Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 Next
Comments 32551 to 32600:
-
Russ R. at 07:48 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob Honeycutt,
1. Very well then. Given that a carbon tax is desirable because it accounts for negative externalities by raising the price of gasoline and reducing consumption and emissions, and if this claim were true (that the Keystone XL pipeline would somehow raise gasoline prices) then the pipeline would deliver the same outcome as a carbon tax. I'm sure you can appreciate the absurdity of this.
2. "It's my understanding that the oil that would be processed as a result of the KXL is intended for export markets, not the US." Incorrect.
"Heavy Canadian crude, or bitumen in its undiluted form, is practically tailor-made for the massive U.S. Gulf Coast refining complex, which has long been configured to run heavy Latin American crudes arriving by tanker. Thanks to its attractive prices and surging output, Canadian output is displacing crudes from Venezuela and Mexico along the Gulf Coast."
You still need to explain how increased crude oil supply and lower transport costs "will actually raise gasoline costs in the USA". Because this claim defies the most basic laws of economics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:17 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
KR... That's still a far cry from "lifetime toxicity at 426ppm."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:58 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Tom... I didn't think you were making that claim at all. My comment wasn't specifically directed at your comment. What you're saying is exactly what I'm also thinking. The claim of toxicity under lifetime exposure is dubious at best.
I did find one EPA document that discusses toxicity levels as part of comments on the EPA findings to suggest there is no evidence to support that position.
-
Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
From the reading I've done it appears that there are very few studies of <1000ppm CO2 long term health effects - given that such experiments might have to run for significant portions of a human lifespan, and that brief exposures to ~10,000ppm, while dehabilitating, have reversible effects. Long term exposure to somewhat raised CO2 may, however, have significant health effects due in part to long term acidosis.
Despite the paucity of literature on low level exposure, I did locate Satish et al 2012, Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low to Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance. They studied decision-making performance at in blind tests for several CO2 levels:
At 1,000 ppm CO2, compared to 600 ppm, performance was significantly diminished on six of nine metrics of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm CO2, compared to 600 ppm, performance was significantly reduced in seven of nine metrics of performance, with percentile ranks for some performance metrics decreasing to levels associated with marginal or dysfunctional performance.
Business As Usual scenarios point to ~1000ppm by 2100. I would opine that this is not good.
-
John Hartz at 06:45 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
The impacts that the mining of the Athabasca tar sands are having on Aleberta's ecosystem is elequently presented in:
A Forest Threatened by Keystone XL, Op-ed by Andrew Nikifurok*, New York Times, Nov 17, 2014
*Andrew Nikiforuk is a Canadian journalist and the author, most recently, of the book “The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude.”
-
Tom Curtis at 06:22 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Rob @15 & 16, I am certainly not claiming the toxicity claim to be correct. I have merely pointed out that two "rebutals" of the graph have failed to actually do any rebutting.
My concern with the graph is that it is cited to Robertson 2006, but Roberston 2006 merely claims, "The estimated toxic level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under lifetime exposure is 426 ppm (Figure 1)4", where reference 4 is Roberston (2001). I have been unable to find a public domain copy of Roberston (2001); and the graph merely shows the fall in blood pH with rising abient CO2 concentrations. While falling pH can lead to acidosis, the argument as to why that should have lifetime consequences at 426 ppmv ambient CO2, and what the level of the purported toxic effects are is not accessible to me. Certainly the graph does not establish it.
-
beansformilagro at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R.
The Keystone crude is all earmarked for Latin America and Europe and not for the US.
Also, according to a number of sources, including Cornell University and Consumer Watchdog, the pipeline will cause the rerouting of oil destined for midwest USA and that will raise prices of gasoline, esp for the midwest.
-
John Hartz at 05:49 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
If you want to refresh your memory about the history of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and related matters, check out this reader article on North America's biggest energy and climate fight.
Keystone XL Pipeline: Everything You Need to Know in 23 Stories by By Stacy Feldman, InsideClimate News, Nov 18, 2014
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:41 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
One clue here is, if there were a serious human toxicity issue one would think that would have been a key element of the EPA findings on carbon emissions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:38 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Trying to understand this one better. It does sound like mammals have the capacity to buffer these effects. That's what is bothering me about the graph. The H-H equation sounds pretty standard, and the normal range indicated on the graph also seems to be well accepted. What I'm not yet buying is the idea of long term toxicity at atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 400ppm.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:00 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Russ R @13, following your link I found that the equation you refer to as "reality" is in fact an approximation. Further, it is an approximation that is close to linear across most of it range, and where it departs significantly from linearity, it often also becomes very inexact (with real values approximating to linear). Therefore, for you to draw you conclusion you need to show that:
1) the Henderson Hasselbalch equation does not approximate to linarity across the range shown in Fig 1; and
2) If the Henderson Hasselbalch equation does not approximate to linearity across that range, that it is in fact accurate across that range (which is not a given).
Absent that, your comment amounts merely to a slogan.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:54 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... Okay, first off, there isn't a "green plan." That would be an ad hom comment. A carbon tax would raise the price of fossil fuels by accounting for externalities, which was even an idea promoted by Milton Freedman (who could hardly be labeled a "greenie").
It's my understanding that the oil that would be processed as a result of the KXL is intended for export markets, not the US. It benefits oil companies (particularly Koch Industries) a great deal. The net benefit for the US is nominal. Some short term construction employment and that's about it. The impact on increased carbon emissions is significant.
It's abundantly clear that oil reserves need to stay in the ground. KXL is another step in the wrong direction.
-
Russ R. at 04:41 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Figure 1 is suspect for more reasons than just its data points and uncertainty.
It depicts a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and blood pH, which is entirely at odds with reality.
-
Stephen Baines at 04:34 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Ooops...meant no point talking about this unless we have a reference.
-
Stephen Baines at 04:33 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Mauricio...what Nature study are you talking about? No point talking
As a general principle, you must realize those ecosystems that show CO2 fertilization have already been taking more carbon out of the atmosphere during the last 50 years of increasing CO2. And yet, the CO2 has continued to increase. So, all such a study does is provide a post hoc constraint on how we explain the past trends. It doesn't provide much hope for the future with regard to CO2.
In fact, it's worrisome. The CO2 fertilization effect for C-3 plants will effectively saturate once we get near 600ppm, and is already effectively saturated for most C-4 plants. Once that happens, C-4 plants will no longer increase WUE with incereasing CO2 and a larger proportion of the annual CO2 emissions could remain in the atmosphere. If the contribution of plants to drawdown has been increasing with CO2 more than expected in the past, that increase in the airborne fraction could be larger that we currently think.
-
Russ R. at 04:30 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob,
That entirely depends on the nature and quality of responses.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... May I ask, is this going to just be another driveby comment or are you going to stick around and discuss the issue?
-
Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
ianw01@11, Figure 1 has data points in the original version in the linked paper. Further, the range of variation given for 2005 represents the uncertainty in blood pH given the CO2 concentration in that year. Intuitively, projecting that range across the entire graph gives a partial estimate of uncertainty.
-
Russ R. at 02:14 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
"A pipeline that, if approved, ... will actually raise gasoline costs in the USA,"
How exactly does increasing the supply of crude to the US and lowering its transportation costs (pipeline vs. railcar) result in higher domestic prices for refined products?
And correct me if I've misunderstood something here, but isn't the "Green" plan precisely to raise gasoline prices in order to reduce consumption and GHG emissions?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 19 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
The set of wealthy and powerful developed nations are working towards collectively limiting the success of tax cheaters globally, rather than nationally. My preference would be for them to also cooperatively and collectively effectively limit the success of the highest impact pursuers of profit and pleasure globally, rather than allowing the game playing of nations that can have leadership that is temporarily under the thumbs of some of those undesirable characters.
-
MAURICIO11346 at 00:57 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
The American and German researchers who worked on the Nature study wanted to test out those models in the real world. Using data collected from forests in the northeastern U.S., they found that as carbon concentrations increased by about 5% per decade over the past 20 years, the rates of water-use efficiency increased by about 3% a year. That’s much faster than computer models would have suggested—it means the improvement in water-use efficiency is about six times as large as the corresponding increase in carbon concentrations. As Trevor Keenan of Harvard University, a lead author on the paper, put it in a statement:
This could be considered a beneficial effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. What’s surprising is we didn’t expect the effect to be this big. A large proportion of the ecosystems in the world are limited by water–they don’t have enough water during the year to reach their maximum potential growth. If they become more efficient at using water, they should be able to take more carbon out of the atmosphere due to higher growth rates
-
ianw01 at 00:21 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Figure 1 is extremely suspect. It lacks data points and has no indication of uncertainty. I'll bet the particpants in "From Peru"'s reference did not use that figure in advance to extrapolate to determine their likely blood pH! :-) The result is nonsensical, but nonetheless the figure indicates a horrifically acidic blood pH, which of course did not arise.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:17 PM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
Per capita may be the easiest remotely valid method to follow, but it does have many limitations. As OPOF notes, it ignores differences in emissions between individuals / groups within each country. It also ignores the cumulative emissions issue raised by scaddenp. Though, on that, do we need to consider emissions prior to knowledge of the potential harm and/or dangerous atmospheric levels differently than emissions thereafter? Does using a per capita basis discourage wealthy nations from continuing to conduct research on better food crops which have allowed the large populations in some developing nations to survive? Et cetera.
There is no 'perfect' / 'fair' solution. Per capita is a reasonable starting point, but while we structure things to give developing nations a chance to improve their standard of living we should do just as much to allow developed nations to continue improving their standard of living as well. Ultimately, the global targets have to be based on 'units of energy / units of GHG'.
-
longjohn119 at 18:11 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Comparing exposure over a 75 years span with exposure over a mere 42 days doesn't really tell us anything about long term exposure. For one the effects could be at least somewhat cumulative like we are now finding out about radiation exposure.
I think they should redo this study with Climate Change Deniers and non-Deniers ..... I have a sneaking suspicion the 'stupidity threshhold" Deniers is closer to 350 ppm ..... Just a hunch and it certainly would explain a lot
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it civil.
-
From Peru at 15:22 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I recommend this article:
Toxicity of carbon dioxide: a review
I just began to read it, but I quote:
"Volunteers were exposed to 1.5% CO2 over a period of 42 days, and acid base balance and changes in electrolyte metabolism were studied
(...)
although there were some minor modifications of the pH and serum level of the electrolytes, the experimental conditions were well tolerated"
However, it is said also that intermittent high levels of CO2 are much less well tollerated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:43 PM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
Regarding the debate about per-capita measures of impact, in my earlier comment I indicated that the problem is not created by the 'number of people' as much as it is created by people who live a high-impact lifestyle. A reduction of the impact of the highest-impacting people is required.
There are many wealthy people in nations with high per-capita impacts who strive to be low-impact. They are not the problem. The people who are high-impact livers in a nation full of very poor low-impact people are as much of a problem as the high-impact livers in a richer nation.
Per-person impact evaluation clearly needs to be the focus, with the sharpest focus being on those whose lifestyle and way of profiting produce the largest impact regardless of the nation they are in.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:27 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
It is unfortunate that the Berkeley experiment did not include a baseline for behaviour with CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm. That may have provided some evidence regarding the potential consequences for long term exposure to elevated concentrations.
However, 600 ppm may be an appropriate baseline for the potential indoor concentrations when the best quality of 'fresh air' to improve indoor air quality is 400 ppm. And it is clear that capability was diminished on a number of measures when the concentration increased.
So, although the claimed long term consequence of 426 ppm is in question there would be less doubt about the potential negative long term consequences of being indoors too much of the time now that the likely indoor air concentration is above 426 ppm and increasing.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 13:25 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I also have to voice skepticism on the Robertson paper. What kind of journal exactly is "current science"?
It seems to me that, on severl;a occasions, he starts from a plausible premise but then draw conclusions formulated in drastic language when we are still only in the realm of possibility. I know quite well the effects of a high partial pressure of CO2 in the body, which I have to watch for routinely in my job with various kinds of patients in respiratory failure. However, I do not see that he truly has the data to support some of his assertions.
Nonetheless, it is true that forcing the entire terrestrial biome to endure a spike of 200 ppm in a couple of centuries is one heck of an experiment. I find it extremely irresponsible but that's another debate.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:21 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Russ here. Lifetime toxicity at 426ppm sounds like a bit of a stretch. I just browsed through the paper by Robertson and it doesn't look to me like the research supports such a claim. The paper states:
Such a situation is unlikely to be tolerable for a lifetime by humans (and other mam- mals with the possible exception of seals) without dete- rioration in general health along with serious curtailing of physical activity presently taken as normal.
But I don't see how Robertson can possibly quantify that based on the information he's presenting.
-
uprightsquire at 09:55 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
"man's"?
-
Russ R. at 09:48 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
"Some research suggest toxic effects of carbon dioxide at a constant (lifelong) exposure of only 426 ppm (D. Robertson, 2006).
Even under the most optimistic possible scenarios of emission reductions CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, which is above the safe threshold."
CO2 toxic at 426 ppm? Really? That's a pretty extraordinary claim.
I'm sure you've got some actual evidence to back that up... as opposed to mere speculation, or assertion.
-
John Hartz at 09:03 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
[JH] Moderation Comments
Scaddemp & Tom Curtis: Please let Rob Honeycutt do the repsonding to joeygoz from here on out.
Joeygoz: The SkS Comments Policy also prohibits excessive repitition.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:39 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
...and yes, this is very much a discussion on per capita vs national level emissions. I'm a little surprised that you can't see how this is related.
Let's take another example. If you seem to think that nations should cut equally, how is Bangladesh to tell their citizenry that they must cut their emissions? They certainly can't cut their emissions proportionate the US on a total volume basis since our emissions exceed their's many times over. Even on a proportional basis, can you ask people who are barely living subsistence lifestyles to cut their emissions 50%?
You have to look at this question on a per capita basis. Action has to occur on a govermental level but you have to balance agreements on a per capita measure. And, as I pointed out earlier, even that is complex because maybe China's answer to that will be, "Okay western nations, you can make your own stuff from now on because we don't want your carbon emissions from manufacturing to mucking up our emissions targets."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:13 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze... That's a deflection of a blatantly obvious and essentially rhetorical question. The answer is, no, the US would never agree to such a strategy.
But you're right, this is verging on dogpiling.
-
joeygoze9259 at 07:43 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
@ Rob - have no idea what the U.S. gov't would agree, thought we were having a discussion on the merits of determining reductions based on per capita emissions versus quantitative CO2 emissions per country?
@Curtis - If it is the case that "neither the China nor India are sufficiently gullible or virtuous that they will take a policy which will entrench a lower per capita income for their people for at least the next half century just so the US can maintain a higher standard of living by not tackling seriously the problem the US has primarilly caused." - then in my view, no way the U.S. gets on board as there is no incentive to lower the per capita income for Americans as well.
@scaddenp - do not believe anyone is in a position to determine what is an "undue" hardship for another individual. Can not say what U.S., UK, or Chinese citizens can absorb with respect to emissions reductions.
Moderator - how is this not a "dogpile" as outlines in your Updated Comments Policy?
-
Tom Curtis at 07:11 AM on 18 November 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #45
SteveFunk @2, as best I understand it, John L Casey's theory is that:
1) Solar forcing is much larger than the actual observed solar forcing because.
2) His theory can be trusted because "He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts", the later based on his Master of Arts in administration and his complete lack of peer reviewed publications on climate.
3) There is very strong evidence in support of his theory, and he just needs you to send him some money to explain it.
Is a review of the book of every two bit con artist realy needed?
-
Steve L at 07:06 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
This astounds me! But I'm going put some plants near my desk and try reading it again....
-
scaddenp at 06:47 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
I think there are two point to consider here.
1/ The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the accumulated result from years of emissions. If you look at historical responsibility for total emissions by country, (for instance the table here) then you see US,Europe far exceed China and so should take the responsibility for reducing output first
2/ Countries with very emissions per capita are far better positioned to make big cuts than countries with low emissions per capita. The US energy consumption (at 250kWh per person per day) is around double that of say UK. It seems entirely reasonable that US citizens could manage with a lot less without undue hardship. It's a lot tougher asking for cuts from people (eg Chinese) using only 50 kWh/per person/per day.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:34 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze @15, it is the total CO2 output that is damaging the climate but:
1) The total CO2 output is reduced whether we set equal %reductions by nation or equal per capita targets with the same % reduction of the total. As either method results in the same overall reduction, pointing out that it is the total CO2 output that is damaging the climate is irrelevant to the discussion.
2) In general, fossil fuel use (and hence CO2 emissions) per capita correlates with per capita wealth. Allowing unequal per capita targets therefor entrenches unequal wealth as a precondition for tackling AGW. It is as though the US (and Australia) were to say to the world that they will refuse to tackle the problem they have primarilly created unless they are subsidized by the rest of the world to do so.
3) Emissions of CO2 are a problem. That means all emissions of CO2 harm everybody to some small extent. Entrenching unequal per capita emissions entrenches a right for US citizens to harm the rest of the world more than they are harmed in perpetuity, so that they can recieve a larger benefit than is available for non-US citizens.
4) As a simple pragmatic matter, neither the China nor India are sufficiently gullible or virtuous that they will take a policy which will entrench a lower per capita income for their people for at least the next half century just so the US can maintain a higher standard of living by not tackling seriously the problem the US has primarilly caused. An effective global agreement to cut back emissions can only go forward based on a reduction program that results in equal per capita emissions in the medium term (or something closely approximating it).
-
Composer99 at 06:31 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze:
You write:
Think I am suggesting more what @Curtis is saying, in order to reduce emissions on a per country basis each country should reduce "from historical levels at the same rate"
But Tom Curtis then went on to point out why that is not such a good policy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:14 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze... So, if the tables were turned, would the US agree to such a strategy?
-
joeygoze9259 at 05:35 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
Think I am suggesting more what @Curtis is saying, in order to reduce emissions on a per country basis each country should reduce "from historical levels at the same rate" Believe this drives to the heart of lowering total global CO2 emissions. Not reasonable to suggest that Belgium could or would emit the same as the U.S. but all can reduce by some percentage and if the country is really small like Belgium or Bahamas, let them remain at the status quo since there emissions are negligable versus ROW.
It is not clear how the per capita argument is more "realistic" to determine how any one nation can decarbonize. A country like China whose raw CO2 output is double that of the U.S., how do we give them a pass just because on a per capita basis, they come out lower. It is the total CO2 output that is damaging to the climate.
-
michael sweet at 05:33 AM on 18 November 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #45
Steve,
The deniers are trying to get in the news before the final yearly data comes out. 2014 will be the warmest year ever. Perhaps the cooling will start immediately after the January data showing warming is released!
It is amazing that these guys can make these claims with a straight face.
-
SteveFunk at 05:25 AM on 18 November 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #45
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/ Has anyone reviewed this book or tied it specifically to the skeptic arguments page. I suspect I will be hearing about it from my more skeptical friends or from Fox News.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze... That's absurd, though. Ignoring per capita would suggest the smallest nations in the world can increase their output many times over. Collectively, that would be an unmitigated disaster. Do you really think that Belgium should have the same opportunity to emit carbon on a national level as the United States?
National governments are certainly the mechanism for regulation and control of carbon emissions, but per capita emissions are going to define, in a more realistic way, how much any given nation can decarbonize, as well as their potential for increased emissions.
In the U.S. we are one of the top emitters per capita, along with Australia and Canada. That means that we have the greatest opportunity to take responsibility for our emissions levels, and doing so only acts to encourage other nations to act accordingly.
"With great wealth comes great responsibility."
-
Tom Curtis at 04:46 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze @10 &12, the idea that CO2 emission targets should be equal between nations rather than equal per capita is one of those ideas that some people think is a good idea, but only because they never apply it. Taken literally, it means that (for example) the Bahamas (population 319,031) should be permitted to emit the same quantity of CO2 as the United States (population 322,583,006) or China (population 1,393,783,836); or that the Vatican City be permitted the same emissions as Italy. Some people think that the idea that the US and China should be permitted the same emissions, but those people never apply the same logic to the many small nations of the world. They would instantly recognize the disadvantage that would accrue to the US should they do so, not to mention the injustice of any such scheme. However, as they want to apply that logic when it advantages their nation relative to some other, their refusal to do so when it disadvantages their nation relative to some third country demonstrates that they do not accept their own reasoning - that their reasoning is in fact a rhetorical ploy serving a tactical end.
Perhaps that sort of strategy is not what you meant. Perhaps what you meant is that each nation should reduce emissions from historical levels at the same rate. Such a strategy has the convenient (for western nations) property that because they contributed most to the problem of CO2 increase in the past, they should be permitted to contribute most to that problem in the future as well. As reducing emissions may well have an economic cost, it also has the convenient effect of locking in current economic advantages, ie, of requiring China to sign up to their citizens having a lower standard of living than those of the US for the rest of this century because the US has historically contributed more to current CO2 concentrations in the past than has China. No US citizen would accept that argument were the situations reversed - and rightly so. They would percieve it as self serving sophistry in an attempt to avoid tackling the problem properly. And so it is.
-
joeygoze9259 at 04:11 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
@Rob
National boundaries define an area where industrial activity is occurring and the governments that function in those areas can regulate that region, it is not an arbitrary definition at all. China gov't can initiate regulations to control CO2 output in their geographic domain. U.S. can regulate its geographic domain. If goal is limiting total CO2 output, what is the issue with this?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:35 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze... That logic doesn't hold. Why would national boundaries be the proper metric? That's an even more arbitrary measure. And, if you're going to say that per capita doesn't matter, then you also can't claim that the carbon footprint of any individual matters.
-
michael sweet at 03:14 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
How much more difficult is it to ventilate a building when the incoming air is 450 ppm instead of 350 ppm? It would obviously require more air to keep levels below 600 ppm using 450 ppm to ventilate. Ventilating with 550 ppm? How difficult is this? Any input from building engineers?
-
Jose_X at 02:37 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Wow. Had not heard of anything like this. Wonder what Watt and the rest think about this?
Prev 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 Next
