Science > Physics > Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2006 04:52:09 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears. Like in some
South American countries a pizza cost 50 dollars. How will a worker
ever buy one when he probably doesn't make this much all week.
If the US economy falls, the rest of the world economy will fall also,
like in the great depression. This is what the lunatic fringe of Global
Warmists want. There is absolutely no means to simply reduce emmisions
in any reasonable amount to have any effect. They want a complete
destruction of our economy and way of life and the impostion of a
communistic form of government to oversee every aspect of our lives.
With them in charge. So we don't ruin everything by simply living. And
then they don't even have any valid science to support their twisted
obsession to screw us up the *****. We'll just have to all be happy
living in cinder block apartements like in the Soviet Union. At least
we won't be causing global warming. Except in the summer with no air
conditioning. Then global warming will be upon us.
Mainly they want electrical producers to have to pay a ransom to some
other corrupt assholes in order to sell us electricity which is our
life blood. In this they will make electricity scarce and very
expensive as their means of reducing emmisions since it is absolutely
impossible to incur the cost of building new plants, even nuclear.
China will never join Kyoto. They will do their own experiments and
evaluation by science and laugh at the idiots that believe in the
"consensus" science or stake their name in the "consensus" science.
Without China, simple reductions of CO2 might only reduce emmisions by
1 part in 10 million or less. 1 in 100 million. In a course of 10 years
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
.
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 11:17:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
China will never join Kyoto.
China ratified Kyoto in August 2002, having signed it in May 1998.
The Republic of China (Taiwan) has not signed or ratified it. Perhaps
you don't know the difference? Your ignorance seems to be without
limits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller©" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 11:32:14 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2006 09:17:26 -0800, "Hoggle" <admin@co2emissions.org.uk>
wrote:
kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
China will never join Kyoto.
China ratified Kyoto in August 2002, having signed it in May 1998.
The Republic of China (Taiwan) has not signed or ratified it. Perhaps
you don't know the difference? Your ignorance seems to be without
limits.
Of course China signed it. They are one of the "developing" countries
that doesn't have to abide by it. They can crank out as much crap as
they want without breaking the accord.
So who is doing the most damage to the environment? A billion Chinese
or a few million Taiwanese?
Never understood what the purpose of allowing countries to sign an
agreement that they aren't bound to comply with is. Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
Interesting that China is considered to be one of the good guys simply
for signing the thing when they don't have to change anything in their
own country yet the US and anyone that didn't sign it are considered
bastards even though they are doing more to cut back on emissions and
such than a lot of the signees.
Makes the whole thing look like more of a political tool than anything
that would truly benefit the environment. Imagine that......
Regards
Starkiller©
Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 06:47:42 AM |
|
|
In article <jhm2p21pll7ck8r6bp6medp6h8cbk119i3@4ax.com>,
Starkiller© <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 09:17:26 -0800, "Hoggle" <admin@co2emissions.org.uk>
wrote:
kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
China will never join Kyoto.
China ratified Kyoto in August 2002, having signed it in May 1998.
The Republic of China (Taiwan) has not signed or ratified it. Perhaps
you don't know the difference? Your ignorance seems to be without
limits.
Of course China signed it. They are one of the "developing" countries
that doesn't have to abide by it. They can crank out as much crap as
they want without breaking the accord.
So who is doing the most damage to the environment? A billion Chinese
or a few million Taiwanese?
As of 2003, the US was emitting 121.3 tons of CO2 per capita; China 3.2.
(Interestingly, Texas emits the most per capita of any US state, 60% more than
the national average.)
Never understood what the purpose of allowing countries to sign an
agreement that they aren't bound to comply with is. Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
Interesting that China is considered to be one of the good guys simply
for signing the thing when they don't have to change anything in their
own country yet the US and anyone that didn't sign it are considered
bastards even though they are doing more to cut back on emissions and
such than a lot of the signees.
China can sell carbon credits by becoming a signatory, which gives them an
incentive to keep their emissions low.
Makes the whole thing look like more of a political tool than anything
that would truly benefit the environment. Imagine that......
Regards
Starkiller©
Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 06:45:44 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
As of 2003, the US was emitting 121.3 tons of CO2 per capita; China 3.2.
I assume this is a typo - unless you saw 'US Virgin Islands' at number
1 and thought it was the US?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 07:50:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1167266744.119471.81670@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Hoggle" <admin@co2emissions.org.uk> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
As of 2003, the US was emitting 121.3 tons of CO2 per capita; China 3.2.
I assume this is a typo - unless you saw 'US Virgin Islands' at number
1 and thought it was the US?
You're right. US is 19.8. Over 6 times China. Except for some middle-east
countries, a couple of of US possessions, and Luxembourg, the US is #1.
(Why do Guam and the VI emit so much per capita?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 06:31:37 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
(Why do Guam and the VI emit so much per capita?)
VI has a population of around 112,000 and yet has 2 million visitors a
year. In addition, Hovensa, one of the world's largest petroleum
refineries, is located on Saint Croix. I assume that the emissions of
tourists are included in the per capita emissions of the permanent
residents.
With Guam, I suspect it is much the same, except that for refinery,
replace with airforce and naval bases. I also do not know if the US
forces personnel count as resident, nor how many there are.
It may, perhaps, be revealing to allocate tourism-derived emissions
back to the country of origin, along with the emissions from their air
travel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 07:48:52 PM |
|
|
Hoggle wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
(Why do Guam and the VI emit so much per capita?)
VI has a population of around 112,000 and yet has 2 million visitors a
year. In addition, Hovensa, one of the world's largest petroleum
refineries, is located on Saint Croix. I assume that the emissions of
tourists are included in the per capita emissions of the permanent
residents.
With Guam, I suspect it is much the same, except that for refinery,
replace with airforce and naval bases. I also do not know if the US
forces personnel count as resident, nor how many there are.
It may, perhaps, be revealing to allocate tourism-derived emissions
back to the country of origin, along with the emissions from their air
travel.
You'll never get controls imposed in US China or Australia. So that
means when you choke your economy down with your controls, you'll only
reduce emmisions bv 1 part in a billion or less. hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaha
How do you spell, 'MENTAL MASTURBATION'
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
hahahahahahaha
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 09:56:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hoggle wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
(Why do Guam and the VI emit so much per capita?)
VI has a population of around 112,000 and yet has 2 million visitors a
year. In addition, Hovensa, one of the world's largest petroleum
refineries, is located on Saint Croix. I assume that the emissions of
tourists are included in the per capita emissions of the permanent
residents.
With Guam, I suspect it is much the same, except that for refinery,
replace with airforce and naval bases. I also do not know if the US
forces personnel count as resident, nor how many there are.
It may, perhaps, be revealing to allocate tourism-derived emissions
back to the country of origin, along with the emissions from their air
travel.
You'll never get controls imposed in US China or Australia. So that
means when you choke your economy down with your controls, you'll only
reduce emmisions bv 1 part in a billion or less. hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaha
How do you spell, 'MENTAL MASTURBATION'
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
hahahahahahaha
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
Hoogle
This is exactly your thermodynamics.
If you put lights around your house in winter, the light absorbed by
your house will cause a slight warming of the exterior of your house.
This will reduce the heat loss from your house greater than the amount
of heat transfered to your house by the light, and therfore reduce the
heat loss of your house. Don't deny this charlatan pricks. I have seen
very well your accredited studies that the radiation returned to the
surface of the ocean by greater CO2 concentrations, causes the top 1
millimeter of the ocean to warm, therefore reducing the rate of heat
loss of the ocean and causing the ocean to warm.
You think that this PURE ***** is just going to go unnoticed as you
process your case to shut down the economy of the US and either
indirectly or directly cause the genocide of American citizens? In
Britain there is only one large city, London. The entire island is not
as large as any western state in the US. If you shut down 90% of your
CO2 right now, it would be equivelent to the US reducing by 5%. In the
meantime there is absolutely no effect on atmospheric temperatures from
carbon dioxide. Valid science PROVES THIS.
Hoogle and Wienie From Hell are secret lovers. Anytime they get a
chance, they get together and stroke on it together, dreaming of when
they will be either big men or even just a man at all, with their
imposition of their CO2 corncob up everybodys butt.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 04:10:32 PM |
|
|
Starkiller=A9 wrote:
Never understood what the purpose of allowing countries to sign an
agreement that they aren't bound to comply with is. Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
At least you admit to knowing nothing about it. Doesn't seem to stop
you from spouting nonsense and ignoring the fact that I was correcting
someone else's false statement.
By signing the treaty, developing countries become eligible to take
part in the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows countries such as
China to finance low-carbon development technologies. In this way they
can achieve lifestyles approaching the most disadvantaged American's
without destroying the planet in the way that Americans are now doing,
and have been doing for a century or more.
When the per capita emissions of China reach that of the EU, they will
still be half that of the braindead rednecks running the world's most
wasteful economy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller©" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 07:51:55 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2006 14:10:32 -0800, "Hoggle" <admin@co2emissions.org.uk>
wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
Never understood what the purpose of allowing countries to sign an
agreement that they aren't bound to comply with is. Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
At least you admit to knowing nothing about it. Doesn't seem to stop
you from spouting nonsense and ignoring the fact that I was correcting
someone else's false statement.
What nonsense you sanctimonious SOB?
I wasn't ignoring anything only adding to but you're apparently too
much of a pompous ***** to know the difference.
By signing the treaty, developing countries become eligible to take
part in the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows countries such as
China to finance low-carbon development technologies. In this way they
can achieve lifestyles approaching the most disadvantaged American's
without destroying the planet in the way that Americans are now doing,
and have been doing for a century or more.
Being elible for something and actually being required to comply are
two totally different things. In the meantime there are NO
restrictions that China has to comply with. And since when has Red
China actually ever given a ***** about how grand of a lifestyle their
population enjoys?
When the per capita emissions of China reach that of the EU, they will
still be half that of the braindead rednecks running the world's most
wasteful economy.
Currenly China is the number two polluter in the world and they are
gaining rapidly. Guess you really aren't that educated on such things
after all yes?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_India_Lead_15_Percent_Rise_In_CO2_Emissions.html
Now kindly FOAD
Regards
Starkiller©
Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 07:08:49 AM |
|
|
In article <aqj3p25cqtcfmcu7elf05m9ddi3k6ns8ja@4ax.com>,
Starkiller© <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 14:10:32 -0800, "Hoggle" <admin@co2emissions.org.uk>
wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
Never understood what the purpose of allowing countries to sign an
agreement that they aren't bound to comply with is. Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
At least you admit to knowing nothing about it. Doesn't seem to stop
you from spouting nonsense and ignoring the fact that I was correcting
someone else's false statement.
What nonsense you sanctimonious SOB?
I wasn't ignoring anything only adding to but you're apparently too
much of a pompous ***** to know the difference.
By signing the treaty, developing countries become eligible to take
part in the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows countries such as
China to finance low-carbon development technologies. In this way they
can achieve lifestyles approaching the most disadvantaged American's
without destroying the planet in the way that Americans are now doing,
and have been doing for a century or more.
Being elible for something and actually being required to comply are
two totally different things. In the meantime there are NO
restrictions that China has to comply with. And since when has Red
China actually ever given a ***** about how grand of a lifestyle their
population enjoys?
When the per capita emissions of China reach that of the EU, they will
still be half that of the braindead rednecks running the world's most
wasteful economy.
Currenly China is the number two polluter in the world and they are
gaining rapidly. Guess you really aren't that educated on such things
after all yes?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
Per capita, they are no. 99.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_India_Lead_15_Percent_Rise_In_CO2_Emi
ssions.html
Now kindly FOAD
Regards
Starkiller©
Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 06:05:16 AM |
|
|
Starkiller=A9 wrote:
Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
Here is a nuclear disamament treaty signed by many non-nuclear
countries who do not have to disarm. See if you can figure out why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_non-proliferation_treaty#Parties_to_th=
e_treaty
Being elible for something and actually being required to comply are
two totally different things.
Since the Bush administration has no regard for international law, they
could simply have ratified it to look good and then ignored it, like
the Canadian government is currently doing. Being subject to market
forces, however, is far more dangerous to right wing neocons. It's tthe
market forces in the CDM that scare the US, far more than the emissions
reductions, which could be achieved with some very simple energy
conservation measures.
In the meantime there are NO
restrictions that China has to comply with. And since when has Red
China actually ever given a ***** about how grand of a lifestyle their
population enjoys?
"In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration
(SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting
the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental
protection. In recent years, the PRC has strengthened its environmental
legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental
deterioration. In 1999, the PRC invested more than one percent of GDP
in environmental protection, a proportion that will likely increase in
coming years. During the 10th 5-Year Plan, the PRC plans to reduce
total emissions by 10%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
"Chinese economic reforms occurred at almost the same time as
perestroika in the Soviet Union, yet perestroika has been widely judged
to be a failure while Chinese economic reform has been widely
considered to be a success. This is largely because the Soviets largely
focused their efforts on developing heavy industry, which only affects
a small group. In China the emphasis was on agriculture and light
industry, which produces immediate winners because the goods produced
are consumed by a large portion of the population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
Interestingly, the principle under which the government operates is one
of 'do what works' and is thus far less dogmatic than the imbecilic
policies pursued by GW Bush.
When the per capita emissions of China reach that of the EU, they will
still be half that of the braindead rednecks running the world's most
wasteful economy.
Currenly China is the number two polluter in the world and they are
gaining rapidly. Guess you really aren't that educated on such things
after all yes?
I specifically said per capita emissions, which is the fairest
measurement and removes nationalistic bias from the interpretation.
China has per capita emissions of 3.2 tonnes CO2 (as of 2003), which
places it 99th in the list. The USA, meanwhile, has emissions of 19.8
tonnes CO2 per capita, placing it 11th. Most major European countries
have per capita emissions between 6 and 10 tonnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_=
per_capita
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx
And I must thank you for all your lovely ad hominem attacks, which
capture the Christmas spirit precisely. It clearly displays your
massive intelligence and knowledge whenever you decide that attacking
the person is more appropriate than attacking the argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller©" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 09:02:17 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2006 04:05:16 -0800, "Hoggle" <admin@co2emissions.org.uk>
wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
Makes as much
sense as a country signing a nuclear disarmament agreement that says
they don't have to disarm.
Here is a nuclear disamament treaty signed by many non-nuclear
countries who do not have to disarm. See if you can figure out why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_non-proliferation_treaty#Parties_to_the_treaty
Being elible for something and actually being required to comply are
two totally different things.
Since the Bush administration has no regard for international law, they
could simply have ratified it to look good and then ignored it, like
the Canadian government is currently doing. Being subject to market
forces, however, is far more dangerous to right wing neocons. It's tthe
market forces in the CDM that scare the US, far more than the emissions
reductions, which could be achieved with some very simple energy
conservation measures.
In the meantime there are NO
restrictions that China has to comply with. And since when has Red
China actually ever given a ***** about how grand of a lifestyle their
population enjoys?
"In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration
(SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting
the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental
protection. In recent years, the PRC has strengthened its environmental
legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental
deterioration. In 1999, the PRC invested more than one percent of GDP
in environmental protection, a proportion that will likely increase in
coming years. During the 10th 5-Year Plan, the PRC plans to reduce
total emissions by 10%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
"Chinese economic reforms occurred at almost the same time as
perestroika in the Soviet Union, yet perestroika has been widely judged
to be a failure while Chinese economic reform has been widely
considered to be a success. This is largely because the Soviets largely
focused their efforts on developing heavy industry, which only affects
a small group. In China the emphasis was on agriculture and light
industry, which produces immediate winners because the goods produced
are consumed by a large portion of the population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
Interestingly, the principle under which the government operates is one
of 'do what works' and is thus far less dogmatic than the imbecilic
policies pursued by GW Bush.
When the per capita emissions of China reach that of the EU, they will
still be half that of the braindead rednecks running the world's most
wasteful economy.
Currenly China is the number two polluter in the world and they are
gaining rapidly. Guess you really aren't that educated on such things
after all yes?
I specifically said per capita emissions, which is the fairest
measurement and removes nationalistic bias from the interpretation.
China has per capita emissions of 3.2 tonnes CO2 (as of 2003), which
places it 99th in the list. The USA, meanwhile, has emissions of 19.8
tonnes CO2 per capita, placing it 11th. Most major European countries
have per capita emissions between 6 and 10 tonnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx
And I must thank you for all your lovely ad hominem attacks, which
capture the Christmas spirit precisely. It clearly displays your
massive intelligence and knowledge whenever you decide that attacking
the person is more appropriate than attacking the argument.
You started it with your little ***** when I made a comment with no
attack whatsoever. Typical lib *****. Someone replies in a
civilized manner, you throw a cheap little insult then scream "ad
hominem" attack when you get treated in kind.
And your little per capita emissions argument doesn't hold water for
crap. When speaking of a billion people as in the Chinese they can
have a lot less per capita emissions and still pump more out as a
nation than your little buddies in the EU. Per capita emissions does
not reflect a nations emssions output as a whole. Bewing ranked at 99
in terms of poer capita means jack squat when they are number 2 in the
world and rising as a whole.
And just a side note. The Chinese purchased around 2 million more
automobiles last year alone. So how long will it be before they
achieve that high per capita emission output that you have such a hard
on for and what will they be required to do? Under Kyoto NOTHING.
..
Interesting that you snipped the links showing Chinas emissions have
increased over 33% in recent years. 33% since they signed Kyoto.
Guess it didn't suit your assinine argument.
Bottom line is you are all for leaving the Chinese to burn as much
coal and oil as they like simply because they AREN'T the US.
As stated Kyoto is nothing more than a political tool that allows non
affected nations to ***** and make ridiculous demands on the US.
Regards
Starkiller©
Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 07:26:16 PM |
|
|
Starkiller=A9 wrote:
You started it with your little ***** when I made a comment with no
attack whatsoever. Typical lib *****. Someone replies in a
civilized manner, you throw a cheap little insult then scream "ad
hominem" attack when you get treated in kind.
My first response claimed that your statements were nonsense (which my
following paragraph demonstrated) and that you were ingoring the
context of my comment. This is an attack on your argument, not you, and
is therefore not ad hominem. You might not like the way I worded it,
but it doesn't change the fact that I addressed myself to what you
said, and not to your character or intelligence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bawana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 08:31:17 AM |
|
|
boogle boggle voodoo death cult agw tard wrote:
It's tthe
market forces in the CDM that scare the US,
Yeah.
Like some turd world loser can lecture intelligently about US market
forces...
Right.
far more than the emissions
reductions, which could be achieved with some very simple energy
conservation measures.
OK boogle boggle, give us a list of your voodoo "very simple energy
conservation measures".
This is where you cut and run or answer with a non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hoggle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 07:18:42 PM |
|
|
Bawana wrote:
OK boogle boggle, give us a list of your voodoo "very simple energy
conservation measures".
This is where you cut and run or answer with a non sequitur.
It may appear as a non-sequitur if you can't follow the argument, so
I'll try to keep it to small simple steps.
Saving 10% of energy use will prevent (roughly) 10% of emissions.
I'll give you 10% savings in the five main energy consumption sectors.
US emissions by sector, 2006 (millions of metric tonnes)
Residential 1243
Commercial 1044
Industrial 1710
Transportation 1981
Electric Power 2369
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_18.pdf
Residential - all homes can be insulated to a much higher standard for
very little cost, recouped in a matter of a few years. Replacing
incandescant light bulbs with modern energy-efficient lighting is also
a money-saving and energy-saving move. Making standby buttons
automatically power the machine down completely after ten minutes would
also save electricity.
Commercial - promoting online shopping and working from home will
reduce the need for expensive shop-floor displays and office space, as
well as cutting down on the total number of journeys.
Industrial - enforcing existing EPA regulations and removing
unjustifiable protection (effectively an illegal subsidy) from
compliance from out-dated installations will encourage the more rapid
adoption of modern, energy-efficient processes.
Transportation - Reducing the average weight of vehicles by 10% will
give a corresponding improvement in fuel performance and efficiency, as
will increasing the average occupancy. Car sharing schemes and a
balanced (i.e. zero-sum) set of taxes and incentives for low weight,
high efficiency private vehicles will provide the incentives.
Electric Power - Piping the waste heat from plants to homes and
factories will use more of the available energy and reduce demand for
other sources.
None of these things are major investments. They don't require any
lifestyle changes that aren't already happening because they are
desireable. They require just a tiny amount of political will and a
minor adjustment to regulations. No-one will be even slightly worse off
(unless they fail to take the hint and cling to their 2 tonnes of metal
to take their kids to school) and most people will find themselves
wealthier.
It constantly astounds me that some people on here don't realise that
using energy more efficiently is a way to make yourself (and everyone
else) richer. The only people it will make any poorer are the fossil
fuel providers, who thrive on high demand and low supply. Reducing
demand cuts into their obscene profit margins, and that is why anyone
opposing energy efficiency is assumed to be on their payroll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bawana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 10:32:50 PM |
|
|
Hoggle wrote:
Bawana wrote:
OK boogle boggle, give us a list of your voodoo "very simple energy
conservation measures".
This is where you cut and run or answer with a non sequitur.
It may appear as a non-sequitur if you can't follow the argument, so
I'll try to keep it to small simple steps.
Saving 10% of energy use will prevent (roughly) 10% of emissions.
I'll give you 10% savings in the five main energy consumption sectors.
US emissions by sector, 2006 (millions of metric tonnes)
Residential 1243
Commercial 1044
Industrial 1710
Transportation 1981
Electric Power 2369
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_18.pdf
Residential - all homes can be insulated to a much higher standard for
very little cost, recouped in a matter of a few years. Replacing
incandescant light bulbs with modern energy-efficient lighting is also
a money-saving and energy-saving move.
People already do those things all the time.
They do it because it's in their own self interest.
Making standby buttons
automatically power the machine down completely after ten minutes would
also save electricity.
??? What machine???
Commercial - promoting online shopping and working from home will
reduce the need for expensive shop-floor displays and office space, as
well as cutting down on the total number of journeys.
People do those things all the time.
They do it because it's in their own self interest.
Industrial - enforcing existing EPA regulations and removing
unjustifiable protection (effectively an illegal subsidy) from
compliance from out-dated installations will encourage the more rapid
adoption of modern, energy-efficient processes.
Yawn.
Transportation - Reducing the average weight of vehicles by 10% will
give a corresponding improvement in fuel performance and efficiency, as
will increasing the average occupancy.
Can you say Toyota?
Number 1 car maker in the world.
Guess why...
Car sharing schemes and a
balanced (i.e. zero-sum) set of taxes and incentives for low weight,
high efficiency private vehicles will provide the incentives.
Yawn.
Electric Power - Piping the waste heat from plants to homes and
factories will use more of the available energy and reduce demand for
other sources.
I guess the "piping" will magically appear.
None of these things are major investments.
Except the magic piping.
They don't require any
lifestyle changes that aren't already happening because they are
desireable.
Because it in a person's own self interest to do so.
They require just a tiny amount of political will and a
minor adjustment to regulations.
No such animals.
You assume politicians are rational people.
No-one will be even slightly worse off
(unless they fail to take the hint and cling to their 2 tonnes of metal
to take their kids to school) and most people will find themselves
wealthier.
That's why people already do it.
Or not.
It constantly astounds me that some people on here don't realise that
using energy more efficiently is a way to make yourself (and everyone
else) richer.
The frugal people on here already have that ***** covered.
I have no control over "everyone else".
Nor should I.
The only people it will make any poorer are the fossil
fuel providers, who thrive on high demand and low supply. Reducing
demand cuts into their obscene profit margins,
You realise that in the US, the government makes more profit on the
sale of gas then the fossil fuel providers, don't you?
I find that OBSCENE.
and that is why anyone
opposing energy efficiency is assumed to be on their payroll.
Who is opposing "energy efficiency"?
Nobody I know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Sturm" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 11:14:10 PM |
|
|
On 28/12/06 3:32 PM, in article
1167280370.914505.244880@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Bawana"
<mrbawana2u@yahoo.com> wrote:
You realise that in the US, the government makes more profit on the
sale of gas then the fossil fuel providers, don't you?
I find that OBSCENE.
and that is why anyone
opposing energy efficiency is assumed to be on their payroll.
Who is opposing "energy efficiency"?
Nobody I know.
How about the fossil fools in government who you correctly point out make
"more profit on the sale of gas" than the providers? Yes, I find that
obscene, too. The gouging's worse here in Oz than the US. 'Course the
greenie-weenie solution to this is... more government/more gouging :-/
Jonathan Sturm
(Still the world's most famous Pompous Git according to Google)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bawana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 01:46:57 AM |
|
|
Jonathan Sturm wrote:
On 28/12/06 3:32 PM, in article
1167280370.914505.244880@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Bawana"
<mrbawana2u@yahoo.com> wrote:
You realise that in the US, the government makes more profit on the
sale of gas then the fossil fuel providers, don't you?
I find that OBSCENE.
and that is why anyone
opposing energy efficiency is assumed to be on their payroll.
Who is opposing "energy efficiency"?
Nobody I know.
How about the fossil fools in government who you correctly point out make
"more profit on the sale of gas" than the providers? Yes, I find that
obscene, too. The gouging's worse here in Oz than the US.
I stand corrected.
'Course the
greenie-weenie solution to this is... more government/more gouging :-/
When will those stupid idiots learn?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 02:12:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears. Like in some
South American countries a pizza cost 50 dollars. How will a worker
ever buy one when he probably doesn't make this much all week.
Hyperinflation has many bad effects, but this is a simplistic view that
"it makes things too expensive for the poor to buy", similar to
simplistic views about currency exchange. If the local worker is
generating enough value in the local economy to make it possible for
the local entreprenuer to transfer to him a pizza for a cost which
allows the pizza maker some surplus value, then human desire ought to
find a way to execute the transaction. If it can't, then it is
possible pizza actually is a luxury good in that part of the world (the
mozerella cheese importer has to pay a 500% tariff to avoid competition
with local farmers), or else hyperinflation is destroying faith in
currency to the extent that no short term price can be agreed on,
because the seller fears his payment may be worthless before he gets it
to the bank. That's not currency making things "too expensive for the
poor to buy", which they otherwise might have afforded, that's a
currency system so broken it's not carrying out elementary functions of
currency anymore.
Plus, your views on relativity are all wrong. ;-)
If the US economy falls, the rest of the world economy will fall also,
like in the great depression. This is what the lunatic fringe of Global
Warmists want. There is absolutely no means to simply reduce emmisions
in any reasonable amount to have any effect. They want a complete
destruction of our economy and way of life and the impostion of a
communistic form of government to oversee every aspect of our lives.
I don't much cotton with Al Gore, but I don't think that's what he
wants!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 04:51:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1167000729.165916.284630@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears.
Actually, there's more middle class in Europe than here, where the huge gap
between the top and bottom means there's really just upper class and lower
class.
Like in some
South American countries a pizza cost 50 dollars.
Most are doing fine, economically.
How will a worker
ever buy one when he probably doesn't make this much all week.
If the US economy falls, the rest of the world economy will fall also,
like in the great depression.
Yes, but Japan or China could bring everybody down too. It's a global economy
now; every nation is interlaced with all others.
This is what the lunatic fringe of Global
Warmists want.
OK, idiot alert!
There is absolutely no means to simply reduce emmisions
in any reasonable amount to have any effect.
Sure there is. More efficient cars and appliances, alternate energy, mass
transit...
They want a complete
destruction of our economy and way of life and the impostion of a
communistic form of government to oversee every aspect of our lives.
You are a liar.
With them in charge. So we don't ruin everything by simply living. And
then they don't even have any valid science to support their twisted
You are a stupid liar.
obsession to screw us up the *****. We'll just have to all be happy
living in cinder block apartements like in the Soviet Union. At least
we won't be causing global warming. Except in the summer with no air
conditioning. Then global warming will be upon us.
Mainly they want electrical producers to have to pay a ransom to some
other corrupt assholes in order to sell us electricity which is our
life blood.
You are a Nazi now. Happy?
In this they will make electricity scarce and very
expensive as their means of reducing emmisions since it is absolutely
impossible to incur the cost of building new plants, even nuclear.
China will never join Kyoto. They will do their own experiments and
evaluation by science and laugh at the idiots that believe in the
"consensus" science or stake their name in the "consensus" science.
Without China, simple reductions of CO2 might only reduce emmisions by
1 part in 10 million or less. 1 in 100 million. In a course of 10 years
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theoneflasehaddock" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 02:32:31 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1167000729.165916.284630@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears.
Actually, there's more middle class in Europe than here, where the huge gap
between the top and bottom means there's really just upper class and lower
class.
True, but 80% of Americans think they're middle class.
Like in some
South American countries a pizza cost 50 dollars.
Most are doing fine, economically.
They're not starving, but they're not getting fat off pizza either, so
it depends on what your definition of "doing fine" is.
How will a worker
ever buy one when he probably doesn't make this much all week.
It is possible to eat food other than pizza.
If the US economy falls, the rest of the world economy will fall also,
like in the great depression.
Yes, but Japan or China could bring everybody down too. It's a global economy
now; every nation is interlaced with all others.
True, but with the Bush in charge of the U.S., we're the most likely of
the three to fail.
--
theoneflasehaddock
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "aloha.kakuikanu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 03:52:43 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1167000729.165916.284630@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears.
Actually, there's more middle class in Europe than here, where the huge gap
between the top and bottom means there's really just upper class and lower
class.
You mean socialist system in EU eliminated all rich people already?
OK, there are 765 cars per 1000 citizens in the US, versus about 400 in
EU. The average house in the US is 200 sq metters, while the average
dwelling unit in the EU is about half as small. So shut up your
socialist propaganda, until EU catch up economically.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
26 Dec 2006 05:24:19 PM |
|
|
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167169963.213109.63710@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1167000729.165916.284630@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears.
Actually, there's more middle class in Europe than here, where the huge
gap
between the top and bottom means there's really just upper class and
lower
class.
You mean socialist system in EU eliminated all rich people already?
Why do you think the EU is a "country?" and more importantly where did you
get the idea it was "socialist?"
OK, there are 765 cars per 1000 citizens in the US, versus about 400 in
EU.
In the UK there are around 700 cars per 1000 citizens - seems close enough
to me.
The average house in the US is 200 sq metters, while the average
dwelling unit in the EU is about half as small.
What is that in relation to the available land mass?
So shut up your
socialist propaganda, until EU catch up economically.
Even if your figures were relevant, how do they imply the EU is a socialist
organisation?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 06:56:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1167169963.213109.63710@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1167000729.165916.284630@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
This is what happens when your governments become the biggest
"businesses" in your countries and take over way too much control and
choice from the people they purportedly serve.
They don't even worry about unemployment in Europe. In countries that
don't control inflation, the middle class dissapears.
Actually, there's more middle class in Europe than here, where the huge gap
between the top and bottom means there's really just upper class and lower
class.
You mean socialist system in EU eliminated all rich people already?
OK, there are 765 cars per 1000 citizens in the US, versus about 400 in
EU. The average house in the US is 200 sq metters, while the average
dwelling unit in the EU is about half as small. So shut up your
socialist propaganda, until EU catch up economically.
But people in Europe tend to live closer to where they work, and there's a lot
of mass transit, so they don't need cars as much.
And why does a family of 3-4 need a 10,000 sq. ft. house?
You seem to think material wealth is the sole measure of a nation. Not so.
Look at quality of life -- Europeans live longer, are healthier, are better
educated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "aloha.kakuikanu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
27 Dec 2006 07:59:04 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1167169963.213109.63710@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, there are 765 cars per 1000 citizens in the US, versus about 400 in
EU. The average house in the US is 200 sq metters, while the average
dwelling unit in the EU is about half as small. So shut up your
socialist propaganda, until EU catch up economically.
But people in Europe tend to live closer to where they work, and there's a lot
of mass transit, so they don't need cars as much.
I would rather attribute it to a deficit of parking and gasoline price
which make cars less economically viable means of transportation.
Lloyd, did you ever take public transportation to work? Did you enjoy
the freedom it provides (or the lack thereof)?
And why does a family of 3-4 need a 10,000 sq. ft. house?
Are you kidding? How do you determine the "optimum" or "balanced"
living standards? In the old USSR they established norms of about 10 sq
meters per person. Is family of 3-4 living in 30 sq meters flat your
ideal?
You seem to think material wealth is the sole measure of a nation. Not so.
Look at quality of life -- Europeans live longer, are healthier, are better
educated.
Come again? American universities rank second to none, so why do you
think Europeans are better educated? Next among tech people I know,
about 20 emigrated in the US, and maybe 2 landed in Germany. Finally,
the US has the best medical system in the world. Perhaps, you are aware
that a certain European island nation is a permanent source of dental
jokes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 10:06:37 AM |
|
|
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> trolled in message
news:1167271144.098632.279980@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1167169963.213109.63710@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, there are 765 cars per 1000 citizens in the US, versus about 400 in
EU. The average house in the US is 200 sq metters, while the average
dwelling unit in the EU is about half as small. So shut up your
socialist propaganda, until EU catch up economically.
But people in Europe tend to live closer to where they work, and there's
a lot
of mass transit, so they don't need cars as much.
I would rather attribute it to a deficit of parking and gasoline price
which make cars less economically viable means of transportation.
Either way it means cars are not an indicator of "socialist" or
"non-socialist" societies.
Lloyd, did you ever take public transportation to work? Did you enjoy
the freedom it provides (or the lack thereof)?
What does that have to do with anything? Do you think a two hour drive each
way to work gives you more freedom than a two hour train journey? At least
on the train you can catch up on work, eat, drink, read etc.
And why does a family of 3-4 need a 10,000 sq. ft. house?
Are you kidding? How do you determine the "optimum" or "balanced"
living standards? In the old USSR they established norms of about 10 sq
meters per person. Is family of 3-4 living in 30 sq meters flat your
ideal?
Even your new question does not answer the original one.
You purported housing volume as a measurement of socialist society. This is
gibberish.
You seem to think material wealth is the sole measure of a nation. Not
so.
Look at quality of life -- Europeans live longer, are healthier, are
better
educated.
Come again? American universities rank second to none,
Really? So the top 1200 universities in the world are all American ones?
Wow.
The US may hold the top five or ten places - however
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm implies that with the
exception of Harvard, American universities are second to other
universities.
Critically, the point you seem to miss is that access to good universities
for the _general_ population is greater in the rest of the world. America
has most of the top 100, but these service a small percentage of the US
population. As a result, the general level of education in the US is lower
than that in (for example) Europe.
so why do you
think Europeans are better educated? Next among tech people I know,
about 20 emigrated in the US, and maybe 2 landed in Germany. Finally,
the US has the best medical system in the world.
If you are rich.
Perhaps, you are aware
that a certain European island nation is a permanent source of dental
jokes?
It may well be, but jokes are jokes. The US is a permanent source of jokes
about education, behaviour, crime, intelligence etc. Does that make it true?
.
|
|
|
| User: "unsettled" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 10:55:28 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> trolled in message
news:1167271144.098632.279980@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Perhaps, you are aware
that a certain European island nation is a permanent source of dental
jokes?
It may well be, but jokes are jokes. The US is a permanent source of jokes
about education, behaviour, crime, intelligence etc. Does that make it true?
Unfortunately it is a valid caricature which means
there's a smattering of truth to it. The next logical
question has to do with messing with the success that
the US is. There is a time to stop trying to improve;
just sit back and enjoy.
That doesn't even slow us down where it comes to
critiquing others while feigning perfection. LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 11:33:50 AM |
|
|
"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:2ef87$4593f704$49ecf03$6576@DIALUPUSA.NET...
T Wake wrote:
"aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuikanu@yahoo.com> trolled in message
news:1167271144.098632.279980@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Perhaps, you are aware
that a certain European island nation is a permanent source of dental
jokes?
It may well be, but jokes are jokes. The US is a permanent source of
jokes about education, behaviour, crime, intelligence etc. Does that make
it true?
Unfortunately it is a valid caricature which means
there's a smattering of truth to it.
Probably true, but we could argue is the smattering of truth based on poor
standards of dental health in the UK, or a lack of the vanity which presses
for unnecessary treatments? :-)
(as an aside, this is a moot point while it was true years ago, times have
changed)
The next logical
question has to do with messing with the success that
the US is. There is a time to stop trying to improve;
just sit back and enjoy.
That doesn't even slow us down where it comes to
critiquing others while feigning perfection. LOL
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "aloha.kakuikanu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Europe embraces the "fight" against global warming |
28 Dec 2006 12:09:10 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
Do you think a two hour drive each
way to work gives you more freedom than a two hour train journey? At least
on the train you can catch up on work, eat, drink, read etc.
Or catch a virus. Don't forget, that warmer world wont eliminate cold
deceases completely.
Anyway, the absence of public transit in the US is due to economic
reasons. AGW fanatics tell us to do something that doesn't make any
sense.
You purported housing volume as a measurement of socialist society. This is
gibberish.
Why? There are unambiguous socialists on this board. I'm telling you:
you'll be cured of this silly idea as soon as you'll try living in your
paradise society couple of years. Hurry up, there is not a lot of
countries left.
Critically, the point you seem to miss is that access to good universities
for the _general_ population is greater in the rest of the world. America
has most of the top 100, but these service a small percentage of the US
population. As a result, the general level of education in the US is lower
than that in (for example) Europe.
Perhaps the quality of public education in the US is low because it is
free? Regardless, we are talking about the country with 4% of world
population, 25% of world wealth, and 75% or so of world top
universities. You suggest that these institutions are somehow less
accessible to the US citizens than to the rest of the world?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
