Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:

Sorry, forgot the cultural difference - sarcasm tends to be picked up as either an insult or humor.

So let me try in a non sarcastic way:
Why do someone from China not have the right to reach the same level of resource consumption as you?

You misunderstand my point.  I never said they didn't have the right to reach the same level of resource consumption as me.  It is their country and they can do whatever they want.  However, if the goal is a global reduction of carbon emission, simply saying, 'their per capita levels are lower so they can produce even more', doesn't accomplish that goal.

The Kyoto Protocol is supposed to reduce global carbon emissions.  It is a great idea, in theory.  In practice it does little, if any, good.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:

Sorry, forgot the cultural difference - sarcasm tends to be picked up as either an insult or humor.

So let me try in a non sarcastic way:
Why do someone from China not have the right to reach the same level of resource consumption as you?

You misunderstand my point.  I never said they didn't have the right to reach the same level of resource consumption as me.  It is their country and they can do whatever they want.  However, if the goal is a global reduction of carbon emission, simply saying, 'their per capita levels are lower so they can produce even more', doesn't accomplish that goal.

The Kyoto Protocol is supposed to reduce global carbon emissions.  It is a great idea, in theory.  In practice it does little, if any, good.

Correct, I do not understand you point at all. It might be related to you bringing up the Kyoto protocols? I am not arguing for the Kyoto protocols - I have no strong oppinion on them (meaning I think they do not go far enough, but I do not beleive it was political possible to do it significently better).

So in short, my argument against your statement are NOT over the Kyoto protocol, it is over this (in my eyes) wierd argument that per-capita footprint isn't importent.

For example I simply do not understand what you wrote here (emphasis mine):

Quote:

If the current forcast holds true, there will be an increase of 1200 million metric tons by the year 2030.  What kind of environment will we have then?  When the damage is beyond repair, I guess we can take solace in the fact that they didn't deprive their citizens of the luxuries we enjoy now.

I do not understand it, sorry. If they just do the same as we are doing, how can it be more their fault than ours?

But maybe you are referring to the West (US in particular on this case) reducing our carbon emissions, with the Chinese increasing to and beyond the level we used to be at? In that case we are completely in agreement that the Chinese would be to blame - which is why we should lower our emissions before they catch up, taking away their (correct) argument that we are poluting more than they are.

If we do not lower our per-capita emissions you are never ever going to convince the Chinese to slow down their emissions either - and I can't say I blame them. If I was driving around on a mobed and someone in a big 4x4 told me I couldn't buy a mid size car because "we" have to cut down on polution I would ignore him as well. Now if the same guy sold his 4x4 and bought a small car to cut back on polution, it would be a lot easier for him to convince me that I should only buy a small car as well.

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
So in short, my argument against your statement are NOT over the Kyoto protocol, it is over this (in my eyes) wierd argument that per-capita footprint isn't importent.

I didn't say it wasn't important.  I said it is being used as an excuse.  Again, if the goal is a total reduction of global carbon emissions, why is China being allowed to make the same mistakes that developed nations made?  Wouldn't it be better, for everyone, if they learned from those mistakes rather than repeating them?

Quote:
For example I simply do not understand what you wrote here (emphasis mine):

Quote:

If the current forcast holds true, there will be an increase of 1200 million metric tons by the year 2030.  What kind of environment will we have then?  When the damage is beyond repair, I guess we can take solace in the fact that they didn't deprive their citizens of the luxuries we enjoy now.

I do not understand it, sorry. If they just do the same as we are doing, how can it be more their fault than ours?

Look at it this way, when we did it, we didn't know there would be consequences.  We now know there were.  In addition, we know that continuing down this path will only make things worse.  So, who is more at fault?  The people who did it, not knowing there would be a problem, or the people who know there will be a problem and plan on doing it anyway?

What is the goal here?  Reduction of carbon emissions or making sure everybody shares the blame equally?  At the moment, it seems like it is the latter.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I wonder if anyone has the statistics on the percentage of the global goods and services that are produced in the U.S. relative to other countries?

Maybe the US trade deficit is an indicator?

If the US produces more than others (likely true), then they consume even more...

Please explain how the U.S. trade deficit is an indicator of their production of of goods and services relative to other countries.

Are you saying that we (a single nation BTW) should produce and export more goods and services than ALL of the rest of the countries of the world combined???  That's the only way to eliminate a trade deficit without locking out imports.

At least try to answer the question that I asked!

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Unicus, you're not going to win this argument.  It is like trying to tell a radical Islamist that western culture is not the evil that they have been brainwashed to believe.

I think thats a horrible comparison. I believe that your average joey in US and Europe have very similar goals, the only diffrence is is how to reach that goal. For example, in this thread Unicus has not once questioned the goal that we try to reach with Kyoto protocol. Only the way to get to that goal. Where as a radical islamist is trying to reach a compleatly diffrent goal.

The Islamic fundamentalist and many "environmentalists" (especially those who delight in blaming America for all of the world's problems) are just as rabid in their beliefs, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

That is the gist of the comparison.

I think its interesting that none of our European friends have responded to my point about the 1990 start date for Kyoto. Some people have attempted to mount a defense of the exception of China from the treaty but haven't addressed the shenanigans of the EU's insistence on the 1990 start date.

The bottom line about that issue is politics -- it helps them look good in their "reductions" when they haven't really accomplished anything significant in regards to carbon emissions.

The notion that China can be convinced to change their approach based on some kind of good faith effort from the West is a crock of &*^ -- China is totalitarian dictatorship that is not accountable to their own people let alone any treaty they may sign. The notion that they can be convinced by our sincerety on the "per capita" pollution issue is kind of absurd in my view. They will do what they want --the only reason they agreed to Kyoto was that the west was agreeing to make China's growth easier(less competition for energy resources) and they (the Chinese) would have to do exactly nothing. A win-win for them.

The bottom line is that the effort to reduce carbon emissions is doomed to failure -- I don't want 3rd world nations to forego development in the short term that can provide a substantially better standard of living and thereby save millions of lives because of some misplaced environmental nonsense from the west.

I don't think the carbon emissions issue represents a threat significant enough to cost thousands of people their jobs and slow economic growth around the world. Sooner or later technology will be developed to replace gasoline powered cars (the price of oil skyrocketing can only speed this progress). When the power of entrepeneurship is unleashed good things will happen. Our prosperity in the west is a result of that. Let the market do its work.

Brian

Quoting Srehtims:

Quote:
Evian water 9 oz $1.49..$21.19 per gallon! $21.19 for WATER and the buyers don't even know the source
(Evian spelled backwards is Naive.)

The funny part is, here tap water is much cleaner then bottled water, yet some still buy bottled

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I wonder if anyone has the statistics on the percentage of the global goods and services that are produced in the U.S. relative to other countries?

I know that my country exports very little from US, and in my home i probably have the most goods (finland excluded) from Germany and Taiwan.

I knew Germany makes hellofalot of the stuff sold in Europe, but was a bit supprised that Germany is the world's top exporter, next comes China and then US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

For imports its US first, China second and then Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_imports

Though those dont tell much as its not per capita.