# Can the EPA \_demand\_ the government stop global warming for the polar bears' sake? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2008, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090 "2008-02-10T23:12:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2008, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/21 "2008-02-11T22:12:21Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Can you produce a cite to back that up? [/QUOTE] It is Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol that provides for emission controls. [List of countries.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change#Annex_I_parties) I counted seven Annex I countries on that blog’s list of countries with increasing CO2 emissions. Even then there are some interesting notes to be made. Although Iceland’s emissions may have increased, their total emissions is negligible. As in, about the same as most underdeveloped countries. See the Excel spreadsheet linked to on the blog. And, in fact, the Protocol allowed Iceland to go UP in terms of its emissions relative to 1990, though I can’t say with any precision where Iceland now actually stands WRT its targets. In other words, I’m a little too lazy to look it up right now. > [@Mosier](#): > > Did you even read the link DMC provided? China is still nowhere even close to the USA in terms of carbon emissions. [Link.](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-06-20-124188869_x.htm) “China has overtaken the United States as the world’s top producer of carbon dioxide emissions – the biggest man-made contributor to global warming – based on the latest widely accepted energy consumption data, a Dutch research group says.” Although I follow the policy, I’m not nerd enough to understand the different metrics between **DMC** ’s cite and that provided here. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/22 "2008-02-11T22:31:22Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Did you even read the link DMC provided? China is still nowhere even close to the USA in terms of carbon emissions. [/QUOTE] Looks to me like the link refers to “CO2 emissions from **liquid fuels** ” (my bolding). Now please give me a cite for your claim that “The U.S. produces more carbon emissions than the next 5 highest emission-producing nations combined.” Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/23 "2008-02-11T22:35:23Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] A question for anyone who knows: Do either Clinton or Obama favor bringing the US under the next round of Kyoto Protocols? [/QUOTE] I believe both have said that they favor joining some international agreement that is not Kyoto. More importantly, all of the remaining candidates (though McCain’s plan is the least clear) want to institute a cap-and-trade system which would bring us into compliance with Kyoto whether we ratify or not. ---
**Author:** ![Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Public_Animal_No.9)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/24 "2008-02-12T00:39:37Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Looks to me like the link refers to “CO2 emissions from **liquid fuels** ” (my bolding). Now please give me a cite for your claim that “The U.S. produces more carbon emissions than the next 5 highest emission-producing nations combined.” Thank you. [/QUOTE] [DOE Energy Information Administration](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls) 2005 CO2 emissions, million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) US: 5,956.98 China: 5,322.69 Russia: 1,696.00 Japan: 1,230.36 India: 1,165.72 Europe: 4,674.75 Eurasia: 2,577.82 Middle East: 1,450.81 Central & South America 1,096.16 Africa: 1,042.92 Don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s not annual emissions that are critical. The critical number is cumulative emissions, due to the fact that CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of around 200 years. The US is far and away the largest contributor to cumulative emissions (sorry, I don’t have the cite for that, but will try to find it), and therefore has a major responsibility for taking action. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/25 "2008-02-12T01:09:40Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Assuming for the sake of argument that there is an anticipated link between CO2 emissions and polar bear endangerment (which I dispute), then what matters, in my opinion, is gross CO2 emission not per capital CO2 emission. (I am also assuming that by “carbon” emissions, people are referring to CO2.) [/QUOTE] Feel free to use gross emissions. [We still suck](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html). > [@](#): > > Apparently China is about to surpass the U.S. in CO2 emissions, if it hasn’t done so already. This is a serious problem for anyone who believes that U.S. regulation could accomplish something in this area. About damned time that a country with 4.5 times our population catches up to us. :rolleyes: Not only that, but a lot of their increase is due to carbon leakage. In other words, we shifted our problem to them. Even after doing that, our per capita consumption is in the toilet. As for what this has to do with us, my neighbor doesn’t recycle, and subscribes to more newspapers than I do. I should probably stop recycling. While I’d love for the rest of the world to reduce emissions, whether they do or not doesn’t have any bearing on us taking steps to reduce our emissions. None. We could always stop whining about them and lead by example. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/26 "2008-02-12T01:18:28Z")
[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9] [DOE Energy Information Administration](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls) 2005 CO2 emissions, million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) US: 5,956.98 China: 5,322.69 Russia: 1,696.00 Japan: 1,230.36 India: 1,165.72 [/quote] Hmmm, India + Japan + Russia + China = 9414.77. That’s only 4 countries, but it’s still a lot greater than the figure for the U.S. Not only that, but the figures are from 2005. I understand that China and India have been increasing their CO2 emissions very rapidly of late. So it doesn’t look like your figures support the claim. > [@](#): > > Eurasia: 2,577.82 It seems a little odd that the figure for “Eurasia” is less than the figure for Europe. As well as the figure for China. What exactly is Eurasia anyway? > [@](#): > > Don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s not annual emissions that are critical. The critical number is cumulative emissions, due to the fact that CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of around 200 years. The US is far and away the largest contributor to cumulative emissions (sorry, I don’t have the cite for that, but will try to find it), and therefore has a major responsibility for taking action. I don’t see why that’s the important number. It seems like water under the bridge at this point. The basic argument is that places like China and India are cranking out lots of CO2, at ever increasing rates – so a modest reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions will have a minuscule impact on world CO2 output. And a massive reduction in US CO2 emissions will have only a modest impact on world CO2 output. What happened in the past does not undermine this argument. Quite frankly, it looks to me like people are constantly looking for ways to downplay the massive CO2 emissions of places like China. For example, by looking at per capita emissions. Or looking at emissions due to liquid fuel. Or looking at cumulative emissions. If we are to save the polar bears, what matters is total future CO2 emissions. This is of course assuming that more CO2 = danger to polar bears. Which I dispute. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/27 "2008-02-12T01:22:09Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Although I follow the policy, I’m not nerd enough to understand the different metrics between **DMC** ’s cite and that provided here. [/QUOTE] There’s not complete agreement over whether China has overtaken us yet, but everyone agrees that it is likely to have either just happened, or to happen in the next couple of years, so I have no problem with your cite. Also, my cite is from 2003, as that was the most recent WRI data available. My subsequent link is from our very own EIA, and is close enough to the Netherland’s associations numbers that I don’t have a problem with them. In summary, China either is or soon will be responsible for the highest gross emissions in the world, but they have a few arguments in their favor. Their per capita consumption is actually still below the world average, and a significant part of their emissions are [carbon leakage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_leakage) (not what it sounds like, so I linked to more info) based. In other words, comparing our gross emissions to a country like China to make us look slightly less piss-poor (relatively) is no different from comparing our gross emissions to a country with 1/5th of our population to make us look horrid. For the record, I’m not a defender of China’s energy policies, even as I point out that they’re not nearly as bad as us in per capita emissions. They certainly have alternatives other than firing up a new coal plant every week, but they are, at least on paper, making some attempts at going a bit greener in the future. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/28 "2008-02-12T01:33:03Z")
[QUOTE=DMC] Feel free to use gross emissions. [We still suck](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html). [/quote] Maybe we “suck,” and maybe we don’t – but it doesn’t really affect my argument. > [@](#): > > About damned time that a country with 4.5 times our population catches up to us. :rolleyes: Not only that, but a lot of their increase is due to carbon leakage. In other words, we shifted our problem to them. Even after doing that, our per capita consumption is in the toilet. So what? > [@](#): > > As for what this has to do with us, my neighbor doesn’t recycle, and subscribes to more newspapers than I do. I should probably stop recycling. Maybe you should. It depends on what you hope to accomplish by recycling. > [@](#): > > While I’d love for the rest of the world to reduce emissions, whether they do or not doesn’t have any bearing on us taking steps to reduce our emissions. None. Again, it depends on what we hope to accomplish. There’s nothing inherently immoral about emitting CO2. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/29 "2008-02-12T01:39:18Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] So it doesn’t look like your figures support the claim. [/QUOTE] I’ve read his post several times and I don’t see a single claim which is disputed by your calculation. Oh, and **Public Animal No. 9** , [this](http://timeforchange.org/cumulative-co2-emissions-by-country) is down the alley of what you were looking for. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/30 "2008-02-12T01:40:28Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Maybe we “suck,” and maybe we don’t – but it doesn’t really affect my argument. [/QUOTE] You’ve made one? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/31 "2008-02-12T01:56:54Z")
[QUOTE=DMC] I’ve read his post several times and I don’t see a single claim which is disputed by your calculation. [/quote] I don’t know who you are referring to when you say “his post.” However, **Mosier** clearly claimed that "The U.S. produces more carbon emissions than the next 5 highest emission-producing nations combined. " I asked for a cite twice, and **Public Animal No. 9** responded by producing information that did not support the claim. Simple. If you read the posts, that is. > [@](#): > > You’ve made one? Yes. Again, it helps if you read the posts. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/32 "2008-02-12T03:24:48Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t know who you are referring to when you say “his post.” [/QUOTE] I was referring to the post you quoted. The only one you quoted. If you are disputing someone other than the only person you quoted, you might want to make that pretty clear. **Public Animal No. 9** , the person you quoted, has made no claim that you have disputed. > [@](#): > > However, **Mosier** clearly claimed that "The U.S. produces more carbon emissions than the next 5 highest emission-producing nations combined. " Sure, and I agreed that **Mosier** was wrong a long time before \*\*Public Animal No. 9’s \*\* post. > [@](#): > > I asked for a cite twice, and **Public Animal No. 9** responded by producing information that did not support the claim. You asked for a cite twice for a statement that was acknowledged to be false almost immediately after you asked for it the first time. **Public Animal No. 9** ’s post appeared to be an answer to your request for a gross emissions numbers (since that is also quoted in that post, and since I’m assuming they can do the basic math to add up the second and third highest numbers). Oddly enough, **Public Animal No. 9** ’s uncited assertion (which I’ve since cited) actually comes pretty close to backing up Mosier’s statement. In fact, if we altered the original statement from… [QUOTE=Mosier] The U.S. produces more carbon emissions than the next 5 highest emission-producing nations combined. [/QUOTE] to… [QUOTE=Not Mosier] The U.S. has produced more carbon emissions than the next 4 highest emission-producing nations combined [/QUOTE] they would have been correct. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/33 "2008-02-12T03:50:13Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t see why that’s the important number. It seems like water under the bridge at this point. The basic argument is that places like China and India are cranking out lots of CO2, at ever increasing rates – so a modest reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions will have a minuscule impact on world CO2 output. And a massive reduction in US CO2 emissions will have only a modest impact on world CO2 output. What happened in the past does not undermine this argument. Quite frankly, it looks to me like people are constantly looking for ways to downplay the massive CO2 emissions of places like China. For example, by looking at per capita emissions. Or looking at emissions due to liquid fuel. Or looking at cumulative emissions. If we are to save the polar bears, what matters is total future CO2 emissions. This is of course assuming that more CO2 = danger to polar bears. Which I dispute. [/QUOTE] You are correct that it is only the total emissions that matter as far as the effects that we can change are concerned. However, the past emissions and emissions per capita matter for the inevitable discussions that come up regarding fairness and practicality. Basically, the way that the worst problems are going to be avoided is by developing new technologies that reduce (and/or sequester) emissions in the First World while allowing developing nations to develop in ways that don’t cause the same problems (multiplied by many more people!!) as we have produced. And, from a practical and ethical point of view, that is going to happen by having the countries with the greatest resources and who are responsible for the largest part of the problem to date taking the first steps. The technologies that we develop are going to be what make the difference. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/34 "2008-02-12T03:51:10Z")
It’s not about polar bears. As we continue poisoning the planet and killing off species,eventually we get to us. These animals live far away and seemingly free from our problems. They are us someday. Step by step, inch by inch. Save them maybe we can save ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/35 "2008-02-12T04:55:31Z")
[QUOTE=DMC] I was referring to the post you quoted. The only one you quoted. [/QUOTE] Whom exactly do you think I was quoting in post number 8? And which posts was I quoting? Same question for my TWO quotes in post number 22. Or do those somehow not count in your mind? > [@](#): > > **Public Animal No. 9** , the person you quoted, has made no claim that you have disputed. I have quoted more than 1 person in this thread. Which you would know if you actually read my posts. > [@](#): > > You asked for a cite twice for a statement that was acknowledged to be false almost immediately after you asked for it the first time. Not by the person who actually made the statement. Or should I assume that you and **Mosier** are on the same team, and that each of you takes credit and responsibility for the other’s posts? > [@](#): > > **Public Animal No. 9** ’s post appeared to be an answer to your request for a gross emissions numbers (since that is also quoted in that post, and since I’m assuming they can do the basic math to add up the second and third highest numbers). How about you let **Public Animal** speak for him or herself? Anyway, he or she quoted my request for a cite, and then provided a cite. Significantly, the cite did NOT support the statement I had requested a cite for. Again, I suggest you take the time to actually read the thread. > [@](#): > > In fact, if we altered the original statement from… to…they would have been correct. So what? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/36 "2008-02-12T05:16:00Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] How about you let **Public Animal** speak for him or herself? Anyway, he or she quoted my request for a cite, and then provided a cite. Significantly, the cite did NOT support the statement I had requested a cite for. Again, I suggest you take the time to actually read the thread. [/QUOTE] You’re the one who claims that \*\*Public Animal No. 9 \*\* is attempting to validate **Mosier** ’s inaccurate claim (which makes no sense if you look at the data provided, but that’s never stopped you before). Perhaps **you** should let them speak for themselves. **Mosier** , as best as I tell from a variety of sources, just change “produces” to “has produced” in your original statement and you’ll be spot on. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/37 "2008-02-12T05:24:30Z")
[QUOTE=DMC] You’re the one who claims that \*\*Public Animal No. 9 \*\* is attempting to validate **Mosier** ’s inaccurate claim [/quote] That’s not exactly correct, but anyway, what concern is it of yours? Oh that’s right, you’re all on the same team. Except when you aren’t. Or something like that. By the way, do you now admit that I quoted more than 1 poster in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2008, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/38 "2008-02-12T05:34:38Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] You are correct that it is only the total emissions that matter as far as the effects that we can change are concerned. However, the past emissions and emissions per capita matter for the inevitable discussions that come up regarding fairness and practicality. [/quote] I don’t know about fairness, but as far as practicality is concerned, it seems very unlikely that China would agree to cut its CO2 emissions. So yeah, for practical reasons, it makes sense to exempt places like China. But where does that get you? It gets you to a treaty that will accomplish very little. (Even assuming that CO2 is not just another moral panic as was likely the case with witchcraft, assault weapons, Jews, satanic ritual abuse, secondhand smoke, communism, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/39 "2008-02-13T00:26:34Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t know about fairness, but as far as practicality is concerned, it seems very unlikely that China would agree to cut its CO2 emissions. So yeah, for practical reasons, it makes sense to exempt places like China. But where does that get you? It gets you to a treaty that will accomplish very little. [/QUOTE] (1) It will accomplish slowing or even stopping the growth of emissions in countries that account for a large fraction of the total emissions. (2) More importantly, it will set a price on CO2 emissions so that the necessary incentives exist to develop the necessary technologies that can eventually be used by all countries, including China (when their time to make emissions cuts comes), to cut their emissions. [Note that China is not saying, “We will never take any steps to restrain or cut our emissions.” Rather, they are saying, “You guys who are responsible for most of the problem up to this point have to go first.”] ---
**Author:** ![Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Public_Animal_No.9)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090/40 "2008-02-13T00:55:27Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] … Again, it depends on what we hope to accomplish. There’s nothing inherently immoral about emitting CO2. [/QUOTE] I agree there’s nothing inherently immoral about emitting CO2. However, I do believe that we need to take responsibility for our actions. I agree with the science that says that CO2 emissions are responsible for changing the climate of the planet, so I conclude that we as a nation need to take responsibility for those emissions. True, there’s nothing that can be done about what has already been emitted, but in my view, that’s sort of like the line in Monty Python and the Holy Grail - “Come now, let’s not quibble about who killed who.” Cumulative emissions are crucial because that is what is driving the changing climate. If you choose not to believe the science, then that’s a position that you won’t agree with, and I’m not going to try and change your mind. [QUOTE=brazil84] …(Even assuming that CO2 is not just another moral panic as was likely the case with witchcraft, assault weapons, Jews, satanic ritual abuse, secondhand smoke, communism, etc.) [/QUOTE] I’m fascinated by your grouping of issues. I’m assuming (hoping) you are referring to “Jews” in the context of world domination conspiracies. The second hand smoke and CO2 “panics” are definitely the outliers in your list, as both of them have scientific data to back up their claims. Again, you may disagree with the science, but there are at least [studies with data in peer-review journals](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+hand+smoke&hl=en&lr=) to support the position that these things are not good. With respect to the figures I posted above, I was not making any statement about the earlier claim about US emissions compared to the next lower 1, 2, 4, (3!) countries. I figure everyone here can do arithmetic and could see the results for themselves. I take no offense from the implication that I was supporting any other claim - I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn’t making any value judgements - but folks can take it as they please. **DMC** - thanks for the cite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-epa-_demand_-the-government-stop-global-warming-for-the-polar-bears-sake/437090.md?page=3)