Climate change falsehood

[dskira]

Climate change costs need to be built into the products manufactured by developing countries for use in developed countries. The end user must pay.

Hopefully a carbon tax, when initiated ..will accomplish this.

Why on earth you want new tax? It is not enough for you in Europe to pay 50% to 70% taxes?
It looks like self flagellation to me

 

[michael pierzga]

Price influences people behavior. Cheap energy brought Americans gas guzzler cars, McMansion houses, plus an intense consumer lifestyle. All three are major contributors to global warming and environmental degradation

 

[rwatson]

Such a long thread, I read the first few and the last few posts.

My take on Gonzo's first post - we are the only 'animal' on earth mentally capable of controlling our behavior to prolong our lives, well-being and health.

We are the probably the only 'species' that has a detailed ( if not perfect ) understanding of the workings of the whole planet.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Why on earth you want new tax? It is not enough for you in Europe to pay 50% to 70% taxes?
It looks like self flagellation to me
__________________
The bitter taste of poor quality lingers long after the sweet taste of low price is forgotten

To paraphrase your signature line --

"The bitter taste of global warming lingers long after the sweet taste of low taxes are forgotten"

 

[michael pierzga]

In a perfect world education would curb the citizens voracious appetite and relieve the pressure on earths ecosystem.

Unfortunately education , the carrot, doesnt work. The stick, tax, always works.

 

[Petros]

the largest polluters and CO2 emitters are 3rd world countries. how would it help reduce emissions to tax the ones that are already efficient consumers and already pay high taxes? tax the 3rd world countries if you want them to curtail their wasteful consumption and high pollution output. It makes no sense to "punish" the non-polluters, yet that is what the carbon tax is all about.

It appears this is just justification to collect another tax from those with deep pockets rather than any real concern for reducing pollution and CO2 emissions.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

the largest polluters and CO2 emitters are 3rd world countries. how would it help reduce emissions to tax the ones that are already efficient consumers and already pay high taxes? tax the 3rd world countries if you want them to curtail their wasteful consumption and high pollution output. It makes no sense to "punish" the non-polluters, yet that is what the carbon tax is all about.

It appears this is just justification to collect another tax from those with deep pockets rather than any real concern for reducing pollution and CO2 emissions.

Apparently you have a short memory. We talked about this issue last February. The answer hasn't changed. On a per-capita basis the U.S. emits far more CO2 than any other of the 20 most populous nations.

Originally posted by michael pierzga

 

[rwatson]

For a more comprehensive list of polluters per capita, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Quatar and Australia are amongst the leaders, ahead of the US

 

[Petros]

My memory is fine, it is your memory that must be short. when total pollution is measured against productivity the USA is one of the lowest polluters, if you produce nothing you consume only the resource to stay alive, and get nothing in return for it.

The USA is one of the most efficient producers in the world, using less energy and creating less pollution as compared with total productivity than any other country. If not the lowest, it is one of the lowest. Ignoring productivity and compare it simply to population is a false premise, and only used to point make faulty accusations.

So again I ask, why punish the efficient producers with a carbon tax? how will that make the true gross polluters change their behavior?

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

My memory is fine, it is your memory that must be short. when total pollution is measured against productivity the USA is one of the lowest polluters, if you produce nothing you consume only the resource to stay alive, and get nothing in return for it.

The USA is one of the most efficient producers in the world, using less energy and creating less pollution as compared with total productivity than any other country. If not the lowest, it is one of the lowest. Ignoring productivity and compare it simply to population is a false premise, and only used to point make faulty accusations.

So again I ask, why punish the efficient producers with a carbon tax? how will that make the true gross polluters change their behavior?

Not only is your memory faulty, but apparently you are too lazy to review the data which was presented in February's discussion in response to the same unsupported assertions you made then.

Same question? Same answer.
Wrong then. Wrong now.

Originally Posted by Petros
This is a bogus chart used to make a false point. you have to look at total industrial output of the country, measured in gross economic activity, and measure that against total energy consumption. If you live in poverty and sit in the mud waiting for a Unesco care package, of course you will consume little energy, you produce nothing.

The United states is the MOST EFFICIENT producer in the world. divide energy consumption by total gross national produce, we consume less energy than any other country. As least we did a number of years ago when I check it last. the next most efficient producer after the USA was Germany.

It is really stupid to think you are Superior by NOT producing anything and claim you are better than the USA because you use less energy.

Originally Posted by Petros
I do not know where those numbers come from, from the US census per captia GDP is $49,800
per US Dept of energy, per capata BTUx10**6= 308
GDP/milliion BTU for US= 162
So we are now second best when our economy is down.

Country . . . . . . .Spain . . Italy . . Grmy . . Mexico . Japan . . .US . . S Korea . . China
PerCap GNP(CIA)30500 . 30500 . 38100 . 14700 . .34700. . 48300 . 31200 . . 8400
PerCap Gjoule . . 116 . . .118 . . . 168 . . . 66 . . . . 164. . . . 301 . . . 213 . . . . 76
GNP/GJoule. . . . 263 . . .258 . . . 227 . . . 222. . . . 212. . . . 160 . . .146 . . . 110

Notice that the US is bumping along near the end of the list.

(I've reordered the table from most energy efficient to least energy efficient)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ion_per_capita

 

[Petros]

yes, and than I posted this, did you ingore it, or where you "too lazy" to read it?

"I do not know where those numbers come from, from the US census per captia GDP is $49,800

per US Dept of energy, per capata BTUx10**6= 308

GDP/milliion BTU for US= 162

So we are now second best when our economy is down."

and we are still one of the most efficient producers, perhaps not the most efficeint with the current government policies in place.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

yes, and than I posted this, did you ingore it, or where you "too lazy" to read it?

"I do not know where those numbers come from, from the US census per captia GDP is $49,800

per US Dept of energy, per capata BTUx10**6= 308

GDP/milliion BTU for US= 162

So we are now second best when our economy is down."

and we are still one of the most efficient producers, perhaps not the most efficeint with the current government policies in place.

Is it really too much to ask you to read the complete post that I just made? I, in fact, quoted you, speling erors adn al, just as I did in February's post. And as in February's discussion, you present nothing substantive and documented in response.

 

[rwatson]

GDP is a very poor indicator of a society's efficiency anyway.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp
"GDP represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period"

Not all goods and services are valuable. Many goods and services are non-productive. If a country is bound up with lots of administrative processes, we have accountants, lawyers, public services all producing chargeable hours, but not productive outcomes. High crime rates mean a lot of security products and services, including the nations police forces.

Likewise, production of luxury items, and arguably munitions and arms production are 'excesses', that are inefficient and should be unnecessary.

The formulae is not simple, and takes into account things like Life expectancy (years), Malnourished children under five , Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) , Adult literacy (%), income levels and distribution etc etc

You cannot use GDP as the measure of a successful country. On that basis, some very rich, say oil exporting countries or financial hubs, are the most efficient and successful countries - see attached from

http://www.mrdowling.com

For example, if you rate GDP by Population ( per Capita ), you get Switzerland rating 83,326 with the US at 48,112 , Australia at 61,789 , Brunei Darussalam 40,301, Belgium 46,608
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD


The idea that money is the only measure of a countries success is a hangover from the bad old days of raw capitalism.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

GDP is a very poor indicator of a society's efficiency anyway.

I agree with you. I am merely responding to Petro's incorrect statement that

The USA is one of the most efficient producers in the world, using less energy and creating less pollution as compared with total productivity than any other country.

and

The United states is the MOST EFFICIENT producer in the world. divide energy consumption by total gross national produce, we consume less energy than any other country.

The reason this topic has come up at all is because Petros apparently thinks that even though the US produces the most CO2 per capita, and even though it is one of the richest countries, it has no obligation to reduce its CO2 emissions as an example to, and a benefit for, all of the Earth.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

NATIONAL JOURNAL | The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change

Kerry Emanuel registered as a Republican as soon he turned 18, in 1973…Back then, Emanuel saw the Republican Party as the political fit for a data-driven scientist. Today, the professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is considered one of the United States’ foremost authorities on climate change—particularly on how rising carbon pollution will increase the intensity of hurricanes.

In January 2012, just before South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, the Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America, one of the most influential advocacy groups in conservative politics, flew Emanuel down to meet with the GOP presidential candidates…“[Newt] Gingrich and [Mitt] Romney understood, … and I think they even believed the evidence and understood the risk,” Emanuel says. “But they were so terrified by the extremists in their party that in the primaries they felt compelled to deny it. Which is not good leadership, good integrity. I got a low impression of them as leaders.”

Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.

Emanuel predicts that many more voters like him, people who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will also abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming.

And a quiet, but growing, number of other Republicans fear the same thing. Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant…

The problem is, as polling data and the changing demographics of the American electorate show, it’s likely that the position [of the GOP on Climate Change] that can win voters in a primary will lose voters in a general election. Some day, though, the facts—both scientific and demographic—will force GOP candidates to confront climate change whether they want to or not. And that day will come sooner than they think.

Already, the numbers tell the story. Polls show that a majority of Americans, and a plurality of Republicans, believe global warming is a problem. Concern about the issue is higher among younger voters and independents, who Republicans will need to attract if they want to win elections…