Compared to burning coal, natgas does release less CO2 but leaky wells allow a lot of methane to escape which makes the warming issue worse in the short-to-medium term.
That's comparing the output from one year to another, in this case 2008 & 2009.
I couldn't read the zoomed graphic but this PDF shows the same info: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sy... Recall that Kyoto required reductions of 6 GHGs, not just CO2 but measured in CO2-equivalents. The claims for the USA meeting those requirements are looking ONLY at CO2 when it's known that all that fracking has been releasing significant amounts of the much more powerful GHG, methane.
2014 is likely to be the warmest year globally on record or narrowly in 2nd place and almost no chance of ending up in 3rd without a very large volcanic explosion. The only year prior to 2000 that's in the top 10 is 1998 which was launched with one of the strongest El Nino events of the 20th century.
It's not entirely clear to me what this "economic suicide" is. Is it all about buying useless crap that we didn't need 15 yrs ago? An investment in better infrastructure would be a huge economic stimulus and would entail large numbers of jobs that pay well, develop skills and can't be entirely offshored.
Whoever you are, don't believe the denier hogwash. The opposing side has every incentive in the world to lie about global warming. If it's a conspiracy of dunces & a pack of lies, why does Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon believe that the world is warming due to fossil fuel use? He thinks we can geoengineer our way out of the problem but he's not denying it's happening.
Europe's population has grown since 1990 but not as much. No, it's not a given that emissions would have increased because there was little effort made to rein them in. The advanced Western nations enjoy a similar standard of living as North America but use far less energy to do so. And all those countries are democracies.
You may have missed the memo but China ate your lunch money anyway, to the tune of a couple TRILLION, mostly because you were sold on the idea of cheap shit and outsourced manufacturing - and US emissions increased, even per capita. If it wasn't the for overall efficiency and large population of California & New York holding down the per-capita numbers, America would the worst of the Western nations for CO2 emissions by any measure.
And stop bitching about China & India having no restrictions - they were using only a fraction of the energy and resources despite their huge populations. But if America had the balls to dive wholeheartedly into finding solutions, then they could sell them to the developing nations.
The United States did no such thing and the initial Kyoto targets were fucking weak to begin with.
Had America signed on, it would have been required to reduce emissions of 6 GHGs by 7% compared to the levels in 1990. Several of those GHGs are MUCH more potent than CO2 for trapping heat.
From what I can tell, the USA reduced only the CO2 by about 5% from the 1997 levels which were 10% higher than those of 1990.
The CO2 may have gone down thanks to all that fracking and the drop in economic activity from the crises of 2009 but there was a lot of untabulated methane from the multitude of wells drilled to get that all that shale gas.
"WIth the way that European country economies are shrinking, we'll get to 40% carbon reduction with no trouble at all."
Go to the link below, scroll down until you find the table "EU Member States GDP growth rates" and scrutinize it carefully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Greece is in serious trouble, Italy & Portugal have a lot of work & belt-tightening still to do and some other countries need to get their act together better. But that's about it.
There's no need to wait for the perfect solution and there are plenty of avenues to follow and that are being followed. 2030 is 15 years away and there are other very significants sources of CO2 apart from energy use. Given how long the warnings about global warming have been around, this should have been a problem that's nearly solved, not in desperate need of a magic solution within a decade.
True that it won't be the 1st time something like that has happened but at least the damn thing will get built and there's a chance that clauses on the sale can be used to make sure that whichever company ends up owning it must provide minimum levels of service, periodic upgrades, etc or it reverts to the public for a set price.
Slashdot has 10 options you can moderate a comment, if you have points. What sites do you consider "major news sites" - I suspect we may not agree on what those are.
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to burning coal, natgas does release less CO2 but leaky wells allow a lot of methane to escape which makes the warming issue worse in the short-to-medium term.
That's comparing the output from one year to another, in this case 2008 & 2009.
I couldn't read the zoomed graphic but this PDF shows the same info: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sy...
Recall that Kyoto required reductions of 6 GHGs, not just CO2 but measured in CO2-equivalents. The claims for the USA meeting those requirements are looking ONLY at CO2 when it's known that all that fracking has been releasing significant amounts of the much more powerful GHG, methane.
2014 is likely to be the warmest year globally on record or narrowly in 2nd place and almost no chance of ending up in 3rd without a very large volcanic explosion.
The only year prior to 2000 that's in the top 10 is 1998 which was launched with one of the strongest El Nino events of the 20th century.
I was referring to job creation through new infrastructure, which, one hopes, will create new opportunities.
It's not entirely clear to me what this "economic suicide" is. Is it all about buying useless crap that we didn't need 15 yrs ago?
An investment in better infrastructure would be a huge economic stimulus and would entail large numbers of jobs that pay well, develop skills and can't be entirely offshored.
You don't know how the M$ tax works? It's not at all about you getting money from them.
Whoever you are, don't believe the denier hogwash. The opposing side has every incentive in the world to lie about global warming.
If it's a conspiracy of dunces & a pack of lies, why does Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon believe that the world is warming due to fossil fuel use?
He thinks we can geoengineer our way out of the problem but he's not denying it's happening.
Europe's population has grown since 1990 but not as much.
No, it's not a given that emissions would have increased because there was little effort made to rein them in. The advanced Western nations enjoy a similar standard of living as North America but use far less energy to do so. And all those countries are democracies.
You may have missed the memo but China ate your lunch money anyway, to the tune of a couple TRILLION, mostly because you were sold on the idea of cheap shit and outsourced manufacturing - and US emissions increased, even per capita.
If it wasn't the for overall efficiency and large population of California & New York holding down the per-capita numbers, America would the worst of the Western nations for CO2 emissions by any measure.
And stop bitching about China & India having no restrictions - they were using only a fraction of the energy and resources despite their huge populations.
But if America had the balls to dive wholeheartedly into finding solutions, then they could sell them to the developing nations.
What patents are being licensed?
The United States did no such thing and the initial Kyoto targets were fucking weak to begin with.
Had America signed on, it would have been required to reduce emissions of 6 GHGs by 7% compared to the levels in 1990.
Several of those GHGs are MUCH more potent than CO2 for trapping heat.
From what I can tell, the USA reduced only the CO2 by about 5% from the 1997 levels which were 10% higher than those of 1990.
The CO2 may have gone down thanks to all that fracking and the drop in economic activity from the crises of 2009 but there was a lot of untabulated methane from the multitude of wells drilled to get that all that shale gas.
"WIth the way that European country economies are shrinking, we'll get to 40% carbon reduction with no trouble at all."
Go to the link below, scroll down until you find the table "EU Member States GDP growth rates" and scrutinize it carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Greece is in serious trouble, Italy & Portugal have a lot of work & belt-tightening still to do and some other countries need to get their act together better.
But that's about it.
Go to the Google Public Data Explorer link below to see GDP rates since 1965
http://www.google.ca/publicdat...
There's no need to wait for the perfect solution and there are plenty of avenues to follow and that are being followed.
2030 is 15 years away and there are other very significants sources of CO2 apart from energy use. Given how long the warnings about global warming have been around, this should have been a problem that's nearly solved, not in desperate need of a magic solution within a decade.
Do it as a class action; that'll get their attention.
Why should anyone be paying M$ so much as a thin dime let alone $10-$20 in royalties on each Android device sold?
Good point about the content regulation. I suspect some of the "think of the children" crowd will push for that.
True that it won't be the 1st time something like that has happened but at least the damn thing will get built and there's a chance that clauses on the sale can be used to make sure that whichever company ends up owning it must provide minimum levels of service, periodic upgrades, etc or it reverts to the public for a set price.
Hmm, well sometimes you need a little socialism to keep the capitalists in line.
Nice to see cities stepping up to build better network infrastructure
And if we can hold onto Net Neutrality, even better.
And I certainly hope that no one is using them as a "like" button but I very frequently find comments modded up that are a headscratcher.
Let's hope pCell is viable - it's supposed to be LTE compatible
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto...
Slashdot has 10 options you can moderate a comment, if you have points.
What sites do you consider "major news sites" - I suspect we may not agree on what those are.
Not at all the same thing. YouTube and most of the news sites I frequent have a thumbs up / down.
Come to think of it, so were Enron, Worldcom & Blackberry.
That's the privilege of being an AC or someone who just doesn't have a nice IDpeen.
Those who can, do and those who can't, lurk.
You've got it backwards. With this low an ID, I get to post whatever I feel like. Otherwise, what's the point?