Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[corus]

I haven't reached a happy conclusion nor do I believe that taking the ratio of emmissions to GDP is a reasonable comparison and nor do I know of a country where the prices are fixed for ALL products.
The Kyoto agreement takes into account the fact that some countries are developing, whereas some are developed and hence should have the means by which to reduce emmissions. If anything, those with a high GDP should be in the lowest band and not gleefully comparing themselves to Indonesia as to how well they are doing, and I still haven't seen these reports of biased media reporting.


corus

 

[VisiGoth]

The Dominican Republic has an amazing strength in environmental stewardship especially considering the large social issues. Although pollution is still very bad. Some countries are very good at this sort of thing, not just the USA. (I just wanted to be able to say something positive in this thread)

Water vapor is still the largest green house gas. CO2 just happens to be increasing. It is notable because it is an in for taxing on a global basis. I personally think it is a bad idea and takes away from real pollution issues.

People who warn us about global environmental issues should be heroes, not villains. Even if we do not want to hear the news. However, those that use a false environmental cry to get their way politically are horrible people (IMO) because they are misdirecting people who want to do good.

 

[CajunCenturion]

FUD sells.
Perception is 90% of reality.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[epoisses]

corus,

"The Kyoto agreement takes into account the fact that some countries are developing, whereas some are developed and hence should have the means by which to reduce emmissions. If anything, those with a high GDP should be in the lowest band and not gleefully comparing themselves to Indonesia as to how well they are doing"

-- the division by GDP is just meant to show countries like Indonesia that they shouldn't compare themselves to countries like the US as to how well they are doing! I don't think it would be reasonable to expect the US or any other developed country to have CO2 emissions per capita as low as a 3rd world country, or we should all agree to get rid of our cars and walk to work.
But of course you are right to state that the most developed countries should be in the lowest band, and apparently most of them are. Not sure why Russia seems to do so poorly.

 

[corus]

epoisses,
I think of it as a man who pollutes the neighbouthood with a large bonfire and who compares himself with a poor man who lights a fire with only the wood what he can gather from the forest. The man with the bonfire says he uses that because he is rich and can afford it. He compares his wealth to the pollution he causes and says he is no worse than the poor man who can afford little wood. Poppycock, as we say in the UK.

Walking to work is good for you, by the way. If we get people out of their cars, or sharing their cars, or using public transport more, then it would help considerably.

I don't know why Russia would be so bad using the statistic of pollution per GDP, however if you compare the ratio of pollution with vodka drinking I think you'll find Russia does remarkabley well in comparison to other countries. Not that I'm Russia bashing

corus

 

[SomeYahoo]

Corus,
To use your example, the "rich" man created a sum of heat energy (GDP) that is much greater than the poor (3rd world) man. His true output (GDP) is greater than the output of the other man. What the CO2/GDP comparison shows is that the "rich" man's means of producing the heat creates less relative pollution than the less efficient, smaller scale, "poor" man.

It's not like we are just creating pollution because it makes us feel good, though a good bonfire on a crisp evening does make me feel good.

 

[epoisses]

Corus,

I understand where you're coming from, but we have to keep in mind that most developing countries are not in a stable situation. Their economies are developing at light speed and if they don't take action on energy efficiency level very soon, they may end up far higher in terms of CO2 per GDP when their GDP approaches those of the lowest tier countries.

I do appreciate that nevertheless the comparison is not "fair" but there is no such thing as "fair" in the first place in a universe where some people are rich and fat and others are poor and hungry... Regardless of fair or unfair, if there is a problem due to CO2 we have to solve it cost efficiently i.e. by starting with the low hanging fruit (pardon my buzzwords) i.e. at the places where people use energy inefficiently... which can be expressed by dividing CO2 generated by the amount of "what is done with the fuel that is burnt" which is expressed as GDP, and which happens to also be a good indicator of wealth in a country. You can translate that to "being able to afford pollution" but that's not what was meant to be expressed with the indicator.

As much as I would wish a poor country a high GDP, I would not wish it high CO2 emissions.

 

[arunmrao]

Top 20 polluting countries including India, China,US,etc are now meeting in Mexico to discuss ways and means of reducing the environmental damage. The general perception in the Asian and Arabic world is that US is the main polluter. (I run for cover).

 

[zdas04]

Arunmrao,
That perception is exactly why I started this thread, where did that perception come from?

David

 

[scotty7]

Well, with the US producing c. 25% of the global CO2 emissions, with c. 8% of the global population, you can see where they are coming from...

 

[KENAT]

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

Um, zdas04 how is that so very different from US media?

It’s not a big leap. The US is perceived as being materially wealthy. Presumably to obtain all that wealth must have taken a lot of energy. Transformation of energy to a useful form for human activities usually produces pollution. Hence as one of the most wealthy nations, and probably the most populous of those nations the US must be damaging the environment far beyond other countries.

This is then reinforced by images of Americans driving large SUVs and failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

I’m not saying they’re necessarily right but surely you can follow the logic?

 

[VisiGoth]

The first part of the error in how others are viewed is in the perception that C02 is bad. In our area we are feeding the world on land that was once covered in a glacier. The more glaciers we can melt, the more we can feed. Melting the ice cap can produce lots of clean water that can be used for those without clean water. The problem is getting it there, not in C0@ emissions or heat. The next ice age is coming and there is nothing modern science can do about it.

We can however be better stewards of our resources and of our neighbors. We should pollute far less (real pollution not this phony C02 thing). The US should take better care of it's own forests and streams and dump less toxins into the air that is common to the entire Earth.

Those are the real issues. If the world perception is the USA should pollute less, especially since it can afford it, then I agree with that perception. If the perception is that the US has evil intentions or just plain does not care, I disagree.

The USA could use it's coal and spend a lot of $ to make the pollution to some acceptable level and leave more oil for the poorer countries, but that is not happening. Kyoto pressures are among the perceptions that pressure against helping the world out. This protocol is actually a net bad thing for the world. There is such good that can be done.

I wish the hate energy being used to bash the USA and all others that are helping the world out were put to a useful purpose.



jsolar

 

[Krishnababa]

Education is sorely needed regarding the human impacts to the world's environment. Limiting CO2 emissions alone does not translate across the board to a cleaner world. I would like to see how the countries rank according to storm water, solid waste and reclaimed water management activities.

But while we're at it, American (as in USA) media and observers on the ground alike report that the Asian (as in China and India) the rivers are worthless. In some places, people find water collected in pools on the street as clean as the water, if any, coming through the pump. As China and others ramp up consumption of plactic wrapped and pre-packaged goods, I do not see the piles of trash being moved to landfills, stored and compacted as quickly as the people are tossing them into the nearest ditch. By the way, we all have a long way to go to include marginalized peoples and non-human organisms in our plans for the world's future.

If CO2 emissions are that important to limit, there are a plenty of other worthwhile clean-up causes to promote.

 

[VisiGoth]

Krishnababa.
I agree with our point about our stewardship of not just the land, but of the animals. It is our responsibility to take care of all of it. If we live in a rich country then the burden should be more so. It is not fair, but it is the right thing to do (IMO). The decision to make is where to draw the line in forcing our neighbors and fellow country men at the point of a gun to "do what is right". Does that change the decision?

I disagree on limiting CO2. I think it is grasping at straws, but it is a start at delaying the inevitable ice age. Water vapor is a much larger issue than CO2, but water vapor taxing in order to justify a standing funded United Nations army is even more ridiculous than a carbon brokered army funding.

This issue should be pollution and world wide stewardship. Not red herring funding of yet another army.


jsolar

 

[Krishnababa]

On the spot, in terms of arguing that the USA is "raping and pillaging" the environment, its failure to ratify Kyoto is obviosuly the red herring.

zdas04, I would turn the tables on the engineer who holds up the Kyoto protocol and cite other examples that show raping and pillaging are already illegal in the USA. Solid waste, water, cultural and biological are just as relevant as air pollution. Limiting CO2 emissions is an important topic, but if the offending engineer can't discuss other environmental factors, from my point of view, the focus is inappropriate.

 

[electricpete]

The first part of the error in how others are viewed is in the perception that C02 is bad. In our area we are feeding the world on land that was once covered in a glacier. The more glaciers we can melt, the more we can feed. Melting the ice cap can produce lots of clean water that can be used for those without clean water. The problem is getting it there, not in C0@ emissions or heat. The next ice age is coming and there is nothing modern science can do about it.

We can do something about the next ice age, we can accelerate it. You have outlined exactly how. Listen to the political spinners, ignore the scientists, melt massive quantities of ice dumping fresh water into the oceans, upset the north atlantic conveyor. We'll never know how long it takes unless we try, so we'd better not slow down now. The short term benefit will be displacement of millions of people from coastal areas. The long term benefit will be ice age. Those things will all be well beyond our natural life spans, so let's go, let 'er rip. Yipee!

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[tgmcg]

Sounds like most folks here believe that a rise in CO2 levels will lead to catastrophic global warming. Count me among the many skeptics on this subject, together with Dr. Richard Lindzen (the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT) and many others who've been silenced or pilloried by the media.

Michael Crichton's bestselling novel "State of Fear" presents a treasure trove of data (and an extensive bibliography) on the subject of global warming. Worth a read by anyone looking for a presentation of an opposing viewpoint.

Wouldn't suprise me if his book is nowhere to be found in some areas.

 

[VisiGoth]

electricpete,
The world has been changing since before man. The deserts of North America were once filled with life giving water. Early man, by necessity, had to adapt to the changing environment. I do not think we have the technology to change the inevitable continuing global warming cycle nor the ensuing ice age. We as engineers however, can talk constructively on how to enable man to move away from those coast lines, to move out of the deserts, and into the new inhabitable land. I think (my opinion only, not a fact I have read) that the present warming will happen even with zero C02 from oil or coal. The desire to help mankind is a good one. If even conceptually CO2 reduction can help in slowing the coming heat, then it sounds good to try. However, reducing pollution actually increases global warming. I contend that the pollution is the more immediate and even the worse evil. Global warming is good to some and bad to others. It is going to happen. It is only harmful to complain about others part in the warming. It is better to do something about those people who are marginal and need help because of warming (even though it might be generations away).

The natives of the Greenland area invented deep sea whaling and adapted to the mini ice age conditions. The immigrants from Europe attempted to use what they know and did not adapt, even though they did not have to invent, but only had to copy and learn from the native people. Thinking that keeping people on the coastline is similar (IMO) to the European attitude. The long term thinking of the Native American is to adapt our ways, not impose on others to change so that we do not have to change.

Kyoto is poor politics (IMO) and not good science. There is so much good to do in the pollution of land and sea, I do not want to have good people derailed by bad politics.

Is there something about land sea pollution that we can agree on?



jsolar

 

[tgmcg]

Visigoth,

I agree that there is more good to do in terms of land, sea and air pollution than can ever be done with CO2 concentrations. I would not call CO2 a pollutant.

CO2 is being used as a rationale by NGO's for creating a global government, and it is drawing resources away from more pressing issues.

 

[electricpete]

Visigoth - Those are good thoughtful comments. Thanks for not slamming me after I got a little giddy with my comments.

For whatever reason, people experience different realities on the subject of the importance of CO2. I believe my reality as documented quite well thorugh the course of several threads is that the large credible scientific organizations are telling us to take this very seriously. There are some business interests and a handfull of crackpot academics on the other side that get equal time in the prime time media.

That's the way I see it, but after spending time and energy carefully documenting it for all to see here on the forums, I don't think I have affected the opinion of a single person. So I give up. Let's live in our separate worlds which can cross on technical issues but will never agree on this issue. No hard feelings.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.