Global Warming - Bound to Burn

[Dinner]

There are 6.2 billion people in the world and only 1.2 are Chinese. There are some 5 billion others who can opt to do our dirty work.

[Elok]

That's just it, "dirty work." We have China manufacture tons of consumer goods for us because they do it really cheap. But really cheap means really dirty; environmental oversight is expensive. You think any country on earth is equipped, or will be equipped in the foreseeable future, to crank out a bajillion toys and shoes and lengths of wire at rock-bottom prices without spewing tons of CO2?

[Flubber]

Could the summary of this be simply this

Since "they" pollute more, "WE" need to manufacture, build etc etc in the most economically efficient means possible. We may pollute a lot but its better than having the industy move and have it pollute even more elsewhere.

The whole argument seems to be one long justification for accepting emissions even increases in emissions.

[Traianvs]

"That's right, China, make our consumer goods on the cheap without using convenient energy sources or we'll make them super-expensive and do it ourse...wait. Um, can we get back to you on this?"

We are as dependent on them as they are dependent on us. Let's suppose we manage to make production shift to some other cheap ass country willing to implement cleaner techs in their brand new plants, say hypothetically South-America or a bunch of north-African countries.

As the Chinese economy relies much on its manufactured exports it will have to deal with major social uprising, since the only legitimacy the communist party has right now is the booming Chinese economical development. I'm positive they'll soon comply with ecological standards.

Like our western industry, companies don't change their policy unless government obliges them to do so or if the market (that is: us) demands 'cleaner' products. China won't budge unless some external actor forces it to.

[MOBIUS]

Yes, now that we have globalisation, we cannot simply just slap sanctions on one of the biggest players in our world economy without majorly hurting ourselves.

We're all in this together - which means that we all need to find solutions together!

The onus is on the developed nations to lead the way, as they have historically caused the most emissions. Once they lead the way, the developing nations are more likely to cooperate - or at least more meaningful pressure can be brought to bear on them if they are not deemed to be cooperating in the spirit of the new Copenhagen Protocol...

[Caligastia]

Well, I'll give you kudos for changing your questionable targeting of non white peoples from blacks to the Chinese - actually, foreigners in general...

But basically, what you're trying to put forward as an excuse for the US to do nothing about climate change is flawed for a number of major reasons:

1) The reason CO2 is so high in the atmosphere now is because the vast majority of the anthropogenic portion of it has been pumped into the atmosphere by the developed nations - of which the US is by far the biggest culprit! China, even now, is responsible for a tiny fraction of the US' historic CO2 emissions...

2) The Americans (and Australians, and Canadians) are the biggest per capita CO2 emitters today - each person in the US is responsible for roughly 6 times the emissions of each person in China! If you want fair treatment - come back when China's emissions per capita equals that of the US - otherwise STFU with your misplaced self-righteous indignation!

3) If you want the Chinese to stop building their coal power stations - take the lead in cutting back your own CO2 emissions by taking the moral lead - until the US does this, China has no reason to do so apart from preventing pollution in their own backyard.

4) China's renewable energy industry is expanding at a far more rapid rate than that of the US - so they are already doing the very thing that you refuse to do - for the backward logic that developed nations are failing to curb their CO2 emissions...

5) This entire document in your OP is basically classic climate change skeptics bollocks - if you want an example of the economic 'benefits' expounded by the skeptics, you only need look at dinosaur companies like Chrysler and GM who refused to change with the environmental times...

Oh well...

Not sure why you keep wanting to bring race into this, and pointing out the fact that carbon emissions from non-western countries are inexorably increasing has nothing to do with feeling self-righteous. Your points are irrelevant.

[Arrian]

pointing out the fact that carbon emissions from non-western countries are inexorably increasing has nothing to do with feeling self-righteous

Oh no, of course not!

The whole argument seems to be one long justification for accepting emissions even increases in emissions.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Perhaps you have a realistic plan for reducing worldwide emissions that Peter Huber hasn't thought of?

[Arrian]

No, I don't have a great plan. I pretty much think we're screwed, actually. Well, not us. A few generations down the road.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

We will have to wait and see. I'm a bit more optimistic.

[Arrian]

Don't mind me. I'm grumpy this morning. 4-day weekends rock. Coming back to work after them sucks.

Usually I'm more optimistic as well.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

There, there.

[MOBIUS]

Actually, I don't think we have anything to be optimistic about. Copenhagen this December will end up being too weak like Kyoto, and we will effectively lose our last chance to prevent things running away from us.

I'm thinking that if it fails to be strong enough - that I will actually think '**** it' and go on a flying/travelling spree. One big push to see all the things I've dreamed of in the window of opportunity before peak oil makes flying expensive again.

After all - it's not like I've got any kids to worry about protecting our climate for - so I might as well dial up my CO2 footprint to max and have fun while I still can!

The planet will look after itself, in the end.

[chequita guevara]

I can't wait for some huge ice shelf to fall into the ocean and flood coastal cities, killing millions.

Ice shelves are already floating in the ocean, numbnuts. It has no effect on sea levels when they break off.

Yes and no. The weight of the ice shelves holds back the ice behind it in the glacier. When the shelves break off, more ice comes flowing out much more quickly. That process alone will drive the oceans one foot higher.

[Arrian]

The planet will look after itself, in the end.

The planet is a piece of rock. It doesn't look after anybody or anything. Which is kinda the point.

-Arrian