Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 22, 2005, 12:24:25 PM
-
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/
-
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.
-
Meanwhile, Brazil produces 14 billion liters of sugar cane ethanol annually.
-
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!
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
:rofl
-
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).
-
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.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I think it's because Ford discontinued the 4.6mpg "Excursion".
:rofl
HAHAHAHA!! dont forget Hummer introducing a smaller model.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :lol
During the Bush administration, US emissions have decreased 0.8%.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
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!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
-
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. :lol
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
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!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
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.
:rofl
-
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.
:rofl
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!
-
See Rule #4
-
I don't understand why saying : look chinese got it wrong make the american right.
Well I guess the C02 don't cross borders :eek:
-
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.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/explorer.jpg)
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! :eek:
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.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The boat will look something like this.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/explorer.jpg)
:confused: :huh :rofl
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? :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :eek:
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 :D
-
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"?
-
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.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/explorer.jpg)
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! :eek:
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.
:rofl
More like 14mpg. Keep trying though.
Karaya
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by lada
because Bush several times claimed, that he will not support sutch move, because it will damage US economy.
and that is a bad thing?
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Monk
and that is a bad thing?
If you have no clue, what are we talking about, you better read few post back before you will ask smart questions.
-
Originally posted by lada
If you have no clue, what are we talking about, you better read few post back before you will ask smart questions.
Ok, I'll do that. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by lada
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.
You may want to go back and reread that hoss. This is in reference to kyoto and it`s not being ratified. It has nothing to do with U.S. denying emmision reduction. In other words we don`t need a group to do anything , nor do we need to foot the bill.
-
See Rule #4
-
Is there anyone who does not understand this equation? GDP = f(fossil fuel consumption )
A more general equation in physics would be; level of civilization = f(energy consumption)
If the Euros, Russians, and Chinese no longer want the US to be number one, fine. Would you mind telling us who your vote for the new number one will be?
-
Is there anyone who doesn't understand this equation - Too much greenhouse gas = polar icecap meltdown = planet f(****ed)
-
thats quite the equation you got there beet1e.
-
Okay, I am ready to do my part to save my planet. I earn $40,100. From that income, I pay a mortgage on my home, pay a loan on my second car, send my children to collage, pay my medical insurance, go to movies, and buy Big Macs.
Here is my problem. At the end of the year, when I write my last check, I have no money left. Unlike governments, I can’t write a check against future earnings. I must have the money in the account to cover the check. I can’t print more money if I run out.
I am sure you understand that I need to know how much money my politicians will take from my income. Without that information, I am well and truly hosed when it comes to paying my bills.
-
Rotax! There are no easy answers. Hoping to get further on with those books over the next few days. See you after the holiday.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
See Rule #4
:rolleyes: ROFLMAO
OK, would "Your Beetleness" be better?
Skuzz, lay off the nog bud. :)
Merry Christmas to all.
Try not to expell too much greenhouse gas after the big feed.
-
no easy answers? He means no answers that don't involve soaking the U.S. citizen in crippling taxes to solve a problem that no one really understands..
It is quite possible that we could cripple the worlds economy and have no effect on glaobal warming at all or.... make it worse.. That is how much we understand the subject at this point.
Also... if you cripple the economy of the major powers... who is going to be bring us the new ideas and research? The U.N.???
lazs
-
LOL Jackal! I don't have any problem with being "offbeat", so to speak. It goes without saying that O'Clubbers need a skin like an orange peel! ;)
Lazs - as I learned in my years in IT, the first thing you have to do before you can solve a problem is to understand that problem. With all due seasonal respect, only this month I had to explain to you the difference between toxic vehicle emissions (pre-catalytic converter) and non toxic greenhouse gases (post-catalytic converter). So I think it's fair to say you need to get to grips with the greenhouse gas/global warming issue yourself, before you can start telling others what's what.
I'm wading my way through various books on it right now - dry reading in places, but has to be done.
Merry Christmas all, including jackal, Lazs, Rip, Mash, HMcG, Skuzzy, MP8, and Mr. MP4. ;)
-
ya know beet... You tell me one thing about co2 and then someone else tells me that we are consuming more of it than we make in the last decade...
I don't think you really do know what is happening. I don't think reading all the available literature will make you understand it any more because I don't think anyone knows all there is to know about it.
I believe that when accurate data is available I will see it. I believe that there will be plenty of time to worry about it and that most "solutions" today are ill advised and half baked and based on doomsday scientists looking for grants to support themselves.
I know that the guy you quote (carl friggin sagan) was a total fraud.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Ummmm...........exactly how do you figure that "USA deny CO2 reduction"?
Uncle Joe told him so? :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Is there anyone who doesn't understand this equation - Too much greenhouse gas = polar icecap meltdown = planet f(****ed)
check this out (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html) It might lower your blood pressure.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
check this out (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html) It might lower your blood pressure.
Thanks...now I can get that Hummer without the guilt...:D