T Nation

China No. 1 Greenhouse Gas Source

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

See also: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html

But of course if the U.S. would only just sign Kyoto, irrespective of China, India and Brazil, everything would be hunky dory (assuming for the sake of argument that emission of greenhouse gases is causing global warming)… Damn Bush Administration… (forgetting on purpose that Clinton never submitted Kyoto for Senate ratification…)

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

See also: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html

But of course if the U.S. would only just sign Kyoto, irrespective of China, India and Brazil, everything would be hunky dory (assuming for the sake of argument that emission of greenhouse gases is causing global warming)… Damn Bush Administration… (forgetting on purpose that Clinton never submitted Kyoto for Senate ratification…)[/quote]

If only we had set a better example, maybe they would’ve followed our lead…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

See also: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html

But of course if the U.S. would only just sign Kyoto, irrespective of China, India and Brazil, everything would be hunky dory (assuming for the sake of argument that emission of greenhouse gases is causing global warming)… Damn Bush Administration… (forgetting on purpose that Clinton never submitted Kyoto for Senate ratification…)[/quote]

Who exactly is the richest nation on Earth? Also, did you have some kind of free pass for polluting like hell last century?

How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

See also: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html

But of course if the U.S. would only just sign Kyoto, irrespective of China, India and Brazil, everything would be hunky dory (assuming for the sake of argument that emission of greenhouse gases is causing global warming)… Damn Bush Administration… (forgetting on purpose that Clinton never submitted Kyoto for Senate ratification…)[/quote]

And very soon they will have the highest homosexual population on earth as well, due to their one child per family laws and their. That should actually reduce the green house gases; until they pull out.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?[/quote]

And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers. [/quote]

Chinese ride bicycles while Americans drive SUVs.

Hmmm…

Not everyone.

China has a new car. It’s called the Geely. It will be ready to be sold on the world market in a few years. They can’t sell it in the US yet. I guess it doesn’t meet our Environmental standards.

Well China’s pollution has hit California as far as I can tell. I breathe shit all day

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Well China’s pollution has hit California as far as I can tell. I breathe shit all day[/quote]

Stop breathing.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?

And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers. [/quote]

Funny that you didn’t seem the least worried last year, when YOU polluted like motherfuckers. You still do btw.

And I’ll have to ask this question again. How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?

And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers.

Funny that you didn’t seem the least worried last year, when YOU polluted like motherfuckers. You still do btw.

And I’ll have to ask this question again. How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?[/quote]

And you don’t pollute?

I read a very interesting statistic and I wish I could find it that showed that although America uses a lot of energy and pollutes more than it’s share per capita when you factor in the goods and food America produces for the world we are more efficient with our energy usage and pollution than everyone else.

Until Belgium starts innovating, feeding the world and producing goods for the world they should STFU.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.[/quote]

  1. The number of Chinese vs. the number of Americans bullshit of the purest form. The fact that you don’t care about the actual amount of pollution, just the per capita amount is absolute proof that you don’t give two shits about the environment, more about holding some economies back while boosting others.

If anything, the sheer number of Chinamen indicates the height of GHG emissions and that it’s nowhere near it’s apex, validating what many of the anti-Kyoto crowd have been saying since Clinton was in office. But feel free to keep walking around asking “But how many Chinese are there?” like an idiot.

  1. The whole point of the post-industrial age and the migration to a service-oriented economy is, in part, to alleviate the “raping of the land”. Saying China is in an “industrial age” while the US is moving to a more service based economy is, once again, saying “It’s okay if the Chinese rape the land to levels unseen before. But the US are the bastards for not having stopped doing faster than they are.”

The veil of environmentalism you wear doesn’t hide your true intent very well.

BTW- Your straw man opposition isn’t opposed to China developing as a nation. Merely pointing out that the US’s agreement to penalize their own economy and needlessly slow the service-oriented transition wasn’t, and isn’t, far off the mark.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?

And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers.

Funny that you didn’t seem the least worried last year, when YOU polluted like motherfuckers. You still do btw.

And I’ll have to ask this question again. How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?[/quote]

Explain this numnuts:

[i]"In the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, Belgium committed
itself in the first phase to a reduction of its greenhouse
gas emissions by 7.5% by the years 2008-2012. In
real terms, this means an effort of 54.86 million metric
tonnes of CO2-equivalent ı during this period. This report
illustrates that, in evaluating the initial efforts undertaken
by Belgium in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, a crucial
element has been forgotten: the contribution of its
Export Credit Agency (?Office National du Ducroire?).

Between 1997 (when the Kyoto Protocol was signed) and
2004, the Ducroire covered the risks linked to foreign
investments and exports abroad in the context of energy
projects, which during their lifetime will produce the
cumulative emission of 1,324.1 million tonnes of CO2.

This
means that the initial efforts of Belgium within the
framework of the Kyoto Protocol (supposing that Belgium
effectively realises them) will be largely offset by induced
emissions produced by the projects having benefited from
export credit granted by the Ducroire. In reality, the emissions
from the polluting energy projects thus supported by
the Ducroire represent more than twenty times as much
pollution as the change in emissions that Belgium has
engaged to achieve"[/i]

AND…

“The incoherence of Belgium in the domain of climate
change is intolerable: it has engaged itself in the terms of
the Kyoto Protocol and simultaneously supports, with
public funds, energy projects using fossil fuels in developing
countries.”

Interested in the source? Is it Fox news? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Nope, It’s Green Peace!

Your arrogance and failure to look in the mirror perpetually makes you look like ass…It’s a good look for you.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?

And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers.

Funny that you didn’t seem the least worried last year, when YOU polluted like motherfuckers. You still do btw.

And I’ll have to ask this question again. How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?[/quote]

Explain this numnuts:

[i]"In the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, Belgium committed
itself in the first phase to a reduction of its greenhouse
gas emissions by 7.5% by the years 2008-2012. In
real terms, this means an effort of 54.86 million metric
tonnes of CO2-equivalent ı during this period.

This report
illustrates that, in evaluating the initial efforts undertaken
by Belgium in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, a crucial
element has been forgotten: the contribution of its
Export Credit Agency (?Office National du Ducroire?).

Between 1997 (when the Kyoto Protocol was signed) and
2004, the Ducroire covered the risks linked to foreign
investments and exports abroad in the context of energy
projects, which during their lifetime will produce the
cumulative emission of 1,324.1 million tonnes of CO2. This
means that the initial efforts of Belgium within the
framework of the Kyoto Protocol (supposing that Belgium
effectively realises them) will be largely offset by induced
emissions produced by the projects having benefited from
export credit granted by the Ducroire.

In reality, the emissions
from the polluting energy projects thus supported by
the Ducroire represent more than twenty times as much
pollution as the change in emissions that Belgium has
engaged to achieve"[/i]

AND…

“The incoherence of Belgium in the domain of climate
change is intolerable: it has engaged itself in the terms of
the Kyoto Protocol and simultaneously supports, with
public funds, energy projects using fossil fuels in developing
countries.”

Interested in the source? Is it Fox news? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Nope, It’s Green Peace!

Your arrogance and failure to look in the mirror perpetually makes you look like ass…It’s a good look for you.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?[/quote]

Ditto!

The US has been the largest polluter for the last century while enjoying a huge economic growth as long as none were the wiser toward “global climate change”. Now that we may have some evidence of climate change it suddenly becomes a crime to grow one’s economy because the rest of the world says so.

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
And so that makes it A-OK if they pollute like motherfuckers.

Chinese ride bicycles while Americans drive SUVs.

Hmmm…[/quote]

Everyone knows that is only the kids, on the way to make me my sweaters and sneakers.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
How many Chinese are there? And how many Americans?
Also, China is still stuck in a early industrial age while the US is moving towards a service oriented society.

And then.
What’s your point. Do you support Bush in not signing the Kyoto agreements? It looks like you do. So why would you be worried then about what the Chinese do?

Ditto!

The US has been the largest polluter for the last century while enjoying a huge economic growth as long as none were the wiser toward “global climate change”. Now that we may have some evidence of climate change it suddenly becomes a crime to grow one’s economy because the rest of the world says so.[/quote]

Did you read the posts? Have you paid any attention to the debate in the last decade?

No one is arguing that China shouldn’t be able to grow economically, only that if the US is going to be subject to environmental restrictions on growth, the Chinese shouldn’t be exempted. If it’s truly a global problem, why is half of humanity exempted? Because they aren’t currently polluting as much as they could be?

You idiots don’t want to actually reduce the amount of pollution, you want to play ‘blame the US’.

But good point about the US having been the greatest polluter for the last century. Malthus said that England would consume the Earth’s resources while the US was a mere 20-something yrs. old.

[quote]Valentinius wrote:
Everyone knows that is only the kids, on the way to make me my sweaters and sneakers. [/quote]

Are you exploiting their plight sneak in a sarcastic comment? Or are you making fun of them?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
No one is arguing that China shouldn’t be able to grow economically, only that if the US is going to be subject to environmental restrictions on growth, the Chinese shouldn’t be exempted. If it’s truly a global problem, why is half of humanity exempted? Because they aren’t currently polluting as much as they could be?

You idiots don’t want to actually reduce the amount of pollution, you want to play ‘blame the US’.

But good point about the US having been the greatest polluter for the last century. Malthus said that England would consume the Earth’s resources while the US was a mere 20-something yrs. old.[/quote]

I think the US should seek to reduce its pollution despite what China or India does. “Lead by example” is what I have always been taught. I think that China and India (all of the developing world) will eventually be able to take the same economic opportunity to reduce pollution when they become more efficient at production–in fact, I think China will eventually exceed the US in its capabilities because they have much more at stake. In the meantime, let’s worry about our own backyard and lead by example.