The USA might be polluting more than any other nation(in absolute and relative numbers), but that doesn’t really prove anything.
The US is the most advanced nation in the world at this point in history. Most of the stuff we Europeans use, comes from US factories. So, I believe it is hypocritical to accuse them for polluting the planet, since the rest of the world is indirectly responsible too.
Evolution takes place over thousands and millions of years. We’re talking about decades and hundreds of years here. And yes, it’s primarily about mankind’s survival, not ‘saving the earth’. Isn’t mass drought across vast swathes of Asia, creating a famine on an unprecedented scale, not a scary prospect? Large parts of Europe, including several capitals, being flooded? Hell, the house I’m sitting in right now won’t survive a one-metre average sea level rise. And I’m 10 miles inland.
As I stated earlier, only the USA can lead by example. And I’d certainly like a cite for ‘most’ of what we use in Europe coming from the US.
Agreed, but it might be enormously helpful if the developed world could agree to, say, some kind of protocol to reduce their CO2 emissions, say, 6–8% from 1990 levels.
Oh, wait.
I don’t think it is FEASIBLE to reduce emissions 6-8% from 2000 levels, let alone 1990 levels.
BTW, we live in the same city 
You don’t even know the meaning of simple, common words like “refute”, do you? You aren’t refuting anything. (refute: To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.) What you are doing is simply denying, without any sensible basis for doing so.
So go ahead, stick you fingers in your ears, sing “la la la I can’t hear you I win the argument”.
Plus, that’s only 8% of imports, not of ‘stuff we use’.
I’d like to see a cite for that. And please remember I was merely providing a cite for someone who said “I’d love to see a cite for that”, not offering an opinion for or against any given proposition.
Ok there are 2 choices:
Reduce your pollution and wealth in 10-15% and prevent Global Warming
Don’t reduce and take a risk.
On one side you will have a cleaner planet and environment and less sports cars… in the other you MIGHT have the end of modern civilization or mass migrations and death.
Is the risk worthwhile ?
Rasak, there is a third choice:
Reduce your CO2 emissions by 12.8% without ANY apparent economic detriment, like the UK.
You have mixed in a few cites that are complete bullshit like John Daly, i.e., non-peer-reviewed stuff put together by someone on the web who has an axe to grind, along with some cites to peer-reviewed work that doesn’t say what you think it does. For example, the various papers, such as those you cited from Nature, are not at all in disagreement with the theory of global climate change…In fact, that ice core data has provided a very important part of our understanding.
Yes, CO2 levels have cycled over the last several hundred thousand years and are correlated to both changes in the orbital eccentricity of the earth and changes in temperature. As for the causal link, there is still not a complete understanding what caused the CO2 levels to rise. It is believed that the orbital changes were the trigger causing a rise in temperature and, by mechanisms that people are still conjecturing about, an increase in CO2. What is known is that the changes in solar radiation produced by the orbital changes are insufficient, by all currently understood mechanisms, to account for the temperature changes that occurred without a magnifying (feedback) effect. That magnifying effect is widely accepted to have been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2. (There have been various attempts to come up with various non-greenhouse-gas based magnification effects, because that is what scientists do when they are trying to falsify a theory, but none of these has so far panned out, i.e., gained any sort of scientific acceptance. Also, the basic mechanism by which increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to warmer temperatures is very well understood even if the nature and magnitudes of the various feedbacks are less well-understood.)
However, the latest rise in CO2, which is very dramatic on the timescale of decades to centuries that we are looking at, is definitively linked to human emissions. (Since the graph you linked to is on the scale of hundreds of thousand of years, it is not useful for seeing how the CO2 levels varied over the several centuries prior to their gradual and the accelerating increase starting with the industrial revolution.) There is no argument about this even amongst the few at-all-reputable climate scientists who remain deniers of global warming. The amount of CO2 rise correlates well with the amount of the human-caused emissions. (It is a little lower because the land and ocean reuptake is able to compensate for some of the emissions.) And, from looking at the isotope mix, one is able to definitively trace the additional CO2 to the burning of fossil fuels.
The only reason you think there is still debate over this issue of CO2 emissions (and lots of other issues that are essentially settled in the scientific community) is that you are looking in places like the web where anybody can say anything. If you read peer-reviewed scientific materials, like the papers appearing in Science or Nature, or the reports prepared by the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) then you would not be so ignorant about the state of the science. Ignorance is of course okay…We can’t all keep up on everything, but when you start broadcasting your ignorance to the world and claiming that because you don’t understand something it is not understood by the scientific community, that is where you cross the line.
In previous threads (one of which I linked to), I have linked to a wealth of information from peer-reviewed sources (IPCC, NAS) or summaries or statements prepared by scientific councils such as those of the AMA and the AGU (which cheddarsnax linked to above) that give a summary of the current state of the science of global climate change. I don’t have a whole lot of time to devote to this thread unfortunately but the information is available to you if you want to read it. Otherwise, you can choose to read whatever bullshit on the web supports your preconceived notions and continue to wallow in ignorance.
Oh, by the way, if you go to the BP and Shell websites, you will find that your views are not only completely out-of-sync with the peer-reviewed scientific community, but even with the views of those two oil companies. [The interesting thing in regards to BP is that they have implemented a cutback in their emissions at the level of Kyoto, have completed it 8 years ahead of schedule and claim to be saving hundreds of millions of dollars…which sort of puts the lie to the claims of how destructive such cuts would be to the economy.]
Wow, quote a definition. Way to make an argument. Maybe I menat refuse? I’ll let it go. Now come back with something pertaining to the debate. :wally
So what is the percentage of steel and other raw materials supplied by the US to the rest of the world? (This is slowly getting into a multi-prong GD I’m afraid). I can see at least 2 very un-PC debates starting here. hint of one: CO2 is a byproduct of human respiration.
Why are we changing the subject? Are you ‘sold’ on Global Warming yet? Are you trying to argue that the US is somehow emitting so much CO2 because it is supplying the rest of the world with raw materials? If so, you are heading down a blind alley.
CO2 is a byproduct of all respiration, plant and animal. The miniscule contribution it makes overall was presumably factored in by the IPCC.
jshore, as ever a breath of fresh air in a warming world.
As for who should go first in cutting emissions, this obviously gets to issues of equity that one can argue about. But the reason that the Kyoto Protocol calls on the developed nations to take the first steps is:
(1) We are responsible for the large majority of the rise in CO2 concentrations that have occurred thus far.
(2) We have way higher emissions per capita than the third world nations.
(3) We have the advanced technology that will be needed to cut back our emissions and we will be able to help transfer that technology to the third world so that they can industrialize in a way that is less destructive to our global ecology. In fact, the U.S. intransigence is already in danger of putting us at an economic disadvantage in regards to such technologies. Look at the lead that Toyota and Honda now have with hybrid cars…I think the U.S. companies are being forced to buy components and license patents from them.
Also, while the Kyoto Protocol doesn’t call for any cuts yet from the developing nations, the larger framework from which this protocol was developed does say that they will have emissions restrictions in subsequent rounds. Kyoto is just a start which gets us up to 2012.
The point of Kyoto is to put in place the incentives for the sort of market innovation we will need to cut our emissions. (The market will not address problems that it doesn’t know about and as long as greenhouse gas emissions do not have any direct market cost associated with them, the market does not “know” about them.)
Some people might say that the UK has no hard industry anymore and its economy is in a death spiral.
I am from Greece but I study at Glamorgan University. I prefer living in Cardiff than Treforest.
That’s part of the ongoing carbon cycle which is what all life is built around. Burning wood for power is no problem - all you’re doing is releasing the CO2 that was taken in during the tree’s life. The imbalance comes from burning fossil fuels, taking huge quantities of carbon built up over millions of years that was locked deep in the earth and turning it into athmospheric CO2 all at once.
Who? The UK’s economy has grown steadily for 15 years, unemployment is near an all time low, the pound is imperiously strong. Who says it is in a death spiral?
Here is the set of graphs from the IPCC showing CO2 levels plotted over various timescales. Note that graphs (b) and (c) show the relative constancy of CO2 levels on the scales of 1000 and 10,000 years until the upturn due to human-caused emissions following the industrial revolution. Here is what the IPCC says about the current concentrations:
(Thanks for the compliment, SentientMeat.)
People who aren’t completely and utterly stupid tend to find definitions quite important in debates. My point is that you have failed to make an argument at all. Maybe you menat to say something sensible. Who can tell?