It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NPR Report: U.S. CO2 Declined in Recession, BRIC Leads Emissions

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Financial Crisis Is 'Green' For The Environment

NPR reports that scientists have confirmed that CO2 emissions have declined in industrialized countries, while warning that "developing" countries like China and India are increasing per capita emissions at unprecedented rates.

www.npr.org...

Nature GeoScience publishes a study this week by the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey under the Global Carbon Project umbrella that confirms that the U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions to 2007 levels, and the overall emissions for the developed world have fallen as well.


The financial crisis had a small but discernible impact on emissions growth in 2008 - with a two per cent increase compared with an average 3.6 per cent over the previous seven years. On the basis of projected changes in GDP, emissions for 2009 are expected to fall to their 2007 levels, before increasing again in 2010.

www.sciencecentric.com...

Of course, "projected changes" do not take into account the failing "recovery" in the U.S., which will undoubtedly continue the downward trend of CO2 emissions in the U.S.

The same cannot be said for the BRIC countries, bristling under the suggestion that THEY should take significant action to limit carbon emissions.


- Emissions from emerging economies such as China and India have more than doubled since 1990 and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries.


So, why are WE being asked to sacrifice for BRIC? How does the EU, UK and IPCC justify the call for drastic measures in the U.S. to remedy a problem that we only partly (and diminishingly) contribute to?


Developing countries now emit more greenhouse gas than rich countries, according to a study that will intensify demands for all countries to set targets for cutting emissions.

Total emissions from burning fossil fuels in developing countries, including China, India and Brazil, have more than doubled since 1990 and are continuing to rise rapidly. By contrast total emissions from developed countries, such as the US, Japan and Britain have hardly changed over the same period.

Last year developed countries were responsible for 46 per cent of global emissions, with developing countries responsible for 54 per cent.

The figures, published by an international team of scientists, will put pressure on developing countries to set stricter targets for slowing the increase in emissions. China and India are refusing to agree to any cap on their emissions and are instead offering vague targets for cutting emissions per unit of GDP. China overtook the US in 2006 as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and has extended its lead each year since then.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

The study blamed part of the problem on consumption by developed countries and outsourcing to developing countries.


The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, compared the total emissions of 38 developed countries with those of all other countries.

The authors, led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia, concluded: “Since 1990 the growth in fossil fuel CO2 has been dominated by countries that do not have emissions limitations. Among [developed] countries growth in some has been offset by declines in others.”

The study said that the increase in emissions from developing countries was in part due to their manufacture of goods for export to rich countries.


Another significant part of the findings revealed just how UNSETTLED the study of climate change, and the effects of CO2 emissions, remain despite claims that the science is settled or that a scientific consensus agrees otherwise.


The study also suggested that the rise in CO2 emissions was outstripping the Earth’s ability to soak up the carbon in forests and oceans. It said the levels of global emissions that remained in the atmosphere had grown from 40 to 45 per cent over the past 50 years. This finding was disputed in a separate report, published last week, by another scientist who studied the same data. Both studies involved scientists from the University of Bristol’s climate change research programme. Wolfgang Knorr, writing in Geophysical Research Letters, found no increase in the proportion of emitted carbon remaining in the atmosphere, suggesting that forests and oceans were more effective than previously thought at soaking up man-made emissions.

The dispute between climate scientists at the same university will be seized upon by climate change sceptics, who argue that the scientific evidence for man-made global warming remains uncertain and open to differing interpretations.


And so, as leaks from East Anglia spring up, and as controversies among scientists continue, what will the AGW advocates claim next to justify de-development and accelerated distribution of wealth?

jw



[edit on 20-11-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Fact is.. we have been contributing to the problem for hundreds of years.. they have only started now so there's no point in saying "Why cant we do it if they are".. We're supposed to be the more economically, socially and mentally developed groups so we should act like it.

In the EU, we've been cutting down on pollution and emissions by law since the 70's and it makes life more expensive for us but its for a pretty decent cause IMO. It is for saving the environment after all. Its about time in fairness that the US started puling its weight in the whole process without doing too much complaining.

Also, fossil fuels are a crutch that are only going to cause problems for humanity in the future.. pushing our countries more and more to use renewable energy and greener technology is actually beneficial for us in the medium term.. in a massive way. We can complain all we want about the emissions cuts but when oil is three times the price in 20 years time, we will be wishing we did even more to wean ourselves off it.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
Fact is.. we have been contributing to the problem for hundreds of years.. they have only started now so there's no point in saying "Why cant we do it if they are".. We're supposed to be the more economically, socially and mentally developed groups so we should act like it.
..............


Oh please... the economy of China, and other such countries is increasing, and doing a lot better than industrialized nations which are in a bad economic depression. What you are saying is to pretty much allow, and even push the western world deeper into a depression meanwhile allowing China, India, and Russia among others to increase their anthropogenic emissions... Not to mention that these countries have been DEMANDING for western nations, and more so the U.S. to pay their bills for Climate change, and for new technologies....

China, and India are doing a lot better than the western nations, and BTW China has surpased the U.S. in anthropogenic emissions, and they have no caps, and say they will never accept any caps, yet you want to agree with this? Are you kidding?...


[edit on 20-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
........
Also, fossil fuels are a crutch that are only going to cause problems for humanity in the future.. pushing our countries more and more to use renewable energy and greener technology is actually beneficial for us in the medium term.. in a massive way. We can complain all we want about the emissions cuts but when oil is three times the price in 20 years time, we will be wishing we did even more to wean ourselves off it.


Wrong, despite billions of dollars being spent for "renewable energies" the most the the best countries can produce is 1% of their energy through "renewable sources."

Renewable sources are not infallable, and we still need at least a decade if not more to have something that could even partially substitute the natural resources we are using.

BTW, the resources which we are using include natural gas, and coal, and there are some technologies that make coal cleaner.

We are in an ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.... this is not the time to put flawed ideological ideals in front of the benefit for mankind, which IS NOT causing nor exarberating Climate Change....



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 



Fact is.. we have been contributing to the problem for hundreds of years.. they have only started now so there's no point in saying "Why cant we do it if they are".. We're supposed to be the more economically, socially and mentally developed groups so we should act like it.


In the '70s, John Holdren (Obama science advisor/czar) and Paul Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb") foresaw desolation by the end of the century unless countries ceased development. Welcome to their "The Sky is Falling" club.

Nothing in "environmentalism" dictates de-development.

In fact, precisely the opposite is true: as nations become more wealthy and developed, they reduce environmental decline and develop alternative fuel sources.

"The Richer-Is Greener Curve"
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...


How fast the environment improves depends not just on money but on whether a country has an effective government, educated citizens, healthy institutions and the right laws. (For discussions of the variability of these curves and the factors that affect them, see this PERC report by a group led by Bruce Yandle of Clemson University and this article in Environment, Development and Sustainability by Kuheli Dutt of Northeastern University.)

But rising incomes can make it more likely that improvements will come, and these Kuznets curves give more reason for optimism than the old idea that economic growth endangered the planet. In the 1970s, rich countries were urged to “de-develop” by Paul Ehrlich and John P. Holdren, now the White House science adviser.


Read about the "Kuznet Curves," and see why it is foolish to believe that retarding development helps the environment.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 20-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh please... the economy of China, and other such countries is increasing, and doing a lot better than industrialized nations which are in a bad economic depression.


Sorry what?? Your point has absolutely no relevance to what I am talking about.. How is changing from fossil fuels which are going to explode in cost to renewable sources which are going to decrease in costs over the next 50 years a suicidal economic move?

And what better a time to do this than now.. in the midst of a recession when the possibilities of creating a new industry in green energies and investing in it as a capital investment for your future economy whilst also outlining a 50 year plan to ensure your economy doesn't crash again because of Peak Oil and a hunger for energy by even more developing nations at that stage.

Where do you people get your points of view? Its ridiculously small minded IMO. Bigger picture please!! There's a lot more to this world than your country.



Read about the "Kuznet Curves," and see why it is foolish to believe that retarding development helps the environment.


I get what you are saying in that respect.. Of course the direction of our advancement would eventually lead us into a situation where we would develop cleaner sources of energy.. But did anyone take into account the explosive growth of BRIC? Especially China and the situation we will find ourselves in in 50 years if we don't force ourselves to start weaning off these fossil fuels. War, economic collapse, collapse in standard of living, energy shortages etc etc.. I really don't think that was foreseen along with the western crash.



Wrong, despite billions of dollars being spent for "renewable energies" the most the the best countries can produce is 1% of their energy through "renewable sources."


WHAT?? Where did you possibly come up with that ridiculous figure?

Scandinavia = 40%+ renewable
Germany & France = 20% renewable
Total overall EU renewable = 12% now and 20% by 2020

1%?? In your imagination maybe. By 2020, the worlds wealthiest region will be using a fifth less fossils.. and then they will be pushing the bar again in order to force the issue even more.. Add the whole offsetting of carbon taxes in order to promote the creation and purchasing of energy saving products and vehicles that is being introduced in to EU countries in order to drop the fossil usage even more.

Click

Please please please please please please please take your head out of your ass and think of other things aside from your own short term personal gain. This is important to you, your family, your future generations and your future economic survival... not to mention actually thinking of helping the environment while also allowing the rest of the world to advance without being plundered for profit.

Its blatantly obvious from your posts above that these concepts completely elude you.


[edit on 21/11/09 by Dermo]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 

By 2020, the worlds wealthiest region will be using a fifth less fossils.. and then they will be pushing the bar again in order to force the issue even more..


Then why focus so myopically on Western restraint, rather than on the largest polluters of all?

China surpassed the U.S. in emissions years ago, and the BRIC countries are solely responsible for the destruction of the Tibetan and Himalayan glaciers, with their black carbon soot. China and India refuse to even participate in a multi-national agreement on reduction. Where's the indignation?


Add the whole offsetting of carbon taxes in order to promote the creation and purchasing of energy saving products and vehicles that is being introduced in to EU countries in order to drop the fossil usage even more.


Carbon offsets and taxation have wholly failed in the EU and the UK to deliver promised CO2 reductions. Increased energy costs, decreased production and diminishing capacity have put you into a hole that you cannot dig yourselves out of, even by importing lumber to burn in your "green" power plants.

The only Western nation even close to renewable independence is France, with primary reliance on aging nuclear plants. How many nuclear plants are under construction in the UK? In the EU?


Please please please please please please please take your head out of your ass and do something that is generally accepted to be only new to your country and think of other things aside from your own short term personal gain.


What "something" is "generally accepted" by who? U.S. emissions have declined per capita by more than 10% compared to 1990, and in total by over 2%, with increasing population and GDP. We have multiple hybrid (electric and L/CNG) auto mfrs., the largest wind generation, and more R&D expenditure in biofuels and solar than the rest of the world, combined. Our reliance on natural gas grows by the day, and federal incentives will enhance production and use for at least the next decade.

When will it be enough for bleeding heart socialists?


This is important to you, your family, your future generations and your future economic survival... not to mention actually thinking of helping the environment while also allowing the rest of the world to advance without being plundered for profit.


What, exactly, is the U.S. NOT doing to help the environment? Cap and trade? That is a farce. Sequestration? Pure crap.

Are you claiming that the U.S. is "plundering for profit" in the BRIC countries? The Middle-East? Did you know that China is the leading oil field developer in Iraq, Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa? Who is developing Venezuelan fields? Do you even read what you post?

Get facts and get real. You are echoing propaganda and letting your emotions cloud your perception.

jw



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
What are you on about? You were complaining in the OP about having to cut your emissions while China and India are lax on the idea. News flash.. China alone has almost twice the combined population of the EU & US so shouldn't they be allowed almost twice the combined emissions output? Add India to the mix and thats 3 times altogether..

Where's the fairness is wanting it any other way? Am I brainwashed by the propaganda not to view us 'Westerners' as an elitist group in the global population. Or is it that Im a socialist? That word has so many meanings these days.

Failed in the EU? Eh, we're still on target and the tax offsets are beginning to come into play.. just because some small aspects didn't completely work doesn't mean #. Also, since when is Nuclear energy renewable? And whats your overall point?? That we should drop the whole idea and go back to past ways and begin to burn oil again? Waiting for the inevitable tripling of price over the next couple of decades when our economy seizes? This is my main point. This is not the point that is ever really mentioned in msm.. so how am I sucking the propaganda on this? Please.. explain this to me.

China have made a pledge to notable reduce emissions by 2020 per unit of economic output.. Click - Fair enough, its not a concrete figure but it's an infinite amount more than you are giving them credit for.

Im claiming that the west has been plundering for profit for centuries. Yes I read what I posted.. did you? Yes Im aware of all that.. I never said otherwise.. whats your point? Or are you just nitpicking for arguments sake? Tripping a bit are we? I take back the bit about 'generally accepted', its was 3am and that other guy was after pissing me off. Its still an accepted view in the EU though.. ye do less and complain more. Also, since when does this have anything to do with socialists? Its called 'fairness'.. comprende vous?.. Comrade


Conditioned by the propaganda eh? Even though these are my personal views and I am viewing it from a business perspective. Anyway, you are completely looking past my point altogether in order to argue against the case of only being allowed an equal amount of emissions as a person in another country. This IMO is a bollox argument but not unheard of.. Im talking about weaning us off oil in order to save our economies in the future whilst also doing our bit for our surrounding environments. Maybe you don't have the same reasoning on the subjects.

quote unquote.. Deny Ignorance..



[edit on 21/11/09 by Dermo]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by Dermo

What the hell are you on about?
...
China alone has almost twice the combined population of the EU & US so shouldn't they be allowed almost twice the combined emissions output? Add india to the mix and thats 3 times altogether..


And this justifies their refusal to participate in a global reduction program, sponsored largely by the EU and UK, how?
Responsibility? That's only for "developed" countries?


Failed in the EU? Eh, we're still on target and the tax offsets are beginning to come into play.. just because some small aspects didn't completely work doesn't mean #.



"Despite Worldwide Efforts And Recession, CO2 Emissions Still Rising"

Despite worldwide efforts to cut CO2 emissions, nations spewed 1.94 percent more CO2 emissions in 2008 than in 2007, according to new analysis by German-based renewable energy industry institute IWR, or the Institute for Renewable Energy. This is 40% more than the Kyoto 1990 guideline levels.
www.sincerelysustainable.com...

(The UK/EU led in the failure, as noted in this study and other ATS threads.)


"Government failure on CO2 targets will cost taxpayer millions"

Taxpayers face paying millions of pounds every year because of the Government's failure to meet its own climate change targets, according to a powerful committee of MPs.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

(that took about 1.2 seconds to find, there are thousands of similar results)
Ignorance must truly be bliss, no?


Also, since when is Nuclear energy renewable? And whats your overall point??


I never said it was. What I said is that France is the only European country "even close" to renewable independence. Nuclear is independent of oil. No one else has even come close, whether with renewable sources or independence from fossils fuels. You're still burning trees, for goodness sake.

My overall point? Put up, or shut up.


That we should drop the whole idea and go back to past ways and begin to burn oil again? Waiting for the inevitable tripling of price over the next couple of decades when our economy seizes? This is my main point.


"Burn oil again?" When did you stop?

Your prices are already well on their way to tripling, no thanks to oil. You're consuming coal, imported wood and North Sea gas at ever increasing rates, and paying more for it all. Your misbegotten cap and tax schemes are driving up prices, driving out capacity, and sustaining speculators who change nothing about CO2 emissions. You've failed, you're all paying for it, and you're pissed.

Tough.


This is not the point that is ever really mentioned in msm.. so how am I sucking the propaganda on this? Please.. explain this to me.


See above.


China have made a pledge to notable reduce emissions by 2020 per unit of economic output.. Click - Fair enough, its not a concrete figure but it's an infinite amount more than you are giving them credit for.


No they didn't. "G8 agrees to limit global warming; China, India resist"
www.reuters.com...
China has spoken out against reductions more clearly than any vague and meaningless pledge you give them credit for. What did the attendees say about it?

Hu's speech fell short of expectations that he would name the target for China's carbon intensity ... .

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: "This is the first time China has said publicly that it will intensify efforts to reduce emissions, but without firm targets or a detailed action plan today's announcement is too vague ... .
Click


Im claiming that the west has been plundering for profit for centuries. ... whats your point?


This ignores Central European and Asian "plundering for centuries" even before there was a political "West." Your whine is pointless in current and future decision making.


Conditioned by the propaganda eh? Even though these are my personal views and I am viewing it from a business perspective.


Your perspective is as anti-business as it can be. Calling it something else is nothing but deceit.


"CO2 red tape will hinder UK business"

Almost three-quarters of UK small and mid-sized businesses believe new government regulation to reduce carbon emissions will hit their ability to compete globally, a new survey has shown.
www.growingbusiness.co.uk...


Im talking about weaning us off oil in order to save our economies in the future whilst also doing our bit for our surrounding environments. Maybe you don't have the same reasoning on the subjects.


You've either never read my posts or can't understand them.
I endorse alternative energy, but not foolhardy schemes to fight CO2.

The State of Texas leads our nation in natural gas and wind energy production. Indiana is an international biofuel leader. Our Enerdell corporation is a leader in lithium battery vehicle technology.

What have the Irish or the British accomplished thus far? Your energy impotence and vacuous logic must embarrass you into such worthless blathering.

Deny Ignorance.

jw



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
What have the Irish or the British accomplished thus far? Your energy impotence and vacuous logic must embarrass you into such worthless blathering.


Eh.. "Deny Ignorance"??

Good one.

US renewables 6.1%

Ireland renewables 13.2%

We don't do nuclear power as a result of the democratic process and excuse me for not living in a country with a mass of resources.

We're pissed? Sorry but Im not the one on a forum whinging about having my emissions forcefully curbed after decades of excessive and unsustainable consumption.
Have I not shown that I accept with open arms any widespread policy that weans us even more off our use of fossils?

You are twisted.. good bye.


[edit on 21/11/09 by Dermo]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 
You've missed the point entirely.

You are spending yourself into poverty with no net-positive result. "Renewables" includes by definition the forests you're destroying to feed your "green" power plants. You've completely lost touch with reality. As a term, it is meaningless in the balance.


US renewables 6.1%
Ireland renewables 13.2%


Even accepting your figures, 6% of a zillion renders your 13% meaningless. You've committed to gas and wood burning power plants that make your statement a joke.


We don't do nuclear power as a result of the democratic process and excuse me for not living in a country with a mass of resources.


So, majority rule and resource-poverty justify abandonment of responsibility? Is that why India, China, Russia and Brazil get a free ride, but the U.S. is savaged for reluctance to underwrite wild schemes?


Sorry but Im not the one on a forum whinging about having my emissions forcefully curbed after decades of excessive and unsustainable consumption.


No one has "forcibly curbed" our emissions for some far-fetched scheme. Sorry you fell for it. As for "decades of excessive and unsustainable consumption," that seems to apply ten-fold to the countries that pre-date the Americas by 6 or 7 centuries. Why should WE bear the burden of your profligacy?


Have I not shown that I accept with open arms any widespread policy that weans us even more off our use of fossils?


No. What you've shown is an inclination to penalize those nations and technologies that are most apt to benefit the developing world. You've shown a luddite philosophy that insists that only by impoverishing everyone can we all be "equal" in our mediocrity.

And, you've shown blind faith acceptance of a premise without rational basis.

What so many miss is that rapid development HELPS the environment as people acquire knowledge and the discretion to utilize capital to protect and improve their circumstances. No one who can afford it will piss in their drinking water. Simple as that.

Look into "Kuznet curves" and green development to see the most practical solutions to whatever is happening to our environment.

First, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that man is even remotely capable of affecting the Earth in its entirety. Everywhere man has screwed the place up, Earth has taken over to repair the damage.

We are nothing more than a parasitic infection. AGW advocates have convinced themselves that we have conquered natural forces and now "run" the planet. They are deluded.

If we accept responsibility for our local failings and address them face-on with our limited resources and capabilities, we will realize significantly more benefit than wasting time and money tilting at windmills.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Ok mate.. no problem.

As soon as our joke of a system here collapses because of our environmental policies, ill send you a picture of me eating a hat.

Btw.. that 13.5% is hydro, wind, solar and geothermal with approx 1% biomass. Our entire system is being overhauled (slower than I would like admittedly because of the borderline depression) to utilizing as much of our intense wind and wave energy and phasing out our gas, wood and peat to match EU targets. So how have we committed to wood and gas burning? I am really starting to think that you are just grasping at straws.

Otherwise, while I get what you are saying and it is correct.. you are not addressing the issue I am pushing in regards future fuel prices and the devastating effect it will have on European economies unless we are pushed to change. And taxing non green products while rebating on specific key green products and services bought seems like a decent and simple coercive system to me. But obviously, the US system is perfect.. we should all follow your example... oh wait, aren't you in the process of changing? Maybe seeing as you are such an expert, you should take over..

Ill check out Kuznet Curves now and change my perspective to completely match yours
Well, I will actually check it out but I doubt it will make that much of a difference to my perspective seeing as I have little time for most of what you are arguing about.

Anyway, I think we will eventually come to the conclusion that we are arguing in vain here and while it has been enjoyable.. there's no point in falling out over it. Have a good evening



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Is that why India, China, Russia and Brazil get a free ride, but the U.S. is savaged for reluctance to underwrite wild schemes?

...

Deny ignorance.

jw


Seems like things have changed somewhat..



China pledges 40% cut in CO2 ahead of summit

...

Beijing's target is a reduction of 40-45 percent "per unit of GDP".... by 2020


Now.. while this is still quite a bit less than the EU and US pledges AND emission curbs depend somewhat on how much the Chinese economy grows.. it is an awful lot more than what you have given them credit for.

We'll have to see how it plays out but with China on board, hopefully India will join... then it will be a completely different story.

And while you think that it will only serve to stagnate our economies, it will affect it as so in the short term but in the short to medium term, it will definitely serve to help us remove our dependence on our peaking oil supply which would not be happening at this pace without the push.

While there are still several aspects of it I don't agree with, I definitely agree with the outcome.

The Kuznet Curves idea was interesting if not obvious but has it happened in the US? From what I can gather from you guys, things are not very equal over there.. similar to the rest of the world. Also, how do you know that this isn't a natural way for it to happen on a global level?? After all, for proper equality to occur, there has to be some kind of political intervention. And it has never been tested on a global level so how can one judge it in that sense?




top topics



 
1

log in

join