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
The greenie wienies don't like these facts so they surpress them. They
got everybody sitting in the dark for an hour and turning off their
coffee pot clocks, but in their science, to obtain and disseminated
proper facts such as the rapid growth of China and India's CO2
emissions is not too important. That is what you call scientific peer
review.
Algore is planning his next enterprise. Selling carbon offsets to
China. He said he's getting tired of just being a progagandist who is
paying for the commercials which say,' we can solve the climate
crisis'.
How will nuclear war against China be beneficial to the environment?
KD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
