Print 86 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Apr 8 at 7:03 PM

China has severe air pollution probems. It emits more greenhouse gases than any other nation.  (Source: Treehugger)

China is cleverly leveraging the warming debate to try to turn the world's most powerful developing nations against the U.S.  (Source: The Hindu)
China rallies developing nations to oppose emissions restrictions championed by the U.S. and its allies

Tensions between China and the U.S. are already running high.  You can now add one more contentious issue to the mix -- global warming.

In December, President Barack Obama traveled to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen to try to broker a climate alliance to fight global warming.  Hopes of a true international deal, though, vanished as the industrialized nations failed to reach a binding compromise with developing nations.

China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is leading an alliance of developing nations dubbed BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China).  BASIC wants the U.S. and other "rich" nations to bear the primary cost of fighting global warming.  They argue that the industrialized nations already had their chance to grow and develop.  Meanwhile the U.S. and others have argued that China and its allies need to take warming much more seriously.

There is some hope of a compromise.  In an eleventh hour meeting at Copenhagen, between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, an interruption by President Obama triggered talks that would eventually lead to the developing countries and the industrialized ones signing an accord, near the end of the Copenhagen summit.

The Copenhagen Accord is no true climate treaty and should not be hailed as such.  It lacks any sort of clear roadmap for fighting warming.  What it does provide is an agreement that warming costs must be shouldered equally by all nations, not thrust upon industrialized or developing nations.

Many consider that a slight victory for the U.S. as the developing nations were particular vocal in calling for unequal restrictions on wealthy nations.

The debate, however, is quietly allowing China to consolidate developing nations in economic opposition to the U.S.  China scored a win when its ally Sudan was elected chair of the Group of 77 bloc of developing countries.

Meanwhile, China is courting India via the warming debate.  India is typically a close ally of America economically and based on shared domestic issues, such as terrorism threats form Islamic extremists.  However, India has allied itself with China when it comes to the warming debate.  And it seems apparent that China is in firm control of the direction of BASIC.

The true test of the future of warming legislation will come late this year.  After a series of small summits, world leaders, including, presumably, U.S. President Barack Obama, will convene in Cancun Mexico this December to try to iron out a binding treaty.

The question becomes whether China is truly looking to cooperate and is merely trying to protect its own interests, or whether the growing economic giant is looking to use the debate to consolidate its political power in the developing nation sphere, at a time when its clashing with U.S. government and businesses.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Abrahmm on 4/6/2010 10:05:36 AM , Rating: 5
Wow, developing nations want other country's money, who would have guessed.

I can't believe that the world leaders are still discussing and trying to force treaties spending trillions of dollars all based on a scientific theory that is shaky at best. AGW may be real, it may not be, but neither has been proven without a reasonable doubt yet. Pushing forward to spend so much money on something that is filled with holes means there is either alternative motivation, or the world is dumber than I thought.

RE: Shocking
By Spivonious on 4/6/2010 10:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The money should be going towards getting some solid evidence that AGW is a real problem. There's no question now that the climate is changing, but no one knows what effect humans are having on it. We're still not at pre-"Little Ice Age" temperatures, and there were definitely no factories spewing out greenhouse gases back then.

RE: Shocking
By Dorkyman on 4/6/2010 10:39:54 AM , Rating: 5
To me, it's more than that.

Even IF it were obvious that humans were the cause of Global Warming, from what I've read we are unable to do anything about it.

By that I mean I've read articles that state that even with draconian measures in place, the earth would continue to warm, though perhaps at a slightly slower rate. If so, that it seems to me the best course of action is to learn to adapt to the changes. Humans are especially good at that.

RE: Shocking
By Shig on 4/6/2010 10:48:23 AM , Rating: 5
Global warming will be the least of China's problems if they keep opening coal power plants at the rate they're going.

They're heading for a health pandemic with all that pollution they're pumping out.

But hey if they want to keep selling us cheap goods and turning their own country into a smoggy landfill, so be it. I think they'll soon realize it wasn't worth it and they won't be able to go back.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 11:01:43 AM , Rating: 4
You're exaggerating the situation. China is nowhere near as bad as Britain was just a few decades ago. In one weekend in 1952, for instance, coal smog was so thick that 10,000 people died, and the air was so dark that cars and buses couldn't be used, with visibility down to a few feet.

Once they installed pollution control mechanisms on all their coal-burning plants, the problem vanished almost overnight.

RE: Shocking
By Keeir on 4/6/2010 2:42:04 PM , Rating: 3
Thats a bit of a stretch Porkpie,

The "Great Smog" is what I believe you are refering to...

Which lead to the early death of as many as 12,000 out of 8.12 million pollution at the time. "Early Death" is the key as most of the dead had pre-existing problems.

If such a freak weather event happened... in say Beijing, the "early" dead would number into the 20,000+ Range. IF Western scientists ever got to study it... for example, how many early dead were affected by




Overall though, China had the opportunity to use pollution controls from nearly the start... and the lessions learned from hundreds of years of mistakes in the west... Air Pollution (Just NOx),1518...

Or some partial pollution?

Unless China (and India) slows down, they are rapidly head to air pollution problems that will be singificiantly worse than late industrial age in Britian/US, which is unfortunate, since they have the data about what will occur.

RE: Shocking
By The0ne on 4/6/2010 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Porkpie was stretching it a bit but the point should be taken. As you stated,

"Overall though, China had the opportunity to use pollution controls from nearly the start... and the lessions learned from hundreds of years of mistakes in the west... Air Pollution (Just NOx)"

This is the biggest factor, imo, that China is disregarding with the push for more and more coal plants. It is a shame because history did and will continue to prove that environments and people will suffer from them.

On one hand, I can't really blame them for wanting to "develop" as quickly as possible as US and Britain had in their history, but at the same time you can't really ignore lessons they've learned. China will not consider the history factors and will continue to develop, clean or not. It is truly a shame actually.

RE: Shocking
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2010 6:36:56 PM , Rating: 3
This is the biggest factor, imo, that China is disregarding with the push for more and more coal plants. It is a shame because history did and will continue to prove that environments and people will suffer from them.

It pains me to say this, but that is because China is smarter than the US and Europe at the moment. They finally have a good economy going, and they understand that extreme environmental policies mean the destruction of that economy. That's why they are fighting these changes, and I can't blame them.

China will not consider the history factors and will continue to develop, clean or not. It is truly a shame actually.

So did the US and Europe years ago. They can "be clean" later, right now economic prosperity is the main goal, as it should be. Because you can't really have both. You can't have a roaring economy AND massive legislation. Hell look at the United States right now and the path we have just been taken on. We're a perfect example.

RE: Shocking
By slunkius on 4/7/2010 5:16:44 AM , Rating: 1
wonder if you would be willing to live in the smoggy city with coal plant chugging pollutants, all in the name of "good economy going" and you going under, six feet under i mean.
problem is that in china no one listens to people, party decides what risks are worth taking, and people are left to live with that

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 10:37:08 AM , Rating: 3
Would you be willing to have you and your family starve to death, in the name of a "clean planet"? Would you be willing to spend 15 hours a day working in rice paddies, in the hot sun, just to cut your risk of cancer from smog by 0.01% ?

China knows what its doing, far far better than you do.

RE: Shocking
By Laereom on 4/6/2010 3:28:15 PM , Rating: 4
What gets me about the whole thing is that, worst case, we'll basically return to the carboniferous era. What's that, you say? Global warming? Ice caps melting?

So Indonesia will sink, New Orleans will get swampier, and BOTH RUSSIA AND CANADA WILL BE ABLE TO GROW REAL CROPS?

I'll take 4.

RE: Shocking
By JediJeb on 4/6/2010 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
Wasn't that the era when CO2 levels were 10x what they are today or more, and yet the planet didn't turn into a world wide desert or melt as most AGW extremist say will happen if we only double the CO2 levels?

RE: Shocking
By MadMan007 on 4/6/2010 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sunlight levels were lower then too. Temperatures don't track just with CO2, it's true, but they track almost perfectly with a combination of CO2 *and* sunlight intensity.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 10:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Sunlight levels were lower then too"

Eh? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that assertion. It's just a hypothesis the pro-AGW crowd has suggested, in order to try to explain away the glaring hole in their theory, that CO2 levels are often very high when temperatures are low, and vice versa.

RE: Shocking
By dark matter on 4/7/2010 7:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
And we should believe you over them, why exactly?

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 9:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
You mean besides the scientific principle, Occam's razor, and basic common sense? A hypothesis must be supported with facts or evidence to be believed. The burden of proof lies with those advancing a theory, not those rejected it. You don't make wild claims, then say "if you can't disprove it, it must be true".

Science has worked for us pretty well so far. Why not stick with it?

RE: Shocking
By DizzyMan on 4/8/2010 6:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
Some simple figures can back that up. We humans produce just under 7% of total global CO2 output, the rest is natural. Just a simple calculation tells us that the 20% reduction that was originally proposed would result in a 1,33% reduction globally. Obviously, that is so little that nothing would really change. (The figures can be found on Wikipedia and other sites).

Add to that that CO2 is not even the gas that contributes most to GW, that would be simple watervapor. We cannot control that in any way, so if we really wanted to do something that matters then why didn't we start cleaning up the oceans and replanting trees in stead of reducing our output. Why aren't our deserts littered with solar panels so we can close polluting powerplants.

Just to say that we are going at it the wrong way. In stead of adjusting to what the world can process, increase the CO2 processing features of our planet. If CO2 is causing it at all...

RE: Shocking
By Mint on 4/6/2010 11:24:16 AM , Rating: 4
I think the evidence for the existence of AGW is pretty good.

However, I 100% support these developing nations in their protest of the treaty. Why the fuck should they spend gobs of money on renewable energy when they could save 100x as many lives and improve quality of life so much by spending on infrastructure, vaccines, and education? The IPCC needs to show 10x higher magnitude of warming before AGW becomes a spending priority, and that won't ever happen.

It's obscenely immoral. We're asking them to reduce emissions even though they have FAR lower emissions per capita than us.

To show you some numbers: You may recall that some weak study exaggerated deaths caused by AGW as something like 500,000 per year by 2030. Even if we can reduce the cost of green energy to a 5c/kWh premium (a dream right now when energy storage cost is taken into account), the IPCC's numbers tell us that $1 Trillion would reduce warming by only 0.01 degrees , and thus able to save a mere 5,000 deaths. That kind of money can save millions of lives if spent elsewhere.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 11:35:12 AM , Rating: 3
"I think the evidence for the existence of AGW is pretty good."

There is evidence man may be influencing climate slightly, most especially due to changing land use. Theere is, however, no evidence to believe that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change.

"$1 Trillion would reduce warming by only 0.01 degrees , and thus able to save a mere 5,000 deaths"

You believe that raising planetary temperatures by one hundredth of one degree would kill 5,000 people? Despite the fact that, even today, cold kills more people than heat?

RE: Shocking
By Mint on 4/6/2010 11:56:07 AM , Rating: 5
No, I don't believe it.

My point is that this is an upper bound using numbers from econuts. Are they going to dispute their own exaggerations? 1$ trillion is way, way too much money to spend on something with such little return.

You could build clean water infrastructre for all of Africa with that kind of money, and save millions of children a year dying from diarrhea and water borne diseases.

Yet envirotards expect developing countries to instead spend it on reducing AGW by 0.02 degrees?

(I made an error - it was 0.02 degrees per trillion dollars)

RE: Shocking
By cornelius785 on 4/6/2010 4:13:46 PM , Rating: 3
I agree on point of $1 trillion spent on "green products/ideas" is way too much to spend for such a little return in ultimate goal of reducing carbon emissions. Personally, I consider some "green products/ideas" a genuine moneypit. I don't mind seeing money to improve efficiencies (light bulbs, water usage, but not the mythical 'vampire power'), but dumping tons of government money into solar/wind production is idiotic (1-let the free market decide when to start using it, 2-highly variable power source, 3-little return on investment (power out) compared to other power generation methods), green roofs when the doors and windows are drafty, etc..

I'm just concerned (or even paranoid) when it comes to throwing money at "green products/ideas" especially when it comes to giving money to other countries (who's to say it won't be a blundered/used by corrupt individuals) and when there are more pressing issues at hand (or better places to spend the money that has a bigger impact for the good of many).

RE: Shocking
By JediJeb on 4/6/2010 5:28:16 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't catch but a few minutes of it, but John Stossel did a report on how the green movement was more or less a sham. It was on over the weekend.

RE: Shocking
By SPOOFE on 4/6/2010 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 3
You have to remember that those same econuts - the guys that have been trying to push this since the '70s - are not at all concerned with human life. Small in numbers they may be, but they're the most vocal and present face of the current environmentalist movement, and they're more concerned about trees and fluffy animals. Humans, to this sort of environmentalist, are the problem; if you told them it would cost a trillion dollars to save five thousand people, they'd ask how much more it would cost to save less.

Most casual enviros - those that like the concept of the outdoors but wouldn't waste the time to hug a tree - are against "save nature even if it kills people" mentality. These people are not the driving force of the modern environmentalist movement; they just have good intentions without the time, intelligence, or wherewithal to really examine the claims thrown about and the proposed "solutions".

RE: Shocking
By leuNam on 4/7/2010 8:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it is just the way things are...nothing is added or deducted...

RE: Shocking
By Laereom on 4/6/2010 3:49:17 PM , Rating: 1
This. Oh, God-that-I-don't-believe-in, this.

RE: Shocking
By clovell on 4/6/2010 4:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
Is this the new face of Climate Change? Backpedalling on the proposals for drastic action while you shore up your claims on the evidence? Espousing reason with your left hand while your right so clearly disregards it?

Spare us the sleight-of-hand. The evidence for AGW is trivial, suspect, and biased.

RE: Shocking
By Mint on 4/6/2010 5:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
There is no "while" here. Evidence will never be found that exaggerates CO2 by an order of magnitude and makes it worth worrying about.

I'm not backpedaling on anything. I always believed wind/solar were too expensive, that drastic change is impossible without immorally holding back the developing world, and that nuclear power is the energy source of the future.

The mechanism for CO2 causing warming is sound. The question is whether all the stuff that's hard to simulate amplify or reduce that, so the magnitude is debatable.

You and porkpie should read this article from a skeptic:

His belief is that the IPCC's models exaggerate the impact of CO2, and the real amount is nothing to worry about. I just draw my line in a different place: I say that even the IPCC's numbers as is don't justify action.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 5:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
I've been reading Spencer (and many others) for years. And you've never heard me claim CO2 isn't a GHG. It most certainly is, just one far too weak to possibly cause catastrophic climate change.

RE: Shocking
By Mint on 4/7/2010 10:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well, some of your posts read like CO2 doesn't cause any global warming at all.

I think a lot of the positive feedback factors make sense. Henry's law tells us we'll see positive CO2 feedback on long timescales from oceans, psychrometrics tell us water vapour partial pressures go up with temperature (and we've actually measured it with local temperature rises), and so on.

However, to me even the IPCC's projections aren't catastrophic. What is catastrophic is the death toll and impact on quality of life from forcing poorer nations to waste resources on costly renewable energy.

BTW, what I love about Spencer is that he's not afraid to show, for example, warming trends from satellites or how Lindzen's paper did not discredit GCMs like the skeptic community believed.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 10:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
"I think a lot of the positive feedback factors make sense"

There can't possibly be overall positive feedback in the climate system, otherwise it would have already ended in catastrophe many times before in the earth's past.

The geologic record is clear. Temperatures rise, CO2 rises in response (possibly adding somewhat to that initial rise) ... but then temperatures begin declining despite still-rising levels of CO2.

This pattern has happened dozens of times in the earth's past. It also makes sense from basic physics. CO2 and water vapor absorb in the same spectrum (H20's much wider, actually). That means as temperatures go up, CO2 becomes a less effective GHG, in addition to other negative-feedbacks we know exist, such as increased radiative cooling.

RE: Shocking
By Mint on 4/8/2010 7:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're making the same error a lot of people do when reading the term "positive feedback". Have you ever done control theory? If the feedback factor is positive but less than one, it's still stable, but it amplifes the input signal.
In the diagram, if AB<0, you have negative feedback. If 0<AB<1, you have stable positive feedback. If AB>1, you have runaway. Then you have frequency dependent factors, Lyapunov stability and Nyquist plots, etc...

Anyway, there are examples of stability and instability in the geological record. The reason an instable climate can't change forever is you get non-linearities kicking in such as the one you described with CO2 absorption changing the feedback factor back below 1, so runaway stops and eventually something may kick it back in the other direction (a trigger lowers temperatures, then CO2 gets absorbed and icesheets grow, both reducing temperature further, and so forth).

Personally, I don't believe in runaway warming, because we're already at the warm point in the cycle; moreover, even if a runaway threshold existed then the chances of missing it with drastic action vs. gradual action is basically zero.

However, stable positive feedback is still very plausible. It's just hard to quantify.

RE: Shocking
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2010 8:37:35 PM , Rating: 1
The mechanism for CO2 causing warming is sound.


RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't get into flat-earth style denial. CO2 causes warming, period. There really is no debate on that point. The debate centers around whether or not CO2's trivial level of warming is being "amplified" by positive feedback.

Without that amplification (which frankly there exists no real evidence for), the amount of warming from CO2 is too small to cause issue. And, since CO2 (and all other GHGs) follow a logarithmic response curve, it means that the more CO2 you add, the less effective each additional amount becomes.

Argue and win the debate on the real issues, Reclaimer. Pretending CO2 isn't a GHG is a losing battle. That part is easily replicable in the lab.

RE: Shocking
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2010 9:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't get into flat-earth style denial. CO2 causes warming, period.

I don't know how you can state this so concretely when we know C02 has been rising while the Earth goes through cooling trends like we're currently in. Hell look at C02 levels when the Earth was covered in ice from pole to pole !!

C02, despite what you have heard, is not the driving force in our climate.

p.s I never said C02 wasn't a Greenhouse Gas. But the fact is the "Greenhouse effect" has been grossly overstated and exaggerated by biased scientists.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 9:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
" But the fact is the "Greenhouse effect" has been grossly overstated and exaggerated"

Isn't that exactly what I said?

RE: Shocking
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2010 12:39:56 AM , Rating: 1
Porkie you are the most annoying guy on here. Even when you are claiming to agree with me, you still argue about something. Were you not held enough as a kid or something ??

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 1:25:38 AM , Rating: 1
Lol, what? You start by saying something ridiculously untrue. When I correct you, you switch to arguing my position, but imply you're still disagreeing. Then when I point that out, you complain further?

There's a wide river flowing between you and the land of logic. Would you like to borrow a paddle?

RE: Shocking
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2010 11:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
Switch to arguing your position, excuse me ?

I've only made two posts here. One refuting someone's claims that C02 causes runaway warming, and the other post trying to argue against your Al Gore style "C02 causes warming, period" close minded argument.

Go take that hockey stick graph porkie and put it you-know-where.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 12:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Can you not even read your own posts? Let me recap.

OP: "The mechanism for CO2 causing warming is sound".
You: "No its not".

Me: "CO2 causes warming, period."
You: "I don't know how you can state that"

You: (a bit later): "p.s. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. It's just exaggerated."
Me: "That's exactly what I said in the first place".
You: "WTF are you arguing about ?!?"

Have you ever tried lithium by chance? I hear its very effective in these cases.

RE: Shocking
By Kurz on 4/7/2010 2:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer you weren't following the conversation.
Porkpie just wanted to correct you on part of the issue.
He explained himself just fine.

Not sure why you jumped onto the accusing train.

RE: Shocking
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2010 3:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
Porkpie just wanted to correct you on part of the issue. He explained himself just fine.

Yes except his "correction" was complete conjecture. We do NOT know the role, if any, that C02 has on climate. Sorry, the things he said are not absolute facts.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 4:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Is English perhaps a second language for you? We know without a doubt that CO2 exerts some degree of warming. We do not know how large that degree is, or if its significant enough to impact climate to a measurable degree.

This is what I said in my first post. You're now agreeing with me, but calling my original statement "complete conjecture"? Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself?

RE: Shocking
By Hiawa23 on 4/6/2010 12:29:16 PM , Rating: 3
Call me ignorant, but I don't believe this so called global warming is man made. I think the earth heats & cools in cycles as it has always done, & China are one of the biggest poluters in the world of course they want as many as possible against the treaty.

RE: Shocking
By redbone75 on 4/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Shocking
By kattanna on 4/6/2010 2:00:39 PM , Rating: 3
and that, IMO, is one of the REAL crimes about this focus on CO2, diverting attention away from REAL pollution issues.

RE: Shocking
By Ammohunt on 4/6/2010 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Its becasue of what was already stated the enviro-movement is about saving the earth by detroying evil capitalism. Use your brain no sane person with any sense buys open Marxism as a solution to any of humankinds ills. If you mask it with the religion of Environmentalism then you can pull the wool over peoples eyes all in the name of saving the earth.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 2:06:01 PM , Rating: 4
"How is it even up for debate that producing less pollution is better than producing more pollution? "

CO2 is not pollution. It's airborne plant food, required for all life on earth.

As for your sophomoric whine that "less pollution is better", that's true in theory. In practice, there's a rational benefit vs. risk analysis that should be made always in such decisions. You produce pollution, for instance. The easiest and fastest way to stop that is to kill you. Should we take that measure?

In cases where "pollution" is below levels that create measurable risk to human health, spending billions or even trillions to reduce it further it ludicrous. In cases where that "pollution" isn't even harmful (like CO2) its downright criminal.

RE: Shocking
By redbone75 on 4/6/2010 3:09:00 PM , Rating: 1
As I stated before, common sense might be asking too much of some people. Please, allow me to retort.

At no point did I mention CO2; however, it, as is true for pretty much everything else, is rather harmful in excessive quantities. Furthermore, while it is airborne plant food (as are nitrates, but I didn't mention those, either) mammals, birds and reptiles don't feed off gaseous carbon dioxide. In fact, last I checked, excessive CO2 kills pretty much any non-plant life form (though some fish can survive in high levels of dissolved carbon dioxide). Want to argue on that one also?

As for my "sophomoric whine" that less pollution is better, there is no theory about it. It's simple fact. Yes, pollution is pretty much unavoidable at this stage in human development. As for any benefit/risk analysis, the benefit is that we save money, as superficial as money is, anyway. The cost is that we still pollute. I'm not just talking about levels that are harmful to humans. We're not the only things living here. To not consider that is what's downright criminal.

Oh, and another thing: the next time you open your f#%&ing trap to suggest harm on someone, remind yourself that you're only an internet warrior and the world is indeed a scary place. I've noticed most times you post is to only attempt to denigrate someone. You always seem to come off as... sophomoric, though.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 3:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
"Furthermore, while CO2 is airborne plant food ...In fact, last I checked, excessive CO2 kills pretty much any non-plant life form...Want to argue on that one also?"

Are you playing dumb or is this serious? Without CO2, all the plants die. Without plants, all the animals die. CO2 is required for all life on earth, just as I said.

"CO2; however, it, as is true for pretty much everything else, is rather harmful in excessive quantities"

At levels of 10,000 ppm or higher, yes. Current levels are 380 ppm. We could burn every bit of coal, oil, shale oil, and tar sands on the planet and not get even halfway to 10,000 ppm.

If you believe CO2 is so terribly harmful, how do you justify your own existence? Your own breath generates CO2 levels as high as 50,000ppm (5%). Oh my god, the horror, the horror!

RE: Shocking
By SPOOFE on 4/6/2010 4:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
As for my "sophomoric whine" that less pollution is better, there is no theory about it. It's simple fact.

Sure; but that has nothing to do with the claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming. AGW claims that a non-pollutant is, indeed, a pollutant, and it's killing us all. It's a far cry from that to "OMG teh smogzzz!" and concerns about arsenic in groundwater. If you want to talk about actual, real, observable effects of pollution, a thread about AGW is the wrong place.

RE: Shocking
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 10:05:22 PM , Rating: 2

No, this is false. Less pollution is not "always better". Is one atom of arsenic per liter of groundwater better than 10, or even 10,000 ? No. They're all equally the same -- utterly harmless to human health.

That's the point the Greens fail to get. There's a certain threshold for all so-called pollutants, under which further reductions are pointless.

RE: Shocking
By TSS on 4/8/2010 9:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
however, it, as is true for pretty much everything else, is rather harmful in excessive quantities.
n fact, last I checked, excessive CO2 kills pretty much any non-plant life form

if you ask for common sense you'd better exhibit it as well. Killing your own arguement before you've even made it is not common sense.

Oh, and we *do* need Co2 in the air. As well as nitrogen. Because i know that if you breathe *pure oxygen*, your lungs will burn to a crisp. Do you have any idea how reactive oxygen is? we use it to get into orbit goddamnit!

Also you get the risk/benifit analysis wrong. You don't need to analyze what's the risk/benifit of the current situation, you need to analyze the future and where your suggesting we should go. The only way to decrease pollution on this scale = decreasing economic activity. what are the benifits of that? Less polluting substances in the enviroment. The risks? That people don't have anything to eat, and start chopping down trees for firewood, slaughtering enimals for food, make whatever they need with no regard to the enviroment since they need it to survive etc etc etc.

Oh, and money isn't superficial. The only reason you can care about the enviroment on this newsarticle is because you had the money to get a warm meal, full stomach, an house to live in a PC to type on and electricity to run everything. I'm sure if your willing to give all that to a rural chinaman he'd be happy to look after the enviroment for you.

If electricity where to *poof* dissapear, first thing i would do is get an axe and chop down a tree for firewood. *that's* common sense.

RE: Shocking
By BZDTemp on 4/6/2010 7:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the US is much worse than China if we look at population size and the US has been so for decades. Seeing China as the bad guy here is distorted.

Global what?
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 10:13:29 AM , Rating: 5
Jason forgets to mention that nations like India have already created their own panels to investigate whether or not global warming is even occurring, as they now wisely doubt the conclusions reached by the incompetent, corrupt, politically-motivated IPCC.

Russia, China, and large parts of the US, Europe, and the Middle East just had their coldest winter ever -- despite 150 years of so-called warming. A recent poll in the US placed global warming dead last in importance on a list of issues facing the nation. Given the gargantuan costs associated with fighting this so-called problem, I'm surprised Obama is even fighting public opinion in trying to advance it.

RE: Global what?
By Ristogod on 4/6/2010 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 5
Indeed. These Chinese, despite their issues regarding human rights and such, are no fools. They won't be duped into some political agenda constructed of lies and deceit.

RE: Global what?
By gtr32x on 4/6/2010 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the US is no fool either. The whole issue of AGW is a political debate.

RE: Global what?
By kattanna on 4/6/2010 11:14:05 AM , Rating: 3
i have spent much time going over the data the US itself uses to calculate global temps and its a shame.

in the early 90's 3/4 of all US temp stations where removed from being used. only those in coastal and warm urban areas remained. we also stopped using all available data from other countries as well. Russia has called us out on not using all the station data they have, but instead using a cherry picked subset. so when you hear "this is the 2nd warmest season on record" or some such, you now have to remember that since 1990 the US only is using the warmest 1/4 of all temp monitoring stations. before 1990 we had about 6000 stations, after 1990 we only use a little over 1000 of them.

also, they cannot get the satellite data to match the ground data, with satellite consistently like 2-3 degrees higher. many think its not a data point issue, but more the statistical methods being used to massage the data.

and right now, we are currently in a cooling trend until about 2030 or 2050, depending upon which statistical method is used.

RE: Global what?
By JediJeb on 4/6/2010 12:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
And the funny thing is it was the second warmest year in the last 12 years, but tied with 5 other years as the second warmest year. If you have 6 of 12 years at the same temperature ( even with the skew from using the hottest stations) that would suggest a stable trend, not a warming trend.

RE: Global what?
By kattanna on 4/6/2010 1:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
hush you!

how dare you bring logic and thinking into this


RE: Global what?
By clovell on 4/6/2010 11:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
But that's kind of how Obama has been rolling lately, porkpie.

RE: Global what?
By Mint on 4/6/2010 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 4
Forget about proving the IPCC wrong, because it's not necessary. Their own numbers do not justify spending to reduce AGW.

The biggest problem with AGW is not with the science. It's with the politics exaggerating the implications of the science. None of the environuts are talking about how much it costs to prevent even a miniscule amount of warming, because they either don't know themselves or don't want the truth to get out.

Imagine if controllable renewable energy (i.e. including storage) amortized to 5c/kWh more than coal. That's a dream right now. One kWh saves 1 kg of CO2 from coal. 20 billion tonnes of CO2 increases atmospheric CO2 by 2 ppm (we see it every year). 100 ppm increases temperature by 1 degree according to the IPCC. Multiply it all together:

A thousandth of a degree temperature reduction costs $50 billion dollars.

And that's with optimistic cost projections. The greenies cannot dispute these numbers, because they come from their own sources.

Nobody is talking about this number, yet it can stop these climate treaties and bills dead in their tracks.

RE: Global what?
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
The environmentalists have painted themselves into an even worse corner. The only realistic way we have to cut CO2 production more than a negligible fraction is to do what they've fought against for the last 30 years -- invest heavily in nuclear power.

RE: Global what?
By Mint on 4/6/2010 4:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I've long maintained that GreenPeace is the biggest cause of CO2 today - more than SUVs, big industry, meat, or whatever else they're in the mood for blaming. They killed nuclear and did nothing about coal because there was no other option.

They were all happy when Steven Chu became the energy secretary who felt strongly about global warming, but forgot that he's actually got a brain. Nuclear is the only way forward, and he & Obama are going to push it.

That's why I don't really care if current AGW models turns out to be wrong. Even if you use the IPCC's numbers, it tells us that nuclear is better than coal, other renewables aren't worth it, and PHEV is better than ICE. So we move to a clean, limitless energy source with the lowest long term cost floor, clean up the air in our cities, and get off foreign oil.

What's wrong with that?

RE: Global what?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2010 10:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with that?

Nothing. It's the way they are going about DOING those changes that is the problem.

RE: Global what?
By Mint on 4/7/2010 11:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
The way I see it, AGW is just the last straw. If coal and gasoline didn't pollute the air with SO2, NOx, and particulates, if coal mining didn't destroy vast swaths of land, and if gas didn't require us to pay money to foreign interests, AGW wouldn't be enough to make people want some other energy source.

We see this with natural gas. It doesn't emit as much CO2 as coal, but it still does, and yet it's usually considered clean by environmentalists because it doesn't have all the other negatives.

RE: Global what?
By ekv on 4/7/2010 1:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is the only way forward, and he & Obama are going to push it.
From what I've heard, Obama, who really talks a good game, is pushing Nuclear, at least on the surface of things. But in the details the Obama admin is actually for more regulation so it turns out to be more anti-nuclear enviro-nonsense. A pity. But so typical, nu?

By NesuD on 4/6/2010 10:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
The question becomes whether China is truly looking to cooperate and is merely trying to protect its own interests, or whether the growing economic giant is looking to use the debate to consolidate its political power in the developing nation sphere, at a time when its clashing with U.S. government and businesses.

Seriously, does that question even need to be asked? Everything China does is about advancing itself and acquiring power on the world stage. If China cannot do both of those things in any agreement concerning global warming they will not agree to it. Simple as that. Negotiating with China about anything that may require them to give up any economic or political advantage is a waste of time. They will just blow smoke up your ass and pick your cyber pocket when you aren't looking.

RE: Seriously!
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 11:06:25 AM , Rating: 3
"Everything China does is about advancing itself "

Isn't that what a government is supposed to do? Advance the interests of its own people?

RE: Seriously!
By gtr32x on 4/6/2010 1:08:27 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Easy to call that one. Besides, all governments in the world are like that.

RE: Seriously!
By knutjb on 4/7/2010 12:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
Except maybe ours...

Dangerous words.
By DoeBoy on 4/6/2010 10:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
"They argue that the industrialized nations already had their chance to grow and develop" man those are really dangerous words to just be throwing around. Its like China thinks everybody but themselves and a few others deserve to grow and develop. If only they understood how much more manufacturing would exist in the United States of America if China had to abide by environmental laws.

RE: Dangerous words.
By Adonlude on 4/6/2010 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
No no, that is not what they meant with that quote. China is saying it is unfair to China to now have restrictions placed on them during their industrial revolution while countries like America had their industrial revolution early last century with no global warming restrictions.

I kind of agree. We are well past our industrial revolution and now we are trying to put equal restrictions on nations that are only now in the midst of theirs. Kinda funny actually.

But hey, if warming is a real problem then it needs a solution. Thats a big IF.

RE: Dangerous words.
By JediJeb on 4/6/2010 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 3
On the other hand, the US has already developed the cleaner tech that the new industrial countries can use, so I would consider our R&D there to be part of our payment to them. They don't have to start from scratch to develop efficient processes like we did, they just want to go the easiest/cheapest route possible to play catchup.

RE: Dangerous words.
By knutjb on 4/7/2010 12:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
No no, that is not what they meant with that quote. China is saying it is unfair to China to now have restrictions placed on them during their industrial revolution while countries like America had their industrial revolution early last century with no global warming restrictions.

I kind of agree. We are well past our industrial revolution and now we are trying to put equal restrictions on nations that are only now in the midst of theirs. Kinda funny actually.

You kind of agree? Get off the moral relativism crap. Hiding behind "well they did it, we will too, unless YOU pay US to fix it." That is nonsense. China is using Bin Laden's method of arguing, say what ever you want no matter how big of lie it is and people will believe it like: "if the US would just pull out of Saudi Arabia we will stop killing you because that is the ONLY reason we are doing it." That's what they said after the first trade center bombing. Get the analogy?

China is shrewd and they don't really care if they kill off a large portion of their own population since they believe they have too many anyway. If we're too stupid to fall into that trap we deserve what we get form them, BASIC, or anyone else.

We just have a government of know-it-all elitists doing a fine job of running us into the ground with junk science and any other "crisis" they can conjure up to justify their do as I say or else the world will end next week idealism.

By ajfink on 4/6/2010 10:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
I wish the US would give China an excuse to dump all its dollar holdings, so then the world can collectively tell it to F-off on its human rights, environmental, political, and international relations record.

A weak dollar would do US manufacturers and consumer over-consumption a bit of good.

I'm sure Brazil would split with China on this one if the US and EU offered it nice incentives to locate significant future manufacturing centers there rather than in China. Brazil is already energy independent, it has a lot of leeway to work with in terms of global warming issues.

RE: Oy
By Spivonious on 4/6/2010 10:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
A weak dollar would cause hyperinflation, no? That wouldn't be good at all.

RE: Oy
By ajfink on 4/6/2010 10:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
Higher inflation, yes. Hyperinflation, not necessarily. It can be kept in check, but it IS possible it could get a bit ugly.

RE: Oy
By knutjb on 4/7/2010 12:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes throwing the dollar into inflation what a great idea. Woo hoo depression here we come. Fool, you don't get to control inflation it always seems to have a mind of its own and it's not pretty, particularly when social spending commitments look to exceed GDP, which is where we're headed.

Just wait when the Feds have to raise interest rates and have to pull massive amounts of money out of the market so we don't fall like the Weimar Republic. If it goes really good you'll get to see what it was like during Jimmy Carter period when interest rates skyrocketed, you don't want that, but with the GOV spending what it is, you will see it soon enough without Chinese interference.

By fteoath64 on 4/6/2010 10:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
It should be anti-polluting effort. Meaning, get the Chinese to "process" the emissions before releasing. Excess heat is fine as the earth can cope with that. CO2 is fine but other toxins should be removed. Unless the US provides some sort of Free-Energy technology to the rest of the world, the current conventional energy systems except geothermal and hydro are the only clean ones. In fact, why don't China build nuclear reactors, the new generation ones that uses pallets rather than the traditional rods.{They can afford them!.}

PS: China's message is you developed nations has done your polluting during your time and now you wanted others to conform to a new standard that did not exist before ?. There need to be a "global fund" to support a global effort. Asking other governments to just do it, is NOT going to work!.

By porkpie on 4/6/2010 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 4
"In fact, why don't China build nuclear reactors"

Actually, China is on track to build as many as 100 nuclear reactors over the next few decades.

At what cost.
By Exodite on 4/7/2010 6:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
I generally don't get involved in any form of climate debate at DT since these posts tend to bring out the frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics in force.

That said there's a question that's been on my mind for some time and since I'm in a grumpy mood today I thought it pertinent to bring it up.

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that we're forced to choose between economic health and a controlled warming curve and choose the former.

Let's also assume that there would be different growth zones appearing, which is by no means certain as the full implications of a shifting climate is anything but trivial to predict.

How much of our the economic advantage of choosing the economy over the climate would be retained if we factor in the costs of moving global food production and accompanying workforces? If we add any other industry or population centers that for one reason or another would become unsustainable at their current locations?

Granted, it's very much an 'what if' to the power of four question but it's one that's so far remained unanswered.

I can't help but thinking it's a lose-lose proposition either way.

RE: At what cost.
By porkpie on 4/7/2010 9:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
Luckily, history gives us an answer to that question. The earth has been warmer than it is today in recent history: the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Roman Warm Period, to name two such events. Both were periods of agricultural plenty and economic prosperity for humanity. It was the cold periods before and afterwards where mankind suffered.

The idea that we're going to need to make major moves to "food production centers" is rather silly. Even if you believe the IPCC, a change of a couple degrees over 100 years is not only a slow process, but a minor one. We already grow wheat, for instance, in areas that average anywhere from 45 to nearly 80 degrees. The idea a couple degrees more is going to mean major disruption is just incorrect.

Further, I have to point out that the earth has been in a cooling trend for the last 15 years now....despite the highest CO2 levels in recorded history. This more than anything else demonstrates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate.

RE: At what cost.
By Exodite on 4/7/2010 11:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
Luckily, history gives us an answer to that question.

No, it really doesn't.

While the actual impact of climate change remains to be seen, the 'what if' to the power of four I mentioned, you can't seriously compare the current global economy, industrialization and 6.5 billion people to the state of human civilization in the middle ages or roman era.
Further, I have to point out that the earth has been in a cooling trend for the last 15 years now....despite the highest CO2 levels in recorded history.

That's conclusive from multiple sources then I take it? I'm merely asking because living in northern Sweden I can assure you that the weather have been growing warmer and winters shorter for the last 15-20 years at least.

Of course that's no proof of anything one way or another, it's just my personal experience.

By phxfreddy on 4/6/2010 11:50:25 AM , Rating: 3
its like saying we are in danger of NOT being scammed. me its simple. NOT having something bad or stupid happen is a GOOD thing.

Global warming is a scam. Everyone in the know including Al Gore knows this.

The real issue
By Amaru on 4/7/2010 4:12:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of smart people here are missing the real meat of the issue---population control. This global warming scam is designed to do one thing. It will allow governments to work together to curb the population growth. I think the best thing to do is take all this money they want to throw at the global warming scam and put it all into space exploration. Colonize Mars/Moon, etc...

By savageseb on 4/7/2010 6:41:38 AM , Rating: 2
ok, so the kyoto agreement is now being turned around by this article and being called as a bad economical issue for the states only, when it clearly is used to lower emissions on gases on ALL developed countries.

And what is worst all countries who signed the treaty this last decade, have cooperated and reissued the plan on it own lands, all except the united states, BUSH administration.

so this article smeels like bs, and barack obama sounds like he is trying to pull something like the health care bill again, but for the world. sick.

yeah lets tax everybody and take them to IMF or the UN if they dont pay , it dont matter if we cant combat global warming, its a freaking hoax anyway

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki