We went from rough parity on CO2 emissions with China in 2005 to China emitting close to double what the USA emitted in 2012. In 2013, it is quite possible that they DID emit double what the USA did, but we won't know for a while (a year or so), the numbers are not in yet.

Yes but again, China has almost 4 times as many citizens living within its borders. Look if you would scale up the amount of people in the US to 1.3 billion people you can be damn sure US output would also scale up.

But ok, you wish to discuss something 'per capita'? Ok...

China had in 2010 a population of 1.339 Billion per the Chinese government. World population was 6.908 Billion per the U.N. in 2010. That is less than a 20% share of the world population for China. Yet, in 2010, China emitted 26.43% of the world's CO2 emissions that year. Sounds like the Chinese were responsible for more than their 'fair share' that year.

The United States on the other hand has about 5% of the world population and is responsible for a little more than 13% of the world output of CO2 emissions. See how that number is completely out of whack compared to China? Per capita the United states produces almost two times as much CO2 as in China. In other words, you guys are much bigger polluters.

Yes, I know that people in the USA are responsible for quite a bit more than their fair share that year too... But then, The USA's emissions are declining. China's emissions are most definitely NOT.

The US is an established economy, China's economy is still developing.

Why is the USA being demonized at the "world's worst polluter" about to "kill the planet" when China is being given a Free Pass, essentially exempt? And CO2 isn't all... Have you seen some of the large Chinese cities lately? Oh that is right... you CAN'T see them through all the smog produced by their dirty coal fired power plants and a host of other industrial processes.

Because the US IS the worst polluter.

No one is giving China a free pass. But no one can force China to sign any climate deals and one has to take political and economic reality into account when trying to make these deals. It is unrealisitic to expect China to meet Western standards when China is still a developing economy and has the biggest population in the world and from that point of view isn´t as polluting yet as some other states.

Warmism is about tearing down the economies in the developed West and building up the economies in the 'developing' world. Pure and simple. If Warmism was really about catastrophic climatic change (as so many of you mistakenly believe), there is no way in H*** that the entire rest of the world would let China get away with what it is doing. Remember, the UN is fairly well sold on Warmism. With China's veto in the Sec.Council, military action by the UN would be fairly well unlikely, but don't you think there would be weekly resolutions of condemnation from the General Assembly using VERY harsh language?

Actually even with climate change being a real thing, there are plenty of ways in hell the rest of the world would let China get away with it. First of all, no one has any power to force a sovereign nation, especially not a powerful nation like China to do anything. Even if China was not in the Security Council, military action would be out of the question. It would not even be considered, because it is an utterly insane notion. And harsh resolutions of condemnation? You seem to forget that most of the world is still the 'third world'. What do they have to gain from condemning China's climate policies? And if the UN can't even get a harsh condemnation against a country like the US (for you know, starting an illegal war) or Israel (for rampaging through a dense urban area, using white phosphor artillery shells and setting up a blockade and stealing land, you really think they are going to condemn China over climate change?

But why am I even responding to this. This last part is utterly ridiculous.

Your response here just helps to demonstrate my point: Warmism isn't really about climate change disaster but instead is about taking out the US (and, to a lesser extent the rest of the West's) economy.

Have you read the IPCC 2013 WG1 (physical science basis for 'AGW') report? Any part of it? I've read some of it, am going to read more. Over 1500 pages, its a booger to find the time to read it. And it is going to be interesting to read the IPCC 2014 WG2 (effects of 'AGW' on the environment) report released Today, if memory serves.

If 'Warmism' is correct, ALL nations of the world are going to have to make immediate, drastic cuts in CO2 emissions... Even with a total elimination of ALL CO2 emissions TODAY, if 'Warmism' is correct, it is highly unlikely to be able to limit the warming to less than 2 degrees C, as they are all saying is necessary. CO2 lasts for a VERY long time in the atmosphere before it is removed with any sort of permanency (conversion into carbonate rocks, primarily Calcium Carbonate). Well OVER 1000 years. And every year it is there, it warms us further.

To quote a section from Martin's post 1497808,

Viewpoints: Reactions to UN climate impacts report

... This is not just another report - this is the scientific consensus reached by hundreds of scientists after careful consideration of all the available evidence.

The human influence on climate change is clear. The atmosphere and oceans are warming, the snow cover is shrinking, the Arctic sea-ice is melting, sea levels are rising, the oceans are acidifying, some extreme weather events are on the rise, ecosystems and natural habitats will be upset. Climate change threatens food security and world economies.

We need rapid and substantial cuts in carbon emissions and a move away from burning fossil fuels if we are to limit global climate change below two degrees and mitigate these impacts...

... Governments across the world must stand up to the oil, gas and coal industries, and take their foot off the fossil fuel accelerator that's speeding us towards a climate disaster.

Remember, CO2 knows no national boundaries. And it doesn't matter how many people it took to emit it. The only thing that matters is HOW MUCH IN TOTAL, per Warmism.

If Warmism is correct, ALL nations of the world are going to have to make drastic cuts in their CO2 emissions. And it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow China or ANY other nation to develop ANY further.

Remember, between 2006 and 2012, China increased its emissions of CO2 by approximately the amount that the US emits in total.

No, you just help to prove my point. Warmism isn't about climate disaster so much as it is about taking out the USA's economy.

LOL, such tenderfoot people we have around here. You all are flat out wrong. You have been proven wrong. You resort to censorship when you have no answers for a real question or point given to you point blank.

Yet you still struggle to prove your point. China hasn't ruined our climate. LOL, they have stole our jobs with the help of Wal-Mart and Congress but they have not ruined our climate.

When you have to resort to censorship your argument is too weak to stand by itself, bottom line we see the government gun and we see the Spanish Inquisition. Just on a smaller scale but the results are exactly the same. LOL! One side with a hugely weak argument but in charge of government forcing the others to toe the line or else.

You prove my point not yours in such actions. And that makes you the fools not I.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

you don't...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Why not China? - it is the biggest consumer of coal in the world (possibly accounting for about half of the world's coal, but is also the biggest producer of coal, and imports very little. Its oil consumption, although large isn't as large as you would expect (few cars & lorries per capita compared to the US or Europe, and virtually no oil fueled generating plant).
How do you stop someone so big an independent of external resource from using their own resources, that is a question that I'm sure must be doing the rounds in the corridors of power.
Yes, China is a conundrum, and every answer I can think of has very unpleasant repercussions for the rest of us...

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Your response here just helps to demonstrate my point: Warmism isn't really about climate change disaster but instead is about taking out the US (and, to a lesser extent the rest of the West's) economy.

Are you kidding me? In Europe investing in sustainability has only resulted in economic profits. Research shows that companies that invest in sustainability perform better. So how is it bad for your economy, IF ITS GOOD FOR YOUR ECONOMY!

You know whats bad for your economy? Doing nothing while whole tracts of fertile land turn into desert.

Remember, CO2 knows no national boundaries. And it doesn't matter how many people it took to emit it. The only thing that matters is HOW MUCH IN TOTAL, per Warmism.

So, if 1 person were to be responsible for 1 ton of CO2 emissions but 5 people were responsible for 2 tons of CO2 emissions, those 5 people would have to cut back more than the one guy, even though on average those 5 people produce less CO2 emissions individually.

Yep, that sounds logical. Punish the people who are on average cleaner than the real polluter, because you grouped them together.

If Warmism is correct, ALL nations of the world are going to have to make drastic cuts in their CO2 emissions. And it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow China or ANY other nation to develop ANY further.

So, screw the rest of the world, they were to late to develop, so now they should remain at the point they are right now, they don't have the right to develop any further, because thats bad for the people who are richer than them. Yeah, good luck getting an agreement on that basis.

But sure, we must cut back in our CO2 emissions and China should do that as well. But China should have to cut back less than the US, because China produces less than the US. Its very simple, Chinese people pollute less than Americans, its just that there are more Chinese than there are Americans.

Remember, between 2006 and 2012, China increased its emissions of CO2 by approximately the amount that the US emits in total.

And still on average China is less polluting than the US.

No, you just help to prove my point. Warmism isn't about climate disaster so much as it is about taking out the USA's economy.

Right, because Americans can't undermine their own economy through decades of disastrous economic policies. No, its all the fault of some foreign environmental leftish conspiracy that hates American freedom. Makes sense.

Please define what you mean by sustainability. Give an example of a company that has invested in a particular thing and then point to how they have profited.

TO THE WARMEST:

Why isn’t China stopped. They have, according to you, become the greatest destroyer of Our Planet.

The “They are an emerging nation” argument means ‘Saving a Nation is more important than Saving Out Planet’.

Since that would mean that the Warmest arguments are just about Control and Re-Distribution of Wealth: Let’s save Our Planet, and START with China, then The USA, then Europe, then... (We must save Our Planet at ALL costs) .

Correct?

No, this is a ridiculous argument. China is the size of a freaking continent yet is on average less polluting than the United States, yet, they are the ones that need to cut back the most, because they pollute more in total than the United States.

Has none of you ever paid attention in school when they taught you that you can't just compare total numbers if the two units you are comparing are of different sizes? China has 3 to 4 times more people than the United States, yet you are comparing its total output without taking this into account?

You're not going to 'set an example' for anybody that'll be followed. Unlike you, 3rd worlders live in a real world of hunger and poverty and curing or at least minimizing that will always take priority.
It is only wishful thinking in the extreme based on no real understanding of how people and the world works that even lets you pretend.
Any attempt to 'set an example' will only open up economic opportunities that those countries will be thrilled to exploit.
If you want no carbon, better learn to love Nuclear as it's the only option we have that will keep our high energy civilization operating at a sustainable cost.

Wind and Solar are hoaxes beyond some spot power in remote locations. We could convert, you'll have a 5x or more energy bill and probably still end up peddling your bicycle generator to charge the house battery to keep your refrigerator running.
If wind and solar were really viable, don't you think 3rd world countries basically building infrastructure from zero would BE USING IT??????

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Please define what you mean by sustainability. Give an example of a company that has invested in a particular thing and then point to how they have profited.

Have a look at this.

50 studies that show companies that invest in sustainability outperform companies that don't.

Or read this.

You're not going to 'set an example' for anybody that'll be followed. Unlike you, 3rd worlders live in a real world of hunger and poverty and curing or at least minimizing that will always take priority.
It is only wishful thinking in the extreme based on no real understanding of how people and the world works that even lets you pretend.

Except that a number of those problems are only made worse by climate change. You think Africa is going to solve its hunger problem if climate change isn't dealt with? They are already suffering from droughts and that is only going to get worse. If they want to solve their problems, again investing in sustainability can help them.

Please define what you mean by sustainability. Give an example of a company that has invested in a particular thing and then point to how they have profited.

Have a look at this.

50 studies that show companies that invest in sustainability outperform companies that don't.

Or read this.

It appears that most if not all of the business prospects benefitting from 'sustainability' are made possible by expensive government regulations, cleaning up other peoples messes.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

You're not going to 'set an example' for anybody that'll be followed. Unlike you, 3rd worlders live in a real world of hunger and poverty and curing or at least minimizing that will always take priority.
It is only wishful thinking in the extreme based on no real understanding of how people and the world works that even lets you pretend.

Except that a number of those problems are only made worse by climate change. You think Africa is going to solve its hunger problem if climate change isn't dealt with? They are already suffering from droughts and that is only going to get worse. If they want to solve their problems, again investing in sustainability can help them.

I note your response is basically 'well they should..it'd be good for them'

yes. they should. they won't.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

It appears that most if not all of the business prospects benefitting from 'sustainability' are made possible by expensive government regulations, cleaning up other peoples messes.

Yes, consumers identifying as green shoppers and wanting more green products is clearly the result of government regulation. And the fact that it helps retain employees as well is also clearly the result of government regulations. And so are their higher stock prices...

You clearly didn't read the studies because they give plenty of reasons that clearly have nothing to do with government interference.

But even if its all government regulation. Great, it means government has managed to create a business environment that promotes sustainability and some level of responsibility from corporations.

It appears that most if not all of the business prospects benefitting from 'sustainability' are made possible by expensive government regulations, cleaning up other peoples messes.

Yes, consumers identifying as green shoppers and wanting more green products is clearly the result of government regulation. And the fact that it helps retain employees as well is also clearly the result of government regulations. And so are their higher stock prices...

You clearly didn't read the studies because they give plenty of reasons that clearly have nothing to do with government interference.

you seem to fail to understand that their profitable status is false and driven by reasons other than economics and therefore is in itself unsustainable.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

you seem to fail to understand that their profitable status is false and driven by reasons other than economics and therefore is in itself unsustainable.

Alright, Ive shown you 50 studies that say being sustainable pays off. Now show me evidence of why I'm wrong. You made a claim, now back it up.

you seem to fail to understand that their profitable status is false and driven by reasons other than economics and therefore is in itself unsustainable.

Alright, Ive shown you 50 studies that say being sustainable pays off. Now show me evidence of why I'm wrong.

For the same reason Solar Power is a hoax.
The ONLY reason it pays the homeowner to put panels on their roof is the fact the utility companies are forced by law to buy that power for far more than it's worth considering it's intermittent nature and undependability.
Did you know home solar installs USED to include a big 'house battery' to store the energy and run the house? That's been done away with in favor of selling the power direct to utilities so that the systems will pay themselves off a few months before they need to be replaced.
In the end, it's your neighbors without solar that are paying for the check the utility sends you. If everybody had solar panels and tried to sell their power to the utility the entire concept would fall apart.
The people benefiting from home solar installs are fundamentally stealing from their neighbors with the government's help.

IF sustainable were truly economically viable, investors would be all over it. People are desperate these days to find something that'll pay them more than 0.5% interest on their money.

I am not happy with the way the world and people are but I DO know that you can never solve a problem till you properly define it and you fail to do that at the gate.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

For the same reason Solar Power is a hoax.
The ONLY reason it pays the homeowner to put panels on their roof is the fact the utility companies are forced by law to buy that power for far more than it's worth considering it's intermittent nature and undependability.
Did you know home solar installs USED to include a big 'house battery' to store the energy and run the house? That's been done away with in favor of selling the power direct to utilities so that the systems will pay themselves off a few months before they need to be replaced.
In the end, it's your neighbors without solar that are paying for the check the utility sends you. If everybody had solar panels and tried to sell their power to the utility the entire concept would fall apart.
The people benefiting from home solar installs are fundamentally stealing from their neighbors with the government's help.

IF sustainable were truly economically viable, investors would be all over it. People are desperate these days to find something that'll pay them more than 0.5% interest on their money.

I am not happy with the way the world and people are but I DO know that you can never solve a problem till you properly define it and you fail to do that at the gate.

Again, I've got 50 studies that each say being sustainable pays off. Some of those studies even say that being sustainable pays off despite Federal regulations that make it more difficult for business to be sustainable. Again, Ive got proof and you got nothing.

Show me proof that the only reason those companies are outperforming their unsustainable competitors is because the US government subsidizes them. Show me proof that the only reason shoppers want green products is because the government is paying them for it. Show me proof that their increased brand loyalty is because the government pays them for it. Show me proof that the government pays employees to stay at companies that have sustainability policies. Show me proof that the government is the reason those companies all have better stock prices.

But right, all I got from you is that solar power is a hoax and therefor all sustainable programs are subsidized by the government and aren't actually profitable by themselves. Without any kind of proof to back up that statement.

So...

From this thread at least, it looks like it is American Religion Denial-Of-Reality vs the rest of the world.


We could nuke the main pollution centres of the world and that should sort out most of the pollution problems. Gotta go nuke-it, just to be sure...


Oooooops... Bang goes most of America!


At least that would also get rid of most of the polluting hot air!!



Note to AMERICA: LOUD AND CLEAR?

Years later and the message remains the same. How thick/ignorant/stupid and corrupt and polluting can the USA be?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Eh, lets not call for a nuclear holocaust of pollution centers. I doubt there would remain much of Europe as well and it is not really constructive to this discussion.

For the same reason Solar Power is a hoax.
The ONLY reason it pays the homeowner to put panels on their roof is the fact the utility companies are forced by law to buy that power for far more than it's worth considering it's intermittent nature and undependability.
Did you know home solar installs USED to include a big 'house battery' to store the energy and run the house? That's been done away with in favor of selling the power direct to utilities so that the systems will pay themselves off a few months before they need to be replaced.
In the end, it's your neighbors without solar that are paying for the check the utility sends you. If everybody had solar panels and tried to sell their power to the utility the entire concept would fall apart.
The people benefiting from home solar installs are fundamentally stealing from their neighbors with the government's help.

IF sustainable were truly economically viable, investors would be all over it. People are desperate these days to find something that'll pay them more than 0.5% interest on their money.

I am not happy with the way the world and people are but I DO know that you can never solve a problem till you properly define it and you fail to do that at the gate.

Again, I've got 50 studies that each say being sustainable pays off. Some of those studies even say that being sustainable pays off despite Federal regulations that make it more difficult for business to be sustainable. Again, Ive got proof and you got nothing.

Show me proof that the only reason those companies are outperforming their unsustainable competitors is because the US government subsidizes them. Show me proof that the only reason shoppers want green products is because the government is paying them for it. Show me proof that their increased brand loyalty is because the government pays them for it. Show me proof that the government pays employees to stay at companies that have sustainability policies. Show me proof that the government is the reason those companies all have better stock prices.

But right, all I got from you is that solar power is a hoax and therefor all sustainable programs are subsidized by the government and aren't actually profitable by themselves. Without any kind of proof to back up that statement.

I did indeed skim thru the first few pages of your document on 'studies' and they're unworthy of being posted in a science based forum. Most of them are vapid mush with no hard numbers and a whole lotta cheerleading. The ones I saw referenced either 'polls' of a few hundred business people or discussed new government 'initiatives' to promote.

You are well short on the 'proof' you claim to provide. Have you actually READ that document or did you google it up and present it assuming it backs your fantasies?

as long as you keep ignoring the points you can't answer this is a waste of my time.
Obviously you're arguing your religion, not political, economic and technical points.
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;