Slashdot Mirror

. . .otherwise, one could argue that the lack of Pirates causes Global Warming. . . .

Considering they are both side effects of a stable industrialized global society, it's probably a pretty good correllation.

. . .otherwise, one could argue that the lack of Pirates causes Global Warming. . . .

I am an American and I believe you are a complete total moron.

First of all, the US isn't the largest polluter. It hasn't been for a while. Second, we have done more to reduce certain emissions sooner then other countries. In fact, we cut most if not all our nitrates from commercial emissions well before the rest of the world, including Canada because it was causing acid rain in Canada. Imagine that, we stop a certain pollutant before the country complaining about it did.

Also, we have made more environmental decisions at earlier stages then the rest of the world has. That just plain old history. You call yourself an American and don't even know that. Third, even if your going to complain about Co2 as a pollutant which I'm not convinced it is, the numbers in the US only appear inflated when you don't consider the work behind it. The US's GDP is eoughly 13 times the size of all other countries meaning that the amount of productivity is 13 times other countries. When you look at carbon emissions, we are at best twice as bad as other countries with similar populations yet we are intrinsically more productive with those numbers. And when you look at stupid number like Co2 per population, Australia seems to be more polluting then America is and Canada seems to be less then one point behind us. That shows you how stupid those comparisons are.

Finally, it really takes a moron to think we knew then what we know now about nukes when we used them on Japan. Now every nuke capable country has used them in their own tests. America is the only country that has used them in a conflict of war. But using 2008 hind site on a fledgling technology that was used in 1945 that saved more lived then it destroyed is about stupid too. Of course if we knew then what we know now, we would have never used them. How do I know this? Because we knew what they would do and we have never used them since. This includes MacArthur's repeated requests to use them on North Korea.

Finally, even if the administration isn't signing onto the global warming scams that are so abundant, the great people of this nation are embracing the idea of reduction left and right and it is such a high demand that the private industry is leading the way in the US. But shit, isn't that what Bush said, let the markets do it and when people claimed they wanted it, they were able to get it? I mean we got Solar in most states that even allow you to sell some or all the energy back to the utilities. We got wind farms all around the country and the more it goes into operation, the more it becomes affordable, reliable, and redily availible. As for ethanol, Sure people are bitching that it is worse then gas, but it is getting better and is being developed to be more efficient as well as being able to be produced from wastes like silage and grasses that can be raised on scrub lands. Only with a free market does things like that come about. You don't see other countries working on that same.

So to recap, Sure the US pollutes more. That's because it does more. And no, we aren't blind to that fact and people are working every day without a government or UN mandate to reduce the impact. And your wanting to take the side of some ignorant basher just so you can remain intellectually lazy and not look at anything yourself. BTW, None of the countries in the Kyoto accord have been able to reduce their emissions. Germany has good numbers because of an almost negative population growth and an accounting error that inflates their 1990 objectives. So far, the EU countries have turned to exporting their pollution to India and China which is now the highest polluter in terms of tons released per day/year. Out of157 or so countries that signed onto the Kyoto, only 37 or 38 have limits and have to do anything about their emissions. the rest are nothing more then banks that other countries can either shove their industry into like India and China, or by credits from. And strangely enough, none of the countries with

China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US. It would be absurd to bind them to a treaty when other countries are polluting 10x if not greater than those nations per capita. It would be like saying: "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess." I'm really sick and tired of hearing the "Why isn't China/India bound by Kyoto?" argument, especially on this website. 1. As I stated above, they are polluting far less, even if all Kyoto countries were to reduce emissions by the 5-10% demanded of them, and China and India doubled their GHG emissions, EU and US would still pollute more per capita. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2275 Gives an insightful image of pollution levels worldwide. http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions .php as does this. Note China: 3.05 India: 1.34 USA: 24.09 As anyone can see, they have a LONG way to go. 2. Kyoto only binds countries for 2008-2012. After it expires, expect the UNFCCC to draft a new climate protocol. One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.

The problem is that the US is NOT the biggest CO2 emissions maker in the world, that title belongs to China, and India is right behind it.

Utter bollocks.

China is catching up with the US but it hasn't got there yet (something like 1/2 to 2/3 of the emissions of the US). India is about 5th behind Russia and Japan as well as China and the US.

Assorted years for different countries.
http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions .php

2003 figures:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-envi ronment-co2-emissions

2002 figures:
http://timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country

1996 figures:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html

Lots more here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=global+emis sions+by+country&btnG=Search&meta=

Tim.

My company buys forestry based carbon credits from the New South Wales Government in the form of NGACs (New South Wales Greenhouse gas Abatement Certificates). They use the money to both maintain the forests already in place and to fund planting and maintinence of new forests. Trees, especially hard-wood trees are magnificent carbon sequestration machines when they are growing. Their value as carbon absorbers rounds off when they stop growing but as long as the tree is alive it is storing that carbon. The NGAC scheme mandates that the carbon be removed from the air and stored for 100 years minimum. Properly managed, the forests become self-sustaining over time as they are as close as possible to the original native forests of the area, and well suited to being grown there. Forests NSW, the division of the Dept of Primary Industries that manages these carbon pools really knows what it is doing here and we are proud of the quiality of the carbon credits we buy off them as they come with a host of ancillary environmental benifits. Australia, like the USA, has no shortage of land that was cleared before 1990 (part of the NGAC rules) and is open for revegetation. As you so succinctly put it, "Trees capture the energy for free." Its in fact terribly efficient to fund reforestation in this manner.

It is going to take a variety of strategies to avert disaster, and reforestation has a significant part to play. Cutting back on your energy use and relocalising your food supply is the key really. And you can easily offset emissions you can't otherwise reduce with behavioural changes. We know how to save the world, it's just a question of do we want to?

My company buys forestry based carbon credits from the New South Wales Government in the form of NGACs (New South Wales Greenhouse gas Abatement Certificates). They use the money to both maintain the forests already in place and to fund planting and maintinence of new forests. Trees, especially hard-wood trees are magnificent carbon sequestration machines when they are growing. Their value as carbon absorbers rounds off when they stop growing but as long as the tree is alive it is storing that carbon. The NGAC scheme mandates that the carbon be removed from the air and stored for 100 years minimum. Properly managed, the forests become self-sustaining over time as they are as close as possible to the original native forests of the area, and well suited to being grown there. Forests NSW, the division of the Dept of Primary Industries that manages these carbon pools really knows what it is doing here and we are proud of the quiality of the carbon credits we buy off them as they come with a host of ancillary environmental benifits. Australia, like the USA, has no shortage of land that was cleared before 1990 (part of the NGAC rules) and is open for revegetation. As you so succinctly put it, "Trees capture the energy for free." Its in fact terribly efficient to fund reforestation in this manner.

It is going to take a variety of strategies to avert disaster, and reforestation has a significant part to play. Cutting back on your energy use and relocalising your food supply is the key really. And you can easily offset emissions you can't otherwise reduce with behavioural changes. We know how to save the world, it's just a question of do we want to?

My company buys forestry based carbon credits from the New South Wales Government in the form of NGACs (New South Wales Greenhouse gas Abatement Certificates). They use the money to both maintain the forests already in place and to fund planting and maintinence of new forests. Trees, especially hard-wood trees are magnificent carbon sequestration machines when they are growing. Their value as carbon absorbers rounds off when they stop growing but as long as the tree is alive it is storing that carbon. The NGAC scheme mandates that the carbon be removed from the air and stored for 100 years minimum. Properly managed, the forests become self-sustaining over time as they are as close as possible to the original native forests of the area, and well suited to being grown there. Forests NSW, the division of the Dept of Primary Industries that manages these carbon pools really knows what it is doing here and we are proud of the quiality of the carbon credits we buy off them as they come with a host of ancillary environmental benifits. Australia, like the USA, has no shortage of land that was cleared before 1990 (part of the NGAC rules) and is open for revegetation. As you so succinctly put it, "Trees capture the energy for free." Its in fact terribly efficient to fund reforestation in this manner.

It is going to take a variety of strategies to avert disaster, and reforestation has a significant part to play. Cutting back on your energy use and relocalising your food supply is the key really. And you can easily offset emissions you can't otherwise reduce with behavioural changes. We know how to save the world, it's just a question of do we want to?

What are your sources? AFAIK you're just spewing some bull-hockey implying the Kyoto Protocol is arbitrary.

Greenhouse gas emissions by country (this was posted earlier, if you scroll up the comment list)

Canada: 23.45 CO2 tonnes / person
US: 24.09 CO2 tonnes / person

Canada's population: 31.56 million
US' population: 280.00 million

Canada: 740.00 Mtonnes of CO2 emitted
US: 6746.00 Mtonnes of CO2 emitted

(All year of 2003)

Why do you sully the good name of Canada?

Do you really think China and India need the help of the Kyoto Protocol? Production is *already* shifting to those countries. And yes their emissions are uncapped, but their emissions are a fraction of the U.S.'s emissions. When they become part of the problem then we can talk, but right now Europe and the U.S. are the problem.

Hello random internet guy. I do so like your idea about "talking" once China and India become a problem. Allow me to show you the power of 90 seconds and google.com.

Greenhouse gas emission by country

US: 6747 Mtons
EU: 4050 Mtons
China: 3650 Mtons
India: 1228 Mtons

Ah, ok, so, I'm not really sure what your definition of fraction is... but I'm going to go ahead and call 3650/4050, roughly 90%, which is the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by the EU vs China... a "problem". So, can we start talking yet?

If you really must drive an SUV then at least be good enough to pay for the environmental damage you are doing. I pay a monthly subscription to buy enough carbon credits to offset all of my personal greenhouse gas emissions. But I guess I should, as I am a part owner of one of the few companies in the world that retails CO2 credits to individuals. I don't drive a car unless on holidays. I live in Amsterdam and ride a bike. I don't shop at supermarkets, I go to the farmers' markets on my bike every weekend with a backpack and get everything I need for that week from the people who make/grow/slaughter it. Since we started doing this the amount of household waste we generate has dropped from one bin-bag every three days to one every two weeks. We make our own yoghurt (so easy, just add old yoghurt to fresh milk and keep it warm overnight) and as such we now don't throw out a plastic container every day. In Amsterdam we recycle most stuff - paper, glass, plastics, although deep down I suspect they still all end up as landfill in China.

I live a fairly ecologically neutral life these days and have made it my business to enable others to do the same. If you really give a damn about climate change, and you believe, as I do, that human activity is the cause of this change, then I urge you to act now and at the very least offset your CO2 emissions. You may be doing your 'green' best but still not be able to avoid polluting. Now however you can, at the very least, pay to clean up your mess.