It's completely mind-blowing how climate change alarmists can keep a straight face talking about how there are no other options when it comes to "saving" the planet Earth except to stop our contributions to GHG... and at the same time they try and downplay the dramatic increase of GHG in China.
As if the Earth is going to hold different countries to different standards the way alarmists do.
Let's just look at the CO2 component of the GHG equation. Now, these are 2007 figures but we'll use them just to give an example:
- Canada's total CO2 emissions in 2007 were 557,340 thousand metric tons.
- China's total CO2 emissions in 2007 were 6,538,367 thousand metric tons.
According to the numbers, Canada's emissions decreased by 2% while China's increased by 8%. If we were to apply that figure to the 2007 levels:
- Canada reduced emissions by 11,147 thousand metric tons to 546,193 thousand metric tons
- China increase emissions by 523,069 thousand metric tons to 7,061,436 thousand metric tons
So, basically, the total of all emissions by Canada are barely above just what China increased in terms of GHG emissions. And yet the politico alarmists say that Canada is the problem in this equation?
I think these critics need to start looking at basic mathematics courses.
If China is allowed to do whatever it wants -- as is status quo -- just to maintain present GHG levels, every year a country the size of Canada would have to eliminate all of it's GHG emissions. That's just to maintain present levels. And yet the alarmists claim to want to lower levels back to where they were a couple of decades ago.
John Baird is right and these idiots know it. They don't want to admit it because it usurps their position as some kind of holier-than-thou moral authority. Too bad they don't realize that your average Canadian -- when given the numbers -- are going to see right through this and know that the alarmists are lying about how close to the edge we are.
Climate change skepticism is on the rise. With leaders like this, I wonder why...
Posts
19 comments:
Being a fool is a hard occupation,yet there are millions of them and they will stay that way because they are too ashamed to admit they are fools.So you will have these arguments forever with them.How to fix the problem??How to find out who the fools are??Pass a law that all global warming believers will pay for the poor countries and buy carbon credits and the non believers get a tax break,but are not allowed to buy carbon credits.You find out on the tax returns who the fools are,when they tick the square tax refund or carbon credit payment.
Actually, you gave me a great idea. What if we add on to the tax return filing an option for people to donate their tax refunds to carbon offsets the way that there presently is an option to help pay down the debt.
I bet if they put that in place it would be a fantastic indication of whether people put their money where their mouth is.
Exactly
Ah, Anon1152... just the type of person I was referring to. Since you obviously can't get it through your head, let's bring it down to a simple question:
If greenhouse gas emissions are really as problematic as has been (mis)represented, do you think the natural environment is going to consciously differentiate between actual amounts vs per capita?
I don't think that Mother Earth or the enviroment calculates on per capita basis. That's a human excuse. All that really matters are the totals.
That one tycoon who own the chemical plant that dumps untreated polution into the river can still kill all those poor Chinese living on the colective farms. We learned not to use rivers as a dump. Do the Chinese Nouveau riche feel entitles to use the same excuse?
Thank you ridenrain. Perhaps Anon will realize that either the problem is CO2/GHG buildup or it's not.
If alarmists really believe the buildup of GHG is catastrophic, there can be no excuse for anybody. Per capita is just moral relativist smoke and mirrors to the undeniable fact that -- if they are telling the truth, which they aren't -- the only number that matters is the total volume.
It's too bad some people don't understand that reality (and the environment) doesn't play favourites.
Unfortunately, most people don't take the time to understand what "per capita" means, so the econuts feed them fear.
Are our vast forests still excluded from the Kyoto accord? I wonder what would happen if we just started cutting them down without replanting? Would they then become a valuable eco-asset?
All that really matters are the totals?
Sure.
But how are we going to deal with the totals? How are we going to bring levels of greenhouse gases down, if that's what we want and/or need to do?
If we refuse to operate on the assumption that every person is fundamentally equal, we are not going to get any sort of agreement. Try negotiating with the Chinese while saying "by the way, we're assuming that one Canadian is worth 3.3 Chinese.
They're not going to negotiate on that basis. I don't expect them to.
Hunter: are you saying that I don't know what per capita means?
Secure: was my original post deleted? I can't see it.
I didn't delete it. Actually, it looks kind of weird for me to be responding to a post that doesn't exist.
But, I did get an email notification that was still in my mail program, so here is what you wrote:
Perhaps the math courses you refer to should involve division, rather than just counting.
China's population is approx 1,330,141,295.
Canada's population is approx 33,759,742.
Let's divide the emissions by the population. (I've added three zeros to your numbers, because they represent "thousand metric tonnes").
6 538 367 000 / 1 330 141 295 = 4.9155432
557 340 000 / 33 759 742 = 16.5090124
Per capita, we emit more than three times as much as the Chinese.
The people you criticize aren't stupid. They just think that we should proceed while respecting the idea that all human beings are fundamentally equal.
Whether or not that's true, we can hardly expect the Chinese (or anyone) to proceed as if they were anything less than equal.
Thank you for re-posting. This has happened to me before in other contexts. I sometimes wonder if the internet doesn't like me...
Now, in response to what you said... you're assuming the Chinese have an interest in negotiating. They don't.
After all, they have absolutely zero global responsibilities in terms of greenhouse gases. Why would they even entertain the notion of negotiating themselves out of that position when their economy is booming?
Still, negotiations themselves mean nothing if we are on the verge of the catastrophe that alarmists have long suggested. According to the alarmist position, the GHG volume has to go down in total without exception or the game is up.
Per capita is a meaningless measurement in the face of impending doom. Either the eminent danger is real or it isn't.
Besides, if you're going offer a "Get Out Of Restrictions Free" card to China just out of population considerations, why stop there? Why not give a "Get Out Of Restrictions Free" card for other reasons... such as countries developing renewable energy sources, new technologies that reduce consumption and clean up the environment or so many other technological innovations the Chinese aren't even involved in?
Excuses are like assholes: everybody's got one. But impending doom offers no excuses. That's reality. There's no point being in a room with a guy pulling the pin out of a grenade and just standing idly by saying, "It's okay. He had a tough week so we'll let it slide."
As I pointed out, at the rate China's emissions are climbing, you'd have to wipe out entire countries every single year just to maintain present levels which are supposedly disastrously high. Following the logic of the alarmist position, even that is suicide.
Offering excuses torpedoes the entire argument that the disaster is real. It's a simple logic puzzle: if the disaster is real, there can be no excuses / if excuses are an option, the disaster isn't real.
The alarmists are offering excuses. Ergo...
Our land mass is greater than China and our land emits less polution or whatever crap you eco nuts are using as a barometer these days than China.CASE CLOSED.
Measuring by person shows that the whole global warming/cooling/change scam is about wealth distribution, not polution control.
Excuses? I think you have more excuses in mind than I do; excuses not to act.
I'm not saying that China should be excused of any or all responsibility here. I think they should be involved. But any meaningful negotiation is not going to happen without in some way acknowledging that every person is equal. John Baird may be happy to discount the lives of Chinese citizens. But Chinese citizens are unlikely to discount their own lives. (Thomas Hobbes has some really interesting comments on this sort of thing. But I digress).
If global warming is a problem, then the Chinese do have an interest in negotiating. We all do, given the "global" part. Especially if other countries (e.g., wealthy western countries) decide to engage in geoengineering projects (e.g., spraying lots of sulphur aerosols into the upper atmosphere) which could have global impacts as well. But even without worrying about other countries' solutions to climate change, China does seem to consider it a problem. They have been shutting down older coal fire power plants, and have become the world's biggest investor in clean(er) energy sources, like wind.
As I thought I was saying earlier, per capita is meaningful if we (all of us on the planet) are going to do something to mitigate or avoid "impending doom".
bertie wrote: "Our land mass is greater than China and our land emits less polution or whatever crap you eco nuts are using as a barometer these days than China."
First of all: I am not an "eco nut". Though sometimes I feel like a nut. But I digress.
Second: Land masses do not emit pollution. The pollution problems and solutions have to do with humans. Persons. Unless you accept that all persons are equal in some important sense, you will have trouble negotiating with other persons.
ridenrain wrote: "Measuring by person shows that the whole global warming/cooling/change scam is about wealth distribution, not polution control."
I think you're on to something that bertie doesn't seem to understand. This is fundamentally about people. Not square kilometres of land. It is about distribution. But not necessarily in the way you seem to be implying. If there is a global problem, requiring a global solution, and if there are benefits and burdens to be distributed... then it makes sense (morally) to take into account human individuals who are acknowledged as equals.
Do we really disagree on the "all persons are equal" point? Perhaps. But what seems to motivate your concern (or lack of concern) is a believe that green house gas emissions are not going to cause problematic changes in the global climate system. Why not argue that more forcefully? Why won't John Baird and Stephen Harper? (The government's official position is that climate change IS a problem)
You keep bringing up the idea that "all persons are equal". Which in a moral view is true.
But we're talking about impending doom due to catastrophic climate change as has been illustrated by the climate change industry. The environment doesn't take equality into consideration.
It would be nice to think that China would come to the bargaining table because of some kind of perceived moral obligation. But you've also given them a moral escape clause in suggesting that per-capita is the focus of importance.
China has no fear in ignoring the suggested dangers of climate change because -- as your position seems to be common amongst alarmists -- there is no fear of them being seen as doing anything wrong. Why? Because on a per capita basis they aren't as bad as the Western world.
Even though the Western world is more involved in the solution than anybody else. But as you fail to admit, innovation doesn't count for anything. The thing that matters is per capita of GHG emissions.
Too bad the Earth isn't conscious enough to take notice.
I'm not suggesting a moral escape clause. I said above that I think they should be involved. But if we're to negotiate at all, we should do so in a way that respects those we negotiate with as equals. Thomas Hobbes, one of my favourite [dead] people, says that you need to treat others as equals even if they aren't, if you are going to negotiate some way to live with them. The only alternative is war...
All of the "acknowledge them as equals" stuff is (or can be viewed) in practical/instrumental terms... without getting into morality. It might be better to avoid (or at least not rely on) moral arguments. If something needs to be done, then people need to work together. Which is why the equality point matters: it's the only way things can possibly get done.
But do you think anything needs to be done at all? That is, do you believe that there is such a thing as "green house gasses"; that an increasing level of them in the atmosphere warms up the planet (all other things being equal); that significant amounts of CO2 (and other man-made things) have been put into the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years, and that there is a risk that our actions will drastically alter the climate as we know it...?
Hm. One problem is that the global warming issue is that the negotiating bodies are ultimately nation-states. They haven't been known to work together very well. Traditionally they've been entities that compete/fight.
(Not saying a world government would be better, just observing)
Another problem is the way the issue has been framed. It's become a partisan issue. Publicly, for many of us, it has become about what side you're on politically. (What's funny is that in some places, it's been an issue that the right wants to do something about, and that the left wants to ignore... go figure).
If we acknowledging China as an equal, will the environment/planet do so as well? No.
Either there is a looming catastrophe or there is not. Perception (i.e. acknowledging a sense of equality) does not change the physical reality of the level of GHG in the atmosphere.
The alarmist community claims that the levels of GHG humans have put into the atmosphere has gotten too high and the total volume of GHG must drop to solve this problem. That's their WHOLE argument. It's not about some sense of per-capita equality. It's about reality based upon science, not social politics.
Math/science equations do not change depending on social circumstance.
If this is in fact a scientific issue based on volume of GHG, then the only solution is for all governments to curb GHG emissions so the total volume of GHG drops. There is no other option.
Now... if it ISN'T a true scientific equation, then per-capita can come into play. So the question is, are you arguing based on science or social policy? Because it seems that in bringing social structure into argument, you are denying the unchanging, non-negotating nature of scientific equations.
As for your questions about my own views on climate change... as much as the idea of the world revolving around me is flattering, I don't think my perception fits into the scientific equation being discussed here any more than per-capita negotiations. My outlining of my own beliefs would be as much a distraction to the science as any other societal/social matter.
Post a Comment