Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(10,909 posts)
44. Well, then maybe we should reduce our per-capita CO2 emssions to China & India's levels
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:55 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:19 PM - Edit history (2)

[font color = blue] >> 43. Sorry, but I'm not giving China & India a pass just so they can "catch up" to western living

A lot of things USED to be done that we know now NOT to do. Should we let poorer countries do anything just to improve their standard of living? <<[/font]

Well, have you considered then that maybe, instead of a trivial reduction of a few percent from levels that are still far higher than China & India levels per capita, we should reduce emissions to China's and India's levels per capita? Not to mention that cumulatively, over the past centuries, the U.S. has emitted far more CO2 than both those countries combined? Not just on a per-capita basis but in tons of CO2.

[font color = red]Edited to Add, 6/24 1105a CT:[/font] And again, much U.S. manufacturing has gone overseas in the last decades, to places like China. China is producing substantial levels of CO2 to produce products that are consumed in the U.S. I think it’s primarily the U.S. that should be blamed for CO2 caused by hoggish (relative to non-Western countries) U.S. consumers.

We (all countries) will have to make sacrifices to solve this problem. I'm just saying that since we (the western nations) created most of the problem, any notion of fairness means we should make the biggest sacrifices. By far.

[font color = blue] >> You say a bad economy is what caused our reductions? The 90s was a boom decade. We've been putting out less since '93, which is also well before fracking produced very much volume. <<[/font]

U.S. CO2 emissions rose through the 1990s and early- and mid- 2000s, to peak in 2007, which was also the last year before the financial crash hit full force.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

The title of the below graph is: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Gas Emissions, 1990-2012 (I don't know why it got lopped off)



And fracking is a big factor since 2007, which wasn't much of a factor before 2007.

The U.S.'s CO2 reductions since 2007 were the result of a poor economy and market-place economics (fracking being cheaper than coal), not from any sacrifice on our part.

[font color = blue] >> But I'm not convinced that we are the main cause of any warming going on. <<[/font]

Cumulatively, the U.S. has put out much more CO2 into the atmosphere than China and India combined. Who is "we", by the way? U.S.? The world? It's not humans, its sunspots?

World temperatures have risen about 0.8 deg C (1.4 deg F) since pre-industrial times.

The entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA., AP 5/31/12

And the average temperature in the decade of the 1990s was warmer than any previous decade since records began. Surpassed only by the 2000's.

2013 was the 37th year in a row that global temps were above 20th century average. 9 of the 10 warmest years all occurred during the 13 years of the 21st century

[font color = blue] >>Not to mention the stories about fudged data that keep showing up. Here's one from just yesterday:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
<<[/font]

Hmm, interesting title, "The scandal of fiddled global warming data The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record"

You can find all kinds of right wing whack-a-doodle stories all over the Internet written by carbon industry - paid hacks. They are not hard to find if you look for them.

Have you ever read the book "Doubt Is Their Product" ?

[font color = blue] >>I certainly believe we should continue to improve on what we've already done. <<[/font]

Good, so you believe what 97% of climate scientists believe, despite the right-wing hacks

[font color = blue] >>I just don't know who has the smarts to say that the temperature right now is exactly where we have to be. <<[/font]

Dunno either. But rising sea level (caused by global warming) is a problem.

Melting glaciers and snow-packs is a big problem. The snow and ice that accumulate in the mountains in winter act as big water reservoirs that feed the rivers that flow from them during the growing season and make agriculture possible in many areas (as it is, we're rapidly depleting ground water which is expensive and energy-intensive to pump). These snow and ice packs are rapidly shrinking and disappearing.

40% phytoplankton decline - a study published in Nature in July found that global populations of phytoplankton have declined about 40% since 1950, linked with "increasing sea surface temperatures" -- Nation 1/31/11

Ocean acidification and coral reefs dying....
conservatism get the red out Jun 2014 #1
True. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #28
It conserves the wealth of the wealthy FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #47
"a moral victory for industry" WTF!! CBGLuthier Jun 2014 #2
I was thinking the act same thing. I would call it an amoral victory. Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #10
That's a good name for it. Or an immoral victory. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #29
Yeah, I gagged on that oxymoron! freshwest Jun 2014 #32
Link to the actual decision. former9thward Jun 2014 #3
Thanks. Will take time elleng Jun 2014 #20
Is there no end to the corporate thuggery? blackspade Jun 2014 #4
Here is the Opinion, it is a real mess happyslug Jun 2014 #5
Triple split judgment. I am not sure the interpretation of the author is correct. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #11
After you made your comment, I finished reading the opinion. happyslug Jun 2014 #36
I think you have it right after your edit, it makes sense that the meat of the ruling is that Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #42
meanwhile... PatrynXX Jun 2014 #6
Its way past time to begin the impeachment iemitsu Jun 2014 #7
+100000000000000000000000 SoapBox Jun 2014 #18
This is NOT a constitutional issue, but a statutory issue, did Congress give this Power to the EPA happyslug Jun 2014 #35
I wonder what air they plan to breathe. LoisB Jun 2014 #8
Interesting how headlines can slant opinion one way or the other... OKNancy Jun 2014 #9
There you have it. How many comment based only on the headline without reading the story? 7962 Jun 2014 #13
YES! elleng Jun 2014 #16
Enjoy! And BTW, its cleaner now than 30,40 or more years ago! 7962 Jun 2014 #17
Indeed! elleng Jun 2014 #21
Except greenhouse gases - CO2 levels at 400 ppm - a record in humankind's existence progree Jun 2014 #22
I know its a bit nit-picking, but at least CO2 isnt pollution. 7962 Jun 2014 #31
"at least CO2 isnt pollution" - who says? progree Jun 2014 #34
Sorry, but I'm not giving China & India a pass just so they can "catch up" to western living 7962 Jun 2014 #43
Well, then maybe we should reduce our per-capita CO2 emssions to China & India's levels progree Jun 2014 #44
EXACTLY, OKNancy, elleng Jun 2014 #15
Save billions of $ and thousands of jobs, while killing ALL OF US! Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #12
Yup, "could cost billions of dollars" William Seger Jun 2014 #25
Different headline/same story: Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases. elleng Jun 2014 #14
Guys. Read the opinion. BAD headline. The EPA won big. broadcaster75201 Jun 2014 #19
In what alternate reality did the EPA "win big"??? blkmusclmachine Jun 2014 #23
Ummm, the Supreme Court confirmed the EPA has the power to regulate GH gas emissions pediatricmedic Jun 2014 #26
Reading the opinion, I agree with you.... happyslug Jun 2014 #37
Even in the case of Thomas and Alito... mostlyconfused Jun 2014 #45
Please note no one is bringing up any constitutional issues, just what did Congress passed. happyslug Jun 2014 #46
So many fell for the slanted headline, the EPA won nearly everything it wanted pediatricmedic Jun 2014 #24
True, I still can't wrap around moral and polluting industry used in the same sentence. freshwest Jun 2014 #33
Does anyone actually READ the links anymore? Raine1967 Jun 2014 #27
I go straight to the actual Supreme Court Opinion and see what the Court actually wrote. happyslug Jun 2014 #40
I did, and I thank you. eom. Raine1967 Jun 2014 #41
From what I read it looks pretty good. They already answered the question about the NEW EPA rules. dballance Jun 2014 #30
Disturbing .. Money trumps Clean Air. Hmm. Has a SCOTUS judge ever been impeached? YOHABLO Jun 2014 #38
Not since the early 1800s, and he was aquited by the Senate. happyslug Jun 2014 #39
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court limits gree...»Reply #44