Interesting article about CO2 gas emissions/Global warming

[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/

[beet1e]

Part of the reason is that a lot of US jobs have been exported to places like China and India. Goods sold in WalMart which were formerly US made are now being produced in China and imported into the US.

[Sandman]

Meanwhile, Brazil produces 14 billion liters of sugar cane ethanol annually.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by beet1e
Part of the reason is that a lot of US jobs have been exported to places like China and India. Goods sold in WalMart which were formerly US made are now being produced in China and imported into the US.

..but...but China have teh most CO2 emissions !!1!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by beet1e
Part of the reason is that a lot of US jobs have been exported to places like China and India. Goods sold in WalMart which were formerly US made are now being produced in China and imported into the US.

Canada is up there with Spain, Ireland, Greece and five other nations as having the biggest increases in gas emissions. According to the United Nations, Spain is the worst, with a nearly 42 percent increase in emissions between 1990 and 2003; Canada stands at 24 percent and the United States experienced an increase of 13 percent.

Dr. Harlan L. Watson, senior climate negotiator for the U.S. Department of State, said that while President Bush declined to join the treaty, the U.S. leader takes global warming seriously. He noted greenhouse gas emissions had gone down by 0.8 percent under Bush.

[nuchpatrick]

"I will certainly welcome any idea that may bring the United States closer to Canada, Europe, Japan, England and other countries as partners in this convention," Dion said. "We cannot do without the Americans because they represent 25 percent of emissions, and an even greater percentage of the solution."

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.

[straffo]

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/

I don't know who it will fool.

24% of 25 cannot compared with 13% of 125.

[mora]

Originally posted by Sandman
Meanwhile, Brazil produces 14 billion liters of sugar cane ethanol annually.

And cuts down rainforest to do it. Or was that your point?
Also sugarcane ethanol has a net energy (EROEI) of 0.8 to 1.7.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
During the Bush administration, US emissions have decreased 0.8%.  

I think it's because Ford discontinued the 4.6mpg "Excursion".

[Pei]

Originally posted by beet1e
Part of the reason is that a lot of US jobs have been exported to places like China and India. Goods sold in WalMart which were formerly US made are now being produced in China and imported into the US.

Which is one of the problems with Kyoto: countries will just export emmission generating parts of the economy to countries who will be treated more leniently. In this I agree with the anti-kyoto crowd: there needs to be a more even global strategy (though I don't agree with leaving up to big business as most public companies are very short sighted and there is the "Tragedy of the Commons" issue to deal with).

[GtoRA2]

Beatle is just mad because he can't get a big gas guzzling ford truck to go with the rest of his wife beater image.

[SMIDSY]

Originally posted by beet1e
I think it's because Ford discontinued the 4.6mpg "Excursion".

HAHAHAHA!! dont forget Hummer introducing a smaller model.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Part of the reason is that a lot of US jobs have been exported to places like China and India. Goods sold in WalMart which were formerly US made are now being produced in China and imported into the US.

You keep refering to the U.S. and it`s trade with China in many posts.
You use it in a way that would suggest that Britain does not trade nor import from China. Hell, I thought everyone did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweatshop imports from China swamp our seaports
by Steve Johnson

A FLOOD of cheap Chinese imports to Britain is now clogging up our harbours, swamping the handling capacity of the container ports whereever they dock.

Such is the imbalance between the volume of Asian imports and that of goods trickling out of Britain from what is left of our manufacturing industries, that containers of imported goods, instead of being filled up with exports and shipped out again, are piling up and bringing our seaports to a standstill.

Southampton recently found itself stuck with 25,000 empty containers. Normally no more than 12,000 are empty at any one time, but so great is the imbalance between imports and exports that the port was full to the brim with empty containers. Southampton has now imposed a limit oSo what has been Labour's response to this torrent of cheap sweatshop produce drowning our industry?

Only to welcome three more new major container ports, at Felixstowe, Harwich and on the Essex coast, to take even more imports! Chinese corporation Hutchinson Whampoa plans a port at Bathside Bay, Harwich, able to import 1,700,000 containers a year and one at Felixstowe South able to take 1,500,000 container-loads of cheap Chinese imports a year.

Even P&O wants to build a giant container port at 'London Gateway' on the north shore of the Thames Estuary to import 3,500,000 containers of foreign goods to undercut British industry.

The tonnage of imports has tripled over the last 30 years. In 2003, the last year for which figures are available, 4,500,000 containers of imported goods flooded into Britain. The three giant new ports planned will more than double that again!

A Government that allows such a doubling of the capacity of the Chinese and other Third World sweatshop economies to swamp our markets and undercut our produce is a bunch of turkeys eagerly working to bring forward Christmas!

We neither need nor want any more cheap imports to ruin our industries and put our people on the dole.

These imports are manufactured goods that we either do not need at all or can perfectly well make ourselves, here in Britain using our own workforce. It's time to close the flood-gates on cheap Chinese imports.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Jackal1
You keep refering to the U.S. and it`s trade with China in many posts.
You use it in a way that would suggest that Britain does not trade nor import from China. Hell, I thought everyone did.

you are 100% right on this Jackal1,
i qoute a small text about this from a external link:"

ther complaint made about the Kyoto Protocol is that it only obliges indstrialised countries to reduce their emissions: developing countries like China and India do not have to. But this is only fair because by far the greater part of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now, has been put there by the industrialised countries - not to mention the fact that it is naturally much easier for richer nations to take action and make sacrifices, than poorer ones. It is entirely right that they should take the first step and lead the way. However the rapid increase of greenhouse gas emissions from the rapidly developing countries, like China and India poses a huge threat to the stability of global climate. That makes it all the more urgent that the long-industrialised countries set a good example, point the way to a low-carbon model for development and take the first step towards the coordinated international action to fight climate change, that we need.

R
Gh0stFT

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
You keep refering to the U.S. and it`s trade with China in many posts.
You use it in a way that would suggest that Britain does not trade nor import from China. Hell, I thought everyone did.

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.  

During the Bush administration, US emissions have decreased 0.8%.

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  

Emissions of global warming gases from the United States have nearly doubled in 14 years and reached an all-time high in 2004, according to figures released by the American government. But new analysis suggests Europe is also falling behind in its attempt to meet legally binding United Nations targets.

The US energy department report shows emissions rose 2% in 2004 and stood one year ago at 7,122.1m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year - about 25% of the world total. The rise was the greatest in five years and is part of an accelerating trend. Revised figures also published showed emissions in 2003 were at the second highest level. This year's figures have not been published but are expected by analysts to be similar or greater because of strong US economic growth.

The data, released just two weeks after the US government claimed at the Montreal climate talks that its voluntary approach to cutting emissions was working, drew immediate criticism from European environment groups and academics..

And with that, it only remains for me to check the thermostat, and bid you all... toodle-pip!