China To Begin Submitting Air Pollution Reports

Meanwhile... by vought · 2012-01-07 15:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Half the US population will pretend that scientific consensus does not exist as they drive automobiles created with the fruits of science, the Chinese will fudge their numbers, and nothing will change.

Re:Meanwhile... by winmine · 2012-01-07 15:33 · Score: 0, Troll

I wish people would get this right. The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one. There is no consensus about man's impact on the earth. From the article, it would appear that mankind is curbing our inevitable heat wave.
As long as the buzzword is so ingrained in grant-writing culture, the conversation about climate change cannot progress.
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

As you type this in from a computer thats electricity was probably generated by natural gas or coal. (hint those are the two largest polluters in the world). As you sit in your house with its fertilized yard with fertilizer created from oil, on your chair with foam made from oil, in the room painted with oil, typing on plastic keys created by oil.... See my point?
It is *everywhere*. We as a society are addicted to the stuff. We use it by the metric ton.
What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.
Re:Meanwhile... by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-07 15:56 · Score: 0

I'll be more than happy to join an environmentally friendly, self-sustaining commune where all food is grown or killed, and electricity is generated by "exercise duty" so that the people have power and stay physically fit. Your "job" could be to pedal power 8 hours a day and you could read any literature you wanted while doing so.

The problem is that those types of situations attract more than their share of dope-addled(not the harmless marijuana, but the ex-crack and meth-heads whose brains have been rendered into mush), stinky, lecherous pederasts; and the politically correct atmosphere allows for leeches who do not put in their fair share.

I speak with authority because I have toured such communes in rural Washington.
Re:Meanwhile... by Gadget_Guy · 2012-01-07 16:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one.
That does not explain the sudden increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.

There is no consensus about man's impact on the earth.

I think that you will find that there is a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is affected by man. There may be variations in the estimates of how much is due to our CO2 output, but that does not mean that you should consider that the principles about climate change are wrong.

From the article, it would appear that mankind is curbing our inevitable heat wave.
Do you mean the cold front that appeared in one region over a short timespan? I do not think that you can extrapolate this to have any meaning for the entire planet.
Re:Meanwhile... by Ihmhi · 2012-01-07 16:40 · Score: 3, Funny

The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one.
B-b-but it's cold outside right now! I mean, really cold! My anecdotal experience therefore proves science is wrong! And if science is wrong even once, it's wrong all the time!

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Meanwhile... by winmine · 2012-01-07 17:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Fascinating.
Although the source there puts the odds at "Likely," without quantification. It's also the lowest category of confidence they have. The consensus appears to say that's it's more likely than not, but not as certain as the mere fact that it's getting hotter.
One Anti-ACC point I've seen lately is that of cities being hotter because they're bigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
This supposedly skews the results to 'prove' ACC, although this is apparently overrated.
I've only been reading wiki today, and your source.
Re:Meanwhile... by rtb61 · 2012-01-07 17:07 · Score: 1

With regard to the recurrent major ice ages that have occurred over the last couple of million years, this is likely a cosmological event and not driven by what occurs on the earth.
Not that the majority of the human population is clustered around the coast with the majority of major cities being coastal.
In the even of a significant flooding catastrophe making large areas of those cities uninhabitable, the pressure to imprison for life or execute those that were the major proponents of activities that likely brought about those events will be undeniable. Whether corporate executive or politician, you can be assured that those affected both rich and poor will be screaming for their heads.
The only lack of consensus is driven by religious ignorance and greed. That is not considered a lack of consensus that is simply mass media PR=B$ which is now largely being ignored.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Meanwhile... by hedwards · 2012-01-07 17:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Heat islands have been known and accounted for in the numbers used. At this point climate change is as certain as anything is and I haven't seen any credible scientists disputing the view that climate change is real and largely driven by human development.
It's quite well known what we're emitting and scientists have records that go back a long time that show a general relationship between temperature and atmospheric composition. At this point there's very little question about what's happening and why.
Re:Meanwhile... by shentino · 2012-01-07 17:43 · Score: 1

This ought to be a real gas.
Re:Meanwhile... by Whiteox · 2012-01-07 18:00 · Score: 2

There is actually negative evidence that has been measured. It is called Global Dimming. Global dimming effects are lessened rates of evaporation and cooler temperatures. Global dimming is caused by particulate matter from pollutants.
So you could say that burning oil can regulate itself by some margin.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming

--
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Re:Meanwhile... by Osgeld · 2012-01-07 18:02 · Score: 1

we don't burn millions of tons of plastic in barrels as an industry
Re:Meanwhile... by stanlyb · 2012-01-07 18:26 · Score: 1

You are wrong, it has already started. In a few years actually, there will be a lot of changes...to worst of course.
Re:Meanwhile... by caerwyn · 2012-01-07 18:54 · Score: 1

This is true, but all major client models take this into account. The cooling effect from particulates is vastly smaller than the warming effect from concurrently emitted greenhouse gases.

--
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 19:13 · Score: 0

How did you get modded +5 insightful for a bald faced lie?
Re:Meanwhile... by caerwyn · 2012-01-07 19:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.
This is not strictly true. The point of taxes on carbon emissions is that it helps to reduce externalities- costs that party A incurs and party B must pay, without an actual economic link between them. For instance, power plants currently emit pollutants (including greenhouse gases). Those pollutants ultimately result in costs (health care cost increases, infrastructure development to deal with changing climate, environmental reclamation costs) that are not paid by the entity that reaps the benefit from incurring them - the power plant operators. By placing a tax on the polluting activities, we cause those entities to pay for the costs that they are incurring. That cost more fully reflects the actual cost of the good that they are providing- electricity produced from coal, which levels the playing field for alternative energy sources which do *not* incur such external costs. *That* is the point of such taxation- to *level* the playing field by actually making every pay for all of the costs that they incur to society.

--
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
Re:Meanwhile... by cats-paw · 2012-01-07 20:08 · Score: 2

this crap gets modded insightful ?
there's no consensus among oil companies that humans are affecting the climate. Scientists who actually have a clue do have a pretty good idea what's going on, and people like you are never going to believe what they have to say regardless of how much evidence gets shoved in your face.
why is it all you denier types think there is a vast conspiracy of grant-writing culture members but think that multi-billion dollar corporations WHO HAVE NO ETHICAL STANDARDS WHATSOEVER, except to make money, are somehow not interested in spreading disinformation.

--
Absolute statements are never true
Re:Meanwhile... by kdemetter · 2012-01-07 20:48 · Score: 1

It's been very clear for me, that climate is behaving very strangely the last years where i live : ( a very wet previous autumn, a very cold winter with a lot more snow , a very warm spring , a very cold summer , a very dry autumn , a very mild winter , with occasional heavy storms )
My guess is that out of balance now, which is why we get such strange weather.

--
Slipping shoelaces ?
Re:Meanwhile... by Troed · 2012-01-07 20:51 · Score: 0

That does not explain the sudden increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.
What sudden increase is that? Our coming out of the Little Ice Age is not more sudden or a change larger in temperature than any number of historic climate shifts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

--
it's in my head
Re:Meanwhile... by amorsen · 2012-01-07 21:43 · Score: 1

In the even of a significant flooding catastrophe making large areas of those cities uninhabitable, the pressure to imprison for life or execute those that were the major proponents of activities that likely brought about those events will be undeniable. Whether corporate executive or politician, you can be assured that those affected both rich and poor will be screaming for their heads.
I doubt that. The ones against the wall will be the scientists, accused of not warning against the catastrophe, or the green energy industry, accused of not making solutions available at affordable prices.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 22:04 · Score: 0

What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.
This is not strictly true. The point of taxes on carbon emissions is that it helps to reduce externalities- costs that party A incurs and party B must pay, without an actual economic link between them. For instance, power plants currently emit pollutants (including greenhouse gases). Those pollutants ultimately result in costs (health care cost increases, infrastructure development to deal with changing climate, environmental reclamation costs) that are not paid by the entity that reaps the benefit from incurring them - the power plant operators. By placing a tax on the polluting activities, we cause those entities to pay for the costs that they are incurring. That cost more fully reflects the actual cost of the good that they are providing- electricity produced from coal, which levels the playing field for alternative energy sources which do *not* incur such external costs. *That* is the point of such taxation- to *level* the playing field by actually making every pay for all of the costs that they incur to society.
If you believe that tax will be implemented in that way then I have bridge in Brooklyn going for cheap...
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 23:53 · Score: 0

They better. How else can they look in the mirror, being the people with the largest per capita consumption of non-renewable resources.
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 00:52 · Score: 0

If you believe the scientists to be unqualified or the IPCC to not be a legitimate source of scientific analysis, please explain why.
Read and learn.
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 01:21 · Score: 0

You're right.. nobody can possibly benefit financially from this. Like David Suzuki and his carbon credit program...
I'm with NASA. If you don't know what to do, don't do anything at all (otherwise you could be doing something worse).
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 01:41 · Score: 0

For the 'leeches who don't put in their fair share' : it's not that hard to measure the performance.
You could work with required minimum efforts , according to someone's shape.
You could also work with maximums, to prevent people from injuring themselves. For example, you shouldn't peddle for 8h , but switch to other muscles every so often, to let the muscles rest.
For those ex-crack and meth-heads , etc : put them to use : if they work themselves tired, they will be less aggressive, and easier to deal with. It's also a good way to boost self-confidence for someone who is going trough rehab.
Physical exercise also does wonders in preventing modern day diseases like type 2 diabetes, and it's a good way to relieve stress.
Still, you need to set your goals : do you want to be a free therapy center that generates it's own electricity , or a business that generated electricity and sells is.
Re:Meanwhile... by Gadget_Guy · 2012-01-08 03:40 · Score: 1

Can you spot the years covering the industrial revolution on that graph?
Re:Meanwhile... by Troed · 2012-01-08 03:45 · Score: 1

If there was a point to your message feel free to elaborate. The warming we've seen since the LIA is far from unprecedented in history. I'm surprised you don't know this, it's not a contested fact.

--
it's in my head
Re:Meanwhile... by iggymanz · 2012-01-08 04:28 · Score: 0

the IPCC is an agenda driven propaganda organ. quit pretending it is a scientific body, they have no credibility whatsoever.
"where is the heat??!!" -- ipcc climategate email
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 05:45 · Score: 0

caerwyn, very well put! Definitely a more pragmatic review of the problem than GP.
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 06:59 · Score: 0

The problem is that the taxes do nothing to "reduce externalities". They just line the pockets of those in charge.
Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 08:00 · Score: 0

As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change.
I'm sorry but I do not understand this. Why not? Surely you have competition in your area?
In Europe, at least in the Nordic countries you can buy "green electricity" by saying you only want electricity that's made with windpower, for example. You pay a higher price, but it makes demand for greener solutions and companies will then invest more in windpower. That's the thinking, anyway.
Re:Meanwhile... by mug+funky · 2012-01-08 11:23 · Score: 1

if you fart in a crowded lift, the atmosphere changes noticably.
if you don't stop farting when people call you up on it, you're a jerk.

The USA in second place? by davester666 · 2012-01-07 15:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Our CO2 output has only grown 21% since 1970. We simply MUST do better.

With just a little more effort on each persons part, we can once again be in first place.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

Re:The USA in second place? by niftydude · 2012-01-07 15:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Don't worry - USA is still winning per capita!

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:The USA in second place? by fred911 · 2012-01-07 17:43 · Score: 2

From the US census bureau numbers of world population, the US accounts for 4.48% of the world, with a Jan 2012 population date. They use a population date of Nov 2010 for comparison, and put China at 19.18% with relation to the current US census numbers (dont ask).
Seeing how we consider China to be a "developing industrial" nation, and the US "developed", whos the real dirty dog?

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:The USA in second place? by hey! · 2012-01-07 19:36 · Score: 1

We *shifted* the majority of our carbon emissions involved in manufacturing to China. A lot of China's emissions should be charged to *us*.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:The USA in second place? by niftydude · 2012-01-07 20:09 · Score: 1

Quite a sophisticated argument to justify individual selfishness you have there.
So according to your logic, each country in the world should be allocated the exact same resources, without taking into regard the size of their population?

Well if that is what everyone agrees to - I guess I'm moving to Iceland! (pop. 320,000).

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:The USA in second place? by BlueStrat · 2012-01-07 22:14 · Score: 1

We *shifted* the majority of our carbon emissions involved in manufacturing to China. A lot of China's emissions should be charged to *us*.
If that means that the industrial manufacturing base with all the low and middle income jobs and real wealth generation that goes with it, that followed our carbon emissions to China, returns to the US with the "charges", I say "where do we sign"?
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:The USA in second place? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 22:28 · Score: 0

Wait, you want China to send us the bill for them fouling their nest while they make billions of dollars doing so? You're a dumbass.
Re:The USA in second place? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 22:47 · Score: 0

Just need to flip the bird to the WTC and start an environmental impact tax on trade goods. It's not that hard. (In theory at least.)
Re:The USA in second place? by buchner.johannes · 2012-01-08 03:32 · Score: 1

That's the point. The US is crying about China polluting, but Americans are wasting the most resources and polluting the most. Chinese are more economical and haven't even started looking at pollution and green energies until now. Americans seriously need to clean up.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:The USA in second place? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 04:29 · Score: 0

The only problem with your statement is CO2 is not a polutant. Only in bizarraro liberal world is it considered such.
Re:The USA in second place? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 08:08 · Score: 0

That's the point. The US is crying about China polluting, but Americans are wasting the most resources and polluting the most. Chinese are more economical and haven't even started looking at pollution and green energies until now. Americans seriously need to clean up.
Not quite, the proportion of the Chinese population that is rural is way higher than in the US and in China this rural population does not contribute to air pollution on anything like the level that people in China's industrial regions do. Mind you Chinese agriculture has created other pollution problems, most famously with algae bloom due to fertilizer runoff (hint: those boats are not sitting on a lawn) but we are talking about air pollution here. This massive rural population makes China look good on a per-capita basis. In the industrialized regions of China, however, the per capita pollution, inefficiency and resource wastage is way worse than even what the Americans have achieved. If you think air pollution is a problem in LA or New York, try going to the Chinese industrial heartland. You will find pollution levels that put the legendary London coal fire fogs of the 19th century to shame and rival the 1930 Meuse Valley fog disaster. The thing is that it's not just cheap labour that induces western corporations to set up shop in places like China, it is also the fact that their Chinese contractors achieve low production costs because they can get away wit outrageous pollution levels that would never be allowed in the West and that includes the USA where idiots like Glenn Beck compare non-violent environmental activists with al-Qaeda on national TV.

Interesting turn this post took by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:10 · Score: 0

It started off talking about pollution and health hazards, then changed the subject to carbon dioxide. Then it changed the subject back to pollution.

Juxtaposition is not an argument.

Re:Interesting turn this post took by Gadget_Guy · 2012-01-07 15:29 · Score: 2

Juxtaposition is not an argument.
What argument do you think was being made? The summary just grouped separate environmental reports into the one post. Do you also think that it was a problem that they mentioned more than one country when the story title just mentioned China?
Re:Interesting turn this post took by Arker · 2012-01-07 20:43 · Score: 1

No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Interesting turn this post took by Gadget_Guy · 2012-01-08 03:36 · Score: 1

No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.
No, that argument was not mentioned in the original post. It only discussed the different themes covered in the summary. And some people do consider the CO2 emissions to be pollutants.
Re:Interesting turn this post took by Arker · 2012-01-08 07:47 · Score: 1

Some people consider ketchup a vegetable too, but it doesnt make it so.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Interesting turn this post took by Gadget_Guy · 2012-01-08 11:37 · Score: 1

Some people consider ketchup a vegetable too, but it doesn't make it so.
I could point out that it is neither a fruit nor a vegetable because it is actually a condiment made from a variety of ingredients, but it would be a douche thing to do because it is obvious that you meant the humble tomato - just as the use of the word pollution to describe CO2 does not alter the point of the article.
That said, it does still fit the simple dictionary definition for pollution anyway:
Noun: The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
Re:Interesting turn this post took by Arker · 2012-01-08 16:43 · Score: 1

No, I meant ketchup. You may be a little too young to remember the issue, but I chose my words carefully. And you are correct - ketchup is not a vegetable, and no amount of partisan political sleight-of-hand was able to make it a vegetable.
The theme in the article does, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, go back and forth just as the OP you were replying to said it does - talking about 'pollution' and then changing the subject completely to talk about CO2, then talking about pollution again, as if the author were under the influence of some bad drugs or something. CO2 is a natural, non-poisonous component of the atmosphere, it is not pollution. CO, on the other hand, is a genuine pollutant (and there is a very long list of other substances in that category) - yet no information is to be found in the article in relation to CO or any other pollutant.
I know the standards for 'popular' science articles are ridiculously low but this is even worse than expected. It's nothing but political propaganda dressed up (badly) as science.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.

Stupid numbers by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-01-07 15:13 · Score: 2

According to this report, China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971.

Why not going back to numbers of middle age? That should be a quite impressive increase then. For anyone who knows Chinese history, it's obvious that activity in 1971 wasn't high, so it really doesn't make sense at all. And by the way, since when CO2 is one of the worth polluting component? Judging by the short version, it doesn't at all make me want to read TFA. Then I still did, and TFA is crap. Come to Shanghai, and I'll show you that the biggest issue isn't CO2!!!

Re:Stupid numbers by SeaFox · 2012-01-07 15:17 · Score: 2

Come to Shanghai, and I'll show you that the biggest issue isn't CO2!!!
Yeah, it's pirates! Right?
Re:Stupid numbers by JimCanuck · 2012-01-07 15:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

But 1971 is such a good year to pick, after a decade of China not only stopping any real industrialization, but instead falling apart in its manufacturing and technological base, while at the same time it was the start of the EPA and the Clean Air Act in the US. It helps skew the numbers the right direction for a politically motivated article.
/sarcasm
China in 1971 might as well have been the Democratic Republic of Congo technology and manufacturing wise, actually I think the Congo today outperforms what all of China did then!
Re:Stupid numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:25 · Score: 2, Informative

This comes on the heels of a separate report that lists China as the worst polluter worldwide
No shit.
Last time I checked (big industry) == (big pollution).
Some people also expects a Ferrari is going to get great gas mileage.
Re:Stupid numbers by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-07 15:41 · Score: 1

China is the only nation that doesn't have to care about pollution. They already have a population problem. Let their pollution cull the population a bit, and it's a win-win situation.

It's not like the average Chinese citizen is gonna be charged $100,000 for a single hospital visit.
Re:Stupid numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:03 · Score: 0

Pirates of recycling waste disposal?
Re:Stupid numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:39 · Score: 0

Of course Shanghai's biggest issue isn't CO2. The Jiangsu and Zhejiang region is China's trade and financial center, with very light manufacturing. Most of the polluters are well to the west and north. But your fortune of being insulated in that city doesn't mean there is no pollution problem. As for the 1971 starting date, it is indeed unfortunate that it comes without historical context. However, the problem of climate change cannot be dismissed because some report was insensitive to history. They can say the US experienced a 6000 percent increase from the 1910's, and while it may be insensitive to the history of post-depression growth, it still wouldn't alter the facts of the issue at hand -- which is that the problem exists NOW, and the solution depends on EVERYONE.
Re:Stupid numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:05 · Score: 0

Yeah they'd never be stupid enough to let a system that bad exist in their healthcare.
Re:Stupid numbers by AvitarX · 2012-01-07 18:31 · Score: 2

1) I'm pretty sure gp meant the problem was pollution in the traditional sense (poor air quality), which is what most of the summary was about, is the bigger problem
2) the dates make for a meaningless comparison,making I clear the article is a fluff piece.
CA on is a real problem, but is not what I assume the primary focus of the article is, as it's not generally called pollution.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Stupid numbers by plover · 2012-01-07 20:09 · Score: 2

1971 is a very sensible choice. 1971 marked the start of U.S. - China trade, which was the starting point of China's massive industrialization boom. China's pollution problems were minor until Tricky Dick's visit.
And while CO2 may not be the best number to measure for human health problems, it's an important measure with respect to global climate change. Other pollutants simply don't matter to the U.S. Chinese particulates are regional, and precipitate out long before they get across the Pacific. Remember, as long as we get cheap consumer goods from them we don't care how much China pollutes their own sky, their own dirt, or the oceans. We only want to worry about their contribution to CO2 around the globe, which everyone else says is causing global warming, and we want to look slightly less insane to Europe. And because in Congress it's easy to get near-unanimous agreement to say "China, you must pollute less," but the Republicans would never order our own industries to cut emissions of any sort.

--
John
Re:Stupid numbers by Arker · 2012-01-07 21:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's pirates! Right?
No, it's actual air pollution. You know, that means elements that are NOT natural parts of the atmosphere. Things like CFCs, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and industrial particulates. Those things are pollution.
CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. It may well be harmful in large enough quantities, but that doesnt make it pollution.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Stupid numbers by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-01-07 21:54 · Score: 1

It's not like the average Chinese citizen is gonna be charged $100,000 for a single hospital visit.
What do you mean here? You think health care in China is for free, like in France, or in UK? That's simply not the case, and a visit to the hospital can be really expensive. Also, there's all sorts of corruption there (like, you'd have to give a "red bag" to be able to choose which doctor you'd have and not get a just-graduated student). Let me tell you: you'd better not get sick in China!
Re:Stupid numbers by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-01-07 22:04 · Score: 1

And while CO2 may not be the best number to measure for human health problems, it's an important measure with respect to global climate change.
That's the problem! We aren't sure of the scale of the effect of CO2. But we are 100% sure for the rest of. Like I'm 100% sure that I've been sick after going in the city center of Shanghai because of pollution.

Chinese particulates are regional, and precipitate out long before they get across the Pacific. Remember, as long as we get cheap consumer goods from them we don't care how much China pollutes their own sky, their own dirt[...]
So basically, even if it kills Chinese, you don't care, if at least it doesn't arm US citizen? What a selfish jerk! Or maybe that's "humor"? If so, that's not funny.

We only want to worry about their contribution to CO2 around the globe
This is why the CO2 scam is extremely dangerous. We're focusing on the wrong thing. Also, if it's down to pollution per hab, US is the clear winner.
Re:Stupid numbers by plover · 2012-01-08 11:28 · Score: 1

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny, I'm trying to point out the positions that seem to be held by the Western governments, and the hypocrisy behind them, using sarcasm. Our words are those of "concern for human rights", but our actions are those of "we don't want to increase the prices we pay by demanding you clean up your environment or pay fair wages." It's terrible and it's ugly, and I hope China can suppress the corruption long enough to clean up your environment.
CO2 is still seen as a huge problem over here. Global climate change is happening rapidly, and most climatologists agree that it has a lot to do with humans freeing CO2 into the atmosphere. While it should not be your most immediate concern because you're already choking on a cloud of toxins and particulates that must be addressed, it is still a global problem.

--
John
Re:Stupid numbers by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-01-09 21:41 · Score: 1

Thanks for taking the time to make yourself clear. I agree with the first part, but really, I'm not sure with the 2nd one.

While I'm 100% sure about toxins, as you said only "most climatologists" agree, but many who don't aren't climatologists which research would be funded to search a global disaster. This thing seem to be full of lobbying and it scares the hell out of me that each time I read a scientific paper about global warming, I also have to research who's writing it, as it's very often biased views that we are given as facts. To the question "how many more degrees for a doubling of CO2 emissions", we have still so many answers to choose from, from 1 or 2 degree (in which case we shouldn't care) to many more (in which case, it's gona be ugly), and unfortunately, that's the key question.
Re:Stupid numbers by plover · 2012-01-10 03:34 · Score: 1

But that's why I consider it important. I don't think there's an argument about CO2 causing an effect, only the degree of impact. And the impact is very visible to me as I'm from Minnesota, and I can see that our winters have gotten progressively milder over my lifetime. (Yes, I know that's localized data and essentially meaningless over the globe, but it's certainly personal.) The ice caps are shrinking rapidly, according to people who measure such things, and satellite photos make such information visible to anyone.
Here's the thing: if we don't act now, and the problem is any worse than 1-2 degrees, it could be disastrous for the planet. And those are big disasters: increases in typhoons, sea level changes, tornadoes, alterations in the monsoon seasons, among many other scary situations. While I'm about as land-locked as a person can be, and have little to fear from sea level changes, the impact to the large percentage of humanity living on the coasts of the oceans could be staggering. A change in our energy behavior now could make the difference.
The other thing is we can ignore it for another 50 years, and hope that climate change isn't too bad before we run out of oil. That seems to be the current plan.
As far as "who's funding which studies", that pattern is much clearer: as expected, studies funded by industries show low impacts, and studies funded by environmental groups show high impacts. In almost every other case industrial studies downplaying environmental impacts have eventually been proven to be lies. I have no reason to think otherwise here.

--
John
Re:Stupid numbers by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-01-10 17:29 · Score: 1

And the impact is very visible to me as I'm from Minnesota, and I can see that our winters have gotten progressively milder over my lifetime.
NO! First, that's not a scientific way of studying things, and it's charged with emotions from a very long time ago, which (sorry, but that's truth) your human brain can't deal with. Second, even if we could take into account your personal experience (I don't think it's valid, but let's admit so), then it doesn't tell you if it is caused by CO2 or if it's a natural process, let's say as an effect from the sun activity.

The ice caps are shrinking rapidly, according to people who measure such things, and satellite photos make such information visible to anyone.
There's a huge controversy about that. There's no doubts that it got hotter in the north, but also no doubts that during the last period, it got cooler in the south. And then, scientists are fighting with numbers, each saying that their numbers are more accurate.

And those are big disasters: increases in typhoons, sea level changes, tornadoes, alterations in the monsoon seasons, among many other scary situations.
Sea levels are something that we really know. We have real data from the last 2 centuries because, for navigation, we need to know what happens with tides. These numbers are very accurate, and not subject to controversy of any kind. The data are showing a very constant increase of 20 cm per year (about 7 inches, if you like this unit better). That's absolutely nothing to worry about, don't believe the bullshit al-gore-like scams were we see rise of 20m (which equals to the melting of absolutely all ice on earth according to models).
As for typhoons and tornadoes, it's very hard to demonstrate that there is any correlations with the global temperatures. Data over the last 1 or 2 decades can't show any evidence of that. However, it seems it might well be possible, yes, but we aren't really sure of that just yet.

While I'm about as land-locked as a person can be, and have little to fear from sea level changes, the impact to the large percentage of humanity living on the coasts of the oceans could be staggering.
Most of the issues observed for those living in such very low land aren't due to sea level rise, but the fact that the coral barrier is often destroyed by humans.

As far as "who's funding which studies", that pattern is much clearer: as expected, studies funded by industries show low impacts, and studies funded by environmental groups show high impacts. In almost every other case industrial studies downplaying environmental impacts have eventually been proven to be lies. I have no reason to think otherwise here.
I agree.

So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 15:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

These stories are another way to block CO2 reduction. Provide some statistics that make it look like China is main polluter and therefore they need to change before the US should.

I think the fairest way to measure this is CO2 per person (possibly with allowances made for cold countries). As each person has a requirement for energy for personal and economic use, that will require CO2 to be produced. Saying China should not be allowed to burn the same amount of CO2 per person as the US for cheep power and petrol will not go anywhere, the US is still the problem.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:27 · Score: 0

I think the fairest way to measure this is CO2 per person
Should be per unit of GDP or some other measure of economic activity. Economic activity takes energy.
China has half GPD than USA but pollutes more, so they are less efficient in this way.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by JimCanuck · 2012-01-07 15:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Per person you say?
Qatar is number one at 53.5 tons per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago at 37.3 tons oddly enough.
Going down the list you find Australia to be the number one developed polluter per person at 18.9 tons, giving it 11th place. Immediately afterwords at 12th place is the US at 17.5 tons per person. We Canadians are 15th with 16.4 tons per person, and going down you find Russia at 12.1 tons per person or 23rd.
Germany is 37th with 9.6 tons per person, Greece is 41st with 8.8 tons, The UK is 43 with 8.5 tons. And France who can forget them at 6.1 tons, they are 65th.
For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.
All per the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:31 · Score: 0

USA has a population of 308,745,538 while China has a population of 1,339,724,852. So per capita the US has three times as high CO2 emissions as China. Comparing total emissions for different countries is very misleading and calling China the worst offender is just ridiculous. But I guess that's the point, to bullshit us into being scared of the evil chinese.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 15:40 · Score: 1

For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.
So its the rich, especially those with oil, that are the problem. I stand corrected.
China is a small fish though.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 15:48 · Score: 2

Seriously how capitalist can you be?
How do you arrive at this premise? That the free market is entitled to write whatever rules it likes to beat china. That a persons worth and rights is proportional to his income, yes this does happen but there is no ethical or moral justification for it.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wrong. When we talk about mitigating pollution, per capital numbers are meaningless. In the context of climate change, the potential harm is caused by the totality of greenhouse gas output. When government intervention is the only effective solution, we are forced to look at the problem and its solution as bounded by what each government is able to control. Since the Chinese government has power over the greatest amount of pollution, its participation in reduction treaties is essential, and its responsibility to the future the greatest.
You can bring up the role of the US in the past, and its role as the top contributor to the problem, but that would be another argument altogether, and it still would not change the responsibility to act that is borne by every country that has not had year-to-year reduction.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 16:01 · Score: 1

Dammit, successful troll was successful.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:18 · Score: 0

How do you arrive at this premise?
Umm, basic sanity? Because it's the only thing that makes any sense?
A thousand people running an automobile production plant creates more pollution than a million people sitting around in tents doing nothing.
Can you claim with a straight face that economic activity is unrelated to pollution? Of course the nature of it matters too, but it takes energy to run those server farms, manufacture those tractors and airliners, and so on. It isn't a perfect 1:1 thing between GDP and energy use due to variances in technology and so on, and that's where the US is doing much better than China here: it's producing more economic output with less overall pollution.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by chrb · 2012-01-07 16:20 · Score: 4, Informative

This graph is more interesting - it shows Co2 emissions per capita against population (so area of rectange = absolute emissions). Being able to compare the area visually gives a better indication as to the degree of the problem in each nation. This graph shows another interesting thing - responsibility for cumulative/historical co2 emissions. Since co2 stays in the air for 50 to 100 years, the vast majority of co2 that is in the air right now was actually put there by the nations that were industrialised throughout the last century - ie. the US and Western Europe.
btw. The author of that book also addresses the issue of China:

What about China, that naughty “out of control” country? Yes, the area of China’s rectangle is about the same as the USA’s, but the fact is that their per-capita emissions are below the world average. India’s per-capita emissions are less than half the world average. Moreover, it’s worth bearing in mind that much of the industrial emissions of China and India are associated with the manufacture of stuff for rich countries.
So, assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries to the left hand side of this diagram – the countries whose emissions are two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example.
Whether "it is fair to share CO2 emission rights equally across the world's population" is an ethical question, as is the question of who should pay to clean up a problem like this, but it is hard to construct a moral argument that a Westerner should be entitled to emit more co2 than a person born in another nation. Why should we have this entitlement?
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 16:54 · Score: 1

You still are equating a persons worth to his income/lifestyle. If everyone sat around in tents climate change would not be an issue.
To reduce CO2 emissions those cars should either not be made or be constructed more efficiently costing more. The pollution making the care effects both. Regardless of the reasons why, the car maker is destroying both peoples environment while the guy in the tent is innocent.
That logic only make moral and ethical sense if you are a selfish American supremacist capitalist (yes there is redundancy there). The rest of western world pushes the guilt to the back of their minds or tries ignore that this occurs.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:21 · Score: 0

I think the correct comparison is 100 people in a rich country generating x tons of CO2 producing cell phones, compared to 100 people in a poor country generating the same x tons of CO2 burning coal inefficiently. Clearly the first activity is preferable as it actually produces something useful in exchange for the CO2 emission. How to quantify this? Income, which is a measure of how economically valuable a person's activity is. For a whole country we end up with CO2 per unit of GDP.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:49 · Score: 0

You still are equating a persons worth to his income/lifestyle
Umm, no. You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said any such thing. I am making a simple observation about reality, that is all.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 19:29 · Score: 0

Why should we have this entitlement?
It's not an entitlement: it's a step on the way to a better future for all, and we are at that step because of the confluence of good fortune and organizational competence.
The question of why a Westerner emits more CO2 than a non-Westerner is couched in the language of geography, which brings to mind the "Guns, Germs and Steel" theory. We gained the ability to use hydrocarbons for energy through the good fortune of having the right resources and population density to make the industrial leap. That's just one step, though, on the longer scale of human progress, and it's time to move to alternative energy supplies like nuclear power, solar power, and other greener technologies to provide energy: that's where the "Guns, Germs and Steel" arguments fall short, because there's an element of human agency, and thus of ethics, missing in the form of our ability to organize and choose efficiency.
To some extent, organizational competence also helps explain why we in the West exploit resources differently than non-Westerners. Take Israel as a case study: snark all you want, but Israel is patently more organized than its neighbors. They are more prosperous and more militarily successful because they organized themselves for those goals, while their neighbors did not. Similarly, China has become prosperous and has taken a leading role in industry because of their organizational competence, while India still lags behind because of corruption and a failure to organize as efficiently. Mexico is dragged down by inefficiencies and corruption, while the US flourished. There are some geographic factors that helped or hindered each of these along the way, but there are also organizational choices that each society made: the case of Israel and her neighbors, being roughly equivalent geographically, should make that clear. Zimbabwe's history and the Haitian/Dominican divide should illustrate that as well: on the one hand, a country went from mediocrity to failure within a few years; on the other, a single island is split between beauty and immense poverty. There is a very real power to the ability to form and maintain order.
That power derives from human agency: the power of choice. Countries that reached the top of the energy usage charts chose certain forms of organization that, for all their superficial differences, are more or less similar. They all have certain amounts of regulations in otherwise open markets (the Soviet Union failed, and China became more or less capitalist) with a mix between central planning and demand-based markets. The Chinese are demanding more oversight in some respects (like milk production) and more freedom in others, and this evolution is today bringing them closer to the other industrialized leaders. Pollution is going to be one of those areas in which the people demand organization (regulation), and the leaders of China are already working on this (solar and nuclear power are major fields for new development and investment there).
The West requires immense amounts of energy because it has organized itself enough to enter the industrial age through the gateway of hydrocarbon use. Non-Western nations like China and India are following the same path, but they're beginning to work on alternate solutions to sustain growth while diminishing their reliance on hydrocarbons. Brazil likewise has put effort into ethanol. They've demonstrated the organizational competence we achieved and are moving to even more efficient solutions because they now have the organizational competence required to move to the next step. They're taking the next step beyond CO2 reliance, and it's an ethical failing of the developed West that we didn't take the lead in that initiative.
We've become mired in inefficiency and corruption. It's becoming a cultural issue: see the story earlier today on SOPA/PIPA and the indignation of the comments, or any story on the economy, sovereign debt, or politics. The anger in the commen
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 21:07 · Score: 2

I see where you are coming from but GDP still a terribly unfair way to do it and i would expect make it very difficult for other countries to compete (your phone factory gets a heavy tax because we patented the efficient way), so they will never sign up.
Upping your GDP by selling luxury items that consume large amounts of energy such as a 6 litre Dodge Viper should not be a good reason for extra consumption of CO2.
I do agree that someone has to make efficient technology to replace the old though but this is not measured by GDP. Some kind of manufacturing metric could be factored in to the system.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 21:14 · Score: 0

For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.
Countries in the middle-east have higher requirements to begin with. For one thing, air conditioning is a necessity , not a luxury in concrete housing in this part of the world. Also almost all electricity is produced from burning of fossil fuels, since there are no rivers to provide viable substitutes (and no, Solar and wind are not viable substitutes). Nuc. power is an option that is on the table for a few countries. Water is obtained from desalination of sea water, again, using fossil fuels.
Although, mainting lush gardens and greenery in this climate(using treated sewage water) does also add to the footprint.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 21:43 · Score: 2

You still are equating a right to pollute to a countries income/lifestyle
Just to clear up any ambiguities. I am not saying you think this is OK either, just that your justification requires it.
People in tents can't afford a lot of technologies used to pollute and therefore do not produce a lot of CO2. They will also not benefit from the car factory producing cars which will be bought mostly by "rich" or western people. Everyone suffers from global warming yet only the rich caused it.
We are producing more CO2 that can can be sustained (discuss the valididity of global warming elsewhere) you are saying that the rich can pollute more (take the tent dwellers share) because they are generating GDP, making money. The need for most luxury items that pollute is is a lifestyle thing and are not a right or necessity.
I guess you don't say it but i think you end up implying that the west can pollute more because we produce items needed for a western lifestyle. We could be using our excess money to lower our CO2 output to be closer to theirs and give up what can't be made sufficiently low carbon.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by nzac · 2012-01-07 21:53 · Score: 1

Since the Chinese government has power over the greatest amount of pollution, its participation in reduction treaties is essential, and its responsibility to the future the greatest.
Yes this i agree with but what should China's limit be relative to US. I am saying that the fair way to do this per capita which either means that the US needs to better than half its emissions or that China's limit would be set sufficiently high that it will not bother them until they are 4 times their current output.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 00:09 · Score: 0

That first graph seems to indicate that the fine citizens of the (relatively) tiny nations of Qutar, Kuwait and Trinidad & Tobago need to seriously reduce their breathing. Perhaps stop breathing for 1 min in every 5.
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by omkhar · 2012-01-08 05:39 · Score: 1

Trindad is rich with oil - how is this odd?
Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. by AK+Marc · 2012-01-08 06:20 · Score: 1

A thousand people running an automobile production plant creates more pollution than a million people sitting around in tents doing nothing.
You are also asserting that a thousand people running an automobile production plant (let's say $200,000 worth of goods per person per year) get a free pass because the more automated plant down the road with 1000 employees puts out $2,000,000 of small electronics.

that's where the US is doing much better than China here: it's producing more economic output with less overall pollution.
It's producing nothing. McDonald's contributes to GDP, but shouldn't make significantly more pollution than people eating similar food at home, which contributes less to the GDP. A service economy where nobody "makes" anything will necessarily pollute less than a manufacturing economy (what the US used to be, and why the increases are less than other places).

--
Learn to love Alaska

Great! by TheRedSeven · 2012-01-07 15:24 · Score: 1

I love reading fiction!

Zzz by XiaoMing · 2012-01-07 15:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess it shouldn't be surprising anymore that the concept of "per capita" is once again completely omitted to make a headline rather than a point?
7000 MTon vs 5000 MTon... hmm doesn't sound impressive enough, let's try 754% vs 21%!! Oh my god!

How about 5.4 Ton/person (China) vs. 16.7 Ton/person (U.S.)?
Or better yet, how about 90+% of U.S. consumer needs being shifted to China?

Not only is China already more efficient in what it does for the CO2 it's producing compared to the U.S., it's supplying the rest of the world too. What's the complaint here?

Re:Zzz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:50 · Score: 0

Where're my mod points when I need them? Mod parent up!

China: 6.832 billion tons CO2 for 1.3314 billion population = 5.13 tons CO2 per person
USA: 5.195 billion tons CO2 for 307.007 million population = 16.92 tons CO2 per person

(using 2009 population figures courtesy Google Public Data.) And as noted, that's even despite China doing a huge amount of production for the US market (ie. CO2 for US population is being counted as for Chinese population.)

It's clear where the bigger problem lies!
Re:Zzz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:27 · Score: 1

When blaming the US for CO2 production, it's also worth considering this lil' thingy I ran into a while ago (googled for it again)
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41060.html
Yes, it is true the US produces a hell of a lot of CO2 per capita. It is also true that the US has the good fortune, climate wise, to be an overall net absorber of CO2.
You know, if that makes anyone in the US feel better...
This is totally setting aside questions of overall longterm impact and most effective mitigation strategies, and just focusing on the fingerpointing that's been going on lately.
Re:Zzz by hedwards · 2012-01-07 17:27 · Score: 0

That's something that people really ought to keep in mind. It doesn't necessarily excuse emitting too much, but it is something which should be factored into the equation. Ultimately it's the relative change in CO2 levels that people are worried about, not necessarily how much is being emitted. If you emit 1 ton of CO2 by burning lumber but you grow enough lumber to burn that initial material you haven't really changed the total amount at all, or have done so by some other amount related to the energy used to produce the lumber in the first place.
Re:Zzz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 20:29 · Score: 0

Trotting out per capita numbers here is just as stupid and ignorant of historical context. Quick America, pump out 700,000,000 dirt poor peasant babies (making sure you weed out most of the girls, to account for that shining period of The Middle Kingdom's history). That way your per capita numbers will go down!
Re:Zzz by Stephan+Schulz · 2012-01-07 21:27 · Score: 1

When blaming the US for CO2 production, it's also worth considering this lil' thingy I ran into a while ago (googled for it again)
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41060.html
Yes, it is true the US produces a hell of a lot of CO2 per capita. It is also true that the US has the good fortune, climate wise, to be an overall net absorber of CO2.
Actually, the claim is wrong and the article you link to is either incompetent or a lie. The author carefully (or carelessly) picked the net emission map from July 2009. Spring and summer is the main growing season for yearly plants, and for deciduous forests. That's why the plants in the Northern hemisphere pick up a lot of CO2 in the summer. Of course, they release most of it again in fall and winter, when leaves and other plant matter decompose. A meaningful comparison can be only made for a full seasonal cycle. The original report by JAXA shows emission estimate maps for all four seasons (scroll down to near the end, Figure 3), and it also shows the impact of seasonal patterns (Figure 2). Interestingly enough, 3 of the 4 maps show the US as net emitters, and 2 of the 4 show Europe as net emitters.
Of course, we also know that these seasonal fluxes are much larger than human emissions. But they balance out over time, while humans just keep adding CO2. If you check the Keeling Curve of CO2 measured in Hawai, you can see the seasonal effect as small, very regular wiggles in the overall increase. The difference between summer and winter does not balance out, since most land (and hence most seasonal growth) by far is in the Northern hemisphere. The size of the seasonal variation is about comparable to the secular increase of 5-10 years, depending on the point in time you pick. We are releasing CO2 now a lot faster than 1960.

--
Stephan
Re:Zzz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 09:23 · Score: 0

Well, supposedly the data comes from Japan's IBUKU satellite. The article lists the launch date, not the range of data analysis.
The person doing the lying is apparently:
Yasuhiro Sasano, Director of Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies
Re:Zzz by Stephan+Schulz · 2012-01-08 10:41 · Score: 1

Well, supposedly the data comes from Japan's IBUKU satellite. The article lists the launch date, not the range of data analysis. The person doing the lying is apparently: Yasuhiro Sasano, Director of Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies
Read again what I wrote. The JAXA report is fine. It shows the CO2 flux for 4 different seasons, with 3 of them showing the US as a net emitter and one showing it as a net absorber. The O'Sullivan blog takes this one graph out of context, either intentionally or through ineptness, and claims it represents the overal flux. It does not.

--
Stephan
Re:Zzz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 12:15 · Score: 0

So. I googled for IBUKI.
Data on that is really sparse on the official website, but I found this:
https://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatBrowseImage/browseImage/XCO2_L3.gif
If you look at current global CO2 levels, the variation is between 380 and, oh, about 390 right now.
The US seems to stay way below this most of the time.
Soo, I dunno. Looks to me lik "net absorber" but obviously interpreting a graph is a pain, esp when things are going steadily up due to overall worldwide production.
Some sort of numbers would be nice, compared against the smoothed average.
Got a data table somewhere?
Re:Zzz by Stephan+Schulz · 2012-01-08 13:14 · Score: 1

So. I googled for IBUKI. Data on that is really sparse on the official website, but I found this: https://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatBrowseImage/browseImage/XCO2_L3.gif
If you look at current global CO2 levels, the variation is between 380 and, oh, about 390 right now. The US seems to stay way below this most of the time.
Soo, I dunno. Looks to me lik "net absorber" but obviously interpreting a graph is a pain, esp when things are going steadily up due to overall worldwide production. Some sort of numbers would be nice, compared against the smoothed average. Got a data table somewhere?
It looks like the data has been released here, but doing the reduction will be a pain in the ass.
If you look at your graph carefully, then most of the world seems to be low in CO2. But there is this small note saying "XCO2 in the figure has a 2-3% negative bias". 2-3% of 390 ppm is around 10 ppm. Add this to the values you see in the colour-coding, and things change.

--
Stephan
Re:Zzz by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:31 · Score: 0

Eh. Most of the time seems way below 10ppm.
Another thing to consider I guess is how that value I grabbed off wikipedia is calculated. It seems to be from a single measuring point. To be considering apples to apples I guess you'd really want to be using satellite measurements to calculate the global average.
But then, the -2 or 3% disclaimer doesn't really matter, since it is on the satellite's scale.
So going back to the graph, if the US is overall well below the graph's average, then the US is a net absorber.
But, yeah, for anything definitive, would have to go over their data, and I don't think I have the energy to do that right now...

Measuring CO2... only? by SalsaDoom · 2012-01-07 15:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.

You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...

I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd. Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't. These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions.

People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.

I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.

--
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."

Re:Measuring CO2... only? by dbIII · 2012-01-07 16:05 · Score: 2

there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this
Oddly enough far, far less then can be made from working with various PR groups (eg. Heartland Institute) denying it. A puzzle writing snakeoil salesman like Monckton makes more money as a travelling climate "expert" than any Nobel prize winner, and it's the same with the various economists that are rolled out to supply the feelgood message that we don't have to do anything.
Do you really think people are freezing their arses off in the coldest places on the planet faking data when they could be at home faking it where it is warm?
This weird science denying crap is annoying.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by SalsaDoom · 2012-01-07 16:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this
Oddly enough far, far less then can be made from working with various PR groups (eg. Heartland Institute) denying it. A puzzle writing snakeoil salesman like Monckton makes more money as a travelling climate "expert" than any Nobel prize winner, and it's the same with the various economists that are rolled out to supply the feelgood message that we don't have to do anything.
Do you really think people are freezing their arses off in the coldest places on the planet faking data when they could be at home faking it where it is warm?
This weird science denying crap is annoying.
Well, is that a fact, though?
Also, even if so, that doesn't actually change anything -- because what you are talking about are lobby groups, not scientific researchers. Lobby groups always make a tonne of cash, but take a good look at the number of environmental organizations that are actually lobby groups, there are a great many of them and they all appear to be well funded. Its easy to say, "oh look, this climate change skeptic got paid a bunch.." but look at the other way, entire pro-climate change organizations get massively funded as well.
Let be clear here, I never said that pro-climate change people are "faking data" -- you just made that up, I never said it, and I don't even believe that. What I'm saying is that they have data showing something, and that they seed models with that data and that I doubt those models are as accurate as they believe they are. The only way to actually tell the accuracy of those models is to wait and see what happens.
If you are going to fake data for money, you should at least make the attempt look believable, so yes, you would go and chill out somewhere cold for a little bit even if you just made the numbers up.
Finally, "science" means "testable claims". "weird science denying crap" seems to have nothing to do with anything I've said. Climate research does not turn up a lot of short-term testable claims, and that's the problem with this whole issue, is that actually testing these theories is extremely difficult.

--
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Namarrgon · 2012-01-07 16:46 · Score: 2

there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this

seriously damaging the economy
I'm guessing you don't see any contradiction here? Or are you referring to all those researchers who have apparently been getting rich doing climate science? Coz I'm not seeing any - maybe they're hiding behind all the oil billionaires.

These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions.
And if they don't? I'd actually call dramatic increases in storms/drought/famines/conflicts/refugees something more than a "scientific problem".

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by dbIII · 2012-01-07 18:05 · Score: 1

Those nicely shifted goalposts may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but to me they tell me enough to let me know that we have left the realm of rational discussion long behind. Enjoy writing your fiction kid but I'm going elsewhere where there are a few less idiotic luddites that like to pretend that science is worthless.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 18:08 · Score: 1

Making money and damaging the economy are not mutually exclusive. The financial industry does this all the time: short-term profits in one market (i.e. offshoring, commodities speculation like oil, redistribution of wealth to fewer consumers) cause longer-term damage elsewhere. Carbon science, when used to promote carbon regulation, credits, or rationing, can enable unscrupulous participants in the financial industry to enrich themselves while impoverishing the nation.
For example, there is potential in carbon credit markets for short-term profits and long-term economic damage. If carbon credits should be traded on an insufficiently regulated commodities market, speculation would drive up the price of goods, much as oil speculation does now. Speculation driving carbon credits upward would act as a tool for redistributing wealth from the consumers (higher prices for necessary items siphons off their wealth) to the speculators, with the net result that funds previously available for consumption (and thus demand) are concentrated in fewer hands that, while consuming more individually, cannot make up in luxury spending the difference in numbers of consumers, so that aggregate demand is lower. Cheaper energy = more consumer spending = more demand = more jobs.
The scientists aren't the ones who would ever profit from this: the financial sector is (in a way, a superset of your "oil billionaires"). In the long run, they will find a way to make money off carbon science and carbon regulation -- carbon credit markets are one possibility, but regulatory capture is an art with many creative and resourceful practitioners. Yet, CO2 levels do need to be checked, and doing so provides a good opportunity for creating alternative cheap energy.
The best and most efficient way of lowering carbon emissions is to pour scientific effort and research dollars into zero-carbon or low-carbon energy solutions and electric vehicles that can take advantage of them -- move from an electric/gas mix as much as possible to an all-electric regime to reduce hydrocarbon demand. Nuclear power (especially thorium reactors), solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and other green energy solutions could provide electric power without a trading market (no more Enrons), but the research needs to be done and subsidized: in the long run, those subsidies are investments in cheaper energy and thus a better economy with more jobs. If we accept AGW and move on to funding basic research into thorium reactors, better solar power, etc. (which very likely means cooperating closely with China and India, since they seem more than willing to undertake this research because of their own need for cheaper energy), we stand a better chance of making everyone happy: reducing carbon emissions, fostering job growth, and reducing not only our dependence on coal and foreign oil but the entire world's funding for certain regimes that supply oil to the other major, industrialized nations (less Chinese money flowing into Iran means less Iran to worry about).
Obstinately refusing to get past the AGW issue just digs us in deeper. Reform of the financial sector is needed too (breaking up the TBTFs would be a nice start), because that's where the money will be made at the economy's expense.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 20:38 · Score: 0

Also, forget making a monthly budget. I mean, you can seed that forecast with your "data," but the only way to really know how much money you'll have left at the end of the month is to wait and see.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by elsurexiste · 2012-01-07 21:02 · Score: 2

This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.
It would have been nice if you had written those greenhouse gases. Let me do that for you: sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent greenhouse gas (luckily, we don't release a lot to the atmosphere, or things would be much different today), and the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor. After that, the biggest contributors are carbon dioxide, methane and ozone, which human beings release. This raises the atmosphere's temperature, causing indirectly more water vapor. There.

You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...
If you are as suspicious of the researchers as you are of the denialists, just throw a coin and support that faction. Or talk to actual scientists and verify their methods.

I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd. Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't. These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions.
Although holding hands is useless, you gave nice examples. A growing forest is the cheapest carbon-sequestration system available. Switching to bicycle or public transport also reduces emmisions. All in all, what you are looking for is a comprehensive, systemical approach. From the most important to the least, it should reduce CO2 releases due to (a) Non-green energy generation, (b) Inefficient energy use at the end of the power lines (e.g., homes) and (c) transportation. Planting trees also helps, but not as much as working on those three issues. There's not an easy way to do it, otherwise we would have done it long ago.

People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.
Heh, yeah. Just ignore hippies, they'll never be satisfied. You just need to be reasonable. Nuclear and hydro are nice options, and they aren't as expensive as you seem to think.

I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.
Well, you don't seem to be contributing with those. "Either part of the problem, or part of the solution", right.

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Troed · 2012-01-07 21:03 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
Last time I checked, it's the AGW proponents - not the skeptics - that get big paychecks. Have you actually verified your statement?
Example: James Hansen of NASA collecting over a million dollars in personal income for work he's already been paid for with his public salary
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

--
it's in my head
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 22:20 · Score: 0

Those nicely shifted goalposts may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but to me they tell me enough to let me know that we have left the realm of rational discussion long behind. Enjoy writing your fiction kid but I'm going elsewhere where there are a few less idiotic luddites that like to pretend that science is worthless.
So he shots holes in your argument and your taking your bat, ball and glove and going home rather than play on a level playing field...
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by dbIII · 2012-01-08 01:54 · Score: 1

Why? This bit disgusted me to the point where I never want to read anything from that person again:

If you are going to fake data for money, you should at least make the attempt look believable, so yes, you would go and chill out somewhere cold for a little bit even if you just made the numbers up.
I hate that "everybody with a clue can't be trusted because they have an agenda" luddite bullshit that is creeping in even here.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by dbIII · 2012-01-08 01:59 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
Turn on the TV, read a newspaper, or go find some news on the internet. Oh that's right, you already did know but you are just pretending to be incredibly ignorant for the sake of pretending to win some sort of argument.
Also even loonies like Monckton get a hell of a lot more than that million.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-08 02:05 · Score: 1

>there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...
>I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.
I hope someday that you realize that an ad hominem attack doesn't exactly put you in the domain of logic and reason.
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Troed · 2012-01-08 03:46 · Score: 1

So, no citation. I suspected as much. It's a popular myth, but being popular does not make it true.

--
it's in my head
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by Xyrus · 2012-01-08 05:30 · Score: 1

This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.
From such a statement, you have clearly not read much of the scientific research on climate change. The most potent GHG is water vapor, however it's atmospheric life is measure in days. Another potent GHG is methane, with an atmospheric life of 10 years. CO2 on the other hand has an atmospheric life of a century or more. That's what makes it more of a concern.

You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...
Seriously? You're actually being serious when you say that? Have you even looked at what the funding level is for climate science as opposed to, I don't know, Exxon's balance sheet?
Corporations directly affected by taking action to mitigate carbon emissions make billions in profit and 100's of billions in revenue every year. By comparison science budgets for climate research are a paltry joke. If climate scientists really wanted to make money they'd leave the public sector and become corporate shills and fanbois.

I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd.
That's because you don't want to listen. Sound proposals have been made but are to drowned out by idiotic rantings and ravings created and fostered by the manufactured FUD campaign funded by big moneyed interests. This happens whenever Mr. Moneybags is confronted by something that will cut into his profits for the good of humanity. This happened with smoking. It happened with asbestos. It happened with lead. It happened with acid rain. It happened with ozone depletion. And now it is happening with climate change.

Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't.
So you're saying that we're too self-centered and greedy to bother with thinking about the future. Well, I can certainly agree with that.
Steps can be taken that would not "seriously damage the economy". The FUD shops have done a good job of convincing everyone that any steps taken will destroy the country though, so I'm not all that surprised to hear this sentiment. Of course, not doing anything now is just kicking the can down the road, which I admit is a game that we are exceedingly good at.
However, only a complete idiot would think that our current lifestyle can continue like this indefinitely. Our society is not sustainable as it is, and the sooner we come to grips with this the less painful it will be.

These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions. People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.
I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.
And you end with painting everyone who wants to address these issues with the same brush of being to extreme or inane

--
~X~
Re:Measuring CO2... only? by dbIII · 2012-01-08 16:18 · Score: 1

Come on now kid, it needs no citation because you can prove it to yourself by going outside and having a life.

Indian smog in winter ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:30 · Score: 0

I've been to India (Delhi) during January and I can confirm that the fog is extremely polluted: what came out of my nose was no longer green, but black. i.e the junk that my nasal hairs had been filtering out of the air was seriously polluted. It took less than *one day* of walking around Delhi for my nose to become that polluted. Not even Beijing, China, has air as bad as that.

Re:Indian smog in winter ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:48 · Score: 0

I've been to India (Delhi) during January and I can confirm that the fog is extremely polluted: what came out of my nose was no longer green, but black. i.e the junk that my nasal hairs had been filtering out of the air was seriously polluted.
Eh, if it was green to start, see a doctor?
Re:Indian smog in winter ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:59 · Score: 0

Yes go to the doctor for a green booger that's a wonderful idea.
Re:Indian smog in winter ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:22 · Score: 0

India is a total third world shithole.
Ever wonder why the Tamils refuge from Sri Lanka chose to chance dicey voyages across the Pacific to Australia or Canada instead of treading over to neighbor India?
Guess the Tamils know something we don't?

get your bleeding hearts straight first by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:32 · Score: 0

If the west is so concerned about Chinese pollution, perhaps they can stop buying everything and the kitchen sink from the Chinese, and try keeping some manufacturing back at home.
Instead the west wants to suck and blow at the same time.

Re:get your bleeding hearts straight first by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 15:40 · Score: 0

Manufacturing in the USA is more expensive than China, which means goods made locally are more expensive than the imports. So either an American company offshores the manufacturing or someone else imports the goods anyway and undercuts the American company. Compare the price of a hand made wooden table made by the Amish community to something that you can get, imported, from IKEA.
If Americans weren't always shopping for the least expensive goods, then maybe America would have a chance, but no, every man and his dog wants the lowest price on everything.
Re:get your bleeding hearts straight first by hedwards · 2012-01-07 17:32 · Score: 1

Except that's not really true when you factor into the equation all of the costs of manufacturing. Sure China has cheap labor and non-existent labor laws, but that's not the only cost. There's the cost of shipping, the cost of redoing shoddy work, the costs related to difficulties in monitoring the process, the different view of how contracts work and the cost of product recalls if there's too much lead or melamine in the product. Even trying to manufacture a product in the US for a EU business can be significantly more costly than producing it locally due to the increased challenge of keeping things monitored and going smoothly.
Consequently one of the things that's starting to happen is for American companies to take their manufacturing lines back from China and set them up back in the US.

That growth rate may be skewed by atari2600a · 2012-01-07 15:40 · Score: 1

Millions were still dying as a result of famine & the cultural revolution in 1971, it's only natural emissions would spike once everyone stopped dying, but still...

I'm in area power by nukes and natural gas by Joe_Dragon · 2012-01-07 15:49 · Score: 1

The coal is up north But I do see the train cars full it going up to the plant from time to time.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-07 16:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

OMG OMG OMG by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:07 · Score: 0

OMG I don't get the point of this post.

Re:In other news. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:15 · Score: 0

Why, do you have some personal stake in China's good name on the internet? As to your second claim about the US itching to go to war with China, let me point out that there are far more discussions on the topic of a future China-US war on Chinese bbs forums than there are on US forums. What does that say about the public attitude, and who wants to go to war with whom?

97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by Namarrgon · 2012-01-07 16:21 · Score: 5, Informative

And if that isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

I too wish people would stop getting this wrong, as it's blocking the conversation about what to do about climate change.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by albacrankie · 2012-01-07 22:29 · Score: 2

And probably a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. I'm agnostic on the existence, causes, and effects of global warming, and I hope my opinions won't be influenced by a consensus among a largely self-defined group of experts.
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 00:22 · Score: 0

Please define "climate scientists", who's in, who's out? Please also categorize the thousands of scientists whom are not convinced.
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 01:14 · Score: 0

97% of PHP programmers think their code is good.
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by TapeCutter · 2012-01-08 03:51 · Score: 1

Please define "climate scientists", who's in, who's out? Please also categorize[sic] the thousands of scientists whom are not convinced.
Short version; both are "ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)".

When your intellectual laziness reaches the point where you can't even be bothered to read what's been spoon fed to you, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear pig-ignorant than it is to call yourself a 'skeptic' and remove all doubt. Skepticisim's fruits come primarily from applying it to one's own assumptions. Which is why I prefer the term 'psuedo-skeptic' for people who don't. As opposed to 'denier' which seems more applicable to the 50 or so lobbying groups and their sponsors that are responsible for the propaganda that has cleaned the brains of hundreds of millions of intelligent people.

Please don't take my post as an insult, it's tough to question one's own assumptions. World renowned skeptic James Randi's own farther died prematurely because he was conned into being psuedo-skeptical of conventional medicine by a charlatan. As an eleven year old who had worked out his dad was being conned, Randi was angry enough to spend the rest of his long life exposing charlatan's.

As a young man in his early 20's I was a great believer in what Randi calls "woo-woo science". Ury Geller [sic?] was the real deal to me and I read every book I could find on woo for 3-4 years (most in what I now know is a literary style called "false document"). One day I picked up Randi's book debunking Geller, thinking I would be able to easily refute anything a "magician" had to say, obviously I was wrong. As I said above, my intent is not to insult. I'm attempting to slap you in the face like Randi's book did to me, then I want you to get angry at the 'deniers' who are selling your profile to their sponsor's PR department as a "useful idiot".

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by Flammon · 2012-01-08 04:50 · Score: 1

How about a 1 vs 50,000 consensus?
It turns out that the 1 was right in this situation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World
A consensus doesn't change reality and a democracy will never be as good a true expert.

--
ayottesoftware.com
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 05:52 · Score: 0

That's true, but read the entire thread dude. The original poster was arguing that there is no consensus on AGW, and Namarrgon was simply citing facts that show it to be completely untrue. You sir, are off-topic from the thread.
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-01-08 08:16 · Score: 0

What to do? Why, clamp down on Chinese pollution, of course. However, that doesn't Fit The Narrative. You'll never see an OWS protest of Chinese policies, that's for sure. Why insist on actual solutions when we can protest Tha Evul AmeriKKKans instead?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 04:53 · Score: 0

Wow, the petroleum bullshit machine is getting creative. (BTW I used to play competitively, thanks for the WP link. But otherwise I won't pretend to take you seriously. KTHXBI)

You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 16:52 · Score: 0

Looking at this article and the creative use of facts, we realize liberals are just
as racist as anyone else if not more so.
We've had our industrial revolution so Africa, India, and China can't have theirs.

Re:China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:06 · Score: 0

What's even weirder is the west's intense fixation on such worthless society.
Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't get half the headlines as China, and I for one find negros contribute much more to the world than those worthless chinaman.
If it weren't for the negros selling everything to the chinaman, China would have nothing.

Re:In other news. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:15 · Score: 0

Dude, what would you do if you can't make your mortgage payments, and you have a gun?
Answer: You go and rob the bank.

Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:35 · Score: 1

Well this is what happens when you push capitalism all over the world. At one time they all had only bicycles, didn't they.

First reports submitted: by superdave80 · 2012-01-07 17:39 · Score: 1

Day 1: Air sucks big time. Day 2: Can hardly see across the street. Is this bad? Day 3: ... bad... Day 4: Did I mention the air sucks big time?

Re:First reports submitted: by compro01 · 2012-01-07 18:20 · Score: 1

Day 5 : Air Pollution Level - Crazy Bad

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

Should we trust it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 17:53 · Score: 0

They talk about China finally publishing it's own environmental report, but it's been doing this for a while now, and every time being debunked by the US Embassy. So, any reason why this one would be more trustworthy?
Just look up Crazy Bad Pollution...

China, India, et al better be careful... by ibsteve2u · 2012-01-07 18:02 · Score: 1

They go putting their people before the profits of the multinationals, and the multinationals will relocate to Mars or Venus...with Corporate America leading the way.

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"

Re:China, India, et al better be careful... by AHuxley · 2012-01-07 18:35 · Score: 1

Vietnam is the place to go next. Cheaper and their Party understands the needs of investors rather a place on the world stage.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:China, India, et al better be careful... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 05:16 · Score: 0

Or have the CIA overthrow the government installing a friendly to big business pupet regime orjust out right invade. Oh it's China we are talking about ,they are big enough to hand you your ass on a plate
Go bully Grenada or something then.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-07 18:18 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:In other news. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 18:18 · Score: 0

It's just a reflection of the US attitude of "attack first, discuss later".

If you are a potential/likely target of attack from a military superpower, you'd be concerned too.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-07 18:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A better comparison: CO2 Tonnes per km2 by blanchae · 2012-01-07 19:14 · Score: 1

Canada was getting a pretty bad rap last month and the sad part is that the big polluters were the ones who had the loudest voices.

How about a better comparison: Pollution(CO2 tonnes) vs area of land (km2)? This is a better comparison based on the CO2 tonnes divided by the area of the country/region with a resultant tonnes of CO2 per km2 value:

Sources:

Wikipedia for areas of country/region
IEA CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011

(and yes I am Canadian)

Re:A better comparison: CO2 Tonnes per km2 by amorsen · 2012-01-07 21:55 · Score: 1

So Canada doesn't have to do anything because it happens to control vast areas of mostly-useless land?

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:A better comparison: CO2 Tonnes per km2 by donscarletti · 2012-01-07 21:58 · Score: 1

You've got China listed as being 10.5 times the area of the United States and India being 3.6 times as large. They don't teach you maths in Canada or you were just so exited when it put the US in the lead that you forgot to just look over for a brief sanity check?

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Re:A better comparison: CO2 Tonnes per km2 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 22:37 · Score: 0

So Canada doesn't have to do anything because it happens to control vast areas of mostly-useless land?
If you consider massive areas of grasslands, plants, animals, lakes, streams and forests useless then yep.
Re:A better comparison: CO2 Tonnes per km2 by WindBourne · 2012-01-08 02:29 · Score: 1

And you have SERIOUS issues with you calculations. For starters, you show China with 10x the land mass of USA. That alone should let you know that you were incorrect. The reality is that China and USA are about the same size. Instead, grab the data from CIA.gov and parse it correctly.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

False Science: Missing Radiation Tests by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 20:04 · Score: 0

I hate to echo the same thing over and over but it seems to be needed.
It's no longer good enought to just say this stuff doesn't exhist, it exhists, " it's time you prove it doesn't exhist " or shut up and listen.

I call bs, just like in the USA, the weather guys/gals on tv dont tell you nothing about the fukushima fallout or hot particles.
It's not a real report when it ignores the fallout from fukushima. It's not a real weatherman, not a real journalist, it's not real science, it's a political agenda, oh sure they might get the local temperature correct, and they have a real dopler radar feed, or satellite feed, but that's it, that's where the science ends. Once you talk RF emission somehow it's no longer science.

This is no different than saying there are no chemtrails only contrails (condensation) but not actually forcing these " classified nato jet missions (tm) " in question down for inspection.and local public oversight, inspection, and mission statement. If I was the general on a Base, I would scramble some jets after their ass! And if they don't cooperate, I'd have them shot down as the foreign terrorists they are! The painted a big giant X over Sacramento YESTERDAY Jan 7th 2012, Why? What is the purpose? Don't tell me it's just the regular flight path, I lived here for more than 50 years! and I SEE the trails coming out of jets, then turning into clouds.

It's no different than saying there is no weather modification only climate change, without having any public oversight of all the haarp-like stations which are heating the ionisphere. For all anyone knows the Japan Tsunami could have happened because of HAARP like technology. Keep in mind, Haarp in Alaska is NOT the only station. Maybe there are weather wars. I don't care for kochs lies and manipulation or sorros lies and manipulation, I don't care where it comes from, it's LIES AND MANIPULATION! The Left / Right paradigm keeps people inactive.

I don't give a damn if haarp-technology/chemtrails/aerial spraying is classified, or privatly owned.. it's NOT science if it's skipped, and has no public oversight,
it's POLITICS/Police State agenda if it doesn't have these basic public oversights.

If greens want to fight climate change, they would be wise to invest in their own local infrastructure, restore the US constitution not give it away in a treaty!, raise/beef up your local levies, fix your local beaches, not to be a stooge and execute this globalist UN Agenda 21 crap, at the local official level, and paying tax to the globalist bankster level. It's our local city councils and local/state epa's, and international treaties which give away your rights and sovereignty. What's the point of having a no burn day, when you have hot particles of plutonium coming down when it rains!?

We are out of time for these games.
The people doing this are about ready to start world war three. how much time does it take to wake up and do something about these oath breaking fascists?

You know I speak from the heart. You know I speak as an aircraft electrician, electronics tech, and veteran. I am your neighbor, your friend, your local volunteer, I'm the guy who comes running over with a fire extinguisher when you accidentally catch your car on fire, what do I profit from any of this? I don't profit, I don't own shit, and I don't have a doctor, in fact the resentments and anger are actually killing my health now, but you don't give a crap, it's not effecting your health, you don't think about the horrible shit going on day after day, you don't have trouble sleeping, you can shut your mind down and relax, I can't anymore, I SEE where this is going.
it costs me TIME and money to even get the word out. Anybody calling me a kook without pointing to 100% public oversight on the activities I described above is an Agent provocateur, and you would be an imbicile for not checkin yourself.

I am just on anonymoous coward, I don't get shit. I'm not selling "prepper goods" I ain't selling anything but begging people to wake up, come to their senses, and restore the US Constitution. That one act puts nearly everything to a stop overnight! OVERNIGHT these fascists get stopped!

they could grow their economies by cats-paw · 2012-01-07 20:11 · Score: 1

and generate far less pollution, because they could have implemented pollution control technologies from the get-go.

Why they did not is a real mystery to me. Greed and corruption are almost certainly at the root of it, though.

--
Absolute statements are never true

Re:they could grow their economies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-07 22:55 · Score: 0

and generate far less pollution, because they could have implemented pollution control technologies from the get-go.
Why they did not is a real mystery to me. Greed and corruption are almost certainly at the root of it, though.
Factory A no pollution control costs $20m to build, Factory B with pollution control costs $120m to build = don't take rocket scientist to figure out which one is most likely to get built..
Re:they could grow their economies by WindBourne · 2012-01-08 01:41 · Score: 1

No. A cold war is at the root of this. And China is in a cold war with the west. It is American greed that is allowing China to win.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

That's not pollution by Arker · 2012-01-07 20:37 · Score: 0

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants - elements that should not be present. CO2 is a natural and normal component of the atmosphere. This is just bad pseudo-science in the service of a political agenda. Get back to me when you have numbers on actual pollutants.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.

Re:That's not pollution by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-08 02:00 · Score: 2

So is mercury, and I don't think jumping that up in concentration is a good idea.
Thesis disproven.

Ok let's try this then by Sycraft-fu · 2012-01-07 22:04 · Score: 2

Since you are all about efficiency: What is the per capita emissions in terms of people who actually benefit or live the life associated with it?

Here's the thing you either don't know or choose to ignore about China: It is not uniform in the way the population lives. There are two Chinas, more or less. The "city" China is the one you always hear about. Large, modern (in most ways) cities very densely packed, lots of heavy industry and so on. This is, of course, where the pollution happens. Then there's the other China, the rural China. Here the people are peasants in a very literal sense. Subsistence farming, no access to modern amenities, education, etc. The majority live like this.

The life of rural China is why people are so willing and eager to live in dense cities and work long hours for low pay. It is better than the alternative life.

Ok well the problem when you talk per capita emissions is you can't pretend as though the rural citizens are benefiting from them, or generating them. They live a lifestyle without all those modern conveniences. So saying that China is efficient because you factor in their low emissions is a lie. It is not, it simply has a lot of citizens that still live a pre-industrial lifestyle.

Re:Ok let's try this then by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 02:37 · Score: 1

Here's the thing you either don't know or choose to ignore about China: It is not uniform in the way the population lives. There are two Chinas, more or less. The "city" China is the one you always hear about. Large, modern (in most ways) cities very densely packed, lots of heavy industry and so on. This is, of course, where the pollution happens. Then there's the other China, the rural China. Here the people are peasants in a very literal sense. Subsistence farming, no access to modern amenities, education, etc. The majority live like this.
Nonsense.
Close to half of China's population (~500 million) lives in cities with population over a milion inhabitants. Well over half live in cities.
You are thinking 1970s.

Wait for OCO2 by WindBourne · 2012-01-08 01:40 · Score: 1

When that comes out, we are going to find out that CO2 is MUCH MUCH HIGHER.

What is interesting is that this report shows some of the much higher emissions that I have spoken about here. When I mentioned it, I told about a group of ppl that were allowed to monitor them, but could not report it. What few realize still, is that this report is STILL FAKED. What happens is that China has numerous coal plants that have pollution controls on them (required by Japanese treaty), but they purposely turn off (lowers the amount of electricity by something like 5-10%, foolishly, the treaty with japan does NOT require them to turn it on; though to be fair, I doubt that China would have cared). As such, these measurements are taken about 1 day to 1 wekk after running coal plant pollution control. What you see here is the much lesser pollution by steel, concrete, etc. IOW, it does not include the much higher pollution from unclean coal plants.

What it comes down to, is China is STILL emitting on most days of the year) far more than what it reports here.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

I mostly agree by WindBourne · 2012-01-08 01:59 · Score: 1

CO2 and pollution should be tied to 2 things: Size of area (farming, etc) as well as GDP.
The size of area makes sense for 'fairness', but another issue is how much business somebody does. You will notice that China's pollution rose with GDP rising. They basically, cheated their way to growth, but that is because they are in a cold war.

At this time, controlling CO2 emissions and pollution is not possible because far too many are pushing for OTHERS to do something. What is needed is for nations to TAX ALL GOODS (local AND imported) based on the CO2 (and possibly other pollution) from which the good (and its components) come from. That puts ALL OF US into making changes.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Stop pointing fingers, it's by Fuzzums · 2012-01-08 02:55 · Score: 1

time to do something about it.

--
Privacy is terrorism.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-08 06:45 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-08 06:46 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-08 06:58 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Mirror

China To Begin Submitting Air Pollution Reports

176 comments