backtop

Blog: Science China Becomes World's Top CO2 Emitter
Michael Asher (Blog) - June 21, 2007 9:24 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 200 comment(s) - last by Screwballl.. on Jul 12 at 1:20 PM

Coal mine fires in Baijigou and Urumqi, which have burned for more than 100 years, are visible from space. It's estimated that Chinese coal fires alone release 360 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. (Source: NASA)
Should we worry about China's growing CO2 emissions?

In an announcement guaranteed to change the face of the climate debate, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Office released figures showing China is now the world's top emitter of CO2. It was also revealed that China's emissions are now growing six times faster than U.S. levels, and the nation is building two new power plants each and every week.

Officials were quick to point fingers elsewhere. The UK's top climate change official, John Ashton -- who has spent years blaming Western nations for emissions -- says there's "no point" in blaming China. Greenpeace director John Saueven went further, saying ultimate blame for this lay not with China, but with those Western nations who buy its cheap products.

The Kyoto Treaty was roundly criticized for excluding China and other developing nations from emissions limits. EU nations signed, but then went on to increase its emissions twice as fast as the United States. Germany even went so far as to exempt its entire coal industry from Kyoto entirely. Non-EU member Canada signed as well, but since then has also increased emissions faster than the States.

But is this a cause for concern? All this occurs amid increasing controversy over carbon dioxide's possible role, if any, in global warming. Some research would indicate global warming has essentially stopped since 1998. Further research shows that CO2 increases in the earth's past were actually the result of higher temperatures, not vice versa. And new data shows cosmic ray-influenced cloud cover may be responsible the earth's temperature changes.

Environmentalist and author Professor David Bellamy calls CO2 not a pollutant, but "the most important airborne fertilizer" we have. In the earth's history, higher CO2 levels led to an explosion of plant life and a rich, diverse biosphere.  CO2 has never been a problem in the past; why should it be now?

Given all this, should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
another climate myth from Masher
By jmn2519 on 6/21/2007 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 3
The biodiversity myth has been debunked by newscientist.

Here's the text:
According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect, boosting growth by as much as a third. Higher temperatures can boost growth even further. Plants also lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter, so higher CO2 can decrease water loss in plants as they do not need to open these pores as much.

But it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

While these experiments typically have found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water. (See also Climate change warning over food production.)

Actual yields do always not rise as much as overall growth, as the ratio of seeds to overall biomass tends to fall. The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account.
Levelling off

Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But the levelling-off effect means that plants will not simply soak up ever more CO2. Furthermore, studies of past climate suggest that as the planet warms, the land and oceans will start emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than they absorb.

Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO2.

As for food crops, the factors are more complex. The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones.

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.
Biodiversity loss

Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in biodiversity. Species that thrive on higher CO2 will drive others to extinction. In the long run, this might limit the resiliency of some ecosystems.

In addition, fertilisation is just one of carbon dioxide's effects. Increased CO2 causes acidification of water, especially in the oceans. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2 concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species.




By James Holden on 6/21/2007 10:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Make them sign Kyoto? Oh wait, look how well that's turned out.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
While CO2 levels will promote new growth and sequestering, trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced. Which leaves one less path for CO2 to be sequestered.

China is also producing a lot of the solar panels that will be used in the coming years. Hopefully some of the new low-CO2 technology will find a home there.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced
Not in the US. Our percentage of forest cover today is higher than it was 100 years ago, due most to the reclamation of farmland.

In any case, its not clear that trees reduce CO2 levels at all. They do while growing. But then they release it all back when they die. Its now thought that the carbon footprint of an 'old growth' forest is basically zero-- neither adding or subtracting any.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 3
You may be correct about trees being cut in the US, but around the globe (and we're discussing a global phenomenon) trees are being clearcut faster than they are being replaced.

quote:
In any case, its not clear that trees reduce CO2 levels at all. They do while growing. But then they release it all back when they die. Its now thought that the carbon footprint of an 'old growth' forest is basically zero-- neither adding or subtracting any.


Interesting. Maybe you should do some research on this subject. Do you know where coal comes from? It's mostly lignin biomass from trees that never completely decomposed. That's one way CO2 is sequestered and part of the reason why CO2 levels decreased from early in earth's history.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confident I've done more research on the subject than you. Coal is indeed sequestered carbon. But it takes million of years to form, and the percentage of the original biomass that actually converts to coal is extremely tiny.

Tossing out the word "coal" to try and prove that planting trees will have any effect on CO2 levels anytime in the next 10,000 years is just silly.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Based on your statements here, I'm confident you haven't done more research than I on the subject of organic structures in coal.

If you plant a tree, it can sequester tons of CO2 in just 100 years time. Yes, it takes a long time to become coal. However, it's still sequestered carbon while it's becoming coal. A tree, living or dead and partly decomposing, still has taken a net amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That CO2 that the tree used to grow can be put back into the atmosphere by completely decomposing the tree (which may or may not happen depending on the environment) or burn it completely to ash. Generally speaking, the cellulostic components of the plant or tree are decomposed first. The lignin-like aromatic structures are generally most resistant to biotic decomposition and typically contribute the most, by weight to the aromatic component of coal.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 3
It amazes me how smart people reach such wrong conclusions, even with all the facts in front of them.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
Now you're just being ridiculous. The great masses of coal formed on the planet were primarily from swamp and oceanic biomass, where being submerged greatly facilitated sequestration. Not from old growth forest.

Yes a tree locks up carbon when its growing. But when it dies, it falls down and rots, and releases it back. Depending on conditions, it might release 100% of it. If conditions are just right, some 0.1% may be sequestered permanently.

Go into any forest in the US. Some of them contain tens of billions of trees. By your figures, over the past 100 years alone, they've sequestered a few tons per tree. Where's all that carbon at? Dig down in the ground and measure. You won't find anything but tiny amounts.

Some of those forests have been growing for hundreds of thousands of years. And yet you won't find coal or permanent carbon deposits under them. Long-term carbon sequestration by trees is not only extremely slow, but it affects only a trivial percentage of the carbon in them.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ratwar on 6/22/2007 3:28:08 AM , Rating: 3
Well, don't write your thesis on these theories. You see, when a tree dies, a clearing forms, allowing young trees to grow (I'm kinda tempted to break out into a chorus of 'Circle of Life' here...). These trees lock up Carbon, so the dead tree doesn't actually release any net Carbon into the atmosphere, unless new trees are unable to grow in the location. This means that forests do provide a sink, which by locking in the Carbon, keeps it from entering the atmosphere and thus increasing CO2 levels. Yay for Environmental Engineering!

Of course, sinks are only a temporary solution, and in the long run, we'll need to decrease our CO2 production rate (Or dump iron into the Ocean, which could wreck that ecosystem, and by the same note, the fishing industry). Even if CO2 isn't the source of Global Warming (or Man-Bear-Pig for that matter), changing the composition of the atmosphere WILL cause changes. Obviously, these changes may be good or bad in the long run (some would even say that Global Warming might be a good thing in the long run), but why play Russian Roulette? Especially when changes (whether bad or good) will have high initial costs.


By therealnickdanger on 6/22/2007 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
I just want to chime in and say how much I love the DT comments section. So much good info!


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/22/2007 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the dead tree doesn't actually release any net Carbon into the atmosphere, unless new trees are unable to grow in the location
Did you read the posts before this? This is just what I said. In the stable situation of an old growth forest, the total carbon footprint is zero. Old trees are dying and releasing carbon; new trees are consuming it. The forest is not sinking any additional carbon. And (as another poster mentioned) forests in high latitudes are believed to actually increase global warming, as they absorb more sunlight. If you thhink you're going to plant a tree and reduce global warming you're wrong.

In the very long run, plants do sink CO2, especially submerged plant life in swamps and the ocean. In fact they've been able to change the composition of the atmosphere from several thousand ppm CO2 down to a few hundred. Had this process continued unchecked long enough, they would have eventually brought it down to near zero, effectively killing all the plant and animal life on the planet. Yay for natural environmental engineering eh?

Through most of history CO2 was much higher than it is now. There was no runaway warming or any other bad effects. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Methane is 20 times worse, water vapor 40 times worse. At the current rate CO2 is increasing, we have a hundred thousand years before it even gets back to where it once was.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ratwar on 6/22/2007 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you thhink you're going to plant a tree and reduce global warming you're wrong.


As you've said yourself, growing trees take up carbon, therefore, planting a tree will remove Carbon from the atmosphere and place it into the biosphere. Old grown forest do not reduce CO2 concentration, but planting a tree in a field does reduce the amount of Carbon in the air.

Yes, CO2 concentration has changed before, but so has the earth's climate. Just because it has been at higher concentrations than it is now doesn't mean that high concentrations are good for us. The black death (Yay for hugely bias example!) was naturally occurring.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/22/2007 11:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
trees take up carbon, therefore, planting a tree will remove Carbon from the atmosphere
Until that tree dies, then it releases it all back. Therefore not reducing global warming at all.

You also ignored this bit. If you plant that tree outside the tropics, the amount of sunlight it absorbs is a much bigger factor than any CO2 change. It slightly raises global warming, exactly the opposite effect you say you want.

But then, some people just love trees; they don't need logical reasons to plant them, right?

quote:
Just because it has been at higher concentrations than it is now doesn't mean that high concentrations are good for us.
Likewise, it doesn't mean those concentrations are bad for us either. Changing CO2 doesn't look like it'll affect us much either way. It might make things slightly better, it might make them slightly worse. Either way we have much bigger problems to worry about.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By LogicallyGenius on 6/23/2007 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
If dead wood can be burnt and releases Carbon compounds then from where did they go in the wood.

These evil people will tomorrow say burning wood dont release CO2. I hope someone kills such people


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope someone kills such people

Another shining example of the kind of reasonable debate that occurs amoung the MAsherians. No extremist remarks found here. MAsher's contributions just bring out the best in people.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By hubajube on 6/26/2007 7:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose your purpose here is to discredit masher, huh? That way, we'll all follow the "party line" blindly instead of weighing the the facts presented and making our own decisions from them.

You'll say next that I am blindly following masher and you are here to "set us free" so to speak.

If you truly wish to free our minds, present your case and leave it for us to figure out on our own. In reality, that's all any of us can do.


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 8:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suppose your purpose here is to discredit masher, huh?

No need, he does that himself.
quote:
That way, we'll all follow the "party line" blindly instead of weighing the the facts presented and making our own decisions from them.

Where was it suggested you follow anybody?
quote:
You'll say next that I am blindly following masher and you are here to "set us free" so to speak.

Not at all, you have to set yourself free. Its the red pill or the blue pill, you decide.
quote:
present your case and leave it for us to figure out on our own.

My case was always very simple, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better safe than sorry.

MAshers case:
quote:
...should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?

What did you figure out from his quote? Who's leading who with the statement he made here? You decide.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
internationally.... so then lets focus on countries like China who are NOT balancing their tree usage with replanting. Trees are a crop and the supply should be maintained.

Having a piece of toilet paper like the "Kyoto Treaty" exempt anyone is exactly why the U.S. didn't sign it. Why shackle yourself to the bed (to prevent you from hurting your neighbor) when your neighbor is running around free. It's idiocy. Double standards are horrible. Surprise, surprise nobody in their right mind wants to buy into that.


By Ringold on 6/21/2007 3:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Recent research also indicated that deforestation at higher latitudes (North America, Europe) has a net cooling effect on the global climate due to much lower absorbtion of sunlight during the winter. It also led to slightly higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere but the net cooling effect was too powerful to be overcome by the slight increase.

Forests did have a net cooling effect closer to the equator though in areas such as Brazil, however, and a couple other nice side-effects.

In that sense tree's are indeed just a crop in most of the developed world and, asides from any scenic beauty aspects, ought not really to be mourned.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced.
In China , which is why China should cut back on polluting as much as anyone.

Forest wilderness in the U.S. has grown hugely in the past century as the U.S. tries to balance out growth and environmentalism. China has a vastly higher population and a government that couldn't care less about polluting (other than PR) and it growing rapidly. To ignore the environmental impact of a nation like China is stupid at best.

Reminds me of living in El Paso TX... While citizens of Texas are paying through the nose for increase environmental costs, 100 feet of nothing separates Juarez Mexico and El Paso. Juarez dwarfs El Paso and is a highly polluted and polluting city. Not to say that the U.S. shouldn't be responsible and reasonable, but lets face it, no amount of taxing and cleaning and burden is going to fix the pollution problem in El Paso until Juarez is cleaned up. That's not gonna happen any time soon.

Another analogy , you can have a beautiful lawn were you keep up with the fallen leaves and if the guy next door lets leaves go on his side, you'll be spending all your time picking up after him. You have three responses.
1.) clean up for him
2.) force him to clean up
3.) accept a lesser level of perfection

What do you do?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you do?


It's certainly not an easy question to answer. I think a combination of your three answers is going to be the most likely outcome.

Forcing action through trade agreements (link trade to the environmental impact of producing an item in a particular area). For example, if country X produces a widget that generates a ton of CO2 and country Y makes the same widget making a half ton of CO2, then country Y gets a 2:1 leverage in trade. This would serve to actually benefit the US in trade agreements with China. IMO, we should do something similar with labor and trade, but that's an entirely new subject.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 1:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
Basing trade agreements on environmental targets (especially for something very unproven like CO2) is exactly how you come up with trainwrecks like Kyoto.

Besides, restraint of trade is almost always a bad thing - it hurts people on both sides of the equation.

It's like this - you can't put the policy before the science, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be dead wrong. And the whole argument of, we'll we can't wait for the science because it will be too late, is kind of like the cheesy used-car salesman who tells you the deal is only good until 5pm, so you need to make sure you make your decision now.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
trainwrecks like Kyoto.

What exactly did it wreck? Doesn't that kind of imply some companies or government went out of business because of it? Isn't a more accurate name for it a non-event? Perhaps that's not as nasty a name as they like it around here?

quote:
you can't put the policy before the science

And yet didn't Europe do just that successfully when they addressed emissions from computer monitors? Should they have waited another 20+ years for science to give them stats or did they do the right thing by curbing what they could with minimal commercial impact?

And why did it work? Was it because there weren't a lot of extremists on either side of the issue? Of course without a huge fight the lobbyists had no work.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 3:13:27 PM , Rating: 1
> my question was what action was actually taken besides gathering signatures?

You're right, the countries that signed the treaty took no action on it. They just did it for a feel-good measure that accomplished nothing.

All the more reason for us to have not signed, isn't it?

> Don't CRT monitors...end up in landfills?

Yes. And that extra shielding, added to solve a nonexistent EMI problem, therefore made another problem worse.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
> I can't tell if I'm reading ignorance or desperation

I don't think you're reading at all. Extra shielding on a monitor means extra metal and other resources, which not only needed to be mined, refined (all at a cost in energy and environmental damage) but also takes up more space in landfills. All things we want to try to minimize? And forcing us to waste resources to solve problems which don't exist doesn't help that.

> Steel rusts

So you dont see a problem with mining vast amounts of metals, then turning them around and dumping them in a landfill for no good purpose at all?

Yes steel rusts. Aluminum too, though it takes a lot longer. So why recycle it? Mercury and lead will eventually leech down below the ground. Paper will eventually self-recycle back into trees too. Dangerous organic compounds will break down. EVERYTHING we put in a landfill isn't a problem in the long run...if you wait long enough. Does that mean we need to waste resources and fill our landfills?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you dont see a problem with mining vast amounts of metals, then turning them around and dumping them in a landfill for no good purpose at all?

That's why my 11 year old still runs and looks like new. And my monitor went to a place where the lead won't contaminate anyone's ground water. Today or tomorrow.
quote:
Does that mean we need to waste resources and fill our landfills?

Im not the one selling electronics or appliances that are no longer economically feasible to repair. I've never understood that philosophy.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:49:59 PM , Rating: 1
> That's why my 11 year old still runs and looks like new

You didn't answer the question. Monitors wind up in landfills. Wasted steel in monitors is more steel to be mined, and more junk in our landfills. Do you see a problem with that or not?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
You choose to believe I didn't answer your question, that's not the same thing. My statements can't change that.

Have you tested your drinking water for lead?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 8:04:39 PM , Rating: 1
> You choose to believe I didn't answer your question...My statements can't change that.

Lol, of course your statement can change it. You can answer the question. Or, you can continue to run and hide from it. Is the wasted steel in monitors a problem in landfills or not?

A simple yes or no will suffice.


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 8:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes a clamp can make a huge difference once I went over and looked at the huge pile of stuff in a landfill. The clamps I saw dwarf refrigerators, cars, even abandoned freight ships.

You're so right that I am trembling at the thought.

I'm keeping all clamps I own forever, I'll clamp something down somewhere! And the car is going to the junkyard first thing in the morning.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:10:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Well, I was willing to drop it, but you insisted on making a mountain out of a molehill. You wouldn't let up, so that's exactly what I did.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/22/2007 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 1
> Well, I was willing to drop it, but you insisted on making a mountain out of a molehill.

There's no mountain here, just you waffling back and forth and refusing to admit your own words. First you say filling up our landfills with wasted metal isn't a problem, then you say it is. Then you get angry and blame us for not being able to understand your position here.

A simple yes or no will clear this all up. Is it a problem or isn't it?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 3:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A simple yes or no will clear this all up.

What part of this prior response escapes your grasp?
quote:
You're so right that I am trembling at the thought.

You know I had to buy a microscope to be able to see your point. How many resources were required for that?

And what is PorkPie anyway?


By porkpie on 6/22/2007 3:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "What part of this prior response escapes your grasp?

The part where you failed to answer the question. Why are you afraid? It's a simple yes or no question.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 7:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im not the one selling electronics or appliances that are no longer economically feasible to repair. I've never understood that philosophy.

No, but you're the one buying them. You can't wash your hands of that responsibility so easily, if you decide to worry about things like that.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 8:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, but you're the one buying them.

Not when I have a choice. But in some cases corporations force the issue.

But I buy high end electronics when available. Stuff like Conrad Johnson is far cheaper in the long run. My Mitsubishi VCR lasted 7 years of hard usage, while my neighbor filled the landfill with Goldstars.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not when I have a choice. But in some cases corporations force the issue.

A corporation forced you to buy something? How did they do that - did they hold a gun to your head and make you drive to the store? Poor guy, LOL.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, trying to make a point by being simple minded. Interesting concept.

One is forced to buy what is available. That is determined by ummmmm, availability. If all companies only build $29 VCRs that yes, that's what is forced to buy, as opposed to being allowed to buy one that will last for more than 6 months or 14 inserts of a tape. How can I buy it if its not available, please explain my freedom to choose under these conditions.

Of course, since your twisted what I said all around for your personal gratification why would it be different this time around?

quote:
Poor guy, LOL.

Ignorance is bliss.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/22/2007 11:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
> If all companies only build $29 VCRs that yes, that's what is forced to buy

Since when is one "forced" to buy a VCR or any other consumer product? We're not talking about food and shelter here now are we? Talk about rampant commercialism!


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Hawkido on 6/25/2007 7:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since when is one "forced" to buy a VCR or any other consumer product?


Do you (or did you) ever have or make use of (and thus necessitating someone else having) a VCR? Does it have to be a VCR? Why not Electricity? Horse and wagon? The Wheel? Freedom? Isn't freedom a luxury? Isn't freedom a commercial product, because it seems only the wealthy are free in the world, right? Or is it only the free are wealthy? Which came first?

Back on topic: Africa kinda missed the VCR boat, where were they? They kinda missed the boat before that called electricity, and before that democratic/representative freedoms given by a different form of government.

Sounds like if you miss one of these important boats you are doomed to a miserable existance in which your children live bleak lives and die horrible deaths at young ages. How many people have died from landfills conpared to starvation in America... Probablly about even in the USA, that's why we are having this discussion, I presume. In Africa they don't talk about landfills causeing health problems... Is it because they are sooo ecofriendly and don't waste anything? or is it because none of them live long enough to turn on the electricity (which they don't have) turn on their computer (which they don't have) and connect to the internet (which they don't have) and excercise their freedom of speech (which they don't have) and complain about their landfills (which they don't have). Know what they have in the ground that causes death and disease in Africa? Mass Graves... filled with disease victims, warlord victims, famine victims. Yes, land fills are far from their foremost concern. I guess they should have bought that first commercial product that came along.

When I was in college we used a VCR in our classes. Before that it was film projectors and slides on an overhead projector using transparencies. Before that actual slide projectors. So by your very reasoning, no one should have bought the first commercial product. Well, you didn't say that, you said no one is forced to buy it.

I think if you look at history, you will see that no one is forced to be a pawn of a state or a slave to some horrible empire... All you have to do is not choose to be free. There is a price for freedom. Those who have paid will attest. Not buying that one thing that makes your life better, you will slide right into the crapheap called the humanity landfill, just like the majority of Africa. If only they would have made that one investment in bettering themselves.

Perhaps freedom isn't the product, but the currency, and others haven't used it wisely.

PS: I'll save you the trouble of spelling out your only rebuttal. Okay here goes:

"But I wasn't talking about Africa! I was talking about him buying a VCR! How wasteful he is! How dare he better himself, his life, his family! He should live in abject poverty and die from the first disease of opportunity that comes along because medicine is a product of a wealthy society and I don't want THAT, no not that, cause wealthy societies have land fills! I much prefer mass graves to land fills cause humans are an abomination on the earth and not part of the 'Natural Order'!"

Sound about right?

Good night!


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
My choice is to vote for a president that does what's good for the people and represents the people first, not the lobbyists first. There are many handles in the voting booth, but my choice is not there. And not voting is also something forced upon me if I take that path, I take it under duress, and that's not a free will choice.

I choose not to give any money to oil companies. Do I have that choice? A real one OK, not some extremist viewpoint yet again.

So many college classes make a point of how the world is not just black and white. MAshers extremists "choose" to live in that black and white world.

And the funny thing is I'm the one who's arguing just for the sake of arguing. Yeah right.

Regrettable.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 3:30:52 PM , Rating: 1
Well Canada's apparently spent billions chasing Kyoto so far, and they have nothing (positive) to show for it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.h...

OK, $5 each times hundreds of millions of monitors sold -> large economic cost. Benefit? Were any lives saved? I'm not aware of any studies that show any harm from low-dose non-ionizing radiation. You?

Funny you bring up catalytic converters and claim they don't add much cost. Do you know how much cost they add? Here's a hint:

Catalytic converter theft
Due to the use of precious metals including platinum, which is worth up to $1,200 an ounce; palladium, which can fetch $320 an ounce; and rhodium, which can go for up to $6,000 an ounce on the market, catalytic converter theft is on the rise.

I wouldn't exactly say that change was accomplished without significant cost - they were expensive to implement. What's your point again, I'm confused.

Regarding RoHS, I can't tell you what the costs were, but as someone working in an electronics-related business, I can tell you that the costs were significant for the changeover. That is pure overhead that had to get factored into the costs of products. Maybe it didn't add much to the cost of a particular product, but maybe the company also had to cut costs elsewhere to pay for the changeover. Change costs money in business, period.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 10:42:33 PM , Rating: 1
OK, I spoon fed my kids when they were young, so I guess one more time won't hurt...

Never heard of such a thing, and referenceless as well.

http://www.google.com/search?q=catalytic+converter...

The particular quote was pulled from Wikipedia, but there are lots of reports of the same. $70 is not typical, by the way - usually its a bit more than thay.

Since you probably haven't seen any studies one way or the other how did you reach a scientific conclusion?

Well, considering how long humans have been using electricity, and no problems so far...

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Enjoy.


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, considering how long humans have been using electricity, and no problems so far...

What kind of person suggests that no one has been killed or injured by electricity? Besides the obvious methods, your statement suggests that there is not one single cancerous tumor ever caused by anything having to do with AC, and you know this for a scientific certainty.

Who would make such claims? An extremist?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
No, my point is that Kyoto has apparently had a tremendous cost for Canada, and I suspect many of the other countries that have attempted to implement it have also faced large costs - and all for nothing.


By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 3:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and all for nothing.

So I have to repeat
quote:
So that article proves that if they had simply ignored Kyoto and made no efforts at all, the current levels would not have been even higher, is that your conclusion?

Yes or no? Ala Porkpie.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By ziggo on 6/21/2007 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
A link between the lead in fuel and heavy metal poisoning was never really proved.

The unleaded fuel now has its octane rating adjusted by a known carcinogen.

Better or worse? Who knows.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 4:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Lead was removed from gasoline in order to prevent fouling of catalytic converters. It was removed from paint for direct health reasons.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lead was removed from gasoline in order to prevent fouling of catalytic converters.

But even if that wasn't the case it would have probably been removed sooner or later.

Obviously a much bigger indirect health issue in large cities.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
> Obviously a much bigger indirect health issue in large cities.

Why? Because you say so? Are you aware that many nations are *still* using leaded gas...and they're not seeing any of the health problems environmentalists predicted from using it.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By rsmech on 6/23/2007 11:19:17 PM , Rating: 1
I can't help but have the voice of HAL from 2010 in my head every time I read your post. Your sound fake & simulated. You argue just to argue. When you have no point you can intellectually defend you have hurt feelings (like HAL) and snivel & name call. Then when someone makes a personal comment to you, you talk about how small minded they are. Probably posted too late to read, but you seem to idolize Mesher.

I can tell you I've read Mesher & you sir are no Mesher!


By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can tell you I've read Mesher & you sir are no Mesher!

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here.


By Lord 666 on 6/21/2007 11:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
Completely off topic, but Chinese toy factories manufacture goods with lead tainted paint and kerosene filled balls for kids for US import.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbu...

If Chinese industries don't care about the hazards to children, doubtful they care about some greenhouse gasses and smog


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The unleaded fuel now has its octane rating adjusted by a known carcinogen

Which chemical are you refering to?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ringold on 6/21/2007 3:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This would serve to actually benefit the US in trade agreements with China.


If by benefitting America by reducing capital inflow and increasing prices paid by consumers at retail, absolutely you are correct.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By arazok on 6/21/2007 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
lol. You hit that one square on the head.

Nobody seems to recall when a cheap fridge cost $1,200. You can get them for $300 now, and the top models are generally under $1,500.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 7:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, you can see that by how many more are in landfills.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa Cubbie! When we complained about wasted steel in monitors going into landfills, you tossed it off with a snide "steel rusts" comment. And you've changed your tune already?

Want some butter on that waffle?


By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 8:14:14 PM , Rating: 1
Your comparing bare metal clamps with full refrigerators? Have you been to any communities with space issues that behave that way?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By arazok on 6/21/2007 9:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
You're beyond stupid. You know that right?


By TheGreek on 6/22/2007 10:12:02 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, measuring the costs of a product after it's useful life is just total nonsense. Thanks for the scientific input.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By UppityMatt on 6/24/2007 3:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think i have created a higher carbon footprint by having to sort through your stupid posts. If you want to reduce CO2 levels get off your computer because your not lending any support for either side of this argument.


By TheGreek on 6/25/2007 4:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your not lending any support for either side of this argument.

You mean just like your post?


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth...This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce...farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not ...Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in biodiversity...Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible ...
I highlit the important part of your posts. Nothing but "maybe", "possibly", and "we just don't know".

Its funny how enviromentalists can claim they're 100% sure a little warming will be a catastrophe. But when presented with the other side of the picture, they suddenly start saying how difficult is it to predict the effects of warming.

It IS nearly imposible to predict whether warming will be good or bad for us overall. But all the past times this happened, things got better, not worse. Ice Ages are the real killer.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By dever on 6/21/2007 3:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are not understanding what balance means. If you have your way, you steal money from everyones pockets to "fix" the problem that doesn't exist.

Those who propose to take my earnings by force must assume the burden of proof . There is no burden of proof needed for a retention of liberties.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: another climate myth from Masher
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 7:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really on our side, just pretending to be an environmentalist to make them look bad? Most people will at least attempt to discuss the issue...maybe even throw out a fact or figure now and then.

You, though, seem content though to do nothing but make hundreds of posts labelling anyone who disagrees with you with something unsavory.

If you're trying to discredit environmentalists, you're doing a better job than all of us put together.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 3
Funny that you call one article from one source a "debunking".

Your text from NewScientist supports the basic concept that higher CO2 levels could contribute to a "temporary" increase in plant growth. It seems to me that it would naturally level off and that's OK (we don't want too much of anything). We're talking about cycles over time. I'm NOT going to go out of my way and say for sure that more warming is guaranteed to be "good" in the long run, but there is an equal chance it could be good, or at least balance out. Having it level off is good! This is not a matter of higher(or lower) numbers being always better. Too cold is bad, too hot is bad. Warm might be good for awhile, but bad for a long time (same with cool).

I just don't think someone can make a statement like "more CO2 is bad". The earth produces a lot of "bad" stuff in large quantities for eons and has been able to recycle it all.

According to NewScientist
quote:
But it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth.
That statement is perfect. It's hard to generalize about the effect. But geez, I'm seeing a lot of generalization on the side of global warming proponents too. So lets all stop generalizing and cut out the political BS and set about accurately measuring the problem so that we can know for sure what is happening and why. Meanwhile the whole "sky is falling" routine is getting really annoying.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The earth produces a lot of "bad" stuff in large quantities for eons and has been able to recycle it all.
Right. And rarely mentioned is that even today, mans CO2 emissions are still only about 4% of what nature produces each year.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Moishe on 6/21/2007 11:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
Humans like to arrogantly accept blame for all of nature's problems. We're not God. If we're going to get so high and mighty to assume that we should force ALL entities to stop ALL polluting then we should make sure to plug every volcano and remove every last living thing that produces any negative substance (like cow farts).

This would entail removing humans and most of nature.