World’s worst emitters?

December 11th, 2011 at 4:11 pm by David Farrar

blogs:

In Durban, the Kyoto Protocol is kept on life support.

Kyoto is, of course, the only binding climate instrument with specific emission targets. It compels the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. But it has always been inadequate in itself – a first step to greater things. And it terminates within 12 months.

Kyoto does not compel the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. It compels only 37 countries to reduce emissions. Now let us look at the top 10 emitters in 2005″

  1. China 16.4%
  2. US 15.8%
  3. EU 12.1%
  4. Brazil 6.5%
  5. Indonesia 4.6%
  6. Russia 4.6%
  7. India 4.3%
  8. Japan 3.1%
  9. Canada 1.8%
  10. Mexico 1.6%

Those countries bolded are not required under Kyoto to reduce or even hold emissions.

There is a simple way to test if someone talking is seriously concerned about the environmental impact, or they are just a politician or pseudo-politician wanting to score points.

The test is do they mention China (and preferably India). Any agreement that exempts China is a disaster for the environment, based on climate change science. Only a moron would promote an agreement where China can continue to increase emissions at 10% per annum.  Because if China is not part of the agreement, then by 2020 their emissions will be greater than the rest of the world in 2005. So even if every other country went carbon neutral at a cost of trillions of dollars, it would be of not benefit to the planet as China’s increase in emissions will be greater than everyone else’s reductions.

Dr Graham in his entire blog post doesn’t mention China once. That is conclusive proof that his concern is the politics, not the environment.

Tags: ,

53 Responses to “World’s worst emitters?”

  1. Murth (26 comments) says:

    Conclusive proof? Hardly…. If anything, it is a sign that politicians in general are giving China a soft pass because they know it will be difficult to get them on board. You are presenting the debate in very simplistic terms. On thing you have failed to examine is the divide between developed and developing nations, and that most of those heavier polluters who are not party to Kyoto are developing.

    [DPF: You prove my point. More concerned about politics than the environment. Yes China will be difficult to get on board, but that is exactly why they must be mentioned and not given a free pass. For if they get a free pass, then nothing else matters at all]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wat dabney (3,473 comments) says:

    Worst emitters

    Now I know that’s not CO2 you’re referring to: a vital plant fertiliser, essential for life on Earth, and which has a minimal (and probably beneficial) effect on climate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wat dabney (3,473 comments) says:

    Several decades of cooling on the way

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/the-november-amo-index-goes-negative-first-time-since-1996/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (12,644 comments) says:

    A Luddite and a warmist, so what would you expect from this man? On par with Nick Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bulbul (18 comments) says:

    Bah..statistics.

    Try putting up an emissions per capita graph.

    What are populous countries supposed to do .. starve people to avoid emitting ?

    [DPF: So you also think politics are more important that the environment. Do you think the aim is to have all countries having the same level of emissions per capita or to stop rapid warming? Is there any way to stop rapid warming without China - yes or no]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (3,277 comments) says:

    DPF..
    Dont want a prolonged argument. It is not productive.
    BUT the US is NOT required to reduce emissions. The Kyoto declaration was never ratified by the US Senate. Bush and Clinton wanted to do so, and signed. But that does not and cannot commit the US.

    Perhaps the power of the Congress has been altered. But I think not.

    All of that is why, being stuck with an ETS that will soon have no colour of right (Kyoto will die!), we should sit on our hands and watch it all disolve the way the earlier predicted ice age, Club of Rome shortages and the population bomb did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Don the Kiwi (1,341 comments) says:

    I can’t believe the arrogant stupidity of these people.

    All the data and indicators continue to contradict these AGW idiots, and an increasing number of scientists are becoming or have become sceptics, yet these idiots press on with blinkers firmly in place.

    If, by the next election in three years time, Smith is still in charge of this lunacy, and Key’s govt. is still persuing this course, I will certainly vote against them – not with just my party vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    I see that the media is still pushing climate change in the Herald and on the TV news. Bah.
    And not even a whisper of a mention of the Climategate 2.0 emails just dropped…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (15,626 comments) says:

    But unfortunately it’s the developing nations to whom the whole thing is directed toward for how can wealthy nation’s wealth be re-directed by the generous UN if not through the ETS schemes?

    I mean c’mon, this is AGW 101. No wonder proponents don’t want to make developing nations participate. They can’t. They’re the victims in this whole thing, you see. You can’t have victims joining the same program as the evil ones. Crikey. That just wouldn’t work, at all.

    The evil rich first world must be made to pay for their rapine. Well. Not the banksters of course. No. We do. We taxpayers must pay. That’s only fair and if you don’t like it well you’re probably a bloody bankster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. 103PapPap (116 comments) says:

    The real problem are the words ‘climate change science”. These should really be re-named “climate change politics”.
    This is a more precise description of the beast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bulbul (18 comments) says:

    DPF says: “So you also think politics are more important that the environment…..”

    My comment is about impact on people. Nothing to do with politics.

    While environmental movements have to be “created” in developed countries to address impacts of conspicuous consumption , poor countries and poor people by nature waste very little and hence emit little. You do not have to teach poor people to reuse and recycle — they have to to naturally.

    Where they cannot stop emmissions is where they simply cannot afford to (e.g. wood fires) — because to do so would impact day to day survival.

    If the developed countries produced everything they consumed in their own country rather than outsource production to China, India and other poorer countries–would the emmission tables be different ?

    The whole emissions theory is a creation of the developed country to create a cost to control countries/peoples behind the development curve, and make a profit by being the first movers on the carbon credits creation and acquisition rigged game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. annie (533 comments) says:

    His blog entry doesn’t reflect well on the standards in our foreign service, given he is an ex-NZ diplomat. Is this the quality of advice NZ govt gets from it’s finest overseas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. reid (15,626 comments) says:

    The whole emissions theory is a creation of the developed country to create a cost to control countries/peoples behind the development curve, and make a profit by being the first movers on the carbon credits creation and acquisition rigged game.

    bulbul if you seriously think that’s what AGW is about your geopolitical misunderstanding is profoundly flawed.

    No doubt there are many who agree with you. This doesn’t mean you’re any less wrong than you are about everything to do with AGW.

    Fact is its a wealth transfer mechanism yes but it flows in the precise opposite direction than the one you allege and this is precisely the reason they make the distinction between developed and developing nations and use it to justify different treatment for said developing nations. They rely on vast numbers of useful idiots exactly like you to disseminate the word that this is all about the precise opposite for they know that said vast numbers can only imagine one thing at a time in their head and the thing they imagine is that the world is run by greedy people who want to oppress the poor, like China and India.

    Sadly this idiocy is profoundly embedded in the body politic as you and Kennedy demonstrate once again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Scott Chris (5,688 comments) says:

    David Farrar says:- “Any agreement that exempts China is a disaster for the environment”

    Nation on nation comparisons are meaningless.

    The agreement has to be fair to Chinese consumer and those of all other developing nations. If they cap their emissions at a certain level *per capita* then all other developed countries have to reduce their per capita emissions to that mark.

    That’s fair. Why should a Chinese be restricted to, say, 10 tonnes of co2 per capita when his American counterpart can happily fart out 17 tonnes per annum (currently they spew out thrice what the Chinese do per capita)

    If the Americans agree to meet them halfway, then an agreement can be reached, but the problem is NOT the Chinese. It’s the skeptical republican house of representatives who refuse to compromise.

    [DPF: You are absolutely wrong. China refuses to any limit at all. Obama was ready to do a deal in Copenhagen and China humiliated him. Never ever have China said that they will agree to a certain level of emissions per capita.

    And again you miss the key point. In just nine years the level of China emissions will be greater than the rest of the world was in 2005. So US and EU could cut emissions 100%, and China alone will produce enough emissions to compensate.

    So what possible environmental benefit is there for the rest of the world to reduce emissions, when China will not.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. YesWeDid (1,003 comments) says:

    Scott Chris makes a very good point Farrar, per capita emissions are the only fair way to look at it, the US and China contribute roughly the same level of emissions but China has 4x the population of the US.

    Why would China agree to a reduction in emissions when per capita the US emissions are 4x worse?

    Looking at the wikipedia page for ‘emissions per capita’ China is listed as 121st, the US 7th, Australia 5th and NZ 12th.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. reid (15,626 comments) says:

    Looking at the wikipedia page for ‘emissions per capita’ China is listed as 121st, the US 7th, Australia 5th and NZ 12th.

    YWD the simple fact is if China and India are allowed the build the same private vehicle fleets per capita as exist in the developed world with no disincentive for so doing, the very calamity all you AGW people munt on about so very much will according to you people inevitably and very quickly come to pass.

    So is this what you want?

    Apparently, it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,787 comments) says:

    Here’s to China and India telling the West exactly where they can shove their AGW scam.

    It’s a strange world where China protects New Zealander’s economic rights while John Key does not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott Chris (5,688 comments) says:

    David Farrar says:- “You are absolutely wrong. China refuses to any limit at all.”

    On the contrary. You appear to have swallowed the excuses proffered by many of the western delegations and their press releases. Easy to demonize China when no one’s gonna stick up for them. Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation, stated that the People’s Republic of China was willing to make binding commitments to limited greenhouse gases in 2020 if they appropriately took into account historical contributions of greenhouse gases by developed countries such as the United States and European states and sustainable economic needs of developing countries such as China and India.

    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-12/05/content_14213729.htm

    What you seem to be arguing is that an American can to continue to drive around in a Hummer and pay a buck twenty a litre for gas, whilst his Chinese counterpart has to make do riding a pushbike.

    [DPF: No do not lie. I have never said what China should do. I am saying any agreement without China has no environmental impact, and is purely about politics.

    And what please don't quote Chinese media as reputable. Read some of the reporting at the time from Copenhagen. The most China would agree to is a non binding target of a 45% reduction in the intensity of emissions. This would still leave China in 2020 putting out more emissions than the rest of the world in 2005.

    Do you know what level of emissions per capita would stop global warming?

    Let me make it simple for you. The Chinese emissions per capita are 5.3T. It has doubled (per capita) in seven years

    The US is 17.5 per capita. It has reduced from 20.0 over seven years.

    Now lets say overnight the US reduces to 5.3 - the same as China. Let us say the rest of the world does also.

    Well even if they do that, then China's level of emissions will still cause global warming due to their population growth.

    But China are not even offering to keep emissions per capita constant. Their emissions are increasing at 10% a year.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dai (11 comments) says:

    Try looking at emissions per head of the population.

    [DPF: Does the environment respond to emissions or emissions per capita? Thank you again for proving my thesis of politicians vs environmentalists.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    The biggest emitters are politicians and what they emit is shit.

    All of this is living proof the education does not stop you from being stupid – indeed there seems to be an proportional relationship between higher education and stupidity – this phenomena arising from the takeover of higher education by the socialists.

    The UN cannot control the climate, no treaty can control the fucking climate and anyone who believes they can well enough said.

    It is a crying shame that we cannot round up these politicians and their assorted hangers on, give them a shovel and put them to work digging ditches to create elementary sewerage systems for the citizens of Burkina Faso which would be far more useful than paying them exorbitant salaries to talk crap

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (10,752 comments) says:

    DPF. Your argument is seriously conflicted with another point you raise in your post “Now 64-57″

    Doesn’t appear to be anything there with a huge price tag, which is good as the top priority has to be reducing the deficit,

    As the Govt in NZ is 44% of our economy, raising costs to reduce a non issue, automatically increases the the deficit.
    Of course the other 56% is assumed by exporters farmers and the rest of us mere mortals.
    For what gain in this counties favour. SFA. Blind, stupid behavoir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    If you listed the worst emitters cumulatively, you might see the problem. 150 years of Industrial Revolution in the West vs. 20 years in the East. No-one in history has consumed like an American, and you can’t blame the South/East if they want a fair slice of middle class pie as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. YesWeDid (1,003 comments) says:

    [DPF: Does the environment respond to emissions or emissions per capita? Thank you again for proving my thesis of politicians vs environmentalists.]

    The environment responses to total emissions but if you trying to negotiate a treaty then each nation is going to act in it own best interests so emissions per capita becomes equally important.

    Really Farrar what point are you trying to make? Your arguments are simplisic and hollow.

    [DPF: Boy are people slow tonight. My point is that in environmental terms, no agreement will make any significant difference at all, if China is not part of it.

    An agreement without China will make a lot of politicians happy that they can claim something is being done. But the environmental impact of even 100% reductions elsewhere will have no impact at all if China is not part of any agreement.

    Do I need to draw it in crayons?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    I’m not 6 foot tall – blame America.
    NZ is piss poor at cricket – blame America
    Its blowing its tits off – blame America.

    Something original please.

    The presumption is we need some type of treaty, no we don’t. The whole world wants our standard of living, good on them.

    Kyoto is wank an its belivers wankers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    I haven’t been paying attention to Durban. The loose understanding I have is that they have a weaksauce “roadmap” for 2020. If that’s right, then that’s another stunning failure for the European Union in a weekend. Still, even if they managed to get a “roadmap,” it’s better than what could have resulted.

    In the meantime, the industry for solar and wind power continues to collapse.

    Steady as she goes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. JC (840 comments) says:

    “It’s a strange world where China protects New Zealander’s economic rights while John Key does not.”

    True.. its Tim Groser and Nick Smith doing the ground game, and doing it very well:

    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-06/eu-new-zealand-can-t-be-world-idiots-on-climate-envoy-says?category=%2Fnews%2Fenvironment%2F

    “New Zealand won’t sign up for a second round of emissions cuts under the treaty unless a “Kyoto plus” deal is worked out, Tim Groser, New Zealand’s chief envoy, said in an interview in Durban, South Africa, where more than 190 countries are gathered for United Nations-led climate negotiations. ”

    And:

    “We need to be able to go back to our own people, whether we live in France or New Zealand, and say we aren’t the only people doing something,” he said. “You will not carry public opinion if the debate is ‘you are the only idiots doing anything.’”

    Kyoto died years ago, but there has to be an intelligent pretense till the crazies move on to the next big environmental “disaster”.. probably global cooling again.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    This whole ‘climate’ deal debate is only useful if the premise is correct.

    “Carbon emitted by human development causes Global Warming – Climate change and Global Warming – Climate change is bad”

    If you don’t buy into that then the rest of the discussion what is ‘fair’ or not is all hot air.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Scott Chris (5,688 comments) says:

    David Farrar says:- “Let me make it simple for you”

    That’s the problem. You’re over-simplifying the issue and ignoring the economic competitiveness and relative wealth arguments.

    Of course I know what’ll happen if China’s per capita emissions reach 17 tonnes per capita.

    That’s the whole point. If China were to agree to cap their per capita emissions at, say, 9 tonnes p/a p/c, then it would be fair to expect the developed world to reduce theirs accordingly. The Europeans seem willing. The Americans don’t.

    Whether you like it or not, the problem *is* political, because there isn’t the political will in the USA to introduce measures that will reduce consumption and Obama is not empowered to offer any meaningful concessions to the Chinese that won’t be vetoed by congress.

    In other words, we’re fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Matthew Hooton (114 comments) says:

    DPF: Your list fails to fully express the lunacy of the NZ and Green Party position. The more accurate way to look at it is:

    1. China 16.4% – not in Kyoto; not doing anything except planting Green Wall of China; wants to keep increasing emissions per capita and in total

    2. US 15.8% – not in Kyoto; Cap and Trade plan abandoned

    3. EU 12.1% – in Kyoto; has an ETS thatincludes less than half of its electricity production and completely excludes agriculture (and services which is 70% of its economy)

    4. Brazil 6.5% – not in Kyoto; not doing anything; wants to keep increasing emissions per capita and in total

    5. Indonesia 4.6% – not in Kyoto; not doing anything; wants to keep increasing emissions per capita and in total

    6. Russia 4.6% – not doing anything, on any topic

    7. India 4.3% – not in Kyoto; not doing anything except some tree planting; wants to keep increasing emissions per capita and in total

    8. Japan 3.1% – in Kyoto, but no plans for an ETS or carbon tax

    9. Canada 1.8% – in Kyoto, but plans to pull out; no ETS or carbon tax

    10. Mexico 1.6% – not in Kyoto; not doing anything; wants to keep increasing emissions per capita and in total

    And New Zealand? Leading the world with the world’s first and only (ever) all sectors all gases ETS harming export competitiveness and therefore ability of economy to mitigate any effects of climate change that might happen because of 1-10 above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. JC (840 comments) says:

    “In other words, we’re fucked.”

    Nope.. we are struggling towards common sense. The US political system, massively flawed as it has been this last decade or so, has done the world a very big favour.. it has given us time to allow the climate crazies, criminal scientists and their political enablers to fuck up big time and expose the scam.

    Its allowed Climategate 1 and 2 to come through with the promise of another massive trove to come in Climategate 3.. along with better science that shows what most of us knew.. climate has well established periods of warming and cooling.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott Chris (5,688 comments) says:

    Matthew Hooten says:- “The more accurate way to look at it is”

    A country on country comparison is meaningless without describing the full context of their relative economic development.

    Funny how so few are willing to publish the per capita figures.

    Now that would be accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. reid (15,626 comments) says:

    And New Zealand? Leading the world with the world’s first and only (ever) all sectors all gases ETS harming export competitiveness and therefore ability of economy to mitigate any effects of climate change that might happen because of 1-10 above.

    Yes but Matthew you don’t seem to understand. If we don’t go ahead with it why the UN will be weally weally angwy and we don’t want that, do we?

    A country on country comparison is meaningless without describing the full context of their relative economic development.

    Why is that Scott? Why does that apply at all, in any way? The two issues aren’t even in the same arena.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Scott Chris (5,688 comments) says:

    JC says:- “Nope.. we are struggling towards common sense.”

    Translation:

    My inner child wants a bigger house and a new car every 2 years and an overseas holiday every 6 months and lots of consumables and 24/7 climate control, and no fuckers gonna tell me I can’t have it, so I’m just gonna call them all liars.

    As Einstein said, “Common sense is a bunch of prejudices you acquire by age 18″

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Matthew Hooton (114 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – the total amount of stuff that goes into the atmosphere is the only sensible way of looking at this issue, if you believe in the risk of imminent catostrophic climate change. But, since you raise it, looking at the per capita figures isn’t going to help your argument very much: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
    In the top ten, I think only one is a Kyoto Annex 1 country (Australia).
    In the top 20, you might add Canada, US, Luxemburg and NZ (but see above my comments about the US, Canada and EU).
    It doesn’t get better for your argument no matter how far down the list you go, because the only Annex 1 countries are these: http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Matthew Hooton (114 comments) says:

    reid, the very worst thing is that I doubt even anyone at the UN would give a stuff what we did, one way or the other. We’ve brought this crazy situation on ourselves, all by ourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. reid (15,626 comments) says:

    Well, Hulun helped us a bit Matthew. Thanks, Hulun.

    After all, if NZ hadn’t’ve done this Matthew, why Hulun might not be the Head of the UNDP and then where would the world be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. swan (651 comments) says:

    I think the problem DPF is US emissions per capita are some 3 times higher than China per capita. Once the US and west gets to within cooee of China, then and only then would it make sense to start negotiating with China (and even then the west would be massively on the back foot due to historical emissions). Any treaty is not going to be a once and for all solution. If GHG emisisons are ever to be realistically curtailed it will take decades of international negotiation and consensus. To ask China, let alone India, as developing nations to start signing up to emissions reduction schemes now is not a tenable position.

    Also, it would be far better if emissions were on a per capita “consumption” basis rather than a per capita “production” basis. Looking at emissions based on production works against specialisation and trade. A lot of China’s emissions are related to industy moving to China because of its comparative advantage. But the products are consumed by others. The emissions should be tied to the consumer not the producer. Likewise it is silly that NZ should be penalised for producing so much milk, when we do it more efficiently than anyone else. Those emissions should travel with the products to the consumers – much more equitable and less distortionary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. swan (651 comments) says:

    @Matthew Hooton “Scott Chris – the total amount of stuff that goes into the atmosphere is the only sensible way of looking at this issue, if you believe in the risk of imminent catostrophic climate change.”

    Absolutely, but that “total amount of stuff” doesn’t mean the same thing as “total amount of stuff per nation state”. As soon as you start negotiating something like this you have to bring in some sort of rational or moral basis for it. Otherwise why not try to argue that we nuke africa and south america and plant entire continents in forests. Or that we all take a card off a stack and those who pick red dont get to burn any coal or oil any more. See what I’m getting at?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. swan (651 comments) says:

    “But China are not even offering to keep emissions per capita constant. Their emissions are increasing at 10% a year”

    Even, DPF, even? Is anyone else willing to cut their emissions to 5.3t/ capita tomorrow. No, of course not. Try to think about what you are saying.

    Of course eventually China will need to be part of the deal.
    The faster the west reduces it’s emissions to Chinas levels, the faster we can expect to get them on board. If the west is serious, they could use trade sanctions at that point if China didnt cooperate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. JC (840 comments) says:

    Translation:

    “My inner child wants a bigger house”

    I’m afraid my family and I have lived in the same house for 30 years.

    “and a new car every 2 years”

    I hate to tell you that I have just changed the work vehicle a year ago, the last vehicle lasted 13 years!

    “and an overseas holiday every 6 months”

    Um, the last overseas holiday, combined with work, was 1994.

    “and lots of consumables and 24/7 climate control,”

    Well, you got me there.. we installed a heat pump in 2006.

    “and no fuckers gonna tell me I can’t have it, so I’m just gonna call them all liars.”

    Well, as you are no scientist, no skeptic as all scientists must be, no researcher of the Climategate emails as any interested person must do, no educated citizen with sufficient curiosity to automatically look for alternative views and a political outlook barely advanced from the cave.. well.. I understand.. we have to wait till you trip into Global Cooling before we get a chance to talk about PDO, ENSO and various other letters which explain the natural world.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    total emissions v emissions per capita, usa v china, kyoto v non kyoto. Who gives a flying fuck its a giant scam and will have zero impact on global temps. Look for more taxes coming your way all the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    Emissions per capita is of far more interest to me also.

    The average kiwi burns through far more co2 than the average chinaman.

    The west exports emissions to china via flatscreen tv and $2 shop imports. It is somewhat 2-faced to then blame china for the most emissions. Chinese are not the end-consumer of products produced by said-emissions.

    If people were totally serious about emissions (if you accept co2=global warming) we’d be totally banning and limiting consumer products.

    Taxing Co2 will not work in just the way that accountants and bankers are able to find ways to exploit financial systems.

    Really, who needs 3 flat screen TV’s and a projector and 4 computers per household? Not me, but, it’s sure fun.

    I just don’t think people in their hearts want to take the hard steps necessary to avert a debatable issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hj (5,720 comments) says:

    If AGW is happening (not that it is)* we could deal with it like this, and still carry on down the road in the 4×4:

    The US government wants the world’s scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be “important insurance” against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/27/usnews.frontpagenews

    *Hooten et al

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    It’s astonishing how the political right (even hard analytical pollsters like DPF) will occasionally choose a glass half empty when it suits them.

    Some reduction is better than none. Those of that top 10 list who ARE signed up, amount to 37.4% of emissions.

    Not 3.74%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bulbul (18 comments) says:

    @ reid Dec 11 5:02pm

    “..geopolitical misunderstanding is profoundly flawed..” …yes a double negative !

    “Fact is its a wealth transfer mechanism yes but it flows in the precise opposite direction than the one you allege and this is precisely the reason they make the distinction between developed and developing nations and use it to justify different treatment for said developing nations” … How ? Anyway sounds like an assertion to me rather than an reasonable argument.

    “Sadly this idiocy is profoundly embedded in the body politic as you and Kennedy demonstrate once again”….descending to personal attacks ? surely a winning approach

    Maybe when you can provide some facts to construct an argument.Until then reid i am going to ignore your trolling.

    DPF: Cumulative emmissions as pointed out by de Cleene makes even more sense. There is nothing wrong in any one who knows the problem, especially the ones who have or continue to emit more stopping/reducing it first. And then asking others to do it.

    Anything else is self serving twaddle dressed up as a protecting their countries’ economies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pita (356 comments) says:

    Lets not forget the Labour Government that signed us up to the Kyoto protocol, because we were going to earn half a billion dollars a year, the same party that included the receipts from the ETS as income to fund their recent election bribes…it’s always been about the politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. leftyliberal (634 comments) says:

    @JC: As an interested person, just how many of the original 1073 ClimateGate emails and around 2000 attached documents and the 5000 odd emails released recently have you read?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    reid:

    my condolences are with you, I know how devastated you must be that bulbul is going to ignore you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Got to love the crocodile tears that come from the likes of the idiot Smith and now old Shonkey who before the election was pushing the line “we must do everything for our exporters, it’s our ticket to all our futures”. Then in the next breath he’s talking about the bullshit ETS and how we must do our bit. Fuck these hypocritical wankers, if the bastards are so concerned about AGW why do they not halt all coal exports. Surely flogging off millions of tonnes of coal a year is a far greater environmental concern then farting animals It’s all a fucking con pushed by crooked politicians after the cash, the country is sick of these bullshit artists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. MarkF (89 comments) says:

    DPF you must be exasperated!

    Up, down, left, right no matter which way you look at it and I don’t care which side of the AWG fence you stand on, if China is not not part of the agreement then anything the rest off us do is basically pissing into the wind. So if AWG is real then we are still all going to hell in a handcart or if AWG is a crock of political BS then we are being conned. End of story!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. KevinH (1,129 comments) says:

    As far as China is concerned it is no longer an issue of participating in an emmissions reduction programme or preserving enviromental integrity, it is life or death:

    Beijing smog:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16050069

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wat dabney (3,473 comments) says:

    Is there any way to stop rapid warming without China – yes or no

    There is no “rapid warming” and indeed there has been no warming at all for at least a decade, contrary to all the alarmism. So is there any way to stop a non-existent phenomenon without China? The answer clearly is yes.

    Optimistic report about the Durban agreement. Basically it’s completely meaningless. The lying zealots were outwitted by the wily Chinese and Indians:

    http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4532-philip-stott-the-basic-truth-about-durban.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. hj (5,720 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (2,946) Says:
    December 11th, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Matthew Hooten says:- “The more accurate way to look at it is”

    A country on country comparison is meaningless without describing the full context of their relative economic development.

    Funny how so few are willing to publish the per capita figures.

    Now that would be accurate.
    ———————-
    The undeveloped poor are virtuous until their standard of living increases and then they want their own helicopters. The Left don’t see population as an issue so much as over consumption by the rich. The truth is that the poor lack the ability to over consume.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.