Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
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?

The people who did it without knowing there is a problem are obviously not to be blamed as long as they react once the knowledge is there. But the people who know there is a problem and keep poluting are obviously just as guilty as the peope who know there is a problem and start poluting anyway. I simply do not see why countries should have extra rights to high emission levels simply because they started using them first.
Nor can I see how you can expect to be taken seriously when you try to convince someone else that they should not be allowed to polute as much as you do.

Quote:

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.

The goal is reductions in carbon emissions.
Now, we can indeed focus on large countries with growing industry. While this would definitely solve the problem it will require the developing countries to accept that they do not have the right to reach the same living standard as we have. Obviously that is never something we can convince them is the case. Which basically means we have to cut down on our emissions (which might indeed include our living standard) in order to convince them they should not go higher either.

And yes, I am not replying to the Kyote part - while the numbers appear to show the Euopeans are not poluting as much as the Americans, it is obvious that more needs to be done on the reductions here as well. I am NOT trying to bash Americans compared to Europeans, I am trying to say that letting developing countries take the blame for starting to do something we have done (and are still doing) for years simply will not work politically, nor does it really make any sense unless you think we have the right to a higher living standard than Chinese people do.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
I am not an economy expert but I thought that a deficit is defined by "sum of imports" > "sum of exports". Thus you don't have to export more than the world combined, just export more than you import or at least make them nearly equal.


Another question in regards of gas prices is that of the gas mileage of your car.

In germany we count by litres per 100 km, the US counts as miles per gallon.

Yes, I did not phrase that correctly.  A trade deficit just means that we are importing more than we are exporting in dollars.  With labor as cheap as it is in other parts of the world relative to labor costs in the U.S., this is the natural result of a world economy.  The U.S has been shifting more and more to a services based economy which means we are are importing more and more "hard" goods.

This is actually a good thing for the rest of the world.  Without us, the market for their goods would be considerably smaller.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
A trade deficit just means that we are importing more than we are exporting in dollars.  With labor as cheap as it is in other parts of the world relative to labor costs in the U.S., this is the natural result of a world economy.  The U.S has been shifting more and more to a services based economy which means we are are importing more and more "hard" goods.

This is actually a good thing for the rest of the world.  Without us, the market for their goods would be considerably smaller.

But how long can that go on if those goods are paid for with borrowed money?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am very curious about a particular point

1976 US Oil Consumption 18 Million Barrels per day
2008 US Oil Consumption 18 Million Barrels per day

Ummm, can ny other country say that. All in all the, for all our inability to be perfect and politically correct, it would appear that we are doing, dare I say it, a pretty darn good job of conservation...consuming the same amount of oil today that we did over 30 years ago...even with our SUVs.

Makes one go hmmmmmmm

Skip

Yes, there was a huge jump in consumption in the mid 70's.  But I don't believe your 18 Million in both 76 and 08 is true.  From everything I read it is 18 and 20 million respectively.  I don't think you should change statistics to try and make whatever point you are aiming for.

You are probably right that not many countries can make that claim.  The reason the US has done such an apparently good job in this regard is that they were so appallingly bad in the mid 70's.  Plus California put a brake on gas consumption that everyone else has to follow because of California's size.  You can also thank the Japanese for introducing the small car to the US.

It doesn't really make one go hmmmmmmmm.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
A trade deficit just means that we are importing more than we are exporting in dollars.  With labor as cheap as it is in other parts of the world relative to labor costs in the U.S., this is the natural result of a world economy.  The U.S has been shifting more and more to a services based economy which means we are are importing more and more "hard" goods.

This is actually a good thing for the rest of the world.  Without us, the market for their goods would be considerably smaller.

But how long can that go on if those goods are paid for with borrowed money?

What makes you think they are paid for with borrowed money?

I think you're confusing commercial imported products (which have to be purchased by companies) with government spending (which the government can and does borrow for).

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
And yes, I am not replying to the Kyote part

This tells me that you are reading my posts out of context.  If you go back to my first post on this, and a couple after that, you will see that I am speaking in terms of the Kyoto Protocol.

It is a treaty that, I am told, will reduce CO2 emissions.  Using China as an example, I simply pointed out that it won't.  Due to the exceptions in the treaty, again using China as an example, it will end up increasing CO2 emissions.  To me, that is a huge joke.

The response to that opinion was, basically, who am I to say China doesn't have the right to produce as much pollution as America?  Everyone who said that completely missed my point.

To be clear, I never said China shouldn't be allowed to pollute.  They are a sovereign nation and can pollute to their hearts content. 

What I did say, however, is any treaty that allows this, while claiming that the goal is a reduction in carbon emissions, is a joke.  If the goal is to reduce global carbon emissions, then China should not be allowed to do as they please.

Bottom line, every post I made on this subject was designed to bolster my opinion as to why the Kyoto Protocol is a joke.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
And yes, I am not replying to the Kyote part

This tells me that you are reading my posts out of context.  If you go back to my first post on this, and a couple after that, you will see that I am speaking in terms of the Kyoto Protocol.

It is a treaty that, I am told, will reduce CO2 emissions.  Using China as an example, I simply pointed out that it won't.  Due to the exceptions in the treaty, again using China as an example, it will end up increasing CO2 emissions.  To me, that is a huge joke.

The response to that opinion was, basically, who am I to say China doesn't have the right to produce as much pollution as America?  Everyone who said that completely missed my point.

To be clear, I never said China shouldn't be allowed to pollute.  They are a sovereign nation and can pollute to their hearts content. 

What I did say, however, is any treaty that allows this, while claiming that the goal is a reduction in carbon emissions, is a joke.  If the goal is to reduce global carbon emissions, then China should not be allowed to do as they please.

Bottom line, every post I made on this subject was designed to bolster my opinion as to why the Kyoto Protocol is a joke.

You may think Global warming is a joke but that doesn't mean other nations do.

Who said that we wanted China to pollute? What we said is that they want the same standard of living as us in the west (ie. why should they be forced to have a lower standard of living just because the Americans got there first?)

I hope gas prices go through the roof in America - so you have to start changing.

Now, now pauls, let's not be so negative. I shall remain quiet what i thin about all of this politically. However, relative to the science or lack thereof regarding Global Warming, I don't believe it is a settled issue by any means. Or IF we are in the midst of a global warmup just exactly what is the impact of man. I wil say that I thin all of hand-wringing and moaning over the topic is being addressed in a completely wrong-headed manner. The earth and mother nature are far larger and stronger than we are, any steps we might take, may not be very successful at moderating the issue let alone reversing it, and may in fact result in consequences which are not imagined. If tomorrow it were discovered that a large asteroid were going to impact the planet in 6 months, you would blame the US for that, because we should have developed the technology to deal with the threat. God knows what would be siad if the Yosemite Supervolcano blew tomorrow...our fault because it is on our territory. The Canary Islands WILL one day launch a massive tsunami which likely wipe out Miami, so I suppose we should expect the Canary Islands to take steps to ameliorate the threat. I have deep suspicions relative to GlobalWarming by virtue of the FACT that every planet in our solar system is undergoing a similar warm up right now, which indicates that the REAL culprit lies elsewhere.

All that said, we are taking the wrong approach and asking the wrong question. The question is NOT how do we stop it or slow it. The real question is what steps do we need to take in order to SURVIVE. You want to live on the coast...wrong answer. If we don't start asking the right questions then one day man will join the dinosaurs as another fossil reecord of life on this planet. For all of our vaunted intelligence...we really aren't all that smart.

Skip