India's carbon emissions to rise by 500% in 25 years!

[0000]

Just read this report.Are the Asian countries serious about controlling greenhouse gasses?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7509603.stm

[Gray-Wolf]

No!

But neither is the U.S. who, currently, are the biggest concern of the planets

(in my mind at least)

Both China and India with be the Death of many of us.

[PersianPaladin]

Sterilize them all.

Starting with me.

[bluecon]

What crazy people!

We tell them a tiny increase in CO2 will destroy the whole world and they don't believe it!

Just crazy of them.

[Gray-Wolf]

What crazy people!

We tell them a tiny increase in CO2 will destroy the whole world and they don't believe it!

Just crazy of them.

We all sat and read the IPCC (hamstrung) report on the changes we are to encounter through both reducing emmisions and the B.A.U. scenario. B.A.U. was a terrifying prospect (even with the bits that India,U.S. and Oz didn't allow in) but this is way above B.A.U. figures.

If the IPCC were being as conservative in their predictions as the 'naysayers' forced them to be then what of a world where the U.S. , China and India continue to massively increase their emmisions????

[bluecon]

We all sat and read the IPCC (hamstrung) report on the changes we are to encounter through both reducing emmisions and the B.A.U. scenario. B.A.U. was a terrifying prospect (even with the bits that India,U.S. and Oz didn't allow in) but this is way above B.A.U. figures.

If the IPCC were being as conservative in their predictions as the 'naysayers' forced them to be then what of a world where the U.S. , China and India continue to massively increase their emmisions????

Why is it that the huge increase in manmade CO2 coincides with no increase in temps?

The computer models do not predict that.

[Devonian]

Why is it that the huge increase in manmade CO2 coincides with no increase in temps?

The computer models do not predict that.

Here is the increase in temperature. Get back to me if I need to explain it further :lol:

[NorthernRab]

The problem is we don't practice what we preach. The UK is only able to point the finger because it's a small country - if we had over a billion people we'd be a massive factor in C02 production. We had our industrial revolution, so it's a bit unfair for us not to allow them to have their own. I don't think China and India are particularly serious about tackling the problem, my sister's Scottish Chinese friend had to leave Beijing after 3 days because her asthma got so serious due to pollution. Her family hail from Hong Kong, a city that until the sudden growth spurt of mainland China's urban population and thus pollution levels, was a fairly clean location. Nowadays, all the dirt of the day gets blown from Guangdong into Hong Kong.

Here is the increase in temperature. Get back to me if I need to explain it further :lol:

The flaw in that data is that it isn't completely consistent, China and India's growth in car users has been most rapid over the last few years, but the drop in temperatures doesn't agree with this. Of course, there is natural variation, even during times of AGW, but to my mind we need more time (another 10-15 years) to truly know whether or not global warming is really happening. Have temperatures not increased at such speed in history before, without any proper evidence suggesting that volcanoes and the like were factors? I'm still unsure, but I view it as a situation we should try to tackle all the same. If we do something and we're wrong, we lick our wounds from the costs; if we're right and do nothing, we are in a lot of trouble.

[Devonian]

The problem is we don't practice what we preach. The UK is only able to point the finger because it's a small country - if we had over a billion people we'd be a massive factor in C02 production. We had our industrial revolution, so it's a bit unfair for us not to allow them to have their own. I don't think China and India are particularly serious about tackling the problem, my sister's Scottish Chinese friend had to leave Beijing after 3 days because her asthma got so serious due to pollution. Her family hail from Hong Kong, a city that until the sudden growth spurt of mainland China's urban population and thus pollution levels, was a fairly clean location. Nowadays, all the dirt of the day gets blown from Guangdong into Hong Kong.

I've always found it hard to understand what there is good about an industrial revolution that leaves the very air people breath unbreathable, rivers dead or deadly, the water in the taps undrinkable.

The flaw in that data is that it isn't completely consistent, China and India's growth in car users has been most rapid over the last few years, but the drop in temperatures doesn't agree with this. Of course, there is natural variation, even during times of AGW, but to my mind we need more time (another 10-15 years) to truly know whether or not global warming is really happening. Have temperatures not increased at such speed in history before, without any proper evidence suggesting that volcanoes and the like were factors? I'm still unsure, but I view it as a situation we should try to tackle all the same. If we do something and we're wrong, we lick our wounds from the costs; if we're right and do nothing, we are in a lot of trouble.

I've always thought the costs, which are actually about economic efficiency and about preparing for the change oil peaking at some point will inevitably bring, not really costs as people understand the word but more like realities that need facing (though I'd grant you it's abundantly clear people wont face realities)..

Edited July 17, 2008 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've always found it hard to understand what there is good about an industrial revolution that leaves the very air people breath unbreathable, rivers dead or deadly, the water in the taps undrinkable.

I've always thought the costs, which are actually about economic efficiency and about preparing for the change oil peaking at some point will inevitably bring, not really costs as people understand the word but more like realities that need facing (though I'd grant you it's abundantly clear people wont face realities)..

I think the world needs more poor people, and when I say that I'm only half joking (and no sarcasm intended). Think about it: I've said before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, that I'm all for a lot of this "eco-friendliness", not out of a fervent desire to save the planet as such but more out of a desperate need to save some money. People on tighter budgets tend to be a bit more careful with their money because they have no choice, so they drive as little as possible (fuel costs), they turn off the lights when they're not needed (electricity costs), they turn on the heating only when it's really cold (gas costs...or electric...).

If you can't afford to be wasteful then you aren't wasteful - it's as simple as that. The problem is that people are being constantly bombarded with gadgets and upgrades and "New and Improved"s to the extent that they're almost brainwashed into buying them. The credit crunch has happened not least because people with no money have been convinced that they have got money on credit, so poorer people start living like richer people and end up being - guess what? - wasteful. A guy I know who works minimum wage and can't keep up with his bills as it is bought a 1GB iPod on his credit card a while ago. Less than a year later he went out and bought a 2GB iPod that he couldn't afford on the same credit card, pretty much maxing out his credit, just because the 2GB iPod was "better" than his original one.

Perhaps not the sharpest tool in the shed, you might think, but regardless of his cognitive faculties he had been given credit that he couldn't afford which made him think that he had money which he didn't have. Not only that but he effectively wasted the 1GB iPod simply because he could "afford" to get a better one.

Why turn off the lights when you believe that you can afford the electricity bills? Why scrimp on heating when you believe that you can afford the gas bills? Why walk or ride a bicycle when you believe that you can afford the petrol?

So maybe that's the government's plan - make everybody poor by taxing them all to death and then we won't be able to afford to pollute!

:lol:

CB

[valiant]

Is much of it to do with projections on population growth?

If so, then I've read that the biggest drag on population growth is an increase in wealth, coupled with the education of women - based on African studies. China and India's problems down the line may be catastrophic recessions caused by a sudden drop in the birth rate and an ageing population.

A bit like Britain.

[laserguy]

Here is the increase in temperature. Get back to me if I need to explain it further

Why do these 'warming' graphs invariably stop at 2000?

[NorthernRab]

Why do these 'warming' graphs invariably stop at 2000?

Probably natural variation. Even in times of increased C02 emissions, the temperature will not rise exponentially, there will also be some slight variation.

Is much of it to do with projections on population growth?

If so, then I've read that the biggest drag on population growth is an increase in wealth, coupled with the education of women - based on African studies. China and India's problems down the line may be catastrophic recessions caused by a sudden drop in the birth rate and an ageing population.

A bit like Britain.

It is difficult to say. You are correct in thinking that increased wealth and the education of women acts as something of a stopper on population growth - women feel liberated and are able to take up employment, thus they are less likely to want to take career maternity leave in order to raise children. However, China and India are two very confusing countries because, first and foremost they are so massive and also they have entered the game rather late. Who knows what the economies of the late 21st century will be like? Professional-based, agricultural, services - it's impossible to tell. The problem is less likely to be a big one as China moves from the Dan Wei system for example to a more market-based economy - the only reason that the aging population is such a concern for the UK is because of our rather large welfare system. I don't think India on China will see a very large recession (the UK hasn't and many of the baby-boomers are approaching retirement), but readjustments will certainly have to be made.

I've always found it hard to understand what there is good about an industrial revolution that leaves the very air people breath unbreathable, rivers dead or deadly, the water in the taps undrinkable.

A lot of things: increased wealth means better health (take a look at any Western European country to see this - people can afford a gym membership, healthier food with less saturated fats etc), the country as a whole (if education is free) is able to turn out more intelligent people, water is generally a lot cleaner due to facilities installed to clean water (the water in London has been through at least 8-10 people before you drink it).

[Nick L]

Why do these 'warming' graphs invariably stop at 2000?

That particular one goes to at least 2005 to my eyes.

[NorthernRab]

People on tighter budgets tend to be a bit more careful with their money because they have no choice, so they drive as little as possible (fuel costs), they turn off the lights when they're not needed (electricity costs), they turn on the heating only when it's really cold (gas costs...or electric...).

CB

A published government study has actually concluded several times that by increasing fuel prices people don't use their cars any less - they buy cheaper foods (which are higher in saturates), they spend less on entertainment (be it taking the family to the cinema or having a few drinks with your friends), they stop buying products from shops, which in turn damages the economy, causes unemployment and creates a worse situation than before. People generally don't make wasteful journeys (or should I say, don't think they do); children need to be taken to school, the shopping has to be bought at the supermarket and so on. This also effects employers; goods are more expensive to transport, thus causing an increase in food prices (further worsening the saturated food situation), prices in shops increase. I could go on forever, but my main point is that it has already been found that higher prices don't lead to less consumption of energy (at least not a useful slump).

[NorthernRab]

People on tighter budgets tend to be a bit more careful with their money because they have no choice, so they drive as little as possible (fuel costs), they turn off the lights when they're not needed (electricity costs), they turn on the heating only when it's really cold (gas costs...or electric...).

CB

A published government study has actually concluded several times that by increasing fuel prices people don't use their cars any less - they buy cheaper foods (which are higher in saturates), they spend less on entertainment (be it taking the family to the cinema or having a few drinks with your friends), they stop buying products from shops, which in turn damages the economy, causes unemployment and creates a worse situation than before. People generally don't make wasteful journeys (or should I say, don't think they do); children need to be taken to school, the shopping has to be bought at the supermarket and so on. This also effects employers; goods are more expensive to transport, thus causing an increase in food prices (further worsening the saturated food situation), prices in shops increase. I could go on forever, but my main point is that it has already been found that higher prices don't lead to less consumption of energy (at least not a useful slump).

[Devonian]

Why do these 'warming' graphs invariably stop at 2000?

Invariably? The one question stop in 2007...

[laserguy]

That particular one goes to at least 2005 to my eyes.

You're right. I'm so used to seeing graphs which do stop at 2000,and the use of the 1979 - 2000 reference frame that my eyes and mind were tricked by my cursory glance at the graph in question. What happens after the end of the trace though?

[Gray-Wolf]

Silver lining anyone?

Indian media are saying that they only have 40yrs coal left.....................doesn't sound like they're favouring renewables for the next 30yrs or so does it???

[Android]

And perhaps not after that either..

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article158513.ece

[Thundery wintry showers]

A published government study has actually concluded several times that by increasing fuel prices people don't use their cars any less - they buy cheaper foods (which are higher in saturates), they spend less on entertainment (be it taking the family to the cinema or having a few drinks with your friends), they stop buying products from shops, which in turn damages the economy, causes unemployment and creates a worse situation than before. People generally don't make wasteful journeys (or should I say, don't think they do); children need to be taken to school, the shopping has to be bought at the supermarket and so on. This also effects employers; goods are more expensive to transport, thus causing an increase in food prices (further worsening the saturated food situation), prices in shops increase. I could go on forever, but my main point is that it has already been found that higher prices don't lead to less consumption of energy (at least not a useful slump).

Your points illustrate a major problem with the current definitions of "waste". Today's economists preach that pleasurable things are non-essential and disposable and thus come under "waste", whereas things relating to money (work, economic activity) are deemed essential. The irony here is that the main point of having a lot of money is to contribute to well-being- something that pleasurable things contribute even more directly to. In addition, consumption of goods that facilitate recreation helps the economy. In short, I think as a society we need to stop seeing pleasure/entertainment as non-essential.

There are, of course, plenty of things we do that have little economic or recreational benefit, for instance "keeping up with the Joneses" type stuff, but as a society we tend not to notice that kind of waste. In some cases we can't even avoid it as the authorities are loath to provide decent alternatives (the drive to work would be a good example for many people).

Rather, we tend to notice the pleasurable stuff and cut down on that. So people still waste energy, but they cut down on their sources of entertainment (no more recreational trips out in the car, less socialising etc). In general economic activity contributes more to pollution than entertainment- so indeed, while consumption reduces, we're unlikely to get a useful slump this way.

The other issue with simply raising prices is that, IMHO in general, bringing in a big stick forces more sacrifices for the same amount of environmental gain then bringing in carrots first, and then applying well-aligned sticks later. In this case, it puts us at risk of heading towards a society based on all work and no play.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[valiant]

increased wealth means better health (take a look at any Western European country to see this - people can afford a gym membership, healthier food with less saturated fats etc),

It's cheaper to buy healthy food but people are too bone idle or tired to cook it.

Don't fall for the "people are living longer" myth. People who were born in 1923 and eat a starvation diet until 1955 are living longer ... not the bloated individuals I see lumbering out of their 4WD's on the supermarket carpark. People are living shorter lives .. they just haven't died yet to make up the statistics.

Edited September 9, 2008 by valiant

[Android]

People are living shorter lives .. they just haven't died yet to make up the statistics.

If only I had a better memory because I would love to recall this quote when faced with the "people are living longer than ever before" argument.

[The PIT]

Don't fall for the "people are living longer" myth. People who were born in 1923 and eat a starvation diet until 1955 are living longer ... not the bloated individuals I see lumbering out of their 4WD's on the supermarket carpark. People are living shorter lives .. they just haven't died yet to make up the statistics.

Yup these fatties are yet to hit the grave.

Ever tried to get a cooked meal out that doesn't have chips with it. What happened to good old mashed potato or why can't you have a Jacket Spud instead of chips.

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's cheaper to buy healthy food but people are too bone idle or tired to cook it.

Don't fall for the "people are living longer" myth. People who were born in 1923 and eat a starvation diet until 1955 are living longer ... not the bloated individuals I see lumbering out of their 4WD's on the supermarket carpark. People are living shorter lives .. they just haven't died yet to make up the statistics.

I think you'll find that the bloated individuals referred to are in the minority- certainly most of the people I know aren't like that. Another example of the usual, quoting the extreme cases and then lumping everyone else together with them.

Yes, that last bit is something that would be well suited to a book of daft quotes in the future!