End of COP19 Warsaw - No plan on how to address global warming

[Kellhound]

Yeah, but until then, anyone with a higher CO2 per capita (less efficiency) telling China to do something about theirs is extremely hypocritical.

The point is China's "efficiency" is false, propped up by a huge rural non-industrial population.

[Rukentuts]

The point is China's "efficiency" is false, propped up by a huge rural non-industrial population.

And until it is above ours, we have no right to tell them different.

Because we could like, build a better country for no reason I guess.

[Tierbook]

I'll be honest i'm using Wiki but they got their numbers from the EU commision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

[Kellhound]

In other words, if they were able to be as wasteful as us they would.
Great excuse man, classy not to mention they are not there yet but lets forget that.

I never said the West should do nothing, and in many ways they already are more wasteful than us.

[Rukentuts]

I'll be honest i'm using Wiki but they got their numbers from the EU commision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

You going off of the 2012 estimates? Mine just has 2010 actuals.

[Kellhound]

And until it is above ours, we have no right to tell them different.

Because we could like, build a better country for no reason I guess.

When ours match up, we will still be screwed.

[Tierbook]

How about the fact that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country since Kyoto even though we never ratified the treaty
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/u-s-s...co2-emissions/

[Rukentuts]

When ours match up, we will still be screwed.

Well, we could start matching them up by going the other direction, but that involves investments in renewables which...yeah, are for dirty liberals.

- - - Updated - - -

How about the fact that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country since Kyoto even though we never ratified the treaty
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/u-s-s...co2-emissions/

Which still doesn't mean a ton when we lead the way.

[Tierbook]

Well, we could start matching them up by going the other direction, but that involves investments in renewables which...yeah, are for dirty liberals.

- - - Updated - - -

Which still doesn't mean a ton when we lead the way.

damned if we do, damned if we don't.... well at least you havent seen that article about Congress passing a law that makes protesting oil drilling a crime with a 5k dollar fine.....
Take the bait.... take it

[Garnier Fructis]

Also, in before NIPCC crowd, Riddler etc. flying in the face of scientifically backed evidence.

In before "I never make stuff up."

[Rukentuts]

In before "I never make stuff up."

I think the goalposts were moved to "it's natural".

[Daelak]

The point is China's "efficiency" is false, propped up by a huge rural non-industrial population.

Another thing to think about is those same rural non-industrial/modern population will become an industrialized suburban/urban population in coming years, increasing demand of the energy grid. Same with India and Pakistan.

[Jaggid]

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...PC?display=map

In terms of major industrialized nations, we are.

Protip: Find China on that list

You realize per capita means per citizen... and we have a lot less people in the U.S. than china so yes PER CAPITA we are higher. In actual amounts we are not.

[Rukentuts]

You realize per capita means per citizen... and we have a lot less people in the U.S. than china so yes PER CAPITA we are higher. In actual amounts we are not.

Yes, and this means we're a lot more polluting per citizen, which means we have a lot more leeway to make up.

[Tierbook]

Yes, and this means we're a lot more polluting per citizen, which means we have a lot more leeway to make up.

I agree nations like Aruba, Quatar, Oman, Brunei, Kuwait, Luxembourg and Trinidad all need to lower their emissions, i used these nations as an example because all over them are over 20 per person Quatar is over 40 even

Edit: also you should look at the historical data, in 2004 China was at 4.1 and the USA was at 19.8 by 2010 China was at 6.2 while the US was at 17.6

Edit again: I just looked at the total amounts of CO2 emissions in 2010 and compared to Wiki the USA released 60kt less CO2 while China released 46kt more in your source

[Jaggid]

Yes, and this means we're a lot more polluting per citizen, which means we have a lot more leeway to make up.

.... They have 1.354 Billion people we have 320 million.... so ya there pollution per capita can be amazing compared to ours with 5 times the population... they still put out more pollution than us. To understand how that affects the figures assume china has 320 million people rather than there current population and compare the numbers?

[Rukentuts]

I agree nations like Aruba, Quatar, Oman, Brunei, Kuwait, Luxembourg and Trinidad all need to lower their emissions, i used these nations as an example because all over them are over 20 per person Quatar is over 40 even

Look at the land area of all these nations, you will note something in common.

Edit: also you should look at the historical data, in 2004 China was at 4.1 and the USA was at 19.8 by 2010 China was at 6.2 while the US was at 17.6

Edit again: I just looked at the total amounts of CO2 emissions in 2010 and compared to Wiki the USA released 60kt less CO2 while China released 46kt more in your source

This all means nothing to me. Per capita shows dirtiness per person, and is a better reflector on who has the highest margin of cleanup.

- - - Updated - - -

.... They have 1.354 Billion people we have 320 million.... so ya there pollution per capita can be amazing compared to ours with 5 times the population... they still put out more pollution than us. To understand how that affects the figures assume china has 320 million people rather than there current population and compare the numbers?

Geez do I have to explain an average?

[Tierbook]

Look at the land area of all these nations, you will note something in common.

This all means nothing to me. Per capita shows dirtiness per person, and is a better reflector on who has the highest margin of cleanup.

Unless you are going to try to tell me that having to travel less will increase Co2 emissions i'm not sure what you're first comment is about.

As to your second ignoring facts won't help you much

[Rukentuts]

As to your second ignoring facts won't help you much

Interpreting the data is over half the battle.

You just see a bigger number, and not the bigger picture.

There's a reason economists love GDP per capita, it shows which country is actually wealthier. GDP alone doesn't do this.

Similarly, CO2 per capita shows which country is actually more dirty, and that's us pal.

[Tierbook]

Interpreting the data is over half the battle.

You just see a bigger number, and not the bigger picture.

In 2008 China made up 23.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions and the US made up 18.27%, since then China's emissions have gone up by about 2million thousand tonnes while the US's have gone down about 300k just some food for thought