the bookings how much fuel we'd use. After reminding me that fuel was included in the price, it turned out that my estimate of ~200 litres was off - her estimate was ~90 litres!  

The thing to remember is that this boat will have a marine diesel engine like a Lister or a Cummins, ie. not a 4.6mpg 6.8 litre V10 Ford Excursion engine.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
The boat will look something like this.


 

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaa aaaaaaaa!!  OK, all is forgiven if you are going to actualy be out in that....errrrrrrr.....ummmm.. ......thing........in daylight. I thought you were talkining about a boat.

The real point is that if the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is to be addressed effectively, the countries that emit the lions share are the ones which must be targeted.

Targeted? You calling in airstrikes beet?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by beet1e
a 4.6mpg 6.8 litre V10 Ford Excursion engine.

Just in case you are intrested in facts Beetle, estimated fuel economy on Excursions (when they were built) ranged from 10 to 18 miles per gallon, competitive with other vehicles in the class. It's also on par with other vehicles in terms of recyclable content. More than 85 percent of each Excursion can be recycled by weight at the end of its automotive life.

10 to 18 mpg and seat 7 or 8 adults.... why on a seat mile basis, thats better than a 11 mpg DB9.  More than three times better.

[lada]

Originally posted by nuchpatrick
Okay so if we represent 25%, howcome we only went up 13% and all the rest have over 20%.

I think were attempting a decent job..  bone heads the whole lot'of'um.

whats odd about it ?
Its clear, that other economics are growning faster.

[lada]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin


10 to 18 mpg and seat 7 or 8 adults.... why on a seat mile basis, thats better than a 11 mpg DB9.  More than three times better.

And how much % of its lifetime it carry 7 or 8 adults ?

If you keen to be objective.

[lada]

Originally posted by straffo
I don't understand why saying : look chinese got it wrong make the american right.

Well I guess the C02 don't cross borders

Thats not the point. Chinese do not deny need of CO2 reduction.
USA deny CO2 reduction, even if everybody is willing to participate.

edit: HOLY CRAP!!!1 ... put that bloody photo of you away and bring back old avatar .. i didnt reconize you

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lada
Thats not the point. Chinese do not deny need of CO2 reduction.
USA deny CO2 reduction, even if everybody is willing to participate.
 

Ummmm...........exactly how do you figure that "USA deny CO2 reduction"?

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by beet1e
Nope. Just saying that the US has a higher GDP isn't going to do anything for the planet. That would be as much use as my "joining a group" to discuss global warming, in accordance with your earlier, fatuous suggestion. The real point is that if the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is to be addressed effectively, the countries that emit the lions share are the ones which must be targeted.
 I just phoned the boat basin to make a tentative booking. We're going to be cruising the Oxford canal for a week. The estimated cruising time is 48 hours for the week long trip, or about 7 hours per day. The boat will look something like this.

(Image removed from quote.)


So I asked the lady taking the bookings how much fuel we'd use. After reminding me that fuel was included in the price, it turned out that my estimate of ~200 litres was off - her estimate was ~90 litres!  

The thing to remember is that this boat will have a marine diesel engine like a Lister or a Cummins, ie. not a 4.6mpg 6.8 litre V10 Ford Excursion engine.

More like 14mpg.  Keep trying though.

Karaya

[lada]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Ummmm...........exactly how do you figure that "USA deny CO2 reduction"?

because Bush several times claimed, that he will not support sutch move, because it will damage US economy.
Shall post zillion links here or you will be happy with this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1440631.stm

May be i got it wrong and he is supporter of emission reduction.
Feel free to show me your interpretation of enviromental evens of last 4 years.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
From 1990 to 2003, Canadian CO2 emissions increased 24%, while US emissions increased 13%.

During the Bush administration, US emissions have decreased 0.8%. This means that US emissions increased 13.8% from 1990 to 2000, predominantly while the Clinton administration was in power.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/28/climate.change.ap/

Ripsnort, here in Cali we don't suffer emission regulations just so that you up there in the sticks can brag about.

But on the other side, there's hope for you...
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/22/0auto-287876.htm

[lazs2]

the whole point of all this is of course....

Nothing important in the world can get done about anything unless the U.S. pays for it and...

it ticks off the little people that they don't get a vote.

lazs