You're good with math, Tupa. Surely better than me. Check and see if that's right to you.

You've got the table above giving you the US emissions at 1990 levels.

Multiply that by four, however inexact this is.

And then take a look at the world historical data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems

I get 1976-1977. Do you?

And if that's roughly correct, and the question was, "Is he right?" isn't the answer a resounding no?

But also less relevant to reality. I find it hard to believe that we produce the same percentage of emissions today as we did in 1977 when Russia, China, India, and others had economies that made Appalachia look like Silicon Valley. I doubt it's even close.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/3344

According to this chart, no country with more than $10,000 GDP per capita emits less than 3 metric tons per capita. But we will?

It is also worth noting that countries such as India and China should be expected to continually increase substantially as their GDP grows and spreads to more of their population.

quote:

Originally posted by We need Tom Tupa:
But also less relevant to reality. I find it hard to believe that we produce the same percentage of emissions today as we did in 1977 when Russia, China, India, and others had economies that made Appalachia look like Silicon Valley. I doubt it's even close.

According to http://clinton4.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/greenhouse.html, China is expected to displace the US as the largest emitter by 2015. 10 years ago, developed countries accounted for 73% of emissions, but, in a decade or two, developing countries will account for as much as 90%. All that to say, I dont think your calculation of the US' percentage of emissions is transferable from now to the 70's.

But let's go back to the editorial you posted. You were asking if Heyward was right or not.

Do you think he was right?

"The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910."

Well, according to Oak Ridge, the entire world produced 819 metric tons in 1910.

And if you forget about going forward for a second, if you assume we are about a quarter of the world's emissions today (so says the DOE) and about a quarter in the late 70s (probably a safe assumption), then 80% of 1990 levels is closer to the late 1970s, not 1910.

Can we settle that first?

Based on our 3 minutes of research, I'll say that yes, he was probably wrong about the year.

Did you miss my last few posts? How is "about a quarter in the late 70s" a safe assumption??

I'm just assuming that, only because the relative size of our economy vis a vis the rest of the world hasn't changed all much until very recently.

I can look, but I imagine that would be a tough stat to find.

But if we're 25% now, I can't imagine it would have been all that different in the 1970s, can you? 22%? 28%? I don't think it changes the argument all that much.

Some quick stats:

US population growth in the past 30 years = 42%
Global popluation growth = 65%

Asia was 18-19% of the global economy in the 70's and is about 30% today, and growing.

"The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page" says that "In 1960, the US produced 60% of the world's GNP".

and we certainly are responsible for a significantly smaller percentage of manufacturing than we were in the 70's.

quote:

The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed in to attack President Bush's recent speech on climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the "80 by 50" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president's target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

Now, let's try that point.

Okay, first of all, he seems to be way off on what the reductions Obama, Clinton, and McCain are proposing entail. So he's basing his ideal of what is "unrealistic" on flawed information. So we can toss that out.

But let's look at his claims about the relative merits of Bush's plan, which basically amount to, "Say what you want about it, but it's not that hard to do."

Bush's plan is basically a pledge to do nothing and pretend like we're doing something. He's very good at this. Or bad at it, considering that about 70% of the country thinks he's doing a horrible job.

And what is his plan? Doing nothing until 2025, and then freezing our emissions at 2025 levels. Which is bizarre, since the whole point of reducing emissions is that we're emitting far more greenhouse gases now than the planet can accept without dramatically altering the climate. And now just now, but 20 years ago.

So let's just admit it: Bush's plan is to do nothing about global warming. No climate scientist thinks freezing our emissions at 2025 levels is adequate to address the problem.

But it sure is "realistic."

As for your populations stats, Tupa, looks like we better get started on this problem then, huh?

Yes, the WSJ article was biased. Congrats on that point.

No, Bush's plan isnt great. Another important topic.

How about we stick to the point of non-lame duck politicians and their plans?

Obama and Hillary plan to cut emissions below third world country levels, agreed? This is insane, agreed?

Bush being wrong doesnt make everyone else right, agreed?

I don't mind that the WSJ was biased. It's an editorial. It's supposed to be biased. I mind that it seems to be playing loose with the figures, and once again trying to give everyone the impression that silly global warming advocates want to return you to a pre-industrial age where people huddled around a fire for warmth.

As for what level they're talking about reducing us to, and when we were last at that level, and if that level is a feasible goal for 2050, I don't know the answer to that. It's a question worth asking, but I suspect that there's a real answer to it.

What I do know is those goals are what the international scientific community have said would be required to tackle the problem, so that's where they're getting the number. And there are even individual states looking at how to best achieve those reductions because they're tired of waiting on the feds. And there are countries, like England, that are already implementing policies to achieve those goals. They don't seem to think it's something that can't be done.

We're talking about a massive switch from mostly carbon-based energy to mostly renewable or non-carbon-based energy, carbon sequestration, etc., over the next 42 years.

And when you think about that, it's a real shame we just wasted eight years pretending this wasn't a problem. And many of those people are still dragging their heels.

It's enough to make you want to kick their teeth in.

quote:

And when you think about that, it's a real shame we just wasted eight years pretending this wasn't a problem.

Dont you mean 16 years? or werent the first 8 a shame?

quote:

Originally posted by We need Tom Tupa:

quote:

And when you think about that, it's a real shame we just wasted eight years pretending this wasn't a problem.

Dont you mean 16 years? or werent the first 8 a shame?

Damn, heck - I can't believe you let that slip. You had to know it was coming, if not from Toop, then from me.

If I may answer: The 1st 8 aren't a shame because Gore was pretending to care about it then. According to what he tells us now.

(But seriously, "These past 8 years" should really only extend to 6 years. At the most. Congress -remember, the ones actually responsible for scripting & passing laws- has had the ability to get cracking since 2006.)

Point taken in terms of meaningful legislation passed.

Not taken in the sense that one administration acknowledged the problem and actively worked for an international agreement and domestic political consensus, and the other went back on a campaign promise to regulate greenhouse gases, withdrew from the international process completely instead of pushing for a different treaty, actively denied there was a pressing problem by pretending the science wasn't in yet, delayed action altogether, and only presented a proposal once the courts forced their hand, a proposal that is woefully inadequate, if not laughable.

So no, there's really no comparison. You can be upset that the Clinton administration never set us on a legislative path, or that Gore never really mentioned global warming in the 2000 race, but their failures and the Bush administration's intransigence are hardly in the same league.

I'm pretty positive that the current administration has declined the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol because of the exemptions granted to China (building 1 coal burning plant per week)& India (#2 in population).

Some studies have indicated China eclipsed our emissions back in 2006. If this is truly a global problem, & Bush is being stubborn for that reason (I'm well aware of my oversimplification of said reason) then I applaud the guy.

What would it accomplish? I say not much.

So, in summary, Clinton paid lip service to the environmental lobby consistently, and did nothing about it while Bush took turns paying lip service to different groups, and did nothing about it. But Bush did nothing more loudly and didnt say nice things in the process, so Clinton gets a pass.

Yeah, global warming would no longer be a problem if Bush had just followed Clinton's lead. Let's kick his teeth in, right?

The point is they haven't pushed for a treaty besides Kyoto. They abandoned the treaty process altogether. They've done nothing. If your complaint is that China and India should be part of the solution (which is elementary, considering their emissions levels) then you should probably push for an international agreement that includes China and India, shouldn't you?

Find me one person who is truly concerned about global warming and lowering our emissions that is happy with the steps Bush has taken.

One.

The only people who are pleased with the Bush administration on global warming are the people who think global warming is much ado about nothing.

Or think of it this way: there's a hole in your boat that is 5 inches wide. It grows every year. And the mechanic tells you the best way to fix it is to wait until 2025, when the hole gets to be 10 inches wide, and then don't let it get any bigger than that.

You'd laugh, because he'd be joking. But this is exactly what Bush is proposing.

So go ahead and laugh at him, too. He's also a joke.