Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Hot?
IGNORED

Some bad news...


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Yorkshire Puddin' aka Kirkham, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom
  • Weather Preferences: cold winters, cold springs, cold summers and cold autumns
  • Location: Yorkshire Puddin' aka Kirkham, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom

Some bad news from http://news.aol.co.uk/china-to-emit-most-g...01?CLI=16009117 :-

"China 'to emit most greenhouse gas'

Last Updated: Wednesday, 25 April 2007, 11:48 GMT

- Search: China greenhouse gas

China set to produce world's largest amount of greenhouse gas China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gas this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

China had been forecast to surpass the US in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol was quoted as saying in an interview in the Wall Street Journal newspaper.

"In the past couple of months, economic growth and related coal consumption has grown at such an unexpected rate," Mr Birol was quoted as saying. China's rising emissions will effectively cancel out other countries' attempts to reduce their own, he said.

Mr Birol's comments mark the direst prediction yet about China's contribution to global warming.

More News

Greens slam EU Strasbourg commute

'Earth-like' planet discovered

Shoppers snap up supermarket bags

Call for halt to roadside 'clutter'

Branson unveils green aircraft plan

They follow the release over the weekend of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change, but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Higher-than-average temperatures mean spreading deserts, worsening droughts, shrinking glaciers and increased spread of diseases, said the report, compiled by more than a dozen government bodies. Wheat, rice and corn yields could fall by up to 37 per cent in the second half of the century, it said.

China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses, but it is exempt from its restrictions because it is a developing country."

Says it all doesn't it? :shok::shok:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL

Craig, which is the most heavily populated country in the world, and how many people live there? How populous is the US by comparison? And the two have a roughly equal level of emission. Think about it.

We do have to beware arguments that now the developed world has messed things up the developing world must be held back. The huge irony is that such an anti-competitive lever might be the one thing that would compel the US to sign up to any emissions treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
How many enviromentalist nutcases operate in China atm? Oh wait none.......the way it should be. Communism does have a good point.

I dunno, the more obvious anthro change becomes the more you and your ilk dig yourself in/hurl brickbats.

It's pretty sad to watch really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Though the good will always seem to suffer It'll still do me the power of good to know the few 'bad apples' will be going down with the good ship 'human developed world continuance' (IMHO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: County Meath, Ireland
  • Location: County Meath, Ireland
How many enviromentalist nutcases operate in China atm? Oh wait none.......the way it should be. Communism does have a good point.

Not everyone who respects the environment is a nutcase you know. :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City

Surely the issue of development isn't just a one-dimensional one? Surely there are multiple paths to development that vary according to damage done to the environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Surely the issue of development isn't just a one-dimensional one? Surely there are multiple paths to development that vary according to damage done to the environment?

There is varying degrees of damage and methods/scope of development of course but what you will never ever hear from the Green side is the economic and social consequences of some of their plans. Just one example is Aviation - any move to deny ordinary people the right to fly by increasing air fares substantially through taxation would tip the world easily into recession in my view. The retrograde step of making flying, once again, the preserve of the well off would have serious knock on effect for cargo costs and the world construction industry. I think people have become complacent in the world today (in the west). They think the good times are here to stay and they literally dont recall the bad old days of recession. Therefore they think they can afford to take issues like the environment so seriously. I dont think they can. I think their living in some fantasy world where what what they want to do is limit global development - progress. There is no progress without development. Then , of course, there is the hypocrytical stance on the Third World. There is so many faults with their ideology we could go on for years examining them.

One thing I will say is that no one wants to ruin the environment - everyone likes the natural environment and want it protected as much as it can be. However common sense is in short supply these days on the environment side. My opininon is let technology take its course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
There is varying degrees of damage and methods/scope of development of course but what you will never ever hear from the Green side is the economic and social consequences of some of their plans. Just one example is Aviation - any move to deny ordinary people the right to fly by increasing air fares substantially through taxation would tip the world easily into recession in my view. The retrograde step of making flying, once again, the preserve of the well off would have serious knock on effect for cargo costs and the world construction industry. I think people have become complacent in the world today (in the west). They think the good times are here to stay and they literally dont recall the bad old days of recession. Therefore they think they can afford to take issues like the environment so seriously. I dont think they can. I think their living in some fantasy world where what what they want to do is limit global development - progress. There is no progress without development. Then , of course, there is the hypocrytical stance on the Third World. There is so many faults with their ideology we could go on for years examining them.

One thing I will say is that no one wants to ruin the environment - everyone likes the natural environment and want it protected as much as it can be. However common sense is in short supply these days on the environment side. My opininon is let technology take its course.

Darkman, in the world of finite resources everything comes with a cost, it's just that you and your ilk take the typical western view of spend today, worry tomorrow. It's not doing much good for the UK economy right now (though the bubble is yet to burst).

Quite how you're associating cargo costs with the price of flying to the middle of nowhere with Ryanair for 0.99p plus an awful lot of hidden extras I don't know. Cargo is cargo, and when I last checked Ryanair weren't shipping cargo; in fact, I'm pretty sure that Chavair, unlike most other carriers of choice, actually charges for bags doesn't it (or, mark my word, it will do soon). And perhaps you'l enlighten me re the world construction industry: we're not building in Ireland and then flying skyscrapers out are we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

You should know my general opinion of climate change and CO2 emissions by now, but I'm with Darkman on this in one sense: taxes on flight and vehicles are of very limited value in cutting emissions. About 22% of UK emissions come from transport; half or more of that being commercial transport and freight distribution. On the other hand, 63% of UK emissions come from energy generation (not consumption), commercial and industrial production (e.g. cement - a 'big' emitter), and other business activities.

If there is to be a policy which actually cuts emissions, it should be addressing the source of the emissions, not the end-user of less than a quarter of them. I wonder why the government aren't asking British Gas, Scottish Power, Blue circle, et. al. to make the changes being asked of us, or pay the premiums being charged to us. Perhaps it is because the CEOs of these companies, and the shareholders, have more influence on policy than the 'Person in the Street'. Perhaps it is because, if word got out that it isn't actually our fault that the nation emits the amount of CO2 that it does, few of us would feel guilty about it and few of us would do something about it.

This excludes those of us who think that a lifestyle which does less environmental damage in general is a good thing. We'd probably do something anyway. But who here would worry about CO2 emissions from 4x4s if everyone understood this, even though worrying about CO2 is probably quite a good idea.

As things stand, I find it hard to understand the logic or the effectiveness of the policies and taxes proposed so far.

That's what I think, anyway...

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Darkman, in the world of finite resources everything comes with a cost, it's just that you and your ilk take the typical western view of spend today, worry tomorrow. It's not doing much good for the UK economy right now (though the bubble is yet to burst).

Quite how you're associating cargo costs with the price of flying to the middle of nowhere with Ryanair for 0.99p plus an awful lot of hidden extras I don't know. Cargo is cargo, and when I last checked Ryanair weren't shipping cargo; in fact, I'm pretty sure that Chavair, unlike most other carriers of choice, actually charges for bags doesn't it (or, mark my word, it will do soon). And perhaps you'l enlighten me re the world construction industry: we're not building in Ireland and then flying skyscrapers out are we.

The link with Cargo costs is obvious. Do you think Ryanair is immune from large increases in fares brought on by environmental taxes? They will have to make that money up somewhere else and the only other option is Cargo like the majority of other Airlines in the World. There is no other method possible for the Airline industry if passenger numbers go into decline. The upshot being that Cargo shifted through Aviation is not going to make up the difference so the price goes up. Standard stuff but im not getting into that as its going OT. As regard its effect on the UK economy - I dont live in the UK.....If the UK goes belly up tomorrow thats your problem, no-one elses. If that happens due to environmentalism then some are going to learn a harsh lesson - no? Im happy for my own country and all the others around the world who are benefiting from the free market to keep doing so. If you guys want to be the first in the world to start introducing tax regimes and all the rest to suit the environment - fair enough - Im happy for anyone else but us to be the test subjects and we will watch what happens. If it works out - then great. If it does not then dont start moaning about the economy when it goes sour.

My own view again is to wait for the technologies that enable a cleaner environment for a realistic price. I, like you, want a clean environment. The problem is there is difference of opinion regarding a possible reduction in Living standards and to what extent that may occur if changes are brought too quickly and silly punitive taxes are levied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland

Just want to add, im well aware your economy is doing relatively well and is stable but you would want to take a look at other countries growth rates. Your in the same bracket now almost as France and Germany. There is huge competition now and because the UK's economic growth is steady but slow means it is vunerable to certain measures and I think taxation is at the top of the list tbh. You dont want any puncture to be home grown surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
There is varying degrees of damage and methods/scope of development of course but what you will never ever hear from the Green side is the economic and social consequences of some of their plans. Just one example is Aviation - any move to deny ordinary people the right to fly by increasing air fares substantially through taxation would tip the world easily into recession in my view.

The world economy really is that fragile?

The retrograde step of making flying, once again, the preserve of the well off would have serious knock on effect for cargo costs and the world construction industry. I think people have become complacent in the world today (in the west). They think the good times are here to stay and they literally dont recall the bad old days of recession. Therefore they think they can afford to take issues like the environment so seriously. I dont think they can.

Fair enough, we know what you value, clearly not the environment. Erm, one slight problem, what sustains us?

I think their living in some fantasy world where what what they want to do is limit global development - progress. There is no progress without development. Then , of course, there is the hypocrytical stance on the Third World. There is so many faults with their ideology we could go on for years examining them.

One thing I will say is that no one wants to ruin the environment - everyone likes the natural environment and want it protected as much as it can be. However common sense is in short supply these days on the environment side. My opininon is let technology take its course.

That means the environment comes second. If it does it's had it. Just as well some people care - care about people AND the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Fair enough, we know what you value, clearly not the environment. Erm, one slight problem, what sustains us?

Who the hell are you to tell me what I value and what I dont? What did I say in my previous post about the environment?

- quote exactly what I said. Im sorry but you really do represent the stereotypical view of an environmentalist. Please lay out policy changes you would like to see happen inc taxation so we can judge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Who the hell are you to tell me what I value and what I dont?

Someone who use the words nutcase and envirnomentalist in the same sentence it going to have to work hard to get respect from me.

What did I say in my previous post about the environment?

That you put it second - not equal.

- quote exactly what I said. Im sorry but you really do represent the stereotypical view of an environmentalist. Please lay out policy changes you would like to see happen inc taxation so we can judge it.

Do I now, and just how would you know?

Changes? Tax incentives to move to a less carbon intensive economy. Less tax on less pollution. Less tax on less polluting cars. Make travellers pay a realistic price for air travel, promote fast trains. More renewable electricty generation. Less preference for cars, more preference for public transport. Push for global standards of efficency - efficency = sound economy. Cut world's fishing fleet. Spread resources around the world more fairly - to help the starving, the sick, the poor. Ban plastic bags. Stricter air quality standards - who wants to breath in filth?

Now, what would you do? You claim to care about the environment - lets see how you'd protect it. Can you do that? Or will you resort, again, to insult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland

Can I just make an observation.

These threads always tend to get personal and nasty at some point. Now, I'm fine with everyone having their own opinion, but let's face it; if you don't believe in AGW in some form, then you are clearly in the minority, and you are clearly going against some pretty comprehensive and compelling science. That's not my opinion, that's fact. So, if you want to argue against it, I suggest you come up with some evidence, and not simply accuse those that do believe in it of being brain-washed, or a nutcase, or whatever.

Darkman, you can't seriously expect respect if you go and say to someone as obviously knowledgeable as Devonian that they're a "typical environmentalist" can you? It shows such huge bias that it is surely self defeating? It is also the sort of insulting thing you yourself are claiming to be unfair.

Argue the facts, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Someone who use the words nutcase and envirnomentalist in the same sentence it going to have to work hard to get respect from me.

That you put it second - not equal.

Do I now, and just how would you know?

Changes? Tax incentives to move to a less carbon intensive economy. Less tax on less pollution. Less tax on less polluting cars. Make travellers pay a realistic price for air travel, promote fast trains. More renewable electricty generation. Less preference for cars, more preference for public transport. Push for global standards of efficency - efficency = sound economy. Cut world's fishing fleet. Spread resources around the world more fairly - to help the starving, the sick, the poor. Ban plastic bags. Stricter air quality standards - who wants to breath in filth?

Now, what would you do? You claim to care about the environment - lets see how you'd protect it. Can you do that? Or will you resort, again, to insult?

OK so in typical fashion you refuse to say where the tax rises would be (this is far more important then where the tax incentives would be). So you prophesise about the environment yet in reality you dont know what should be done. 'Plastic bags' - We banned them 5 years ago and I fully supported that - the only common sense move I could think of at the time.

'Spread resources around the world more fairly'

This in my view is where the hypocrisy is. You know my views own this. I believe your stance is morally and practically wrong.

'More renewable electricity generation'

Too expensive at present and the technology does not exist yet to provide enough energy at a low price - never mind the effect on the environment your anxious to protect of wind turbines. Physically and asthetically detrimental where they are placed and sound pollution etc.

'Someone who use the words nutcase and envirnomentalist' - Are you living in a bubble? Thats what the majority think of 'environmentalists' - those who dont put the environment as 'equal' but first on their priorities at the expense of issues that actually matter to peoples lives.

'That you put it second - not equal' - Sorry If it upsets you that I and many believe there are more important thing to our lives then the environment - like paying a mortgage or bringing up kids or maintaining a job or whatever. You obviously have your priorities right.

Can I just make an observation.

if you don't believe in AGW in some form,

I believe the climate has warmed - I dont believe thats down to pollution or human interferance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
OK so in typical fashion you refuse to say where the tax rises would be (this is far more important then where the tax incentives would be). So you prophesise about the environment yet in reality you dont know what should be done. 'Plastic bags' - We banned them 5 years ago and I fully supported that - the only common sense move I could think of at the time.

'Spread resources around the world more fairly'

This in my view is where the hypocrisy is. You know my views own this. I believe your stance is morally and practically wrong.

'More renewable electricity generation'

Too expensive at present and the technology does not exist yet to provide enough energy at a low price - never mind the effect on the environment your anxious to protect of wind turbines. Physically and asthetically detrimental where they are placed and sound pollution etc.

'Someone who use the words nutcase and envirnomentalist' - Are you living in a bubble? Thats what the majority think of 'environmentalist' - those who dont put the environment as 'equal' but first on their priorities at the expense of issues that actually matter to peoples lives.

'That you put it second - not equal' - Sorry If it upsets you that I and many believe there are more important thing to our lives then the environment - like paying a mortgage or bringing up kids or maintaining a job or whatever. You obviously have your priorities right.

We have a philsophical difference - such things are allowed and it doesn't mean those who think differently are nutcases!

Now, the thing is we simply can't go on for ever consuming more and more and more and more of a finite planet. It's just not possible to do that. We HAVE, at some point, to live within this planet's means. You, it seems, don't yet understand that. You will, either by it being forced on you (if you're lucky your descendants) or by humanity manging it sensible. I know how I'd do it.

So, they way I see it, the way to best help humanity is by not carrying on regardless. By not putting the environment second but equal. But, we probably will continue to put the lives of the western few as the actual priority. I don't see that as something to be applauded or promoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City

The world has a carrying capacity. Once this carrying capacity is breached by excessive consumption, then we have no more resources. Now....there are those who believe that technology will save us from breaching the capacity to the point of no-return; and there are those who say that we should start redistributing resources, cutting trade tariffs in Europe and America, etc to ensure fair economic competition globally. I'm inclined to wedge myself between the middle of these arguments; we need more technological breakthroughs in fuel, waste disposal, material production, etc BUT at the same time the world needs to stop producing so much needless rubbish that is increasing carbon so un-neccessarily and we need economic equity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I tend to agree with P3's points above.

I have a suspicion that authorities are taking the "tax the end user" stance partly for economic/capitalist reasons. If you try and force business to go green and cut consumption/emissions, you end up interfering with, and restricting, free markets, and thus potentially offsetting economic growth; whereas recreational activities don't contribute to the economy as directly, and are thus more likely to be seen as 'unnecessary' and 'luxury'. There's also the cynical, but probably to some extent true, idea that the end user's recreational activities are easier to tax than business.

I might have the wrong end of the stick here (there are gaps in my knowledge of this subject area) but it's a possibility I have often thought of.

I personally tend to think that, although economy is important, there is too much emphasis on it at the moment, at the expense of environmental and social factors, and that in order to help protect the environment and improve social well-being, it would require more focus on those and less on the economy (which could potentially reduce economic growth, as we see in countries like Sweden, Germany and France).

However, it wouldn't necessarily require a complete economic recession, and there are areas where we can improve environmental protection without offsetting the economy. If clean technology is devised, and businesses convert to using it, in that case we benefit environmentally and don't lose out economically, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
The world has a carrying capacity. Once this carrying capacity is breached by excessive consumption, then we have no more resources. Now....there are those who believe that technology will save us from breaching the capacity to the point of no-return; and there are those who say that we should start redistributing resources, cutting trade tariffs in Europe and America, etc to ensure fair economic competition globally. I'm inclined to wedge myself between the middle of these arguments; we need more technological breakthroughs in fuel, waste disposal, material production, etc BUT at the same time the world needs to stop producing so much needless rubbish that is increasing carbon so un-neccessarily and we need economic equity.

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...