China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US. It would be absurd to bind them to a treaty when other countries are polluting 10x if not greater than those nations per capita. It would be like saying: "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess."
I'm really sick and tired of hearing the "Why isn't China/India bound by Kyoto?" argument, especially on this website.
1. As I stated above, they are polluting far less, even if all Kyoto countries were to reduce emissions by the 5-10% demanded of them, and China and India doubled their GHG emissions, EU and US would still pollute more per capita.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2275 Gives an insightful image of pollution levels worldwide.
http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions .php as does this.
Note China: 3.05
India: 1.34
USA: 24.09
As anyone can see, they have a LONG way to go.
2. Kyoto only binds countries for 2008-2012. After it expires, expect the UNFCCC to draft a new climate protocol. One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.
Just look at this it makes my point way better:
CO2e t/person --
USA: 24.09
China: 3.05
India: 1.34
The whole human race needs to find a way to reduce global emissions. According to these numbers, where should that start?
Actually China, which has a higher population than ours currently emits about 60% of the GHGs the US emits. By making China reduce its emissions while those in the US and Europe are per capita way above theirs, is basically saying: We got to industrialization first so we get the privileges of polluting the atmosphere... You will NEVER get a developing state to agree to such logic.
The only fair way to regulate global GHG's in my opinion is to have some per capita ceiling. Your logic would make that ceiling much higher in developed states. Is that fair? If you were the president/parliament of a developing state why would you ever agree to such an arrangement?
According to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" if the Chinese polluted as much per capita as the United States, world co2 emissions would increase by about 94%, almost doubling. That should give you an idea of how much more of the atmosphere America is owning, so to speak.
1. wikipedia changes, so your citation might not be there when someone goes to check it.
2. wikipedia is not always accurate (i guess other sources have this problem too)
Use wikipedia to learn something, not to cite it. I really DO think wikipedia should release permanent versions of their encyclopedia. For example release a 2006 wikipedia that can't be changed, showing all the information collected at that point.
U can use wikipedia to get references through their links. Anyone who thinks u should be able to cite wikipedia is a fool.
you are correct--according to my calculations it is 37% more insulting to use the "$" for s. I mean a company that seeks profits? What the fuck is wrong with them?
LOL THEY'RE LOSERS WITH NO LIVES ROFL
that's basically the gist of your argument. It's simply not true though, undergraduate and graduate students along with professors, doctors, engineers and other regularly contribute to wikipedia. It seems to me you have your own issues to resolve. You attack people for spending their free time contributing to an information source as 'losers'? Then you further criticize them for socializing--which we could rephrase as conferencing or working together... I just don't understand your stance at all. I think wikipedia contribution is a great use of one's free time, it's better than watching television for instance.
Joyce's "The Dead" is one of the most popular and most highly regarded short stories written in the english language.
And not just by english departments
this post doesn't make any damn sense. It just sounds like you were trying to prove you knew all these damn writers well. Sounds like a pretensious attitude to me.
That is not what he is saying at all.
His point, as the same with the piece its copied from, is that the internet and all this other wonderful technology surrounding it will not create a revolution.
Our past problems persist, etc. The internet will not change humanity, create a utopia, or bring world peace. It wont end starvation, prejudice, poverty, crime, war, disease, hatred, ignorance, etc. This is essentially the same message as the previous one, only that related to a different technology.
That is his point. His point isn't that some elitist coder is worthier than a newbish aoler. Wow, remove your bias and study something more objectively next time.
Seems weak, there's nothing but listing. With the old one at least we get absurdist connections, that make sense in a way "John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary."
This new AOL one is devoid of any interesting figurative language of that level, hardly a homage to the original. The only thing that seems clever in it is, "The Revolution is not an AOL Keyword" but that's just a weak derivation on the original. It definitely doesn't engage my imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
China and India pollute substantially less per person than any EU country or the US. It would be absurd to bind them to a treaty when other countries are polluting 10x if not greater than those nations per capita. It would be like saying: "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess." I'm really sick and tired of hearing the "Why isn't China/India bound by Kyoto?" argument, especially on this website. 1. As I stated above, they are polluting far less, even if all Kyoto countries were to reduce emissions by the 5-10% demanded of them, and China and India doubled their GHG emissions, EU and US would still pollute more per capita. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2275 Gives an insightful image of pollution levels worldwide. http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions .php as does this.
Note China: 3.05
India: 1.34
USA: 24.09
As anyone can see, they have a LONG way to go.
2. Kyoto only binds countries for 2008-2012. After it expires, expect the UNFCCC to draft a new climate protocol. One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.
Just look at this it makes my point way better: CO2e t/person -- USA: 24.09 China: 3.05 India: 1.34 The whole human race needs to find a way to reduce global emissions. According to these numbers, where should that start?
Actually China, which has a higher population than ours currently emits about 60% of the GHGs the US emits. By making China reduce its emissions while those in the US and Europe are per capita way above theirs, is basically saying: We got to industrialization first so we get the privileges of polluting the atmosphere... You will NEVER get a developing state to agree to such logic. The only fair way to regulate global GHG's in my opinion is to have some per capita ceiling. Your logic would make that ceiling much higher in developed states. Is that fair? If you were the president/parliament of a developing state why would you ever agree to such an arrangement? According to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" if the Chinese polluted as much per capita as the United States, world co2 emissions would increase by about 94%, almost doubling. That should give you an idea of how much more of the atmosphere America is owning, so to speak.
1. wikipedia changes, so your citation might not be there when someone goes to check it. 2. wikipedia is not always accurate (i guess other sources have this problem too) Use wikipedia to learn something, not to cite it. I really DO think wikipedia should release permanent versions of their encyclopedia. For example release a 2006 wikipedia that can't be changed, showing all the information collected at that point. U can use wikipedia to get references through their links. Anyone who thinks u should be able to cite wikipedia is a fool.
you are correct--according to my calculations it is 37% more insulting to use the "$" for s. I mean a company that seeks profits? What the fuck is wrong with them?
LOL THEY'RE LOSERS WITH NO LIVES ROFL that's basically the gist of your argument. It's simply not true though, undergraduate and graduate students along with professors, doctors, engineers and other regularly contribute to wikipedia. It seems to me you have your own issues to resolve. You attack people for spending their free time contributing to an information source as 'losers'? Then you further criticize them for socializing--which we could rephrase as conferencing or working together... I just don't understand your stance at all. I think wikipedia contribution is a great use of one's free time, it's better than watching television for instance.
kjs
kjs
Joyce's "The Dead" is one of the most popular and most highly regarded short stories written in the english language. And not just by english departments
this post doesn't make any damn sense. It just sounds like you were trying to prove you knew all these damn writers well. Sounds like a pretensious attitude to me.
That is not what he is saying at all. His point, as the same with the piece its copied from, is that the internet and all this other wonderful technology surrounding it will not create a revolution. Our past problems persist, etc. The internet will not change humanity, create a utopia, or bring world peace. It wont end starvation, prejudice, poverty, crime, war, disease, hatred, ignorance, etc. This is essentially the same message as the previous one, only that related to a different technology. That is his point. His point isn't that some elitist coder is worthier than a newbish aoler. Wow, remove your bias and study something more objectively next time.
Seems weak, there's nothing but listing. With the old one at least we get absurdist connections, that make sense in a way "John Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary." This new AOL one is devoid of any interesting figurative language of that level, hardly a homage to the original. The only thing that seems clever in it is, "The Revolution is not an AOL Keyword" but that's just a weak derivation on the original. It definitely doesn't engage my imagination.
Starcraft
honestly, coolest science post I've read here.