So the French want us to reduce our use of fossil fuesls-srew them! They claim the average American creates 4X the amount of Co2, that the average Frenchman does. Does this fool look at GNP-the USA makes 5 times the GNP per capita as France-should we all siut on out asses and swill wine-like they do?
I demand the right to drive my 5 MPG SUV whenevr and wherever I want!
Screw them!
Er, have you got a cite to go with this rather vague rant?
Are you sure that it is only the French government that claims the USA generates four times the CO2 emissions per capita that France does? Are you sure that this claim is wrong?
Is it only Jacque Chirac who has expressed the view that you take exception to?
Do you believe that the French breathe different air?
Are you sure that per capita GNP in the USA is five times that in France? According to the on-line CIA World Factbook:
US GDP for 1999 = $33,900
France GDP for 1999 = $23,300
Granted, a slightly different stat, but GNP figures should be roughly proportional to these.
Do you actually own an SUV that gets only five miles to the gallon? That seems a bit low, even for a behemoth such as a Lincoln Navigator. If so, do you really feel that’s the best way to get around?
Assuming that the sentence “should we all siut (sic) on out (sic) asses and swill wine-like they do?” means that you believe the French as a whole are lazy and shiftless, how much time have you spent in France to arrive at that viewpoint? I lived there for more than ten years, and I’m afraid I have no idea what you are talking about.
OK it is the pit, but…
Let me put my arguments to Monseiur Chirac a bit less, er, rantingly (OMG, I’m turning into George W Bush!)
M. Chirac–your country is well-known as the last Western democracy to test nuclear weapons above ground. When Greenpeace activists planned a peaceful protest of the Muratoa test, French secret agents sank their boat. France insists that its building activities in the Alps do not damage the ecosystem–a claim which even the rest of the EU dismisses out of hand. The French government has fought tooth and nail to make other countries abide by EU environmental codes, yet shrugs its shoulders when other countries accuse it of environmental wrongdoing.
WHAT gave you the right to lecture other countries on the envrionment???
No one seems to mind when we fire up our planes and tanks to come to thier aid. Guess that it good use of fuel.
looks like we are getting more from the energy we use…
stats are a bit dated
Rocket’s GDP Numbers are correct.
On fossil fuel emmissions, electricity production in the U.S. is 70% fossil fuel, 18% nuclear. In France 76% of electricity production is nuclear and only 10% fossil fuel. This must account for alot of the difference in CO2 emmisions. (Though we do use almost twice as much electricity per capita as the French.)
Sorry to introduce facts into the pit.
Oh yes–thanks for reminding me, barker.
M. Chirac: What do you do with your country’s nuclear waste? As I recall, it goes…into the middle of the South Pacific!!!
OK, found the story. Chirac said: “Each American emits three times more greenhouse gases than a Frenchman.” Er, not four times, as stated in the OP, then. He said other things as well, most notably that countries should not try to elude their share of the collective effort to cut greenhouse emissions.
Under the Kyoto accord, Europe must cut greenhouse emissions by 8%, and the USA 7%, by 2012. Chirac’s remarks apparently were in response to a US proposal that it be allowed to cut emissions only by half the above amount, being given credit for use of its existing farms and woodlands, as CO2 “sinks”. In addition, the US apparently would like to purchase credit for additional “sinks” from less-developed countries. This certainly could give one the perception that the US is working hard to appear to abide by the accord, while working equally hard to get out of its agreed-upon share of the reductions.
Seems a bit of a stretch, however, for someone interpret objections to this (and France is not alone) as taking away the keys to their SUV.
BTW, tramtwo, just curious: when since 1945 have we fired up our tanks and planes to come to the aid of France specifically (not counting NATO operations)?
Thanks to the OP, silly as it is, for bringing my attention to this subject.
Oh, please. No one is denying the US role in the liberation of Europe here. Drop it. You’re ridiculing yourself, and those who ARE entitled to an opinion on this matter. Note that that does NOT include you.
Alright, to business.
Jaqcues Chirac is basically criticizing the US for weaseling out of a previously signed agreement. Right? He is entitled to do so. Sure, the way he voiced his opinion isn’t exaclty constructive criticism. But the man is French. What did you expect? The French LIKE taking stabs at other countries, for some reason, in my humble opinion anyway. The French government has been bashing Dutch drug policy for as long as I can remember. But so long as we have a mere 20% of the drug deaths and drug related crimes THEY have, I can only laugh at their accusations.
In this case, however, the French seem to have the facts on their side. It is just downright TRUE that the average American produces more CO2 than, say, the average European. I fully agree that these numbers should be weighed out against GDP per capita. That’s only fair: after all, we use energy to be productive.
But consider this scenario. The Netherlands is a pretty environmentally aware country. We’re taxing fuel like there’s no tomorrow. Cars are obscenely expensive. Industries are taxed GREATLY on environmental polution. We do all we can to keep our CO2 exhausts to a minimum.
And all this does not matter one bit, as we are only a country of 16 Million people.
See what I mean? Chirac is just pissed because America’s attitude is selfish, in this case. They are the #1 contributor to polution, and they STILL want a raincheck on living up to the previously agreed measures. Can you see how that is frustrating to other countries?
I think Chirac is a Grade A Asshole, and not only for chosing his words so poorly in this case. I also fully disagree with a lot of things the French government says or does, especially regarding nuclear tests on Mururoa.
But in this case, the man does have a point. Like it or not.
You wouldn’t know it to walk around Paris.
I hate to get into this because it degenerates into either “we’re better than” you or some ridiculously superficial exchange of statistics.
I don’t think Chirac was speaking just for France and, although his manner might have been quintessentially French, his general thrust certainly echos my own view. In fact, I get a little irked at the very high price I and other Europeans are paying (in fuel tax and other indirect environmental taxes) in at least trying to meet the environmental commitments made by the international community at Kyoto when, at the same time, many on this board clearly don’t give a damn (or at best are uninformed) for the future. All that seems to matter is that ‘gas’ is cheap.
Flame me all you want. IMHO, Clinton has done the USA no credit by not informing the American public of the extent it is continuing to damage the environment and also in continuing to ignore the international commitments the USA signed up to. If you didn’t know, the rest of the industrialised world – and I do mean every other country - is extremely exasperated with the US Government on this issue. This really isn’t a time to stick your head in the sand.
Chirac said the average US citizen is responsible for generating 3 times (read: 300%) more greenhouse gasses than the average French person and the USA generates 25% of the entire world’s greenhouse gasses. These headline figures are longstanding – no one of any note disputes them to my knowledge.
Personally, I don’t think US politicians dare mention even recycling – let alone the environment - for fear of electoral repercussions….yeah I know, you don’t give a shit.
While it is certainly true that the air in Paris can be pretty foul during one of those late November temp inversions, automobile emissions are only one component, and not necessarily the most important, of greenhouse emissions. Electric power generation and industrial processes are greater factors, IIRC.
Found some interesting, “ridiculously superficial” stats at the following URL:
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/international/inventories.html
These confirm Coldfire’s and London_Calling’s comments. The EPA’s own site shows that that US greenhouse emissions are 2.5 times greater per capita than in France, while tons of CO2 produced per dollar of GDP in the US is twice that of France.
egkelly, any comments?
Thanks for the replies-sorry, I dashed this rant off in a few minutes, and did not bother to use spellcheck! Actually, I agree with M. Chirac-except that he regards this simplistic view of the role of greenhouse gases as some kind of Gospel. What would he propose the Swedes or Norwegians to do-they MUST use more fossil fuels than the average Frenchman – it is cold up there! My view on carbon dioxide-tie reductions targets to GNP (i.e. countries with higher GNP/capita get lower targets for reduction). If this isn’t done, then industry will simply move all of their energy-intensive manufacturing to the third world. Remember CFCs? The USA and Europe stopped making them-but China and India just stepped up their production-no net benefit!
And, for the Dutch and English posters-I don’t really drive a 5 MPG SUV-I have a small 4 –cylinder car (35 MPG). Would you advocate closing down land rover (because they make low MPG vehicles)?
No, I wouldn’t advocate closing down Land Rover. BTW, as it is owned by Ford these days, it would affect the US economy if LR were to shut down 
Land Rover doesn’t sell a lot of cars. While they are certainly gas hogs, they are not as predominantly present here in Europe. Unlike SUV’s in the US.
When US fuel prices would be the same as European ones, all those SUV’s would stop selling immediately. And CO2 emissions would drop considerably.
Not a tough concept, really.
And now that you have apparently disavowed the entire content of your OP, thank you, sir for wasting our time.
Sheesh.
Wouldn’t generating 4x the emissions be 300% more? Isn’t this 200% more? Sorry to be pedantic.
I think it’s spurious to claim that western europe is taxing the hell out of its people in order to save the environment. If a similarly environmentallly friendly, but non-financial, pain could be inflicted on the people, I’m sure it would be much less widely used. The money rolls in from taxes under the illusion that it’s all for the environment.
As for the USA, they will continue to do what is good for the USA, regardless of any European foot-stamping. Frustrating? Sure…Selfish? Certainly… Likely to change? No.
From the CIA World Factbook (all figures for 1998):
Norway
Electricity - production: 115.485 billion kWh
Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 0.58%
hydro: 99.16%
nuclear: 0%
other: 0.26%
Sweden
Electricity - production: 156.772 billion kWh
Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 6.09%
hydro: 46.49%
nuclear: 45.16%
other: 2.26%
France
Electricity - production: 480.972 billion kWh
Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 10.77%
hydro: 12.45%
nuclear: 76.24%
other: 0.54%
So, if you process the numbers, Norway produces 670 billion kWh of energy using fossil fuels, Sweden produces 9547 billion kWh but France produces 51.801 billion kWh of energy using fossil fuels: over 77 times (NO) and 5.4 times (SE) as much fossil fuel usage for France.
The difference originates because Norway and Sweden have a lot of hydroelectricity production (I didn’t think it was this high for NO though) AND Norway only has 4.5 million inhabitants, Sweden has 8.8 million, and France has 59 million.
If you look at the energy production per capita, it’s a different story entirely: 8.15 million kWh for France, 25.7 million kWh for Norway and 17.8 million kWh for Sweden. Yes, it is colder up there. But less people to keep warm.
And if you look at the amount of energy produced using fossil fuels per capita it works out as:
Norway: 0.15 billion kWh
Sweden: 1.08 billion kWh
France: 0.88 billion kWh
So, the average Norwegian only produces one sixth of the greenhouse gasses, compared to the average French(wo)man. And no nuclear waste at all.
The Swedes, there’s another story entirely…
Please, don’t tell Jacques. I kind of like Sweden.
Million, not billion. Make that million (all three occurences) in the last post.
Android
A pedantic android – who’d have thought things would have come to this. Yep, you’re right. My only defence is that it was 4.00am here and I have no idea why I was still awake.
Onwards………
I don’t think the direct (fuel) taxation we pay is intended to “save” the environment per se. What I do think is that making environmentally unfriendly transport options more expensive encourages a number of healthier developments.
We do need to address the car culture in very many respects and simple one result of expensive fuel, just as an example, is the impetus it has given to battery technology. Just as the advent of cell phones tech has seen huge advances in small battery research and development in recent years, so the free market has reacted to higher fuel prices by investing very large sums in developing alternatives to oil.
The higher the price of conventional resources, the greater the motivation to provide alternatives.
There are a lot of other justifications for higher fuel prices butI offer that to try to correct a misunderstanding.
LondonCalling said:
See, there is where you are wrong. We do care. Most cities now have city-wide recycling programs or, at the least, recycling centers. Even the dinky backwoods hick town I lived in in Tennessee for awhile had a recycling center - and people used it!
The problem with us here in the US is that we’ve gotten used to having a lot for cheap. It’s like when you get a substantial raise in pay and your standard of living goes up. You get used to living that way and its hard to change. I know we use more energy resources. I don’t deny that. Change in the US will have to come from grassroots efforts and if higher prices are something that we have to have in order to help us trim down our “standard of living”, then I’m all for it. And yes, I own a house, a car and understand what those prices would cost me.