Any ideas if this debate is as active in other countries, or just here in these United States?

 steeler wrote: 
Right, not much of an argument.

 black321 wrote: 

Not sure I am following this last paragraph.  The downside is wasting resources on something we cannot stop.  And the  downside on the flipside is that we would be wasting resources that could be used "to cope with the costs of climate change." 
Is coping with the costs of climate change different than trying to mitigate the effects of climate change?

     
      

I dont know how many Boston College grads are planning on getting into the oil and gas business, as opposed to new entrepreneurial alternative energy ventures, but apparently the Wall Street Journal thinks a lot. And apparently any alternative energy business is doomed to fail. 

p.s. it's responses to Kerry like this that are going to keep us bogged down...and then we'll see how many jobs are lost and the full economic toll of not doing anything about it. 

Secretaries of State may want to stop making statements in the form of questions, à la "Jeopardy." First Hillary Clinton declared "what difference at this point does it make?" regarding the reasons that four Americans died in Benghazi. Then on Monday John Kerry told graduates of Boston College that even if he's wrong about climate change, it won't cost a thing.

"The solution is actually staring us in the face. It is energy policy. Make the right energy policy choices and America can lead a $6 trillion market with four billion users today and growing to nine billion users in the next 50 years," Mr. Kerry said in his commencement address, referring to climate change. Then came the odd poser.

"If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge—and supposing I'm wrong or scientists are wrong, 97% of them all wrong—supposing they are, what's the worst that can happen?" Mr. Kerry said. "We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence—that's the downside."

So the "downside" of addressing climate policy is more jobs, cleaner air, more energy security, and we save the planet too. Makes you wonder why there aren't already 100 Senate votes for this miracle. Perhaps that's because the "energy policy" Mr. Kerry is talking about includes vast new political control over the economy, starting with taxes and limits on carbon energy, subsidies for his favored energy sources, and new and costly regulations on much of the American Midwest, South and West.

The "worst that can happen" is that we spend trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we can't do anything to stop; that we misallocate scarce resources in a way that slows economic growth; that slower growth leads to less economic opportunity for Boston College grads and especially the world's poor, and that America and the world become much less wealthy and technologically advanced than we would otherwise. All of which would make the world less able to cope with the costs of climate change if Mr. Kerry is right.

 kurtster wrote: 
You are contradicting yourself. 
a. you get all huffily about China being given a pass (which implies you think there must be a problem otherwise why get upset?)
then
b. you say there is no crisis, or at least not such a severe one that merits any action by the US.

You can't have it both ways. If you think China needs to respond to the crisis then logically the US must too. By any measure, historical, per capita, total emissions or whatever, both the US and China are way up there amongst the world's biggest polluters.  

  NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:  
In the discussions here and out in the media at large here in the US, that appears to be the case (China is ignored)

Its not about if the Chinese are pulling their own weight, its about why they are given a pass.

Careful about comparing Detroit to anywhere else in the world.  No one can exaggerate how bad it is there.

I.  Agreed

2.  The economies of scale and land masses involved are relevant factors in internal activity that produces GHG.  That is independent (mostly) of population variables.

3.  see 2 above.

4.  The US economic trend is up (if you believe the numbers coming from the White House) while the emissions trend is still sloped downward.  It remains to be seem if that trend continues, without further government intervention and with an established period of equilibrium for measurement.

And on 4 is where the rubber meets the road.  Is there or is there not a crisis ?  Without a moratorium on new policies, how do you measure the effects on the current ones ?  But the excuse seems to be that we cannot wait for these answers because of the crisis.

The US and France made a joint statement, 500 days to Climate Chaos.  Does that not imply a crisis at hand ?  500 days to the last chance of saving the earth under the auspiciousness of the UN ?  That is what it means to me. 
 
I am willing to go on the record saying that the climate is changing (which I have never denied), yet I see no crisis that justifies the actions being demanded of the US and its citizens in particular.  I'm not talking about the will of the world.  I'm talking about what our government is trying to impose on ourselves.  The fate of the world does not hinge on what the US does or does not do, or does it (in terms of GHG) ?

I'm not picking on China.  With a crisis, I just think the fate of the earth is most dependent on what China does more than anyone else at this point in time.

So a crisis or some geological events that need more time for consideration for a properly measured response ? 

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurtster, nobody is ignoring the Chinese. Why do you think anybody is?
Not even the Chinese are ignoring GHG. Look at their nuclear program and hydro projects like the Three Gorges Dam project, etc. 
Why do you think they are not pulling their weight? The fact that they have three times the population must surely factor into the equation somewhere, don't you think? Otherwise it's like comparing Detroit to Rarotonga. Makes. No. Sense.

Some points for the record:
1. Everybody has to clean up their act. Including the US and China.
2. Reducing GHG does not imply you are going to cripple the economy. On the contrary. Look at the UK or Germany both of which have saved 22% GHG and met or bettered their targets and still have pretty robust economies (ever check out the net transfers from the UK to the EU? Everyone thinks Germany bankrolls the EU but it is by no means the only one)
3. Per capita GHG emissions remains a valid check if you accept that people are created equal and we all have a right to wealth, health and happiness.
4. US performance should be measured over a longer time period to smooth out any savings due to the economic cycle as there are signs that recent savings are just due to the downturn.

 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
No I am not shooting myself in the foot.  I have been all about the here and now.  Richard was the one who started the distraction of using a chart showing per capita co2 in the year 2000.  I didn't bring it up.  But I did do an analysis of the data and found that the US did in fact  reduce its per capita output in the time in question by 20% while China increased its by 300%.

I rightly said that the US met its Kyoto goals.  That it did not sign on does not change the fact.  There is didspute over whether or not it was the first or as the WUWT article stated as the first major industrialized nation to do so.  To me, that does not matter.  The US did meet and exceed its goal, regardless of how it was accomplished.  There are no KP charts that include the US's  numbers, so I have no idea how it compares to the others.

The UN charts you provided do not even mention China, so no comparisons can be made in that regard.

So I will try to refocus.

The overwhelming consensus in the other two threads is that we are in a dire crisis and that we are either running out of time to act or its already too late to act.  The crisis is so bad that it justifies immediate and drastic actions ASAP.  The 2 or 3 that say not so fast are dismissed as deniers.

The US is the primary focus of the discussion and is the most major offender on the planet and based upon that indictment must act, even if it means crippling itself in the process.  It is also the charge that the US has done little if anything to date to correct its past sins against the world.

Until now in this thread, no one will talk about the other major offenders, such as China, even though China produces twice as much GHG as any other single country or even the collective EU.  No one has willfully acknowledged that the US met and exceeded its KP goals.  That has only been acknowledged here in this thread and grudgingly.

Everyone is giving China a pass in spite of this fact.  The excuses made are by per capita comparisons or that it is still a developing nation.  Per capita figures are valid in certain circumstances, but when dealing with a crisis, they lose their relevance.

How is it that China is still called a developing country when it is the second largest economy on the planet, poised to be the first in just a couple more years.  It is the oldest continuous civilization on the planet.  It is a permanent member of the UN with one of only five veto rights.  It has a space program that is most likely to be the next and only second nation to put a man on the moon ?  This is a third world developing nation worthy of endless excuses and passes on its contribution to this apparent crisis ?  Palease ... y'all have got to be kidding.

So in the other two threads, there is a dire crisis.  Over here, well no one is willing to come out and say that it is a real crisis, when confronted with the China question.

If we are in a crisis, we do not have the luxury of discussing the past sins of various players.  We only have the here and now.  The crisis cannot be discussed nor resolved without including the largest single gross polluter on the planet. 

So before we go any further ...

Is there a real crisis or is it the invention of those with an agenda using a trumped up or manufactured crisis to use it as the means to an end that being of social change and social justice ?  

If its the former, how can China be justifiably ignored ?  If its the latter, it is clear why China is being ignored.

 kurtster wrote: 
shoot yourself in the foot why don't you?  Even the WUWT article you linked to associated the reduction in US CO2 emissions with a stagnant economy and not any particular savings mechanisms. If you call economic collapse "leading the way forward" then you are one hell of a leader.

Not to rub your nose in it too much, but in the period from 1990 to 2004 Germany reduced its CO2 output by 17.2% (half of which admittedly was due to the collapse and reunification of Eastern Germany (closure of lots of dirty coal plants) but still that is effectively more than 8% in a period when the economy was booming.  The US was categorically not the first country to meet the targets in the Kyoto protocol.

For better comparison, look at this report from the UNFCCC. This is a better table, showing percentage comparisons with the Kyoto targets. 

In the period from 1990 to 2010 (20 years), the USA, far from leading the way forward actually increased its CO2 emissions by 10.4%, admittedly topped by a number of other countries including Canada, Australia and New Zealand (hey, what's up with that??) . In that same timeframe Germany reduced its emissions by 24.8% and the United Kingdom by 22.6%. More to the point you guys are sitting on a base line that is way up somewhere in the stratosphere in terms of per capita emissions. (see Richard's links). Just about all the former Soviet bloc countries easily exceeded their targets which we can put down to economic restructuring more than anything else, but still, the point is made. Far from leading the way forward, the US has put into a shabby performance overall, particularly when you consider your high base line to begin with.

And now, instead of taking responsibility for a problem in your own backyard that is staring you in the face, you start whinging and complaining about the boy next door being much worse when in fact he is not.

EDIT:
and if those figures are too outdated for you just remember that the US economy tanked in 2008/2009 which explains most of the recent reductions. 

 RichardPrins wrote: 
You change time references to suit your needs. From the long ago past to the recent past.   2007 is too far ago for a meaningful number today.  

This is the now.  Its a crisis, right ?  The US has turned things around.  You do not approve, still keeping the focus on the US while downplaying the biggest culprit today who is out producing the US by a factor of 2 times.  

You act as if the US must pay for its sins in the past, even though it has led the way to meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocols.

 How much more do you want the US to do in order to satisfy your desire to see us punished for our past sins ?  Do you want the US to cease to exist ?

 kurtster wrote: 
That is according to your reading. I don't see me saying/writing anything like that. I do see you mostly making the case that the US shouldn't have to do anything, even though it's still the second largest polluter (after China). China has over 300% more people...



And as for that cumulative aspect again, using data from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Let's make it an ethical argument.  While the US did not sign on, we still went ahead and became the first country to meet and exceed the goals established for it.

USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it

I must admit that I was wrong on when I said the US met the Kyoto Protocol.  I was off by 8 years, but still correct about having met and exceeded the KP goals.  Just because the US did not sign on does not mean that it did not do anything.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Digging deeper into 2012, the US has reduced its output in the same time since 2000 by nearly 20% per capita while again China has increased its by about 300%.

In gross pollution, China has roughly 100% more or twice as much than the US does now (as of 2012)

With the crisis so dire as you say things are, this cannot be ignored, even though you argue that it should. 

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Those are all snapshots in recent time. As someone pointed out below, it's about accumulation over a longer period (and who contributed to that accumulation), not about who is the greatest villain at the moment (there are several).

Per capita and per total are merely two ways of looking at data and both provide insight.

 kurtster wrote: 
The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol (unlike 191 countries), so why boast about it? (and present it as if it were a conscious and serious effort that required concessions/sacrifices to meet a goal. Maybe that's what speculative bank(st)ers had in mind all along. To bring down the amount of greenhouse gases by affecting economic growth!)

Are now a small fraction? Surely you mean they've decreased by a small fraction... (though what is a small fraction?)
7325 - 6526 = 799. -10.9% or 0.109 of the total. Now if today's output was 799 compared to 7325 in 2007...

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The year 2000 is meaningless.  Try again.  Or better yet, show the current map and we can compare 2000 to 2014 and see who is doing what.  

Besides, when one is comparing per capita data  with the two biggest polluters whose populations exceed a billion, that skews the numbers in favor of the point you would like to make.  Lets talk about gross pollution by country and then see where the chips fall.  You are trying to make an excuse for these two countries or as I mentioned earlier, giving them a pass.  That is part of the agenda I speak of.  Thank you for hilighting it for me.
.

Edit:  looking at the data behind your map. the US has cut its levels by 10% while China has increased theirs by over 300%   You are giving China a major pass on this.  Tsk, tsk ....

Plus it would nice of you to reduce the size of your map so as not to bork the thread.  I am sure that was an oversight on your part.  Thank you in advance for the resize.

 aflanigan wrote: 

 He is asking us to cede power to the government.

Why is he asking us to cede power to the government ? 

By asking us to ask the government to do more and transfer the judgement solely to the government and the bureaucrats who will administer these programs which will default into a unilateral one size fits all sledgehammer approach with the usual unintended consequences.

 Ceding to the government control over anything ends up with unilateral results, domestically more often than not..  That is part of the problem I have with the EPA.  The EPA is establishing a history of non compliance with SCOTUS rulings and lower levels of the federal court system.  Personally, I feel the EPA needs to be abolished and replaced with a different approach and primarily because of its lawless behaviour.  It writes its own policies and rules of conduct and does not recognize any external authority over it.

 steeler wrote: 
Yes and no.  Regarding international agreements and China, yes.  

No on further US internal policy changes for the time being.  So actually a qualified yes on this part as well.

We have done enough already, legislatively.  In fact too much.  Take gasoline for example.  We have put mandates for fuel additive content (ethanol and other ingredients) which are not even feasible to manufacture with today's technology.  In our quest for renewable energy, it is now permissible to kill bald eagles with windmills.  But if you or I do it we go to jail and get a really hefty fine.  By this standard, wind technology is not friendly to the environment.  It is a double standard,with the ends justifying the means.  Not acceptable, at least to me.

The US as a whole has exceeded the demands of the Kyoto Protocols 10 years ago.  Our greenhouse gas emissions are now a small fraction of what they were in 2007.  We have done a tremendous amount to reduce our part already.  We need to let our industry catch a breath and adjust to the new realities before we move on and also to allow the rest of the world to catch up.  US business will find ways to pollute less, but it must do so without offshoring the part(s) that contributes.  

 kurtster wrote: 

The carbon trade proposals I have seen from scientists, are clear on the fact that they will be unworkable unless the entire world essentially buys in. Weart acknowledges this specifically, stating "Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust.". Where do you find anything in his recommendations stating that we need to make our actions unilateral?