It’s funny how so many liberals have become “realists” of late, insisting that we can’t expect to cajole sovereign nations into doing what we think is right if it’s not in their interests, but the same liberals insist that if we hobble ourselves with the dull-rusty axe of cap-and-tax, our example will inspire other nations to do likewise. Yes, yes, liberals will likely say that fighting global warming is in these nations’ interest, but they just don’t realize it. Well, maybe. But who are we to tell these countries what their interests are? Isn’t that the sort of imperial hubris these folks usually denounce? Regardless, there’s zero evidence and sub-zero reason to believe that countries such as China and India will ever be inspired by our action on global warming.
As he says, W-M may not accomplish much, but at least it’s expensive.
I’m wondering how to read the fact that Gore’s trip to Congress has been cancelled. Is it, as Pelosi claims, because she has the votes and it’s no longer necessary or is it the opposite of that, that the votes aren’t there and he wants to avoid the potential embarassment and loss of prestige he would incur if he showed up and it still failed.
Hoping for the latter…
Regardless, there’s zero evidence and sub-zero reason to believe that countries such as China and India will ever be inspired by our action on global warming.
I don’t think that’s true; the U.S. and European example is clearly inspiring Chinese efforts to deal with other environmental threats (e.g. air pollution).
But even if it didn’t, so what? We (the U.S. and Europe) put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we think it’s a threat, it would be immoral for us to do nothing, regardless of what other countries are doing.
the U.S. and European example is clearly inspiring Chinese efforts to deal with other environmental threats (e.g. air pollution).
Rand said “evidence” not “rhetoric”.
We (the U.S. and Europe) put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Again, “evidence” not “rhetoric”.
In honor of global warming and Jim I’ve decided to stop farting.
Which is the only reason CO2 has suddenly now been defined as a pollutant, because we cleaned up all of our other pollutants, leaving non-Western industrializing countries looking bad by comparison and leaving Western enviros with nothing to blame on their own governments.
Then along comes AGW and lo and behold! Suddenly the West is the Big Polluter once again!
But even if it didn’t, so what? We (the U.S. and Europe) put most of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we think it’s a threat, it would be immoral for us to do nothing, regardless of what other countries are doing.
This is not true. As of two years ago, China became the number one producer of CO2 in the world. They’re opening a new coal fired powerplant every few days.
The first to declare China the CO2 champ is the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Its estimates today show China put out 6,200 million tons of CO2 last year. The U.S. could only manage 5,800 tons. China’s huge population gives it the CO2 lead because it still only produces 25 percent as much CO2 per capita as the U.S. This means continued economic growth for China will bring even more CO2.
The build-up of pollution from China has been foreseen, but topping the U.S. was expected to take a few more years. Back in 2005 air pollution over Beijing reached maximum measured levels. People were told to stay inside. NASA also reports China has high rates of respiratory disease and acid rain.
China, India and other developing nations were exempted from the Kyoto Accord. It will accomplish absolutely nothing on global CO2 production if the US cuts our CO2 production while the reductions are more than offset by China and India.
This is not true. As of two years ago, China became the number one producer of CO2 in the world. They’re opening a new coal fired powerplant every few days.
This is evidence.
This is not true. As of two years ago, China became the number one producer of CO2 in the world.
Yes, it is true: your factoid only refers to annual emissions. Atmospheric CO2 lasts centuries. For hundreds of years the U.S. and Europe have been putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than China or India. It will be a long time before they can catch up to our total contribution.
No Jim,
Atmospheric CO2 lasts for 5 to 10 years. You should see the convolutions the promoters of the hundreds of years idea go through to attempt to justify it.
Don’t confuse Jim with physics.
Yes, it is true: your factoid only refers to annual emissions. Atmospheric CO2 lasts centuries. For hundreds of years the U.S. and Europe have been putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than China or India. It will be a long time before they can catch up to our total contribution.
That was then. This is now. If there really is a CO2 problem, China and India are going to be at the forefront of the problem. Seperately, they have as many people as the developed world did in 2000.
My take is a little different on the theory that it is better to do something than nothing. My view is that it is possible through bad policies to not only destroy the US’s and other currently developed world countries’ economies, but also to utterly discourage valid environmental policies down the road. In other words doing something can be worse than doing nothing. How will it be convincing to China to cut back on carbon emissions, if the US by doing so becomes an economic joke?
That was then. This is now
So we get a free pass for centuries of emissions while we industrialized, but China has to pay? You can imagine how persuasive that argument is with the Chinese.
My view is that it is possible through bad policies to not only destroy the US’s and other currently developed world countries’ economies
There are examples of poor environmental stewardship leading to economic collapse; are there any examples of a country destroying its economy by being too protective of the environment?
How will it be convincing to China to cut back on carbon emissions, if the US by doing so becomes an economic joke?
Given that U.S. carbon policies are less restrictive than those of the rest of the developed world, we are in no danger of having them turn us into an economic joke, unless we are left behind in the development of low-carbon technologies.
So we get a free pass for centuries of emissions while we industrialized, but China has to pay?
You act as if the USA has been around a lot longer than China. If you are going to claim “Industrial Revolution”, then please do not insult the Chinese. They were using coal to power steel plants as far back as the Song Dynasty in the 10th century.
The rest of your comment is bad rhetoric. I note you demand others provide examples while not providing any of your own.
You act as if the USA has been around a lot longer than China.
No, I act as if the USA has emitted more CO2 than China. Which it has.
I note you demand others provide examples while not providing any of your own.
Easter Island, the Anasazi, and the Viking Greenland colonies are examples of societies that collapsed due at least in part to failures to deal with environmental challenges. Modern day Haiti and Rwanda are other examples; they have not totally collapsed, but they’ve suffered enormous hardships. And your examples of too-aggressive environmental protection are?
Easter Island, the Anasazi, and the Viking Greenland colonies are examples of societies that collapsed due at least in part to failures to deal with environmental challenges. Modern day Haiti and Rwanda are other examples; they have not totally collapsed, but they’ve suffered enormous hardships.
And what else did those places all have in common?
And what else did those places all have in common?
I’ll bite, what?
They were literally dirt poor, with little technology. Kind of the way the Democrats want us to be.
They were literally dirt poor, with little technology.
Their technology was no worse than others’ at the time. Others survived, and they didn’t, because they overstressed their environments. No matter the level of technology, it’s always possible to dig a hole too deep to get oneself out of.
I’m still waiting to hear about economies that collapsed because they were too fastidious about protecting the environment.
Their technology was no worse than others’ at the time. Others survived, and they didn’t, because they overstressed their environments.
If we had their technology now, we’d be “overstressing our environment.”
I’m still waiting to hear about economies that collapsed because they were too fastidious about protecting the environment.
There’s one out west. Its capital is Sacramento.
There’s one out west. Its capital is Sacramento.
Blaming California’s mess on environmentalism, now that’s a new one.
They decided they were going to solve global warming by themselves. They were nuts.