"Whata Fool" <whata@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:q78804945gqp756vpavg155seo5prkhk67@4ax.com...
"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
"veritas" <khogantwo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af83c87b-33db-4f88-a618-5a24845e5477@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 12:10 am, "0BN0Z" <0B...@doooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com
wrote:
China Biggest CO2 Emitting Country
Steve Milloy
April 11, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2616
Why isn't Gore hounding the Olympic torch?
Tibetan protesters aren't the only ones who ought to be dogging the
Olympic torch relay.
When Al Gore received his Nobel Peace prize he said that global warming
is a "moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
Ted Turner recently told PBS' Charlie Rose that if steps aren't taken
to
control global warming, "in 30 or 40 years. most of the people will
have
died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have
broken
down. The few people left will be living in a failed state-like Somalia
or Sudan-and living conditions will be intolerable."
And the U.N. deputy high commissioner for human rights says that,
"Global warming and extreme weather conditions may have calamitous
consequences for the human rights of millions of people."
But despite their melodramatic rhetoric-and the just-reported news that
the Olympic torch relay will release more than 11 million pounds of
carbon dioxide, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 550
SUVs-you won't see Al, Ted or anyone from the U.N. trying to tackle an
Olympic torch bearer even though China easily-and unapologetically-wins
the gold medal for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and will continue to
do so for the foreseeable future.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA) reported last
year that China became the No. 1 CO2 emitting country in 2006, blowing
past the U.S. emissions level by a whopping 8 percent. The U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had projected that
China wouldn't surpass the U.S. in CO2 emissions until 2020.
Now a new study from researchers at the University of
California-Berkeley has not only verified the NEAA report, but says
that
China's emissions are growing at a rate of 11 percent-two- to
four-times
the rate projected by the IPCC.
It seems that the IPCC is as bad at forecasting CO2 emissions growth as
it is at forecasting global temperature change.
The Berkeley researchers attribute the IPCC's shortcomings to reliance
on obsolete data that are almost a decade old. Since then, they say,
"China's economic and technological growth has accelerated beyond
anticipation."
Adding insult to injury, the Berkeley researchers point out that, while
the emissions from countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol will be a
cumulative 116 million metric tons lower by 2010 than they would have
been without any agreement, China's emissions will have increased by
600
million metric tons over that same period.
Now that's what I call a carbon offset.
It's no wonder that Kyoto signatories in the European Union are
starting
to wonder why they struggle to meet their emissions obligations without
wrecking their economies, while China unabashedly emits CO2 like
there's
no tomorrow.
While burning coal for electricity, a primary source of manmade CO2
emissions, is rapidly becoming a politically incorrect energy source,
it
seems China can't get enough of it.
In 2006-2007, China added 186,000 megawatts of coal-fueled electrical
generation capacity, equivalent to twice the entire electricity grid of
the United Kingdom. Acquiring sufficient coal for its ever-increasing
power needs turned China in 2007 into a net importer of coal for the
first time, helping to more than double the price of coal over the last
year.
Don't look to China to save the West from "manmade" global
warming-whether real or imagined.
In vowing to not allow international action on climate change to
interfere with its economic development, a Chinese foreign ministry
spokesman told the Financial Times in early 2007 that, "developed
countries bear an unshirkable responsibility" for causing global
warming.
The Chinese attitude-as well as that of India, which is verging on
becoming the third largest CO2 emitter-is that 95 percent of worldwide
CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution came from the West, so
global warming is the West's problem. "Both Beijing and New Delhi fear
that binding emission caps that limit energy use could threaten future
economic development-and condemn many of their people to perpetual
poverty," reported the Financial Times.
In a prescient moment in 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against the
Kyoto Protocol because developing countries, like China and India, were
not bound to reduce their CO2 emissions.
Now that China has blown past the U.S. 15 years earlier than expected,
the Senate's prescience seems to have vanished as it has scheduled a
June floor debate on the Kyoto Protocol-on-steroids Lieberman-Warner
global warming bill.
Even if the bill's heavy-handed provisions achieved its main goal-a 70
percent reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050-atmospheric CO2 levels
would only be reduced by less than 5 percent, according to the EPA.
Such
a trivial reduction in atmospheric CO2 would likely have virtually
zero-impact on global climate albeit at great societal cost.
Nevertheless, the Senate's apparent abandonment of its 1997 position
seems to have led climate alarmists to sense that their personal
nirvana
of a carbon-restricted, energy-constipated U.S. is well within sight.
No
wonder the Tibetans are chasing after the flame alone.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any
significant
control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The
processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of
climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable" William
Kininmonth, Meteorologist, Former Head, National Climate Centre, Bureau
of Meteorology, 1986-1998
Because right at the moment, if we wanted to have a war with China, we
would have to borrow the money from them to fight them. We owe them
billions. Don't upset the apple cart and make someone we owe that
much money to mad. Do you piss your banker off because he wears a
rolex watch and drives a CO2 car that emits more than a catipillar two
story pipeline digger? Of course not. Besides, Gore didn't get the
Nobel for kniving China, he got it for kniving us. Logic, ah, logic
will be the death of us all. Regards, Ken Hogan
# We no longer pump raw sewage into the oceans, although some treated
effluent may go there.
Likewise, why should chimneys be allowed to discharge raw waste into
the
atmosphere? - the least we can do is purify, or eliminate, as much as
possible.
All non-CO2 components of chimney smoke can be eliminated (recycled) ,
and this should be done.
That might leave CO2 as the seemingly impossible case - unless it is
pumped underground. Geosequestration doesn't solve the problem, only
postpones it, and for every atom of carbon "stored", we also add two
atoms
of precious oxygen.
CO2 can be converted by photosynthesis, releasing the oxygen, and this
may be the way to solve the problem - unless some better way can be
found.
The person who can split the CO2 molecule will deserve the Nobel Prize.
Meanwhile, nations which belch smoke are poisoning their own
populations - and the planet.
Refusing to export coal to China might cause Chiina ro rethink its
policy.
It is difficult to see how China could be
using so much energy with commerce only being
a fraction of that of the US.
Simple really.
Their use of energy is far, far less efficent than that in the US..
Therefore MORE energy is used.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental philosophy
in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the freedom and
well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book Capitalism
