Here’s some hard figures from the executive summary of an EPA report on “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2000”:
In the year 2000, total greenhouse emissions in teragrams of CO2 equivalents were 7001. Of this, the breakdown was:
Industry: 2055
Transportation: 1880
Residential: 1357
Commercial: 1114
Agriculture: 558
U.S. Territories: 38
[In this table, the 2377 Tg CO2 equiv that is produced by electricity generation has been distributed amongst the end-use sectors.]
Here’s some hard figures from the executive summary of an EPA report on “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2000”:
In the year 2000, total greenhouse emissions in teragrams of CO2 equivalents were 7001. Of this, the breakdown was:
Industry: 2055
Transportation: 1880
Residential: 1357
Commercial: 1114
Agriculture: 558
U.S. Territories: 38
[In this table, the 2377 Tg CO2 equiv that is produced by electricity generation has been distributed amongst the end-use sectors.]
Cheap birth control won’t work tracer. Not until the underlying problems of poor government control (read corrupt or indifferent to the populace), famine (Generally caused by the above), lack of education (see above) and rampant disease are brought closer to at least second world levels. In several African nations, birth control was readily available for free or close to free and was basically ignored, a lot of money wasted.
However, as this is not the subject of the OP, I will end this hijack here.
<snip>
BWHAHAHAHAHA! My god, this statement is so funny I almost shot my gum out my nose. (That is not a pleasant feeling BTW)
To break down what I found so funny:
So making things more efficent is somehow wrong? Getting more energy out of less material is leading us to destruction? I think you have a backward view of how technology works.
Technology makes things cheaper and cleaner. The scientist and engineers who create better and cheaper ways to do things save energy which cuts down on pollution. Note, third world countries pollute the envirionment way more than the US does.
As far as the rest of your posts go, which basically read 1600 scientist signed some paper!!!, let me introduce you to Julian Simon. Simon has a large track record of making valid predictions while your 1600 scientists cannot predict the weather next week, much less 20 years from now.
Slee
NO, accepting ever increasing levels of industrial and technological efficiency at the expense of plant, animal species…and Humans…is morally reprehensible.
You have miss-understood it completely, i want the most comfortable life i can…but don’t want mass extinctions and brutalizing of poor people.
You forget about the cost of production, the damage to the environment which we have to pay for our ignorance…BTW, my TV is really cheap these days…but LAND prices have skyrocketed.
Nothing you’ve said makes any sense.
Some of societies most celabrated intellectuals have “Signed some paper”.
And you still don’t know that weather prediction is chaotic.
I’m very,very,very pleased you added your thoughts,LOLOLOL.
Jshore
Are the residential and commerical figures an aggregate of usage…or specifically motorvehicle usage?
Thanks for those figures.
I felt that one of the easiest things one can do is choose not to buy a car or buy an economical one…the power is in the individuals hands.Try getting business to radically change its methods.
Here’s some hard figures from the executive summary of an EPA report on “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2000”:
In the year 2000, total greenhouse emissions in teragrams of CO2 equivalents were 7001. Of this, the breakdown was:
Industry: 2055
Transportation: 1880
Residential: 1357
Commercial: 1114
Agriculture: 558
U.S. Territories: 38
[In this table, the 2377 Tg CO2 equiv that is produced by electricity generation has been distributed amongst the end-use sectors.]
Here’s some hard figures from the executive summary of an EPA report on “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2000”:
In the year 2000, total greenhouse emissions in teragrams of CO2 equivalents were 7001. Of this, the breakdown was:
Industry: 2055
Transportation: 1880
Residential: 1357
Commercial: 1114
Agriculture: 558
U.S. Territories: 38
[In this table, the 2377 Tg CO2 equiv that is produced by electricity generation has been distributed amongst the end-use sectors.]
Well, maybe they are as pro-ecology as they come but just find your posting style a bit abrasive, eh? But whatever, it’s not that important.
Go right ahead. Anyway, some of us have managed to tease out a bit more detail as to what you are on about, so I’ll bow out here.
Nor I you. Carry on.
Urgh!!! Sorry about the millions of repeat posts…It was giving me an error that usually suggests it really did not successfully post it!
My opinions on technology would lie somewhere in between those expressed by **sleestak ** and David Wilson here. [Okay, I admit those are pretty broad bounds!!] I.e., I would agree with sleestak that more efficiency through technology is a good thing…but only if the calculation is done correctly. If some resources (such as natural resources) are undervalued by the market (e.g., because we do not put in all the costs), then this calculation will not be done correctly. Therein lies one source of a lot of the problems in leaving things up to an unregulated free market.
David Wilson, as for your question. I didn’t exactly understand it…But what you might be wondering is how they divided things up (e.g., does the “commercial” part include transportation of commercial goods or is that under transportation?) The answer is that I don’t know for sure but my assumption is that the “transportation” part attempted to separate out all transportation energy usage so that “commercial” just applies to the fixed commercial sites and so forth.
I agree that the power is largely in individual hands (particularly with the current Presidential Administration and Congress being so out-to-lunch on these issues). However, I would be a little more positive about the ability of businesses to change. According to the EPA report, emissions from industry actually declined over the past decade and while this is partly attributed to structural changes in the economy (e.g., the decline of heavy industry relative to the service economy), it is at least partly attributed to efficiency improvements. Also, several large companies including my own have commited to greenhouse emission limits or reductions for their companies that are in line, or at least nearly in line, with the Kyoto limits for the U.S. (~7% reduction in emissions in 2012 from 1990 levels)…which is way ahead of where the U.S. as a whole is going to be. [We’ll end up about 30% above 1990 levels by 2012 on our current course.]
To see what is being done about climate change by businesses, states, colleges, average citizens, etc., check out this special report at Grist Magazine [an excellent source, BTW, for environmental information]: http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/powershift073102.asp?source=daily. Pres. Bush may be fiddling while Rome burns, but fortunately at least some progress is being made at other levels.
Jshore…ponder this.
From Apes to Superspecies{Suzuki 99}
The Ecological Footprint
Bill Rees, a population ecologist at the Uni of British Columbia, together with his former graduate student, has developed one of the first reliable ways to measure how much of the planets productivity we’re already using…This is The Ecological Footprint.
We can already measure the number of organisms other than humans that a given ecosystem can support indefinately.Ecologists call this the ** Carrying capacity** of the ecosystem.
Rees and Wackernagel asked how much land each person needs to support themselves…within any system of trading , regardless the level of technological development, each person still requires a certain productive area to support their needs and cycle their wastes.
The average ecological footprint of a Canadian{first world requirements…for which the globe is pursuing via unlimited economic growth}…is 7 hectares of land+0.7 of ocean.
This is 7.7 hectares of biologically productive land and ocean, drawn from many parts of the world.
Now there are approx 6 billion people{aspiring or being guided by global corps}…there are about 8.9 billion hectares of agricultural land…so dividing the total ecoloically productive landscape by human pop, and we each get a** hectare and a half of land**, a significant decrease from 7.7 hectares.
Thus we cannot support growth and pop increases, using our current inefficient production methods.
========================================
Also this as why we have more than a personal survival issue on our hands.
Under the New system, many decisions that affect BILLIONS of people are no longer to be made by local and national Governments, but instead,if challenged by Any WTO MEMBER NATION, would be deferred to a group of unelected bureaucrats sitting behind closed doors in Geneva.
They can decide whether or not people in California can prevent the destruction of their LAST Virgin forests or determine if carinogenic pesticides can be banned from their food.
Moreover, once these secret tribunals issue their edicts, NO external appeals are POSSIBLE.
A country must make its laws reform or else face perpetual trade sanctions… Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach of Public Citizens.
Shell has waged an ecological war in Ogoni ,Nigeria since 1958.
An ecological war is …omnicidal in its effects.Human life, flora fauna, the air, and finally the land itself dies.
Generally it is supported by all the traditional instruments ancillary to warfare…propaganda, money ,and deceit.
Victory is assessed by PROFITS, and in this sense Shell`s victory has been total.
By…Ken Saro Wiwa, Nobel prize winning author, Executed By the Nigerian gov in 1995.
Danny Kennedy says, as long as Shell has been in Nigeria, they`ve had this revolving door arrangment with Nigerian Dictatorships, one after the other.
It’s a constant transfer of power from the upper echelons of Shell`s staff to the upper echalons of Government, and vice versa.
More than 2000 tortures and Deaths have occured since Shells involvment,and because of KenSaro Wiwas Death ,Shell oil has become a symbol of what has been termed** Multinational Corporate Recolonization**.
And to abolish any doubt that the top CEO`S of some multinationals are sociopaths,this…
Shell has paid field allowances to the operatives of a squad called KILL AND GO, the mobile police squad of the river states , which comes into villiages and does what its name suggests.They bought ammunition and other munitions for the military actions in the River state.All of this is on record, they`ve acknowledged all of it, DANNY KENNEDY, PROJECT UNDERGROUND.
Geez, this has already been done by Paul Erlich in a book he published in 1968 called “The Population Bomb”. He predicted some horrifing things. On the bright side he was totally wrong in his predictions. Erlich predicted, among other things, that the U.S. would suffer from mass starvation by the mid 1980’s. Well, that didn’t happen. On the other hand Julian Simon predicted that material things would get cheaper and life would be better. In fact Simon made a bet with Erlich about the cost of materials 10 years down the road. Simon said that materials would be cheaper while Erlich said that they would cost more. Guess who lost. Here is a link. You really should read Julian Simons books.
Wow Mr. Wilson, you just went from under educated environmentalist to full on conspiracy fan. That is not a good place to be.
Slee
So, to sum up -
David Wilson read a book by David Suzuki, and really, really liked it; and
He would have voted for Nader, if he lived in the USA.
Throw in some generalized “it’s all our fault” a lot of bolding and all-caps and a tone reminiscent of that guy who appears in the first 15 minutes of every “Friday the 13th” movie.
FWIW, I read somewhere recently (last few months) that global warming may actually be a good thing, as it may be delaying or preventing an overdue ‘ice age’. This impending ice age was also offered as an explanation for the inaccuracy of the original global warming predictions - while we ARE contributing to an unnatural planetary “heat wave”, Earth has also entered a naturally-occurring “cool spell”, and the two events are cancelling each other out.
Sorry about no cite - while I recall the information, I’m drawing a blank on the source. Since I remember that I read it in hard-copy, most likely it was in Discover magazine. If anyone is interested, I’ll look for it.
My own miniscule education has focused on health-related fields, so personally I doubt that pollution, global warming, etc. are the biggest threat to the survival of humanity. I think it’s much more likely that a worldwide plague of something like Ebola is going to bring civilization (and humanity) to its knees. It’s not like there’s no precedent! And now that a person in the Sudan can hop on a plane and be in NYC the next day, how long do you think it will be before some very nasty, but previously rare, diseases suddenly break out in large cities around the world?
You might have noticed something called West Nile Virus that suddenly jumped from Africa/Asia to North America in 1999? And has spread over more than half of the US since then? Fortunately, WNV is not one of the real nasties - but who knows what it will be next time?
While I do consider cleaning up the environment a matter of importance, I’m more worried about what might be included in the next mosquito bite I receive, or the next hamburger I eat. THERE is where the most immediate danger lies.
Here’s an excerpt from the below website.
Also note that Ken Saro organized a protest rally of 300 000 out of a pop of 500 000 Ogoni, to blockade Shell…Shell backed off and let the military in.
At least 2000 Ogoni have been killed since 1993{Suzuki 99}
http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=3508
Three and a half years after the Rio Earth Summit, the Nigerian government executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni. Subsequently, evidence emerged that Shell, the target of Saro-Wiwa’s criticism, was complicit in his death. After Saro-Wiwa’s hanging, the Nigerian military dictatorship cracked down on dissent in Ogoniland.
As Naemeka Achebe, General Manager for Shell Nigeria said, “For a commercial company trying to make investments, you need a stable environment. Dictatorships can give you that.” In that one crude phrase, Achebe revealed the harsh reality behind Shell’s slick sustainable development rhetoric.
In response to the massive public criticism around its role in Nigeria, Shell moved beyond greenwash in an attempt to whitewash its human rights image. Conveniently forgetting the years of complicity with apartheid in South Africa, Shell began pointing to its support for political prisoners. Seeking to recast itself as a protector of civil liberties, it posted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its website, and had the gall to point to Nigeria as a positive example of its human rights advocacy. Using the technique of blatantly co-opting the message of one’s critics, Shell featured a photo of a pro-Ogoni rally on its website.
Human rights violations and local ecological destruction were not the only things flowing out of Nigeria along with Shell’s oil. The release of methane from massive gas flaring, a practice prohibited in Shell’s home countries of England and The Netherlands, as well as in most industrialized countries, combined with the burning of the oil exported from Nigeria, were helping make Shell a significant contributor to climate change. As public concern around global warming grew, it presented another environmental public relations problem for Shell in the 1990s.
For instance, Shell sent forty-three official representatives and lobbyists to the November 2000 climate negotiations at The Hague, a delegation larger than those sported by most countries and nearly half the size of the 100-plus person U.S. delegation. All the while, Shell claimed that it was offering constructive proposals to help save the world’s climate.
Those with experience dealing with Shell on the local level believed otherwise. S. “Bobby” Peek, a winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize and representative of the South African organization groundWork, told a press conference at The Hague that:
ntil we exposed them, Shell lied about their refinery emissions in South Africa for forty years. Today Shell’s toxic pollution continues to poison local communities in a democratic South Africa, and contribute to the company’s global carbon emissions. If they lied to their neighbors about emissions in South Africa, how can we begin to believe their rhetoric at the climate change negotiations?
So activists were skeptical. Shell, they pointed out, had great rhetoric in Rio, also, but the reality was something else. “It is especially ironic that a Shell executive is taking this role, because through its actions, Shell became a symbol of environmental destruction and complicity in human rights violations in the 1990s,” said Victoria Corpuz, Executive Director of Tebtebba Foundation, an indigenous people’s organization based in the Philippines.
Slee, i’m under the impression that the Rees and Wackernagel model is not only more current…but also asks how much land each human requires.
.
I’m glad he was wrong.
I might grab one if i come across it…but do we materialy progress at the cost of human lives and broken spirits…Shell seems to think that’s fine.
Shell was the subject of an International boycott…so if you want to project your evil about conspiracy theories, i suggest you seek psychotherapy.
Well, first, the models environmental scientist use suck at this point in time. There is a simple reason the models suck and that is the mathmaticians really don’t understand chaos theory yet and any environmental model will have to use chaos theory. Second, they are not the first people to come up with a magical “Ecological Footprint” number. The problem is that as technology progresses productivity increases which changes the numbers the “Ecological Footprint” is based on. Third, a quote:
Reliable acccording to whom? Based on what data? Verified by which peer reviewed journals? In other words, a cite please. Saying something is so does not actually make it so.
First, you can read Julian Simons stuff here.
Second, the corpwatch.org website you cited isn’t exactly unbiased. Do you have any cites from less biased sources?
This website claims Shell was complicit in the execution of Saro-Wiwa. Ok, but where is the proof? Complicit how? After reading the corpwatch site I found that they tend to make big claims without providing any proof of their claims.
Slee
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sleestak *
**
Sure, but why now all of a sudden, why are these respected Nobel recipients putting their name to it?
.
Yes, but technology has to counter pop growth and consumer demand…the footprint is a warning to us to re-evaluate our choices.
Good one CHAMP…what about 1600 senior scientists and half the living nobel prize winners…only when it suits you huh…
You seem to be saying there is no need for any change other than what business provides…excuse me for considering that laugable…LOLOLOLOL
Simply do a couple of net searches over Ken Saro, and the worldwide boycott.
As you appear to believe nothing i say, i`ll refrain from your flamebait thanks
A cite please. Which Nobel recipients back this?
You keep saying that “experts” back your view but you never provide cites. You simply argue that you are right and quote two books and then ignore any arguement that you disagree with.
And your conclusion is based on what? Do you have any facts to back up your claim? If you look at what has happened things get cheaper and better.
Nice try. You are arguing the wrong point. If you look back I said that the “Ecological Footprint” is a joke. You then try to claim that a bunch of scientists backed the “Ecological Footprint” when, in fact, they have no connection to that idea. You need to get your arguements straight.
No, I am saying that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. You quote books that you agree with and yet never find the time to read anything that contradicts your world view. I have posted links to Julian Simons page at least three times yet you cannot or will not read his stuff. I have read all the stuff you linked to and found it wanting. It is just a pile of crap. Yet, you never comment on what I have linked to. I doubt you have read it and I doubt you understand it.
[QUOTE}**Simply do a couple of net searches over Ken Saro, and the worldwide boycott.
As you appear to believe nothing i say, i`ll refrain from your flamebait thanks **[/QUOTE]
I’d believe what you said if you backed your words with facts.
Slee
Half of the living Noble prize winners…i’ll get their names later on, i’m not sure what you’ll do with them.Let me…guess, you’re gonna outwit em all…ok, LOL.
Stop speaking utter manure{it is you though}…i’ve read numerous books and articles and HAVE CONSTANT CONVERSATIONS WITH BIOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, who are my regular cabfares…who consistently tell me about their disappointment of Governments refusal to implement a longterm strategy of sustainabilty…under the pretense of there’s no proof.
This sounds as silly to me as a 1966 comment from a LIFE SCIENCE book, which said there is strong circumstancial proof of Cigarettes relationship to lung cancer, but no proof, LOL.
The cost of living is the critical factor champ…do i really have to tell you that…do you think everyone benefits when land prices skyrocket, so what if DVDs are cheap.
We are being judged by the silent majority…check the view counter, whether you agree with me is irrelevant.
You still can’t understand that the cost of living is the critical factor, can you, it includes every cost…not just gadgets.
.
You have no idea what proof is do you champ???
Don’t bother responding, you’re way to ignorant.
This is my last post to you, no matter how much you sweeten any reply, i know eventually it will smell rotten.