Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No, they aren't. And there's part of your problem. From your source.

Numbers, are numbers, are numbers. Ya got nothin son so you are attempting to discredit the source but unforunatley the source cannot be discredited.

What you did is mistook a per something or other number with an actual decrease. I have news for you sunshine, the Earth doesn't give a **** if it is 1 billion polluting at x-10 to the 6th, or one person polluting at x.

Idiot.

I guess in your world actual decreases aren't decreases.

That makes sense.

What do you call this grand theory? The I don't give a f about anybody else?



I know you are getting frustrated everytime I keep owning you so I can understand the name calling.

But it's clear to me that you are naive in terms of what living conditions are like in other places, I'm sure out there in the woods pollution isn't much of a problem.



You're funny when you're angry. I'd be upset too though if I had all bumps and bruises and scars from losing too many encounters with Ted Striker

Ted Striker

Can we talk about that black gold now? Yee haw!

[Ted Striker]

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither

With 12.7% of the world's total, China is the second largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions after the United States. China's share of world carbon emissions is expected to increase in coming years, reaching 17.8% by 2025. Carbon mitigation strategies are focusing on technologies to reduce emissions from industrial boilers and motors. Other mitigation efforts emphasize improving Chinese vehicles' efficiency. Estimates suggest that transportation sector energy consumption could grow by nearly 7% per year as the government pledges major investments in the country's transportation infrastructure. If this growth is not accompanied by improvements in vehicular fuel-efficiency standards and a replacement of outdated technology, carbon emissions from the transportation sector will grow significantly.

Overall, total Chinese energy-related carbon emissions more than doubled since 1980, when the government began implementing energy conservation laws. One study attempting to determine the causes of this increase concluded that China's decrease in energy intensity since 1980 has not been sufficient to counterbalance the large increase in emissions due to economic and population growth. Increased energy demand has encouraged China to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels such as natural gas, coalbed methane and hydropower. Current efforts by China to offset coal consumption include the development of natural gas and coalbed methane infrastructure, increasing the number of combined heat and power plants, adding approximately 3,000 megawatts (MW) of hydropower annually, and developing renewable energy resources such as wind and photovoltaics for electricity generation.

...Coal consumption is again rising, however, after declining in the late 1990s, and China's energy intensity increased slightly in 2001. At the same time, the government has promoted a shift towards less energy intensive services and higher value-added products, as well as encouraged the import of energy intensive products.

Maybe you'd care to actually read something you link to, Ted. That would be nice.

\

We already discussed the aggregate situation, and *I* already pointed out that this text WAS IN my link a couple of times already.

Thanks for the review though.

[notyoueither]

Find me actual decreases in a society that is rapidly industrialising, moron.

How you could be so stupid is beyond comprehension.

[Ted Striker]

Unlike other developing countries such as India, South Korea and Brazil, both the amount of energy and carbon consumed per dollar of GDP have decreased dramatically in China over the past two decades. With average annual GDP growth rates around 7-8% over the last decade and energy consumption growth rates somewhat lower, China has been reducing its energy intensity.

What part of that can't you read?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

[Ted Striker]

pssttt


I think you missed that whole part about them having...ohhh. 1.3 billion people.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker I guess in your world actual decreases aren't decreases.

That makes sense.

What do you call this grand theory? The I don't give a f about anybody else?

I'll use small words and concepts so maybe you can follow along.

1000 factories pollute at y

2000 factories pollute at y-z x 2

Unless z (pollution reduction per unit) is over half of y, you end up with a net gain in pollution.

You do know what a factory is, right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


What part of that can't you read?




http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

PER DOLLAR, Ted.

Hello! Are you really that dense?

[Ted Striker]

Unfortunatley I've backed you into a corner and I'm sorry about that.

I wanted you to look at it at the per capita level to understand its importance but unforuntatley you are just here to argue. If you understood the importance of energy intensity then maybe you would have some hope but unfortunatley you are doing that macho posturing thing again.

I appreciate your hard work on the calculations but unfortunatley they have worked against you. If you had bothered to read the charts and graphs on energy intensity you would have made the connection. Hell, it fits into your own equation.

The Energy Information Administration and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had determined that China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions -- the main cause of global warming -- declined 17 percent over that four-year span, despite economic growth of 36 percent. China was able to accomplish this feat by restructuring its economy, switching to cleaner energy sources and improving energy efficiency. The New York Times reported our findings on June 15.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/achinagg.asp

[MrFun]

Careful Ted -- NYE will come back with even more name calling!!!

[Ted Striker]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
China is actually an example for the rest of us, since they are running at a breakneck economic expansion pace yet have still managed to CUT their emissions.

[notyoueither]

You have an odd definition of 'cut', sir.

[notyoueither]

This is an interesting graph. What does it show?



What does it show? You be the judge.

and again, from your own source.

...Coal consumption is again rising, however, after declining in the late 1990s, and China's energy intensity increased slightly in 2001.

[notyoueither]

I see an increase in energy consumption per person in China. Do you? Sure they can reduce some co2 per unit for a short term by switching from coal to oil, but the trend is not promising. Canada and the US did the same in the 60s and 70s.eventually reality bites, and reality is increased stress on fuel sources and pollution.