Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XII 23

[dik]

For earlier threads, see:
thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135
thread1618-504850
thread1618-506948
thread1618-507973
thread1618-510266


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

...by increasing the population. How clever!

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Yes, our bodies are reservoirs in which carbon is sequestered. More bodies means more sequestration.

 

[dik]

I was always wondering about the reason for overturning Roe vs. Wade. It's curious how these guys minds work. I'd have never guessed it.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The rest of the world (everyone but the US) cuts their per capita footprint, but the US doesn't

Do you actually believe this? If so, then you truly have your head in the sand and / or you have zero interest in researching this issue in an honest way. I don't mean this as a personal attack against you. But, I do mean to shame you a little. You are the most vocal person on this Global Warming forum and yet you have such a complete and basic misunderstanding like this?! It's genuinely shocking to me.

Yes, the US probably has the higher per capita CO2 footprint. That's probably because have the highest standard of living (or nearly the highest), the highest economic activity (per capita), and we travel more than any other country (per capita).

However, the US has dramatically reduced it CO2 emissions over the last 20 years or so. See the following site:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

This shows that the US has reduced carbon emissions by 20% over the last 17 years or so. When it had been consistently increasing for the previous 30 years.

The per capita emissions for the US show a much more dramatic reduction. More than 40%.

 

[dik]

Everyone has to reduce their carbon footprint. The US has to bring theirs down. If you can imagine the US having a per capita footprint equal to China, there would have to be a huge change. The US is hampered by their legal system to restrict their carbon footprint as noted in the article I referenced. The courts can eliminate the steps forward proposed by the government (as noted in the article).

For a really excellent clip, that explains the carbon footprint very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw

It appears the US is reducing their overall carbon footprint at a much greater rate than China, and even higher on a per capita basis. They are no where near the per capita output of China.

The question still remains, "...cuts their per capita footprint, but the US doesn't, because they can't politically. In addition, it's really inconvenient to reduce the carbon footprint and do away with all the luxury items. What's the world to do?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Maybe we need to investigate the carbon footprint of all of these "Things Are Starting to Heat Up" threads. It seems the internet has the same carbon footprint of the aviation transport industry at up to 3.7% of global emissions.

Once a thread is started it goes on to a server that runs perpetually, it's not just a one time cost. Every thread will continue to produce CO2 cumulatively for the foreseeable future.

 

[dik]

picky, picky... the real curves are the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] and the correlation of this with temperature. It is likely that the former has to decrease.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

The US is hampered by their legal system to restrict their carbon footprint as noted in the article I referenced. The courts can eliminate the steps forward proposed by the government (as noted in the article).

Well, that's one thing about our judicial system to be thankful for...

 

[dik]

It can be... double edged sword, comes to mind. A really good summary of what happened last year.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-o...cords-for-surface-temperature-and-ocean-heat/

It's a little disconcerting to know that they are having difficulty estimating the effects for 2024 because 2023 was a lot hotter than they anticipated.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

They never get anything right.

 

[hokie66]

The US doesn't want to be like China. People are clamoring to get into the US. Not many people want to immigrate to China.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The question still remains, "...cuts their per capita footprint, but the US doesn't"

Dik -

My point is that this statement of yours is either a blatant lie or you're willfully ignorant. The US has definitely reduced it per capita CO2 emissions. Period.

Now, you can argue that the US population is voluntarily reducing our carbon footprints. And, that the US government (state or local) isn't doing anything to reduce the CO2 emissions. This would also be blatantly false, of course. Maybe you believe we should be doing better. That's totally reasonable. But why spread this obvious lie.

Maybe you're spreading complete falsehoods because you believe the US government should have more power over their population to forcibly control how they live? Is that what you're advocating for? I suppose that's what all "climate alarmists" are really advocating for. More government power and less freedom for individuals.

I never really thought the religion of climate science was as much of a neo-marxist power grab as the devotees of "grievance studies". It is certainly a similar concept. That we have to "collectivize" society in a way that solves a problem. Be it climate change, racism, sexism, or whatever. However, I always felt like the motives behind it were a bit more honest. I certainly thought that of you, but these clear and obvious falsehoods are shocking.

 

[CWB1]

Comparing environmental impact on a per-capita basis is dishonest at best, the only real use for such an analysis is to alarm the ignorant. An honest analysis would have some normalization of populations, geographical sizes, and a filtration factor bc obviously deserts arent going to filter pollutants as well as forests.

China geographically is very similar in size to the US but with more than 4x the population. They could have half the per-capita emissions of the US and their total population would still be polluting twice as much....hence why the US is a clean green place and in China both the air and water are often chewably unsafe to ingest.

 

[dik]

The US has reduced its CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, but not anywhere near enough. On a per capita basis, you are nearly twice that of China. In addition the legislation for reduction is being threatened by legal action as noted in the article. Making real cuts is going to be a big issue with lots of political interference.

I didn't say anyone wants to be like China... they both need fixing. In China's case there has been a bit of an improvement.

Can the US provide similar curves?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

taken out of context. It was a hypothetical question, "What if the world reduces their carbon footprint and the US refuses to?"

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

taken out of context. It was a hypothetical question, "What if the world reduces their carbon footprint and the US refuses to?"

My apologies.... I genuinely didn't understand that this was a hypothetical.

For what it's worth, I think the high populations in 2nd world countries (i.e. India & China) will likely increase their per Capita CO2 emissions GREATLY over the next couple of decades as they standard of living improves. Same thing with 3rd world countries. If they are prevented from doing so by the 1st world countries, then we are condemning them to systemic poverty and low standard of living.

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.

He also said that the West's view on global warming is like rich countries saying to poor countries: “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”

 

[dik]

They have, and will... India and China's footprint will slowly increase as they become more and more developed. They have a bit of catching up to get in line with the US. At least China has taken a bit of a whack at reducing poverty... they still have rural 'peasants' in some areas earning less than $2 per day, but they are making great strides.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

they still have rural 'peasants' in some areas earning less than $2 per day, but they are making great strides.

And that's exactly how they achieve their low performance capita CO2.

 

[dik]

And because millions of them have been raised above the poverty line, their carbon footprint continues to grow... The change in US carbon footprint was approx -2% and the Chinese was -0.2% with a population nearly 5x that of the US. Wait until India joins the breadline... it's not looking very positive.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

it's not looking very positive.

It depends on what the reader considers positive, I suppose. Millions of people lifted out of poverty would be considered a good thing by some of us.