Skip to main content

Ah, "science" in action....





BBC News | AMERICAS | Q&A: The US and climate change



Why has the US refused to go along with international efforts?



As the world's biggest polluter, no real dent in global warming can be made without the US.



The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions. By comparison, Britain emits 3% - about the same as India which has 15 times as many people.



...



The average American produces six tonnes of carbon dioxide, the average Briton three tonnes, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.
Oh my, how horrific of us. They also say....



US industry is largely dependent on coal and oil, the fuels that produce the most carbon dioxide.
May I have nuclear energy? Please???



According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, pre-industrial (1860) concentrations of carbon dioxide were 288 parts per million, while the figure for 2001 was 369.4ppm. (Read report here.)



So that's...what...an increase of around 28-29%? Where'd it come from?



Well, according to the UN, specifically their World Meteorological Organization, we're to blame for it all, damn our human-animal hides. However, they also say...



Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. [Emphasis mine.]
According to their report (actually another Q&A sheet), we nasty, vermin-like humans contribute around 3% of the carbon dioxide cranked into the air each year. This is sufficent to "exceed the balancing effect of [natural] sinks" (natural processes by which carbon dioxide is scrubbed from the air).



That's a powerful 3%. If the US of A were to completely eliminate its production of carbon dioxide (which would certainly make a "real dent"), humans would still contribute some 2.25%, and that's enough to overwhelm them there sinks, and that's all she wrote. Does it have to be said that this is why the Kyoto treaty was tossed out the window? It is meaningless, while at the same time crippling to the US economy.



Besides, I really resent the BBC characterization of the United States as "the world's biggest polluter." Perhaps the author(s) should go to this site and check out the pollution levels in major Chinese cities. The air in Beijing (and all the others) makes Los Angeles (and even Tokyo) look downright healthy by comparison.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I (Briefly) Try a Mac

 I Bought a Mac. My first computer was an Atari 800, fully loaded with 48k of RAM. And I mean the original, beige model, not its low-slung, fancy successor. My friend went for an Apple IIe, which cost a relative fortune. Eventually, I’d step up to an Atari 1040ST, while he’d get a IIgs. And even more eventually, we both ended up with IBM PC compatibles. MSDOS was my friend, Unix an ally. It was with great reluctance that I transition from a command-line interface (CLI) to a Graphic User Interface (GUI), always on a PC platform and never a Mac. I never bought into the hype and never experienced all the horrid things that allegedly befell anyone using a PC. For me, they just worked. Yet here I am, these many decades later, typing this on a brand-new MacBook Air M4. How things change... Initially, there was little regret but a mounting list of frustrations. Adjusting to the keyboard isn’t too hard, it’s just a matter of experimentation. Learning how to scale the display wasn’t awful, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...
2 comments
Read more