Global Warming - Bound to Burn

[Spiffor]

The growth of China, India etc. doesn't mean these countries will generate a pollution per capita that's nearly as bad as the US' (or Dubai's).

That's because our time is vastly different to the 19th and 20th century : most governments are now conscious that natural resources are limited, and that productive activities simply has consequences. And we're rapidly developing technologies to adress pollution.

This conscience is true even of China : ecological catastrophes due to industry often provoke quite an outcry in the public there : ecological concerns threaten to create a public opinion in China, which would be bad news for a government that absolutely needs widespread apathy for its survival. There's no surprise that the Chinese government is expanding its renewable energies so quickly.

The technologies are a serious matter as well : it is possible to divide by 4 our greenhouse gases with today's technologies : we are perfectly able to have fuel-efficient transportation, fuel-efficient buildings, environment-friendly industry and agriculture. We're also able to tap much renewable energy, be it solar, wind, geothermal or tidal.

Being resource-efficient isn't necessarily a new thing. Since the 70's and the first oil crisis, France has a (fairly shy) policy of reducing energetic consumption : this policy wasn't motivated by noble ecological concerns, but by the high price and geopolitical uncertainty of oil. That policy worked fairly well : since the 70's, our GDP per capita has more than doubled, while the greenhouse gas per capita has increased only by 2%.

There's plenty of money to be made in environmental technologies in the 21st century. Because many countries will use them as climate change becomes more and more real, and because consuming less resources for the same result saves money on the long run. That's why parts of Europe try to become trailblazers in those tehcnologies. And that's why environmental technologies will be the focus of the South-Korean recovery plan.

I don't see any reason why China and India won't adjust make their industry and agriculture environmental-friendly once the technologies become mature and cheaper. Especially since those countries will have grown richer by then. As a result, I see no reason to think the average Indian or Chinese will waste as many resources as the average 20th century American.

[Traianvs]

Spiffor is on to something.

A study by the Wuppertal institute indicates that the global eco-industrial market is worth 1000 billion Euro right now, and will double by 2020.

Very interesting are the current recovery plans implemented to tackle the crisis:

- The US invests 2% of its GDP of which 12% is green.
- The EU merely invests 1% of its GDP of which only 17% is green.

- China invests more substantially with about 7% of its GDP, of which 38% green. South-Korea dwarfs even that with 80% green investments!

While these are only the recovery plans, it's fair to say Asians at least attempt to try something else.

In the EU, according to the Commission green jobs already account for 3,5 million, and an additional 8 million if you count the various suppliers too. A recent study estimates that an immediate investment of just 1% of the GDP (€120 billion) in renewable energy will provide 2 million new jobs. In the coming years it's feasible to create up to 5 million new jobs this way.

[Lancer]

Caligastia, I believe there is no hope to the human race from causing an ecologic disaster that will lead to a forced reduction in population through lack of food, war and disease. If you accept this as a given then you can start planning for it. First, don't have kids. If you have some don't have any more. On top of this I've got a couple rice fields and an off the grid diving system to go down and catch fish to add protein to the diet. I guess my point is if a solution can't be found globally then it would be a good idea to mitigate the disaster for you and yours, and hope for the best.

[Caligastia]

Caligastia, I believe there is no hope to the human race from causing an ecologic disaster that will lead to a forced reduction in population through lack of food, war and disease. If you accept this as a given then you can start planning for it. First, don't have kids. If you have some don't have any more. On top of this I've got a couple rice fields and an off the grid diving system to go down and catch fish to add protein to the diet. I guess my point is if a solution can't be found globally then it would be a good idea to mitigate the disaster for you and yours, and hope for the best.

Yup, but I don't accept the premise of AGW anyway, so I'm not hoarding canned food just yet.

[Arrian]

but I don't accept the premise of AGW anyway

So posting the article in the OP was bull**** on your part.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

So posting the article in the OP was bull**** on your part.

-Arrian

err...why?

[Lancer]

I agree that stocking food makes no sense because its impossible to determine when the end of the distribution system will come. That said I've heard the dried food the Mormons stock lasts a long time. It ought to, they've been at it for ages. Still there are countless bomb shelters from the '50s and '60s stocked with ancient food to attest that its hard to get the timing right. Better to own some food production, like the rice fields, that regularly supply you with food even before the system breaks down.

[Ben Kenobi]

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...

I think you need to study your history some. My first thought goes to the UK, no the US.

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!

Why should the US have to pay climate reparations? Did the UK pay climate reparations to everyone else when they industrialised first? No.

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.

If CO2 is really the problem, why can't the US go nuclear like Europe has already done? I really don't see the argument as to why CO2 emissions are different just because they are caused by a developed nation, when environmental policy is completely contradictory. You could easily meet your Kyoto targets by switching entirely to Nuclear, but apparantly that's a taboo.

Honestly, I'd rather China turned to pure nuclear and skipped a few steps. It would save incessant whining, and everyone would get to use nuclear, even the great satan.

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...

You mean UAW motors? I notice you left out Ford.

The truth is that only the rich nations can afford to be environmentalists. You have to get rich first, before you can bother with that sort of thing.

I think we should encourage China to pollute as much as possible so that 6 billion people around the world have access to vehicles and everything americans do.

What do you think about that Mobius?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yup, but I don't accept the premise of AGW anyway, so I'm not hoarding canned food just yet.

It's a heck of a business opportunity! Feeding global warming hysteria by selling all the supplies you need to survive the catastrophe!

I can see it now, Crazy Ben's Eco-Friendly survival gear. Save the world, and yourself!

[KrazyHorse]

You're a ****ing freak, Lancer.

[Dinner]

I'm having flash backs to Y2kers stock piling spam in caves claiming the world is coming to an end.

[MOBIUS]

I think you need to study your history some. My first thought goes to the UK, no the US.



Why should the US have to pay climate reparations? Did the UK pay climate reparations to everyone else when they industrialised first? No.



If CO2 is really the problem, why can't the US go nuclear like Europe has already done? I really don't see the argument as to why CO2 emissions are different just because they are caused by a developed nation, when environmental policy is completely contradictory. You could easily meet your Kyoto targets by switching entirely to Nuclear, but apparantly that's a taboo.

Honestly, I'd rather China turned to pure nuclear and skipped a few steps. It would save incessant whining, and everyone would get to use nuclear, even the great satan.



You mean UAW motors? I notice you left out Ford.

The truth is that only the rich nations can afford to be environmentalists. You have to get rich first, before you can bother with that sort of thing.

I think we should encourage China to pollute as much as possible so that 6 billion people around the world have access to vehicles and everything americans do.

What do you think about that Mobius?

I think I have been Benned - thus rendering all of my arguments incontrovertibly true!

Thanks Ben.

[Arrian]

err...why?

The article (it appears) accepts the idea of AGW/climate change, but quibbles with the proposed efforts to deal with it by Western countries.

You don't believe in AGW/climate change. You using this article as support, then, seems dishonest to me. It would be like me arguing with a believer and quoting scripture to back up my arguments. I don't believe, so what the hell am I doing quoting scripture? Bull****ting, that's what.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

The article (it appears) accepts the idea of AGW/climate change, but quibbles with the proposed efforts to deal with it by Western countries.

You don't believe in AGW/climate change. You using this article as support, then, seems dishonest to me. It would be like me arguing with a believer and quoting scripture to back up my arguments. I don't believe, so what the hell am I doing quoting scripture? Bull****ting, that's what.

-Arrian

I don't think the article takes a position on AGW - it just talks about the feasibility of limiting carbon emissions and the economic issues involved. My aim was to discuss that, not AGW (which has been done to death on this forum).

[Dinner]

since the 70's, our GDP per capita has more than doubled, while the greenhouse gas per capita has increased only by 2%.

That's a very impressive figure. What do you think accounts for that tremendous decrease in greenhouse gas production per capita? Is it the decline of industrial production in the west or do you think it is the switch from coal to nuclear power which France has done? Maybe the increase in automotive fuel efficiency? Though France has always been more fuel efficient then countries like the US or Canada.