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

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 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