IMHO it's a fact of life, higher standard of living = higher energy consumption. of course there are other factors too ... extreme climate (colder, maybe hotter but then it's more of a comfort thing). and of course efficiency/conservation; yeah i know already, you Europeans are sooo efficient and conservation-minded (sorry).
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 5 11
- Thread starter jmw
- Start date
- Status
Josephv, you are mistaken on several accounts. Carefully read your links and what you stated. Do you know the difference between GDP and per capita? There are many countries with higher energy usage and pollution generated per capita than the United States (yes, even GHG which I consider to be an exaggerated problem).
In many ways we do consume more energy because of location (lets move South and save).
We also consume more energy and water because of life style (we bathe every day).
We also treat our waste water, which increases energy usage (verses dumping in a stream).
We also capture soot from power plants and factories (so our we have less smog, but increases energy usage).
We also don't use as much nuclear as other countries (wich requires us to use more coal).
We use emmission controls on our cars (which means we get less gas milage, but cleaner exast).
We use GFCI devices because of safety, despite the energy they use.
We have more safety devices in our cars, despite the increased weight.
So yea, we use more energy. Some of it necessary, and some of it required.
We also consume more energy and water because of life style (we bathe every day).
We also treat our waste water, which increases energy usage (verses dumping in a stream).
We also capture soot from power plants and factories (so our we have less smog, but increases energy usage).
We also don't use as much nuclear as other countries (wich requires us to use more coal).
We use emmission controls on our cars (which means we get less gas milage, but cleaner exast).
We use GFCI devices because of safety, despite the energy they use.
We have more safety devices in our cars, despite the increased weight.
So yea, we use more energy. Some of it necessary, and some of it required.
Gore admits CO2 not as evil as supposed.
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
What that's really telling us is that no one really has any idea how much CO2 is contributing to the warming vs water vapor, methane or any of the other million factors that could actually be causing it. In another decade we will be told that it isn't CO2 causing it at all and it's something else man-made. Then another decade it will move on to another and another until someone gathers enough data to say that it's Sol that's really causing it.
In one interview Al Gore admited he wasen't planning to become a vegetaren, despite the fact it would reduce his carbon footprint.
The thinking of "your rules, and my rules" needs to stop. If he wants to meet his goal he needs to lead by example (which is probally why he wasen't elected).
The thinking of "your rules, and my rules" needs to stop. If he wants to meet his goal he needs to lead by example (which is probally why he wasen't elected).
Zapster, please have a look at this list. US consumes more energy than China per capita, far more. Yes Canada consumes more energy than the US per capita and so does Qatar and a few other countries. They all should participate in international talks.
If you still disagree, I'll gladly look at information that you have that backs your point of view.
Now, what prevents China from saying, we too want to have a standard of living like Canada and the US? Are you in favour of this and the consequences that this brings (e.g. more pollution, resource depletion, higher cost of energy etc.)? Or are you in favour of us joining China in the negotiating table?
If you still disagree, I'll gladly look at information that you have that backs your point of view.
Now, what prevents China from saying, we too want to have a standard of living like Canada and the US? Are you in favour of this and the consequences that this brings (e.g. more pollution, resource depletion, higher cost of energy etc.)? Or are you in favour of us joining China in the negotiating table?
Nomlaser, "One is posted on Wiki with no source data"
Not true...
Below the graph it says, "Graph was produced from data in the 2006 Key World Energy Statistics from the International Energy Agency."
Nomlaser, "and the other is on a global warming website, go figure."
Show me some information that contradicts this data, because simply saying is wrong and not backing it up is not engineering.
Not true...
Below the graph it says, "Graph was produced from data in the 2006 Key World Energy Statistics from the International Energy Agency."
Nomlaser, "and the other is on a global warming website, go figure."
Show me some information that contradicts this data, because simply saying is wrong and not backing it up is not engineering.
Zapster, pls look at the first chart again, and this time look at the X axis which shows kW/capita. The US and Canada are further to the right (i.e. use more energy per capita) than China, Russia, Brazil, UK, Japan... the Y axis GDP per capita is not even part of this discussion.
- Thread starter
- #153
I like the way dissenters are often accused of being in the pay of "Big Oil" (Moonbat is good at this) but one of the links suggests that far from being simply altruistic, Al Gore, who in february removed a slide from his presentation and may now have to modify a couple more, is set to become the first carbon billionaire. This first came from a NY Times article but can be found also by a google search so take your pick of sources.
JMW
JMW
Surely, in the Global Warming context, kW per head is less important than the number of heads. The fundamental problem is too many people.
HAZOP at
HAZOP at
Sorry cranky108, I was referring to seats at the table as referenced in the recent post by josephv. "So as the biggest polluter and energy consumer per capita in the world we should be at the table of any international treaty."
HAZOP at
HAZOP at
What if we don't believe in GW? Or we believe we already spend to much on it?
Why do we need to sign the treaty?
Would it not be easer to stop funding the UN and tell all those people to quit flying to New York?
Would it not be easer to built more nucular plants?
Many of us don't want another tax increase that this treaty brings. To say nothing about our loss of freedom.
Why do we need to sign the treaty?
Would it not be easer to stop funding the UN and tell all those people to quit flying to New York?
Would it not be easer to built more nucular plants?
Many of us don't want another tax increase that this treaty brings. To say nothing about our loss of freedom.
- Thread starter
- #158
The worrying bit is claims that the legislators plan to depart from the usual treaty procedures and create an organisation with the power to enforce any agreement.
Under conventional MEAs (Multilateral environmental agreements) or any treaty, enforcement is by the individual signatory nations within their own territory. The implications of this are that a global authority would enforce the treaty in the "subject nations"
This is very bad.
It is also a means to impose a more rigorous set of regulations because it means they can overcome some of the need for a mutually acceptable agreement.
It is also at risk of becoming an EU type non-democratic global government.
JMW
Under conventional MEAs (Multilateral environmental agreements) or any treaty, enforcement is by the individual signatory nations within their own territory. The implications of this are that a global authority would enforce the treaty in the "subject nations"
This is very bad.
It is also a means to impose a more rigorous set of regulations because it means they can overcome some of the need for a mutually acceptable agreement.
It is also at risk of becoming an EU type non-democratic global government.
JMW
Similar to WHO recomendations, which are actually mandates that member states must follow.
I apologize for being off-topic, but how many are aware that this "pandemic" we are now experiencing is only a pandemic because the WHO changed the wording of the definition? A health issue does not have to be fatal to be a pandemic anymore.
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
I apologize for being off-topic, but how many are aware that this "pandemic" we are now experiencing is only a pandemic because the WHO changed the wording of the definition? A health issue does not have to be fatal to be a pandemic anymore.
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
- Thread starter
- #160
The Arctic sea ice position appears to be changing and the earlier panics as coverage dropped are now compensated for as coverage has increased again... both short term anomalies it appears and the overall trend is for increased coverage over this part of the natural cycle.
JMW
JMW
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question
