Doing my part for energy conservation (merged environmental threads)

[Banusflakes]

But really they have a huge advantage since they absorbed many former Warsaw Pact countries that are just now restructuring their industries. This means they can go from outrageous emitters of CO2 down to let's say current U.S. levels and get massive credits that can be shared amongst the EU countries.

 

How can they go down to current U.S. levels when the U.S. is currently the worlds largest emitter of CO2?

[KimTjik]

How can they go down to current U.S. levels when the U.S. is currently the worlds largest emitter of CO2?

I resisted the temptation to include this in my previous post, but you're absolutely right: even if it's difficult to get exact numbers the estimation is that U.S. is responsible for 25 % of the total CO2 pollution.

 

Developing countries, and east European as well (even if they got their own environmental problems) aren't the real problem.

[red930]

How can they go down to current U.S. levels when the U.S. is currently the worlds largest emitter of CO2?

 

Keep in mind the US is a MUCH larger country than any in the EU, what he means is that the acceptable level per company, or per area, will be roughly at our standards.

 

Since we're way way bigger, obviously we're going to be producing more.

[red930]

How can they go down to current U.S. levels when the U.S. is currently the worlds largest emitter of CO2?

The levels are calculated on a per person level based upon population.

[KimTjik]

Instead of argumentation I choose to contribute some figures from 2002 about CO2 pollution, thus each one can draw his own conclusions:

 

Russia

9.86 ton/capita

1 432 913 000 ton/total

 

(8 230 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

USA

20.16 ton/capita

5 844 042 000 ton/total

 

(35 750 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

China

2.72 ton/capita

3 513 103 000 ton/total

 

(4 580 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Germany

9.75 ton/capita

 

(27 110 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Poland

7.68 ton/capita

 

(10 560 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Sweden

5.81 ton/capita

 

(26 050 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Canada

16.52 ton/capita

 

(29 480 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

France

6.16 ton/capita

 

(26 920 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Ukraine

6.39 ton/capita

 

(4 870 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Saudi Arabia

15.0 ton/capita

 

(12 650 PPP-dollar/capita)

 

Edit: Since ExRoadie has asked for a source for the information given I will now add that, even though I see it pointless at this stage. This information isn't difficult to find and is viewed as reliable, however if a person is determined to argue its validation no figures what so ever will be convincing. I would like to refer to ExRoadies link ExRoadie's Elements of Argument and hope this will be the guidance for any discussion.

 

Source: Globalis - a collaboration between Scandinavian countries, the Norwegian UN Association, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, UNU/Global Virtual University, the University College of Hedmark and the INTIS schools. The project is supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Basically they collect statistics from UN and present it in a more readable output.

 

Added: Last year a friend was invited to a special summit for business-leaders. The main speaker was a former US vice-president. On the subject of pollution he bluntly said: “Actually it’s too late, but we can’t tell that to the public. You as successful business-leaders can handle it though and maybe be able to do something…”. For obvious reasons I can’t give you the source since it was a closed meeting, but it illustrates the problem leaders are facing; they sometimes know more than they dare to tell the public.

[Evil_inc]

One of the reason china and japan are so low is that they will mostly ride a bike or a moped to work. It dosent really work out in the U.S. because alot of people have a 30+ minute commute. I think that with some type of fast moving public transportation system we could save alot on our co2 footprints.

[Banusflakes]

The levels are calculated on a per person level based upon population.

 

 

But you didn't quote any levels you just said "down to current U.S. levels." I'm not discounting what you're saying but if I you want me to believe you then you're going to have to provide something substantive to chew on, some actual numbers.

 

Also I don't see how the page you posted from the agu shows that forest fires produce more CO2 than all of mankind's activity since the industrial revolution. First off, the maps are measuring CO not CO2. In addition, the maps pertain to one week in September 2002 and the same website states that:

 

World-wide, approximately 50% of CO emissions derive from anthropogenic sources with the remainder coming from biomass burning and oxidation of naturally occurring volatile hydrocarbons

 

It also states that the areas of high CO concentration:

 

illustrate the widespread human application of fire for land-clearing during the Southern Hemispheric dry season

 

So here again we are dealing with human activity, not lightning induced forest fires and again, I don't see where the support for your argument derives from.

 

And again:

 

The dearth of MODIS fire counts over southeast Asia suggests the CO plume stretching from there to the east across the Pacific Ocean originates from industrial and domestic biofuel sources.

 

So what exactly are you arguing with these pictures?

[red930]

Any stated facts or figures are irrelevent without the source.

 

I've listed reliable peer review sources for my info and would appreciate the same in return. Additionally, I verify the group or agency credentials before looking at the data. It does no good to look at data when the organization has an agenda.

 

Unless and until reliable peer review sources are used there is no argument. I can make up facts like AG's 95/5% argument but it doesn't pass the smell test without a source.

 

Let's play fair here guys or there is no game.

[KimTjik]

Any stated facts or figures are irrelevent without the source.

 

I've listed reliable peer review sources for my info and would appreciate the same in return. Additionally, I verify the group or agency credentials before looking at the data. It does no good to look at data when the organization has an agenda.

 

Unless and until reliable peer review sources are used there is no argument. I can make up facts like AG's 95/5% argument but it doesn't pass the smell test without a source.

 

Let's play fair here guys or there is no game.

I’ve edited the statistics by adding the source. ExRoadie, even though I really appreciate your good work and many of your views, my doubts are growing stronger that you’re actually not interested in this question more than to defend a decided standpoint. If you would argue about how to interpret reliable information, ok, maybe I would follow along and add my views, but if we go down the road of “who knows it all”, no, I won’t be on board anymore (... because I don't know everything ).

[Smoken Joe]

I have an off question at leasst on this part of the topic how much energy would a 90NM Semperon save over a 160nm(180?) Tbird or duron. In the winter it is just a diffrent way to heat the house but in the summer you make the heat then use energy to get rid of the waste heat........

[Banusflakes]

I've listed reliable peer review sources for my info and would appreciate the same in return. Additionally, I verify the group or agency credentials before looking at the data. It does no good to look at data when the organization has an agenda.

 

You can say that as much as you want, but if the links you provide don't back up your argument then I am going to call you out on it. If there is something I am missing please tell me because I would like to take your argument seriously, but when you post a link to pictures of Carbon Monoxide levels in the atmosphere and then claim that it shows that Lightning Induced forest fires create more Carbon Dioxide than all of mankind's activities since the industrial revolution I expect there to be some kind statement in there that actually supports what you're saying.

 

When I actually read what the authors of that site were saying it actually seemed to run counter to your argument. Those maps were showing the dispersal of Carbon Monoxide from man made fires in South America and Northwestern Asia, in addition to Industrial use of fossil fuels.

 

I'm just asking you to clarify your argument based on that link because it doesn't make any sense to me after reading the information contained therein. Either you expect me to just look at the pictures and believe what you're saying or there is something between the lines that you need to clarify. Entertain me with a response, I am very interested in hearing what you base your argument on.

[red930]

@KimTjik and Banusflakes,

 

I reference to my sourcing and understanding of the subject of human induced global warming I have these points of clarity.

 

At a point about 30 years ago, I fell for the premise that we were entering a period of "global cooling"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

 

The Sinking Ark by Oxford University biologist Norman Myers came out in 1979 and I about crapped my pants.

 

Then I learn from this news article that we are on the down side of all life on earth...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Largest_mass_e..._scientists_say

 

I have taken the position of extreme sceptic in these matters based upon my understanding of the subject and my previous encounters with media driven stories.

 

As far as the evidence presented up to this point I can only say that I have done the research over the years and I have a clear understanding of the results.

 

I expect everyone to be as sceptical of all data on these subjects as I am because anything less is an exercise in futility.

 

Banusflakes, you can't separate the production of CO from CO2 since CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion of natural product including fossil fuel. The link was provided to show the major sources of CO2 and CO on a global scale.

 

KimTjik, yes I am very sceptical about the information that makes media reports.

 

The subject of human induced global warming has become much like the Spanish Inquisition. Non-believers are cast as heretics and fools.

 

Most of the proponents of human induced global warming carry an agenda along with their views and they use the power of the media to carry that message to the public.

 

I use a variety of sources for information regarding global warming. As long as good research using sound scientific principles continues to result in conflicting conclusions I will remain sceptical.

 

Besides, who says a warmer earth is a bad thing when all is said and done? Just maybe this will protect us from the next ice-age!