Bush Says Yes To Global Warming - Page 2

CyberGnu · June 7, 2002, 14:19

Quote:

That most american's don't seem to realize this is a tribute to short-sighted polititians muddying the waters.

Well, put in its proper context, this quote should read "That most american's don't seem to realize this is a tribute to short-sighted polititians muddying the waters to repay the people who bought them"

CyberGnu · June 7, 2002, 14:21

Ironically, the quote I got when I posted that last one was 'every stupidity has a champion defending it'.

Of course, 'global warming isn't real', 'SUV's aren't a problem' and 'just because you own a SUV doesn't mean you have a miniscule penis' have not only one champion but millions...

Caligastia · June 7, 2002, 14:27

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
'every stupidity has a champion defending it'

Aint that the truth!

CyberGnu · June 7, 2002, 14:29

Velo, for me there never was a choice. Bush declared very early in the race that hs supported equal time to creationism in school. That took the choice from the lesser of two evils to 'a kind of boring guy vs. a person who should not be in charge of anything more complicated than if he wants tapioka pudding for lunch'.

And Bush's view on global warming mimics his views on creationism. Basically, he suffers from the first effect of stupidity - he doesn't realize that he is stupid. (In some survey a few years ago about 95% of people asked said they were above average intelligence.... ). Consequently, when he has formed an idea based on his inability to understand science, he thinks that his 'intelligent' mind has come up with the idea, and it is impossible to dislodge it with logic.

In the average Joe Shmoe, this is not such a big deal. But in a guy who makes the decisions for the most powerful nation on earth... It is frightening.

el freako · June 7, 2002, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
What you should be looking at is total emissions per capita and/or total emissions per GNP. By doing so, one quickly affirms that the EU is a lot more fuel efficient in ALL aspects, ranging from transportation to heating to industrial production.

Quite true, the EU is a lot more efficient than the US - but the US should be looking at where it is most inefficent rather than assuming that it is in road transport.

As you mentioned the figures per capita here they are - bear in mind that they US had 1.4 times the EU's GDP per head in 1998 (the year these figures correspond to) so if CO2 usage goes up in line with income the US should be producing 1.4 times the EU figure.

Total CO2 Production:
USA: 19.6 tonnes per head
EU: 8.5 tonnes per head
USA level 2.3 times EU level

This is way above the difference in income and is even greater than the difference in energy consumption (where the US consumes 2.1 times as much, per person, as the EU does).

From Electricity and Municipal Heat generation:
USA: 7.4 tonnes per head
EU: 2.3 tonnes per head
USA level 3.2 times EU level

This is the single biggest producer of CO2 and the second biggest difference between the US and EU. This is also the area where the US could probably most profitably concentrate it's efforts.

From Industry:
USA: 2.0 tonnes per head
EU: 1.5 tonnes per head
USA level 1.3 times EU level

Here the difference is marginal and around what you would expect given the differences in income levels.

From Road Transport:
USA: 5.0 tonnes per head
EU: 2.0 tonnes per head
USA level 2.5 times EU level

This, depsite the claims, is only the third biggest difference between the US and EU and rather more understandable, given the differences in population density, than the difference in electricity generation.

From Other Transport:
USA: 1.0 tonnes per head
EU: 0.2 tonnes per head
USA level 6.0 times EU level

The biggest difference, however it is also the smallest share of either's CO2 production and can mainly be explained by the greater use of air transport in the US and the greater spread of electrified railroads in the EU.

From Residential:
USA: 1.2 tonnes per head
EU: 1.2 tonnes per head
USA level 1.0 times EU level

Pretty much the same, not surprising given the similar lifestyles of europeans and americans.

From 'Other Sources':
USA: 3.0 tonnes per head
EU: 1.4 tonnes per head
USA level 2.2 times EU level

No idea what is included in this - maybe things like agriculture but that may be included in industry.

I did a little experiment with the statistics to see how much the greater reliance on nuclear power skews the figures in europes favor.
I assumed that the EU cut the share of it's energy production from nuclear power to the level that prevails in the US and made up the shortfall by burning more fossil fuels.
This raised the EU's CO2 production from electricity and heat generation to 3.0 tonnes per person - the US figure is 2.5 times that which is and equal difference to the road transportation figures.

Therefore I concluded that the biggest differences are in transport and electricity generation (which are also the biggest producers of CO2 in both the US and EU) and whilst the difference in transportation is partially to be expected given the US's more spread-out population and greater auto use it is far more difficult to explain the difference in electricity generation.

I then went and looked at the difference in actual electricity generated in both the US and EU.
The US generated 14.0Mwh per head and the EU 6.7Mwh - the US level being 2.1 times the EU level.
Even when adjusting for the greater usage of nuclear power in the EU (as mentioned above) this is still significantly different from the CO2 produced.

My main reason for posting this is that many people seem to think that americans can only cut their CO2 emissions by curbing their 'right to drive' - however as we have seen there are gains at least as big to be made in electricity generation, and these are probably easier to achieve both economically and politically.

CyberGnu · June 7, 2002, 15:46

Hmm, I don't know who these 'most people' are, but the Kyoto treaty calls for a total cut, period. Whether this comes from cars or coal isn't really the question, at least not to me.

That a lot of attention is garnered on SUV's is understandable, on the other hand. They are big, noticable and they convey a pretty blatant message: I'm a selfish ******* with self esteem issues.

It's lot easier to go after selfish *******s than coal burning plants...

Nice job on the numbers. I don't agree with all your conclusions, though... The difference between 1.5 and 2 is not 'marginal'. Furthermore, just because one problem is bigger than the others doesn't mean we should ignore the other ones. Go after them all in parallell mode.

Although, with a president who is bought and paid for, maybe we should be happy if he is willing to go after a single one, even if it is only one of the smaller ones...

Promethus · June 16, 2002, 03:00

Great Idea - Defrost Alaska and punp oil like it was Texas!

Alaska, No Longer So Frigid, Starts to Crack, Burn and Sag

June 16, 2002
By TIMOTHY EGAN

With the average temperature rising seven degrees over the
past 30 years, Alaskans are facing sagging roads, shoreline
erosion and dying forests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/na...0f1e6c075d0dea

Golbal Warming - Ba Humbug!

Kirnwaffen · June 16, 2002, 03:27

Bush is a former oil industry exec (from Texas, no less). What would you expect.

On a side note, while many did vote for Bush last election, MOST didn't

Down with the electoral college

Stefu · June 16, 2002, 05:00

Quote:

Do you really think Gore would have taken down Afghanistan? No he wouldn't have. He would have done the same as Clinton. A few badly placed cruise missles would magically eradicate the terrorist threat.

Considering how many Americans supported military action in Afghanistan and how much it would hurt Gore to not do that, it's almost ridiculous how readily conservatives ignore their own stereotype of Clinton-Gore as poll-driven weathervanes.

el freako · June 16, 2002, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
It's lot easier to go after selfish *******s than coal burning plants...

How about going after subsidised american coalminers who not only contribute more to global warming than SUV drivers but also raise US consumer's electricity bills as well?

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The difference between 1.5 and 2 is not 'marginal'.

Well, that's relative - it's marginal compared with the differences in the other sectors and it's also about what you'd expect given the difference in income levels.
Maybe I should have used the phrase 'easily explicable' instead

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Furthermore, just because one problem is bigger than the others doesn't mean we should ignore the other ones.

Of course not - my main point was the what most people assumed was the biggest problem (transportation) was actually the second, and there was another 'problem' which could be dealt with more easily (in both political and economic terms).

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Go after them all in parallell mode.

Sorry I'll have to disagree here - surely you should go after the easiest (in terms of both economic cost and political pain) first?

Wraith · June 16, 2002, 23:37

--"Aint that the truth!"

Yup, and this thread is a prime example.

Look, the climate is not static. It never has been, even before humans were here. Climate change is going to happen whatever we do. Claiming that anyone's proved that humans are causing a disaterous heat wave is just ludicrous.

What really gets me is stuff like this:

--"and these are probably easier to achieve both economically and politically."

Why are you so ready to go and do all this analysis without examing the assumptions you're using? What really gets me about this whole thing is that even if you accept the IPCC numbers in full, accept the Kyoto protocol in full, and assume the best-case IPCC panel scenario, you've still done almost nothing at all to address the problem you're so convinced about... CO2 is far from the most important of the greenhouse gasses, and it certainly isn't the main anthropogenic one.

Wraith
Strip mining prevents forest fires.

Ramo · June 17, 2002, 00:10

Quote:

Bush Says Yes To Global Warming

Whoop-di-do. Bush also says yes to coal subsidies.

CyberGnu · June 17, 2002, 01:49

El freako, you misunderstand me - I'm saying the reason most people care more about SUV's are because they are absolutely unncessesary, and because they are easily identifiable as a big problem.

Look, most people are morons. We all know this is true. And thus I'm happy when we can canalize the energies of these people into ANYTHING that might give progress...

I really don't get your attitude though... Why is going after coal burning mutually exclusive with going after SUV's? If you had the choice of eliminating coal burning AND SUV's, vs. eliminating coal burning ONLY, which one would you choose? Or, which might be a more realistic scenario, if you could eliminate SUV's or not do anything at all, which one would you choose?

CyberGnu · June 17, 2002, 01:56

Wraith, the worlds experts in environmental sciences agree whtat global warming is real and man-made. You obviously know better. Pray tell, whence comes this esotheric knowledge? In waht fields have they awarded you PhD's for your astonishing insights?

Sarcasm aside, you might want to accept reality over what your ideology wants the world to be....

Regarding CO2, it is the one gas where human releases cause the biggest increase. AFAIK, the only major competitor is methane, and [western] industrial emissions of methane are practially eliminated due to pollution controls.

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:15

Gee I wonder why the U.S. thumbs its nose at Kyoto when big polluters like China (with their really dirty sulfur coal) and India are alowed to go nuts.

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:26

The US (and the rest of the Western world) is already outputting more than its fair share of greenhouse gasses. Unless you're willing to hand over the positive benefits of additional production, don't try to use it as an excuse to piss in the common pool.

DarthVeda · June 17, 2002, 02:27

Do something about it

KrazyHorse · June 17, 2002, 02:28

CyberGnu · June 17, 2002, 03:06

DarthVeda, if China wants to pollute their own land with SOx gasses, that is their business, and possibly their neighbours. SOx aren't greenhouse gasses, they come down with first rainfall and acidify the local environment.

Not ratifying the Kyoto because it gives more leeway to China is a lame excuse. Getting China to agree to ANY quotas is an accomplishment, as it is widely percieved that emission quotas are just another way to make sure that China never catches up to the west in economic terms. Even with the current Kyoto thi is partially right, projecting current western living standards on Chinas population would require them to produce with energy efficiencies far and above even the best western countries to be iwthing the current treaty limits.

aaglo · June 17, 2002, 03:18

So, what's the new on this article?

Everybody has known from the beginning (before the election) what Bush is about...

IMO Bush has flown over the cucoo's nest...

DanS · June 17, 2002, 03:56

"Look, most people are morons. We all know this is true."

I don't know this to be true. In fact, a democratic society rests on the assumption that its citizens are reasonably assertive in promoting their interests.

"Wraith, the worlds experts in environmental sciences agree whtat global warming is real and man-made."

I'd just as soon they be triple-sure about it before we go doing anything drastic. Even scientists make mistakes, and the prevailing theories can prove to be incorrect.

Roland · June 17, 2002, 04:39

"I'd just as soon they be triple-sure about it before we go doing anything drastic."

Who suggests anything drastic ? And how sure do you want to be ?

Wraith · June 17, 2002, 08:35

--"Wraith, the worlds experts in environmental sciences agree whtat global warming is real and man-made."

The politicians do. The world's environmental science experts are hardly arguing as one on this issue, which you would know if you researched it. While there are those who support the human-caused global warming theory, there are plenty who disagree with it. Heck, even the IPCC report says their results are highly uncertain guesses.

In any case, whether or not it is real is not the point I was after. The point is that the Kyoto protocol is, accepting its supporters own numbers, totally worthless.

--"Who suggests anything drastic ? And how sure do you want to be ?"

Well, the economic cost predictions I've seen are pretty high, so it would appear to be a fairly drastic change. As far as sureness goes, I'd just like something more sure than computer models that can't even accurately model that last century, much less the next one. The already-observed margin of error here is larger than the worst-case warming claim coming out of the IPCC.

Wraith
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

Roland · June 17, 2002, 09:19

"Well, the economic cost predictions I've seen are pretty high, so it would appear to be a fairly drastic change."

Well, the economic high cost predictions I've seen are pretty crappy.

"As far as sureness goes, I'd just like something more sure than computer models that can't even accurately model that last century, much less the next one."

I'd see this a bit more flexible. Even if we are not too sure, we can do a little.
And I do not like the idea of pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per se. It's a whacky experiment at best.

DanS · June 17, 2002, 10:16

"And how sure do you want to be ?"

Pretty sure. For my own account, it appears to be more of a political conversation than scientific conversation, so I don't mind it settling for quite a while.

Roland · June 17, 2002, 10:42

"more of a political conversation than scientific conversation"

Like "darwinism" - creationism ?

DanS · June 17, 2002, 10:49

Well, wouldn't you agree that "darwinism" is more settled scientifically than global warming? But, alas, even something as settled as darwinism can prove to be incorrect in the end.

Roland · June 17, 2002, 10:57

Not the point. I can create a political debate about anything, and overshadow the scientific debate. And find a few dissenters to blow out of proportion. That is what the most rabid US lobbying groups do for a living.

What do you know about the scientific debate ? I know very little. I only see that whenever someone links a "dissenting" source that has legal or economic points, those are bullshit.

Vesayen · June 17, 2002, 10:58

Bush: Hi, we know about this huge threat which will kill the next generation, but were gonna ignore it and hope it goes away.....

DanS · June 17, 2002, 11:08

" What do you know about the scientific debate ? I know very little. I only see that whenever someone links a "dissenting" source that has legal or economic points, those are bullshit."

I know very little as well--about as much as Scientific American can encapsulate. But the "pro" arguments I hear are pretty vacuous--Wraith does a pretty good job of pointing out these limitations. Given this, I have a choice to assume that there isn't much scientific evidence to support the panoply of global warming "effects" or that the political discourse from the "pro" side is largely detached from the science.

In either case, it seems prudent to let it settle for a while. Y2K was a big waste of time, for instance, so mass delusion is not an unknown phenomenon. And the extent of that problem was much, much more discrete and knowable.