Will Kyoto cause the US problems? 29

[QCE]

Please read the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4254877.stm

Any comments?

Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect cause the US to change its position on emissions?

I realize that many people don't believe that the US is a major polluter and that the 3rd world is doing all the polluting. Please refrain from dragging that arguement into this thread. The main issue is that other countries are going to be buy/selling/devloping new technologies to reduce emissions. Will the US be majorly involved?

 

[QCE]

Is the volcano thing fact or fiction.

Can anyone find me more info on this volcano stuff:

I've heard such funny numbers on this fact.

Many websites say that the CO2 from a volcano is not the issue it is the sulfur emitted. However one website I found said that the CO2 emitted from a volcano is more in one day then from humans in the last 500 years.

Sulfur that is bad but some websites say that the sulfur emitted is a lot more then others.

Check this out:

Washington state's top polluter isn't a pulp mill, a power plant or refinery. It's the newly awakened Mount St. Helens. Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

Those emissions are so high that if the volcano were a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit, Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology, told The Seattle Times.


All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas.


Normally, the state's No. 1 polluter is a coal-fired power plant near Centralia owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta. The plant churned out 200 tons a day of sulfur dioxide until regulators demanded $250 million worth of renovations, bringing the level down to 27 tons a day.

 

[QCE]

I must admit that I always found the volcano thing a big reason against the global warming theory. If the CO2 is less then human emission and the sulfur emissions is on par with Washington state. Then I will have a couple of more questions to ask.

It maybe hard to prove this one also.


More info found but not saying it is 100% reliable:

Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions.

 

[BitTwiddler]

The US should require everyone who buys a Hummer or a similar huge SUV to register their vehicle for the draft.

The US lowers both taxes and emissions standards for the civilian equivalents of military vehicles. Simple fairness demands that those who seek special privileges should earn them by providing special services in return. Any person who insists on driving a vehicle that weighs over 6000 pounds and gets 10 miles per gallon has no right to complain if Uncle Sam sends his ride on a tour of duty to guard oilfields for a year.

All owners should be allowed to volunteer to go to Iraq themselves in lieu of their vehicles if they to wish to spare their beloved machines from dangerous and dirty duty in a distant land.

 

[duck0601]

One of the reasons The US Big Three sell the large vehicles is they make money off them. The small ones don't provide as much of a profit. The US is not alone in this problem. Check this article from Autonews, a German Auto Industry Newsletter:

COMMENT: Even as oil costs rise, horsepower trumps ecology

http://www.autonews.com/newsletters/display.cms?id=12632

You'll also notice Toyota and Honda are now building and selling full size Trucks. Why? They make money off them. By the way, compare the fuel economy and emissions on these vehicle with their US counterparts.


Chris

 

[SomeYahoo]

Why did this come down to "pick on the guy with the big truck"? Yes, I own a big truck. There is a reason for this. It is not that I LOVE OIL and must burn all that I can. It is not that American cars are junk and the trucks are better. It's not that I use it as a status symbol.

It is because I use it as a truck... novel idea. Haul firewood? No problem. Haul landscaping supplies? No problem. Help you move? No problem (as long as there is beer and pizza involved).

In short, I have a truck because I need a truck. Not all truck/SUV drivers are the enemy here folks. Would you rather I own five vehicles? One for each purpose? That wouldn't be environmentally OR economically sound.

You know what, just tear all of the emissions crap off of a smaller engine and it would have as much power as my 454. Smaller engines mean less pollution, correct?

End rant.

 

[BobPE]

QCE:

I read in the new paper (off beat environmental one I get) that the EPA is considering suing mother nature to clean up her act... Actually, natural emmissions are excluded from determination of overall pollutant loadings because one would find immediately that mans contribution is nill. It is a data trick that I personally find outrageous. The "volcano" numbers are the most basterdized sets of data I have seen yet, but I would think the numbers you are seeing are some type ofe time averaged loading to downplay the major emissions during activity or erruptions. Volcanoes are aslo a major source of stratospheric chlorine...remember the ozone hole our spray can propellents caused? I enjoy taking a hard look at the non-mainstream (and usually scientific) end of the argument, as you can probably tell...

China is a big pollution monster...if you don't believe that then you are right, why argue...

American cars got a lot better in the last year sacreBleu, we gave renault back ...

Bob

 

[corus]

As we're now into bashing other countries (and why not have a poke at the french for the benefit of Fox news viewers) there are some interesting statistics on this site which will keep you all amused for some time, no doubt.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap

To the defence of americans, they are ranked third in the world for spending on pollution control, though they do have cause to. I don't see much in general to bash the chinese or french though but those shifty-looking Luxemburgers need watching!

corus

 

[QCE]

"China is a big pollution monster...if you don't believe that then you are right, why argue..."

I agree that China is a fairly big polluter considering it has the largest population in the world and is in the process of developing.

However I don't think a developed country with 1/4 the population that has larger emissions should use them as an excuse not to clean up their act. It is childish. "Why should we clean up if they aren't going to?" This is one of the big reasons why the US did not ratify Kyoto.

"mans contribution is nill"

This is the information I'm looking for. I actually believe it is probably correct but I'm looking into it. I want to see the data used for the volcano arguement.

 

[BobPE]

QCE:

Let me dig my references out and I will see if I can get you onto that volcano track, it hase been a few years since I looked at that meterial.

Bob

 

[corus]

If you compare the statistics on the site I gave you'll find that China isn't a big polluter compared to the USA whether you use the total CO2 emmissions or the amount per capita. China has in fact about half that of the USA and even less if you consider per capita.

corus

 

[CajunCenturion]

corus - The chart that you provide is not based on total CO₂ emissions -- it's energy use only. Further, it's seven year old data.

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

 

[QCE]

Cajun,

I would consider it lucky that it is only energy production. If it included transportation emissions. The USA would be far gone. It is hard to find this type of data. I think you will be hard pressed to find current data that is this thorough. I would not expect much difference in current numbers. With China bringing in all those large hydro projects I'm not sure what there energy emissions would look like.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/carbon.html

This site shows some data on CO2 from petrol burning for each country listed upto 2002.

The USA is about 4X that of the USA or 16X per capita.

It is also interesting to note that the USA is 25% of the world emission from burning petrol. The USA is less then 5% of the world population.

Top World Oil Consumers, 2003*


Country
Total Oil Consumption
(million barrels per day)

1) United States 20.0

2) China 5.6

3) Japan 5.4

4) Germany 2.6

5) Russia 2.6

6) India 2.2

7) South Korea 2.2

8) Canada 2.2

9) Brazil 2.1

10) France 2.1

10) Mexico 2.1

*Table includes all countries that consumed more
than 2 million bbl/d in 2002.

 

[SacreBleu]

BobPE,
I am not French. I do have an open mind about what is being done in other countries. (Something you never see on American major network news )

Genset Guy -
Didn't mean to offend you. If trucks are needed to haul stuff, that's cool. I got the impression (based on some local info) that a substantial number of folks in the big SW USA city where I live buy big trucks for "vanity" purposes.

 

[BobPE]

SacreBleu:

I don't remember calling you French...if I did I am sorry, my bad...I too keep an open mind, but I do not mince words when it comes to telling it like data tell me to see it with regard to other countries policies....and you can't be daying the FOX network isn't fair and balanced...LOL

I drive my Corvette for vanity reasons...my truck is just a daily beater..but they all pass emissions testing every year....and have all the OEM emissions equipment in working order....

Bob

 

[CajunCenturion]

QCE - Have we switched from emissions to consumption?
From Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Petroleum, Natural Gas, Coal, and the Flaring of Natural Gas, All Countries, 1980-2002, for the year 2002, the per capita numbers are as follows:
[tt]
1 Gibraltar 144.11
2 Virgin Islands, U.S. 114.55
3 Netherlands Antilles 52.89
4 Qatar 46.08
5 United Arab Emirates 43.53
6 Bahrain 33.07
7 Singapore 27.22
8 Kuwait 25.49
9 Trinidad and Tobago 23.71
10 Luxembourg 22.96
11 Australia 21.00
12 United States 19.97
13 Canada 18.92
14 Netherlands 15.94
15 Brunei 14.83
[/tt]
It also show that the per capita consumption in the US has been going down over the last several years.

==> It is also interesting to note that the USA is 25% of the world emission from burning petrol.
That's true, but just a couple of years ago, the USA share was almost 45%.

I agree that it's hard to come by reasonable numbers that we call can agree on. All of the numbers that I've seen show that the USA is making progress as fast, if not faster, than any other region or country. Per capita emissions are down, overall world emission share is down and things are moving in the right direction. There still is a long way to go, but the USA, and other as well, are moving in the right direction.

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

 

[QCE]

"Just watched a special on PBS on emissions in China. Seems their vehicles use 10 year old technology for emissions control."

Could a vehicle made in 1995 not pass the 2005 emissions controls in the USA? Has the technology improved that much in 10 years?

I will look at the Euro 1 emission standards vs the USA standards and the Canadian standards. I will have to find the high and low for the USA and Canada per state/province. The good sign is that appears that everyone is improving.

Does the USA have an emission reduction target on a country wide basis or is it only state by state?

 

[BobPE]

QCE:

The US system focuses intense efforts in what are called EPA non atainment zones. the zones cross state lines and all states affected must meet stricter standards for emissions control.

I do not believe China meets Euro 1 standards, they wont verify and they do not share data that would look bad...the joy of communism I guess....

Bob

 

[zdas04]

A collegue of mine recently spent some time doing Oil & Gas work in China and brought back a bunch of photos. What I could see of the country through the coal smoke was really beautiful. Every place he went, the populace was using high-sulphur coal (carried in wheel barrows or backpacks) for cooking and home heating - it looked like London in the 1890's. The emissions statistics that I've seen on China omit the millions of tons of coal burnt each year in personal household use.

The big hydro projects in China are bringing clean energy (at a significant price of displaced farmers and fishermen) to a very few locations. The country is unimaginably large and the electric grid is very limited.

David

 

[QCE]

Cajun you make some good points. Thank you.

Ok the China vs USA emissions comparison thing has come up with some intersting debate.

Do you think it is a valid arguement that the USA won't ratify Kyoto because it does not make China, India and Brazil reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its first round?

China and India have both signed onto Kyoto if I recall. However they don't have targets in the first round of reductions.

I really think that we should have a worldwide agreement on emissions. Kyoto is as close as we have come. I think the USA could have given it some strength. It will be interesting to see what the results are in 2012.

 

[corus]

I was in China in February and found it much cleaner than London in 2005, never mind 1890. I must have been in the wrong place. A look at air quality in the USA on the other hand indicates that half of americans are living in unhealthy areas

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=564423.

It's difficult to compare China with the USA, however, as China is classed as a developing country, and as such was exempt from the Kyoto agreement.

corus