> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:37:24 -0500, Jim Sculley
>> snipped-for-privacy@SPAMuko2.co.uk wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:26:51 -0500, Jim Sculley
>>>>There's a chart right there on the page that
>>>>shows this data for the U.S. Population rising, GDP rising, emissions
>>>>per $GDP dropping. Perhaps the U.S. does have the highest
>>>>capita. So what.
>>>? - OOps you forgot to point out that the emissions per capital -
>>>it has flat lined. 'Emissions per $GDP' has dropped because the US
>>>is 'more' efficient at getting the more out for every tonne of
>>>'greenhouse gas'- as expected when the price of Oil goes up - No
>>>one is accusing US business of ignorance when it comes to increasing
>>>profit, you have to squeeze the more out of the oil and that is a good
>>Wheelabrator, a former sister company to my employer, has a back log of
>>several years and several hundred million dollars worth of work. They
>>design pollution control equipment for installation on power plants.
>>There isn't a piece of pollution control equipment on the plant that
>>squeezes more out of a given fuel.
> Thats not what I meant - I meant just as you point out - using fuel
> more efficiently in the first place.
Well, you claim was that emissions per GDP has dropped solely because
businesses are being more efficient. That simply isn't true, or
Wheelabrator wouldn't be buried in new work.
>>>However as you avoided pointing out , the amount of CO2 produced is a
>>>direct linear correlation with the population increase. So an
>>>American in 1990 burns as much CO2 as an American in 2000.
>>And produces significantly *more*
using that same CO2.
>>>So bare with me - say the US pop has grown by 10% (just a
>>>hypothetical figure but approximately right) in the decade then the
>>>'Greenhouse gas' as grown by 10%. Now is the US population growing
>>>by natural childbirth or immigration. A combination of both probably
>>>- but the people coming in are most likely to be coming in from
>>>countries that have a less CO2 per capita -
>>Have you seen pictures of Mexico City?
> Is Mexico higher or lower than the US in CO2 per person? I don't
> think so - 3 Mex compared to 20 US from the list provided, however
> Mexico City is I am sure a vision of hell on earth
My point was that immigrants coming to America aren't likely to be
leaving areas where life is good. Even though a country may produce
less CO2 per capita, I would bet that the majority of immigrants coming
to America do so from areas where CO2 is high (for their particular
country). I don't think that per capita CO2 is a very good data point.
>>>now I am not arguing
>>>against imigration - but just stating this so that it illustrates why
>>>I think the US and other Developed countries have to lead in reducing
>>>CO2 emmisions per capita not just per $GDP. The people coming into
>>>the US want to live the good life that we very fortunately enjoy,and
>>>they have the right to better themselves and their families. Those
>>>that remain in the developing world also have the desire and right to
>>>better themselves and they can see the way we live and want the same.
>>>So over time we have to show leadership and develope ways of living
>>>more efficiently per tonne CO2 - not per $GDP
>>If you are producing more using the same, you are by definition being
>>>so that this is the
>>>'aspirational' norm that the poor in the developing nations will see
>>>strive for, because the world with its huge inequalities cannot be
>>>sustained in the modern interlinked future. If you think that the US
>>>can carry on using 25% of the world resources with 6% of the
>>>population then you may personally live in paradise but you will have
>>>created a fortress for your grandchildren, but those on the outside
>>>will see as a prison of your own making.
> I'll admit I got a bit sanctimonous :-)
That's exactly the word I was going to use. Well, we agree on
something, anyway. ;)
>>>>That data point in a vacuum is meaningless.
>>>The earth is in the vacuum !! - and that is the whole point -
>>>economic arguements about $GDP etc are all well and good when trying
>>>to stear a world economy that has room to grow and manouver within an
>>>apparently limitless ecosphere, but we are now pressed up against
>>>mother nature and a world of finite resource . Perhaps we have three
>>>generations of mankind to find social way of living sustainably or the
>>>human race will live out a twilight and miserable existance.
>>That's what the 'Chicken Little' scientists of the work said three
> My grandfathers generation ? - I was under the impression that in
> that era - science was the future and Dan Dare was everywhere.
Every generation has about an equal number of scientists on both sides
of every issue. If they all agreed, they wouldn't have any work to do.
>>You are aware that the scientific community is split
>>when it comes to Global Warming, yes?
> I had heard a rumour about it ;-) - is it the same rumour that there
> are scientists in America that also believe that dinosaurs and humans
> co-habited ? Is it the same even split ? 50-50 ?
I would point those folks here:
>>>who will look after the nuclear wastedumps !! - sorry (storage
>>>facilities). Nuclear fission is just plain mad - Fissionable
>>>material is a finite reasource, just the same as oil - and the waste
>>>is around for a long long long ........... long time. Think back to
>>>the Bronze Age and then double the number !!
>>Afraid of the 'zoomies' eh. Well, I guess once you've crawled around
>>inside a nuclear reactor building, it's not so scary.
> I've been in one - our college had a research reactor we undergrads
> could visit - but not touch the controls . As you say not very scary
> - rather mesmerising with the glow from the water. But I afraid I
> don't understand your point about 'zombies' ?
Not zombies. Zoomies. Slang for radioactive particles which 'zoom' about.
Interesting point about the blue glow: it is caused particles travelling
faster than the speed of light. The speed of light in water that is.
Also, if you put lead crystal in said water, near the glow, and leave it
overnight, it comes out a funky purple color. not that I know anyone
who would have done such a thing at a reactor in Sweden or anything..... ;)
I'll stop now, since this terribly OT thread has gone on long enough.
Remove my extraneous mandibular appendages to reply via email.