Ocean Concerns

[conachair]

Carl Sagan.
Born today in 1934.

Somehow this quote seems even more relevant -

“Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

[fahtcha]

It didn’t help that the Chinese switched from bicycles to autos, but I can’t blame them. At least they are mostly efficient. Sailors with marine diesels aren’t exactly big emitters. Nobody should worry much about new restrictions for sailboats. My dodge pickup is a different story, but I don’t Drive it much.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Exile

But according to the World Bank, China emits over 70% more carbon dioxide annually than the U.S. Yet there is some solace for those who see the US as the root of all evil since the US has been outdone by a few Euro countries in terms of percentage CO2 declines. But lest we forget, "at the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions increased by 50%, and India's increased by 88%." (According to the Forbes article).

Ahh, now we get to the root of the problem, Political. You think it's grossly unfair that the US has been asked to curb its emissions when china, india and other developing nations have been given more leeway.

And it would be unfair Except when you take into account emissions per head of population, and historical emissions from each country. USA has something like twice the emissions per capita that China and approximately ten times what india emits. Now how is that fair, How is USA pulling a petty selfish red faced hissy fit going to help things in any way. As these countries standard of living increases (as it should), their emissions per capita will also rise, they will need to work very hard and smart to stop levels growing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita It's very interesting looking at the trends over the years.

But it seems like you attribute the warming trend to causes other than CO2, so I guess it doesn't worry you in the slightest.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fahtcha

It didn’t help that the Chinese switched from bicycles to autos, but I can’t blame them. At least they are mostly efficient. Sailors with marine diesels aren’t exactly big emitters. Nobody should worry much about new restrictions for sailboats. My dodge pickup is a different story, but I don’t Drive it much.

The only bright spot I suppose is that hopefully all those new cars in China have more up-to-date emissions standards. But that may be a drop in the bucket considering the sheer numbers. Along with all their coal burning I imagine the surge of autos on China's roads is the main reason they are #1 in consumption & emissions. But yes, obviously lower per capita than the U.S., not that the environment cares . . . .

[fahtcha]

Thanks Snowpetral for hitting the perverbial nail on the head. On a per capital basis those of us in the U.S. blow the rest of the planet out of the water. It is all about efficiency. Which also saves a bunch of money in the long run.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Exile

Canada #5, Australia #7, Norway #13

So I wonder what is different, why their industries don't seem to (be able to?) wage propaganda war against the rationality of their citizens to try to influence their citizens?

Either better educated population, or more public-spirited leadership? Likely both. . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Ahh, now we get to the root of the problem, Political. You think it's grossly unfair that the US has been asked to curb its emissions when china, india and other developing nations have been given more leeway.

And it would be unfair Except when you take into account emissions per head of population, and historical emissions from each country. USA has something like twice the emissions per capita that China and approximately ten times what india emits. Now how is that fair, How is USA pulling a petty selfish red faced hissy fit going to help things in any way. As these countries standard of living increases (as it should), their emissions per capita will also rise, they will need to work very hard and smart to stop levels growing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita It's very interesting looking at the trends over the years.

But it seems like you attribute the warming trend to causes other than CO2, so I guess it doesn't worry you in the slightest.

So lemme get this straight. For mainstream climate science and its dutiful followers, it's supposedly all about too much CO2 . . . caused by fossil fuel emissions . . . that result in too much warming . . . which will irrevocably harm the planet. For the past 12 years the US -- through innovation & technology -- has reduced its CO2 emissions in amounts that far exceed what any signatory nation to the Paris Climate Accords has accomplished! So while no longer a signatory to an international treaty which does exactly zero to mandate such reductions, the US has nevertheless done so in amounts almost as large as what every member nation of the EU has achieved combined!

And yet pointing this out is "political," whereas complaining that the US has withdrawn from a treaty that it never legally agreed to, and would do nothing to induce further CO2 reductions, is not?? I thought it was all about CO2? Measured by ppm in the atmosphere, right? Or is it ppm divided by country divided per capita?? Does the mainstream science care more about reducing overall CO2 or more about apportioning CO2 between nations & peoples?

It sounds to me like Third Day was right all along, and this has little to do with reducing CO2 and the potential MMGW it produces, and everything to do with either a personal/emotional need for virtue signaling, or some sort of broad, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, backwards looking "social justice" movement that is using science and the scientific community as a pretext for much broader socioeconomic & political agendas. Otherwise I fail to understand why you wouldn't be applauding these huge CO2 reductions and the natural gas discoveries that facilitated them. If nothing else than at least as a stopgap until technology figures out how to wean ourselves off fossil fuels altogether.

Or do you believe it's more important to just hang out and "worry" about it?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fahtcha

Thanks Snowpetral for hitting the perverbial nail on the head. On a per capital basis those of us in the U.S. blow the rest of the planet out of the water. It is all about efficiency. Which also saves a bunch of money in the long run.

Happy to see you're bringing up a per capita analysis. But doesn't looking at per capita emissions also require a look at per capita GDP? How about the US per capita GDP being 7x higher than that of China?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

So per capita emissions in the US is 2x that of China, but per capita GDP is 7x higher. You are correct, it is all about efficiency.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

So I wonder what is different, why their industries don't seem to (be able to?) wage propaganda war against the rationality of their citizens to try to influence their citizens?

Either better educated population, or more public-spirited leadership? Likely both. . .

What are you talking about? Or should I ask whether you know what you're talking about?

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Exile

Happy to see you're bringing up a per capita analysis. But doesn't looking at per capita emissions also require a look at per capita GDP? How about the US per capita GDP being 7x higher than that of China?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

So per capita emissions in the US is 2x that of China, but per capita GDP is 7x higher. You are correct, it is all about efficiency.

So seven times richer per person, twice as much co2 pollution per person and thinks it shouldn't be the one having to spend a cent to reduce the impacts on future generations. Leave it to the other nations of the world... Says it all really.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

So seven times richer per person, twice as much co2 pollution per person and thinks it shouldn't be the one having to spend a cent to reduce the impacts on future generations. Leave it to the other nations of the world... Says it all really.

Seven times more productive per person, not necessarily "richer." I don't know offhand how that translates to wealth per capita but I'm sure you can look it up if you believe it's relevant. In our fossil fuel driven world economy (like it or not), the rate of productivity (goods & services) generally equates with energy consumption & therefore emissions.

But why would wealth per capita be relevant if the discussion is about CO2? Because if it was truly about CO2 you'd have to concede that the US has done more to reduce its emissions than any other nation to date. So are you interested in discussing climate science or wealth redistribution? The answer now seems more obvious than ever.

If you and others supporting the mainstream science cannot separate out the politics from the science, then you shouldn't be surprised when you are unable to sway so many people who often share your environmental concerns. I certainly respect that you have your opinions, but don't appreciate the holier-than-thou moralizing, especially from such an intolerant and seemingly uninformed world view. Imo, your approach and those who are like-minded also do a huge disservice to the science community by using them to advance narrow-minded political views while not understanding and often therefore distorting their work.

Before you blame the lack of political consensus for the CC "cause" on greedy, selfish, rich, white, American, conservative, ignorant, uneducated, religious nuts (from Texas ) -- or whatever the mindless excuse, scapegoat, or bogeyman du jour may be -- you and your compatriots might want to have a look a bit closer to home. It's the constant infusion of politics more than confusion or rejection over the science that's turning many otherwise fair-minded people away.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

It would be fascinating to correlate stance on global warming with boat size, and/or cost...

Though I am not sure what conclusions could be made from any noisy correlation.

44’ cc steel cutter 1985ish. $100,000. Strong MMGW believer

Or using the Yale scale ALARMED
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu...-six-americas/

[hpeer]

Kevin Anderson,

For a good overview.

https://youtu.be/jIODRrnHQxg

[SailOar]

Bleak outlook for Asian glaciers | GEO.TV

A study published in the journal Nature says that under the impossibly-best scenario of holding temperature increases to 1.5C, one-third of the volume of Asia's glacier will have melted by the end of this century. With warming of 3.5C, 4.0C and 6.0C, Asian glacier losses could amount to 49 percent, 51 percent or 65 percent, respectively, by the end of the century. The loss of these glaciers would be critical as they feed many of the world´s great rivers, including the Ganges, the Indus and the Brahmaputra, upon which hundreds of millions of people depend.


Himalayas

[CatNewBee]

Nice, I prefer the pictures from the rocks and the lakes.

FREE GREENLAND! Remove the Pack Ice!