If I can comment on CHabito's column, I'd say:
You said in your column last week:
And then there is the argument that as world reserves of fossil fuel begin to dwindle, super powers need to find a convincing way to get people to control consumption so that they can maintain their own affluent lifestyles far into the future. And the global warming “hysteria” is one such convincing way.
The problem with this last argument, though, is that the Bush administration’s denial that climate change and global warming are real threats seems based on the same motivation (“the American way of life is nonnegotiable”), apart from protecting big business interests.
I've heard that before and it seems true. Definitely Al Gore and the Hollywood celebs who have joined his band of eco-warriors do not deny climate change and global warming, and definitely the same motivations reflect on them too. If Al Gore's house consumes 20 times more electricity than the average American home, and he flies around on private jets, travels on gas-guzzling SUV's (of course, he took the train to claim his Nobel while his luggage traveled on a Mercedes van), and organizes huge-carbon-footprint Live Earth concerts, that is quite a lifestyle he can't seem to forego. And it is on public record that he purchases carbon offsets from a company that he co-owns, truly, "protecting big business interests, don't you think? He is in the board of Apple, Inc., and even Greenpeace says that Apple isn't that green. Big business, right?
This is why the United States, Europe and China are the key focal points in the climate change debates. The United States is the runaway largest emitter of GHGs. And yet it also continues to be the biggest recalcitrant in the efforts to set targets for reducing GHG emissions, both under the 10-year-old Kyoto Protocol, and in the Bali negotiations.
While it is evident that the United States has the biggest CO2 emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels (also because it is the most industrialized nation in the world; up to more than 50 times RP's), Randall Hoven writes in American Thinker based on statistics and projections, the US is actually better in dealing with emissions, considering that comparing figures of 1997 (last year before Kyoto was signed) to 2004, the US only increased emissions by 6.6%. Okay, it is still more than 1B metric tons, but emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.
You said in your column last week:
And then there is the argument that as world reserves of fossil fuel begin to dwindle, super powers need to find a convincing way to get people to control consumption so that they can maintain their own affluent lifestyles far into the future. And the global warming “hysteria” is one such convincing way.
The problem with this last argument, though, is that the Bush administration’s denial that climate change and global warming are real threats seems based on the same motivation (“the American way of life is nonnegotiable”), apart from protecting big business interests.
I've heard that before and it seems true. Definitely Al Gore and the Hollywood celebs who have joined his band of eco-warriors do not deny climate change and global warming, and definitely the same motivations reflect on them too. If Al Gore's house consumes 20 times more electricity than the average American home, and he flies around on private jets, travels on gas-guzzling SUV's (of course, he took the train to claim his Nobel while his luggage traveled on a Mercedes van), and organizes huge-carbon-footprint Live Earth concerts, that is quite a lifestyle he can't seem to forego. And it is on public record that he purchases carbon offsets from a company that he co-owns, truly, "protecting big business interests, don't you think? He is in the board of Apple, Inc., and even Greenpeace says that Apple isn't that green. Big business, right?
This is why the United States, Europe and China are the key focal points in the climate change debates. The United States is the runaway largest emitter of GHGs. And yet it also continues to be the biggest recalcitrant in the efforts to set targets for reducing GHG emissions, both under the 10-year-old Kyoto Protocol, and in the Bali negotiations.
While it is evident that the United States has the biggest CO2 emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels (also because it is the most industrialized nation in the world; up to more than 50 times RP's), Randall Hoven writes in American Thinker based on statistics and projections, the US is actually better in dealing with emissions, considering that comparing figures of 1997 (last year before Kyoto was signed) to 2004, the US only increased emissions by 6.6%. Okay, it is still more than 1B metric tons, but emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.
Highlights:
If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
- Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
- Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
- Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
- Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
- Maldives, 252%.
- Sudan, 142%.
- China, 55%.
- Luxembourg, 43%
- Iran, 39%.
- Iceland, 29%.
- Norway, 24%.
- Russia, 16%.
- Italy, 16%.
- Finland, 15%.
- Mexico, 11%.
- Japan, 11%.
- Canada, 8.8%.
I believe in global warming because there is evidence to support that, in the same manner that I believe that there were times in the Earth's history that global cooling occurred (and there will be shifting back and forth).
David Whitehouse says:
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
I believe in climate change because climate really changes naturally. But what I cannot support is the anthropogenic global warming theory and the alarmism that goes along with it. And I don't think I am alone saying this (except that I am not a scientist, unlike these people).
David Whitehouse says:
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
I believe in climate change because climate really changes naturally. But what I cannot support is the anthropogenic global warming theory and the alarmism that goes along with it. And I don't think I am alone saying this (except that I am not a scientist, unlike these people).
No comments:
Post a Comment