Four percent of the world's population; over 30 percent of its greenhouse emissions. Plus a long but extremely lucid piece from Frontline, India's National Magazine, on the topic of global warming in general and what the 1st world owes the 3rd world in particular.
11 comments:
BCL,
If you would just start to factor in what the 30% buys for the rest of the world (AIDS funding for Africa, tsunami relief, relative safe passage on the world's oceans for China's, India's, Malaysia's et al trade goods (which the US buys - and gives the Asians an economy)...) then 30% is a bargain I would say.
Oh, and by the way..
As soon as you and Blahger Robert advocate the banning of clothes dryers as well as incandescent bulbs, I'll consider what you have to say.
Hang'em and dry'em.
And the 300 pound tuna fish Al Gore accounts for half of that 30 percent.
"Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)." - Drudge
One set of rules for the Liberals, another set for the rest of us.
What's even worse, those greedy bastards in the West consume 70% of the world's health care and that is just not fair.
The West needs to close thousands of hospitals so we are equal.
Socialism & Liberalism . . . keeping mine, taking yours
The biggest scam EVER! They should prosecute the 'believers' after it's been exposed for the criminal fraud it is.
Socialist, money-sucking scheme. Period.
"If you wish to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul."
Big deal. It's entirely meaningless. Unless you're one of these brain-dead envirofascists who want everybody to conform to THEIR worldview in order to finally bring the world economies under the control of appointed socialist bureaucrats who can dispense 'social justice' and economic fairness to everyone, except the intelligent, hard-working, competent and technologically advanced societies of the West. CO2 is plant food. But in your twisted world it's just one of the poisons by which corporate fat-cats can reap profits and submerge all the world's coastlines with one fell swoop!
Why don't you all put up or shut up! SCRAP your own cars so that nobody can use them to kill the earth, and walk, bike, canoe everywhere. Take yourself off the power grid and buy windmills and solar panels for your electrical needs. Forsake foodstuffs grown outside of biking distance. Plant your own garden, can your own food, and hunt for your meat (so as not to contribute those cow farts to earth's final days). How will you heat your newly downsized and hyperinsulated house - by burning sustainable energy like wood while contributing CO2, or with passive solar? Get rid of the air conditioner, too, Gaia not happy with you. If eadership is so important, why not show us the way? Tell us how it is on the other side.
Now which of you 'regular' believers here has a science background? Anyone? How about Economics? Come on, tell us how you're qualified to make an informed decision on this whole scam.
I gotta build my own scam.
"Magnetic Polar Wander Tied to North American Steel Usage" - send money now to save the world before compasses stop working and global anarchy ensues.
"India Crashing into Asia - undeniable relationship to the number of Gummi Bears produced" send money to save Asia before India crushes China, killing billions.
Hi BCL,
I have to say that the "title" of your post doesn't do the actual content any justice, in fact, it may be a bit misleading.
It's misleading in that it does not explain what America should be blamed for. (a) Is it for emissions output regardless of the nature of the economy (industrialized, etc.)? (b) Or is it for mitigating the damage by way of regulation?
(a) Sure the West is responsible for more emissions than the so-called 3rd world. And as the largest industrialized economy in the world, the US will definitely be the leader.
(b) However, recognizing (a) does not account for the fact that the US has some of the highest emission standards in the world. In fact, this point was used to justify not signing the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, there was arguably little valued added for the USA.
"Blam[ing] America" alone for these points doesn't seem fair. But that doesn't mean there isn't an added burden. Humans are currently living beyond the means of the planet, and it will eventually catch up. Consequently, there are pragmatic and ethical reasons for doing more, much more !
I'm sympathetic to the view that despite its high standards, the US really needs to do more. And we mustn't forget the rest of the West carries a heavy burden too, the SAME BURDEN. This includes Canada, which has attempted to use its forests in exchange for actual emissions.
Tar heel,
Value added for the U.S. would mean taking the lead in clean fuel technologies and selling into huge third world markets, perhaps at something of a discount in compliance with Kyoto. Beijing will be running all of its buses on fuel cells within the next couple of years. Of all the companies looking to sell the technology to them, none are American. They've abandoned the field.
Of course the title is unfair, but it has a catchy ring to it.
Hi BCL,
I didn't mean to give you the wrong impression. I believe that the US had/has many interests in Kyoto, and thus a value added. In my previous comment, I simply brought up an argument made against Kyoto - ie, the high emissions standards - in an effort to make my point about regulation.
Additionally, I think that the American free-market right hasn't even held up to their own beliefs. With their knee-jerk reactions towards anything green, they've neglected entire markets, even when they had a clear advantage. Case in point, GM arguably had the corner of the market for electric cars in the way of battery technology. Japanese automakers scrambled to come up with the hybrid in hopes to compete. But instead of continuing to exploit GM's advantage, the company pulled the plug in favour of pouring more into the SUV. Not only was this extremely short sighted, but it also neglected the possibility of exploiting both the SUV's brief boom and the now occurring demand for "green" automobiles. This is a great example of how defining one's position in the negative may actually undermine one's objectives - in this case, making $$$.
Could going green be good for both the corporate world and us bleeding heart liberals? Ah, what am I saying? I may be dismissed as overly optimistic.
When you have Paul Hellyer on your side you know you're in trouble.
"Paul Hellyer has a unique solution to global warming and the gas shortage -- ask aliens what makes their saucers fly." - TorSun
Fer you youngins' The Hon. Paul Hellyer was defence minister under Pearson. Liberal leadership contender. Trudeau's transport minister. The Belinda Stronach of his day. Grit. Tory. Grit. He even toyed with the NDP.
So, all you good little neo-ecos, who has done what to reduce their energy usage? Remember, you need to drop 4 tonnes/person. Please include cost and carbon reductions in your figures.
Post a Comment