Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions
USA - 27%
China - 11%
China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term
Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aljay
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
While I agree with the sentiment behind banning certain political donations, as soon as you ban something, you have to police it.
Banning donations from certain sources could just lead to those sources finding a different way to contribute the same level of funding. For example, individuals closely connected withthe unions or foreign institutions, rather than the unions or institutions themselves. While we would pay ourselves on the back that something had been done about political donations, the politicians would know exactly where it had come from.
Perhaps a better resolution would be to increase the visibility and publicity of donations. For instance, a couple of years ago when Joe Hockey gave his opinion on wind farms, I would have thought the media would have publicised the amount the coal industry donates to the LNP, showing exactly how much Hockey is in their back pocket.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xInteresting Four Corners going on. Chinese money influencing our politics, no shock there. -PB The Dastyari stuff has been covered before and there wasn't anything new in it (but important to cover in the context of the wider story). The Andrew Robb one I always thought was dodgy as and the amount he was getting paid really shocked me. Bob Carr must be on millions. Doesn't it make you uncomfortable how easily our political officials are being corrupted by foreign money? Very. Political donations should be banned all together as it's too easy to corrupt people. Banning only foreign ones doesn't go far enough as there are plenty of naturalised Australians still with foreign agendas. I presume that this ban would include Union donations to the Labor Party right? LNP have most to lose financially from the banning of donations No it doesn't actually. LNP donations are only a fraction of the donations to the ALP. So in effect, the LNP has the more to gain from a blanket ban which includes unions. Plus, you can't ban those donations without a complete blanket ban which includes the trade unions. Otherwise, you effectively marginalize the LNP whilst the ALP still gets millions from the unions which in effect would subvert democracy as the playing field will be even less fair than it is today. ellenpee thumped everyone else prior to 2013 & 2016 elections I don't think the LNP is ever able to compete with the unions. Plus it's donations have been in steady decline. Every now and then they may get an influx from corporations etc
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThe Adani mine to go ahead thanks to the QLD ALP. Can't wait for them to get slaughtered next election. -PB Terrible news. We don't need anymore f*cking coal mines. We especially don't need one that requires us to supply $1bn in funding. Lets see the ALP explain where the benefits are for this one. Side note: why even do Environmental Impact Studies when they get ignored like this one was? But if we don't sell it, then another country will because there will still be demand for Coal in developing economies like China and India. We might as well get the money and the jobs. There really isn't. India maybe but China has significantly lowered its coal demand. The Adani mine is thermal coal not the far more valuable coking coal. I would like to see where the money and the jobs come from. I don't think so. China will be increasing its demand for coal right up to 2030. After that then who knows. China is however spending a lot on renewables - some 650 billion over the next 10 years which is significant but really barely touches the side in its energy requirements. It will be a long time before they start to reduce their demand for Coal. Bottom line is that the Coal industry will thrive for the next 20 odd years. I don't have any knowledge about what types of coal Adani will be extracting from the ground. But it makes sense to me for Australia to reap the benefits and keep people in jobs even though demand within Australia is declining. China has committed to energy targets and therefore are rapidly reducing coal demand. They have far more capacity to turn around major infrastructure projects because they don't have issues with unions inflating wages for labourers to do sweet FA. Adani is extracting thermal coal used in power generation. No it hasn't committed to any reductions until after 2030 and even then it is reductions to 2025 levels and not 2005 levels like Australia. And even if they do reduce their emissions below 2025 levels after 2030, there will still be huge demand for Coal within their energy sector. " In what will be another blow for Australian coal miners, China will institute a reduction in thermal coal consumption within the next five years to cut pollution levels." Source: China to Cut Coal ConsumptionA 160million tonne reduction in consumption in 5 years, that takes us to 2021. Yep even the link he provided says the same thing. Quite incredible. Actually no. Look again. China will be increasing its emissions even after 2030, however the trajectory is much shallower. Look at the graph again. There is no reduction at all.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed.
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years No one is saying that emissions can remain indefinitely on either side of politics. Both sides of the political spectrum support the Paris Agreement. But whether we reduce our emissions or not, still doesn't translate to a global reduction because developing countries will still be burning lots of coal for the next 50 years. The question is this. Why shouldn't Austraia sell coal to those economies? If we don't, they will get it from elsewhere. We need the money and the jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute.
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years Both sides of the political spectrum support the Paris Agreement. The evidence clearly suggests otherwise
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA In the stats provided yes. However, I believe the percentages would be much different if they did not go back so far. China only really started expanding at a rapid rate around 1980 if memory serves me correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThe Adani mine to go ahead thanks to the QLD ALP. Can't wait for them to get slaughtered next election. -PB Terrible news. We don't need anymore f*cking coal mines. We especially don't need one that requires us to supply $1bn in funding. Lets see the ALP explain where the benefits are for this one. Side note: why even do Environmental Impact Studies when they get ignored like this one was? But if we don't sell it, then another country will because there will still be demand for Coal in developing economies like China and India. We might as well get the money and the jobs. There really isn't. India maybe but China has significantly lowered its coal demand. The Adani mine is thermal coal not the far more valuable coking coal. I would like to see where the money and the jobs come from. I don't think so. China will be increasing its demand for coal right up to 2030. After that then who knows. China is however spending a lot on renewables - some 650 billion over the next 10 years which is significant but really barely touches the side in its energy requirements. It will be a long time before they start to reduce their demand for Coal. Bottom line is that the Coal industry will thrive for the next 20 odd years. I don't have any knowledge about what types of coal Adani will be extracting from the ground. But it makes sense to me for Australia to reap the benefits and keep people in jobs even though demand within Australia is declining. China has committed to energy targets and therefore are rapidly reducing coal demand. They have far more capacity to turn around major infrastructure projects because they don't have issues with unions inflating wages for labourers to do sweet FA. Adani is extracting thermal coal used in power generation. No it hasn't committed to any reductions until after 2030 and even then it is reductions to 2025 levels and not 2005 levels like Australia. And even if they do reduce their emissions below 2025 levels after 2030, there will still be huge demand for Coal within their energy sector. " In what will be another blow for Australian coal miners, China will institute a reduction in thermal coal consumption within the next five years to cut pollution levels." Source: China to Cut Coal ConsumptionA 160million tonne reduction in consumption in 5 years, that takes us to 2021. Yep even the link he provided says the same thing. Quite incredible. In his defence consumption is still very high, higher than anyone else by a significant margin. However, we have numerous active coal mines running below capacity in Queensland alone or currently in shut down status. Why do we need a brand new mine at a cost to us (questionable benefits also) when we can meet China's demand for coal with our existing mines. I accept that I have completely backflipped on my appraisal of the Adani Coal Mine in the last month or 2. No doubt. I was just disputing that their demand for coal is increasing when in fact its going backwards.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhile I agree with the sentiment behind banning certain political donations, as soon as you ban something, you have to police it. Banning donations from certain sources could just lead to those sources finding a different way to contribute the same level of funding. For example, individuals closely connected withthe unions or foreign institutions, rather than the unions or institutions themselves. While we would pay ourselves on the back that something had been done about political donations, the politicians would know exactly where it had come from.Perhaps a better resolution would be to increase the visibility and publicity of donations. For instance, a couple of years ago when Joe Hockey gave his opinion on wind farms, I would have thought the media would have publicised the amount the coal industry donates to the LNP, showing exactly how much Hockey is in their back pocket. I agree which is why we shouldn't only ban certain donations but a blanket one. Much rather elections be funded completely by the public purse in a system that's clear. In lieu of that, a more transparent donation system is also semi-acceptable. There are too many grey areas around reporting of donations at the moment.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years Both sides of the political spectrum support the Paris Agreement. The evidence clearly suggests otherwise Such as? What evidence are you talking about when it was the LNP Government that signed the Paris Agreement?
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second.
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA In the stats provided yes. However, I believe the percentages would be much different if they did not go back so far. China only really started expanding at a rapid rate around 1980 if memory serves me correctly. Emissions prior to 1980 don't 'disappear'
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA In the stats provided yes. However, I believe the percentages would be much different if they did not go back so far. China only really started expanding at a rapid rate around 1980 if memory serves me correctly. Emissions prior to 1980 don't 'disappear' That's not what i'm saying, of course they don't. However, comparing since 1950 when China's emissions probably didn't significantly increase until 1980-1990 doesn't accurately show the Chinese demand. If you compare China and the USA from 1990 to present, I am saying that their usage would be far closer to parity.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously Current emission levels are whats important.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play.
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA In the stats provided yes. However, I believe the percentages would be much different if they did not go back so far. China only really started expanding at a rapid rate around 1980 if memory serves me correctly. Emissions prior to 1980 don't 'disappear' That's not what i'm saying, of course they don't. However, comparing since 1950 when China's emissions probably didn't significantly increase until 1980-1990 doesn't accurately show the Chinese demand. If you compare China and the USA from 1990 to present, I am saying that their usage would be far closer to parity. Emissions prior to 1990 don't disappear either. Preempting, emissions prior to 2000 don't disappear additionally Further preempting, emissions don't disappear prior to 2007 (when China caught USA) Not sure how much more movement of goalposts you intend doing
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously Current emission levels are whats important. In the face of history, please elaborate
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 months, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA In the stats provided yes. However, I believe the percentages would be much different if they did not go back so far. China only really started expanding at a rapid rate around 1980 if memory serves me correctly. Emissions prior to 1980 don't 'disappear' That's not what i'm saying, of course they don't. However, comparing since 1950 when China's emissions probably didn't significantly increase until 1980-1990 doesn't accurately show the Chinese demand. If you compare China and the USA from 1990 to present, I am saying that their usage would be far closer to parity. Emissions prior to 1990 don't disappear either. Preempting, emissions prior to 2000 don't disappear additionally Further preempting, emissions don't disappear prior to 2007 (when China caught USA) Not sure how much more movement of goalposts you intend doing It seems you are the one moving the goalposts here.
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. And today, the USA is not the biggest polluter. It is still the second most biggest polluter. It is still a bigger polluter on a per capita basis, but it isn't the overall biggest polluter. Plus, its emissions are in decline due to green energy investment from the private sector.
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!"
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" Completely irrelevant and an utter straw man!
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" It's this sort of rationale that show what every right-wing leaning person suspects about the climate change debate. It's not about making the world a better place, it's about evening the ledger.
|
|
|
|