| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2006/7/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43696 Activity:nil |
7/17 Wow. Does this end the argument of "USA should adopt Kyoto"?
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0703/112.html
"China burned 1.9 billion metric tons of coal in 2004. By 2020,
predicts the China Coal Industry Development Research Center, it will
burn 2.9 billion tons a year. That increment alone will send as much
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions, each
driven 15,000 miles a year. This puts into sobering perspective the
meager efforts of the U.S. to stave off global warming by improving gas
mileage."
\_ The US still emits more greenhouse gases than anyone else, so
reducing US greenhouse gas emissions is still the best bang for
the buck. Just because China is on track to surpass the USA (and
there are also 100 coal fired power plants in the planning stages
here maybe China won't surpass us after all) doesn't mean reducing
US emissions won't have an effect.
\_ My point is, cars in the US don't mean squat as far as emissions
go, and since China isn't affected by Kyoto, it's a drop in the
bucket. -op
\_ 1. cars in the US contributes a great deal
2. the world is in a such mess today mostly due to industrial
nation's behavior in the past 150 years. It is unfair for
US/UK to ask China to curb its CO2 emission while it was the
US/UK emission has gotten us this far at first place. Imagine
what the world would be like for China/India/Brazile emit
CO2 freely for next 100 years.
\_ Sorry -- I'm not following what you're trying to say
here. We should give those nations a break, or are you
saying it's going to be horrible in the next 100 years if
we do?
\_ I am saying that it is unfair and unjust to blame
China/India/Brazil for CO2 emission when they haven't
done their share yet. If G7 are truely interested
in environment, they should offer energy saving,
environmentally-friendly technology free of royalties
so China/India/Brazil can adopt these technology
without additional cost. Otherwise, those 3rd world
country has no interest nor incentive to hear this
global warming issue caused by G7's past and present
behavior.
\_ Haven't done their share? If you believe the world
is going to fry, then everyone has to do their part
to keep that from happening, not shift the pollution
to somewhere else. If you believe each country has
an inalienable right to pollute a certain amount
before cutting back then you don't believe in GW and
Kyoto is just a way to cripple the West for the
benefit of China/ India/Brazil.
\_
3. China is a vast, and POOR country. Yet in many front
it has done a lot more to reduce carbon emission than USA.
It has gotten rid of motocycles in first-tier cities; it
has one of the most strigint emission *AND* milage regluation
on the planet (which US car companies are lobby hard against)
for consumer automobiles.
AND. it put punitive taxes on things that deemed
environmentally unfriendly. This includes cars that displays
environmentally unfriendly. This includes cars that displace
more than 1.5 litre, disposalble chopstics, and golf
equipments. USA, on the other hand, has stated repeately
that US life style is "non-negotiable" when it comes to
energy preservation.
\_ Golf car limitations are going to save the world? You
can't believe that.
4. In the end, it's about energy consumed per capita.
Chinese citizen's energy consumption per capital is something
like 14% of an average US citizen. It is something that
Americans not willing to face.
\_ No, it isn't about energy/capita. It matters a great deal
what that energy does and how efficient it is used. If
the US had Chinese levels of efficiency the US economy
would collapse and the air and water would be toxic.
The technology now exists to produce reasonably clean
energy. As China/etc have minimal infracstructure, saying
they should use technology of the last 100 years so they
can catch up in how much they have polluted makes no sense.
Cleaner technology didn't exist at the time the West was
building up and who do you think developed all that tech
in the first place?
\_ I think you're confusing 'crushing poverty' with 'energy
conscious policies'. These aren't the same things.
conscious policies'. These aren't the same thing.
\_ refer my point number 3 on policies. Point number 4
is pointing out the fact that USA is the biggest
CO2 emitter on the planet. Drag China into
this Kyoto discussion is just an excuse for USA not
deal with the problem and blame China for it.
\_ China is on the same planet as the rest of us. You
either believe in global warming, which makes it a
global problem and this China's responsibility as
well or you think China should ignore the world and
pollute like madmen and kill us all.
\_ "About 2,300 pounds of carbon equivalent per person (16% of
our individual greenhouse gas emissions) are released to the
atmosphere through our use of *personal* transportation every
year." http://www.csua.org/u/ggf (epa.gov)
"In 1997, transportation sources emitted approximately 31
percent of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion (or
460.4 million metric tons of carbon) in the United States."
http://www.csua.org/u/ggg (epa.gov)
Either your drop is very big or your bucket is very small.
\_ And how much are we realistically talking about decreasing?
The above link says China will be increasing its CO2 output
by 1 Billion metric tons. So more than twice all of the
output of all cars in the US.
\_ Yeah, we should get China to reduce too. But that
doesn't mean we shouldn't do it ourselves.
\_ China has four times the population as the US.
\_ end the argument how? in that china is exempt from Kyoto,
and can pollute all they want, or that US should adopt teh protocol
to make up for China's excesses?
\_ Yes, because US has non-negociable policy, and polluted most in
last 100 year. China outlaw then disposable chopstic and 1.5
litre golf equipments, do alot more reduce cabonr emission.
\_ You must be trolling. Chopstick and golf carts....
\_ By 2006, not 2020, 25% of world's greenhouse gas annual emission
comes from the US which has 5% of the world population.
\_ And produces what % of the world's goods?
\_ A rapidly dropping %, while China is rapidly rising. What
do we make these days that China can't either produce at
half the cost or just copy?
\_ You didn't answer. The answer is the US produces roughly
25% of the world's goods with 25% of the world's energy.
And to answer your question, there is no way in hell China
can produce the same goods with the same or less energy.
More cheaply in terms of dollars but not in terms of energy
or related pollution. The disconnect between price and
energy/pollution is where you fall down.
\_ URL for "produces roughly 25% of the world's goods"
please?
\_ US emission per dollar of real GPD has been going up
and up. http://www.csua.org/u/gge (epa.gov)
\_ Give yourself some credit, son. Majority of stuff we made
for Israelli to defend itself can not be produced by
China.
\_ I thought there are arms trade between China and Isreal.
\_ yes. but none of the good stuff end up in China's
hand... don't blame Israel for it.
\_ And consume what % of the world's goods?
\_ Thus driving what % of the world's economy?
\_ Borrowing what % of the world's savings in order
to consume that % of the world's goods?
\_ US emissions per dollar of real GPD has been going up
and up. http://www.csua.org/u/gge (EPA)
\_ US emission per dollar of real GPD has been going up
and up. http://www.csua.org/u/gge (epa.gov)
\_ "Alas, it doesn't do anything to improve the dismal chemistry of
coal, which sends 2.2 tons of carbon dioxide into the air for every
ton that is burned." How's that work? Is the rest of the weight
from oxygen?
\_ Yes. One CO2 (12+16*2) weighs more than one C (12), and one H2O
(1*2+16) weighs more than two H's (1*2). |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0703/112.html China Shenhua Energy is making a pile of money digging carbon out of the ground. In the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia, China Shenhua Energy has built one of the world's largest series of coal mines. Deep underground, a giant, remotely controlled blade moves along a 15-foot-high wall that extends hundreds of yards, slicing off coal along the way. The chunks fall onto a conveyor belt before being crushed and then carried to a railcar, without any worker touching them. The equipment here at Shendong mines is as good as anything used in the West. Just like China's economy, the Beijing-headquartered Shenhua has been on a tear. Two of Hong Kong's savviest billionaires--Lee Shau Kee of Henderson Land Development and Cheng Yu-Tung of New World Group--invested in the listing, and big Western fund managers such as Fidelity have bought shares. Thanks to its low labor costs and its easily accessible coal, Shenhua turned in an eye-popping operating-profit margin of 45% last year. That performance puts Shenhua at number 525 on FORBES' list of the 2000 biggest companies in the world. people ) in the US and Rio Tinto of Australia, but is sure to overtake the other two someday. Shenhua aims to boost its output, 121 million metric tons last year, by 15 million in each of the next five years. This company's sleek, modern installations are a world away from the 20,000 tiny coal mines that account for most of China's coal output and that have an atrocious safety record. While China's demand for oil and natural gas has been roiling world markets, the country's huge coal reserves will supply most of its energy for decades to come. From coal comes 70% of China's energy, and that share has been rising as the country has doubled its consumption of coal over the last four years. "The global atmosphere can't take this increase," says Janet Sawin, director of the Worldwatch Institute's Energy & Climate Change Program. To cut pollution, China wants to produce more clean-burning coal, which Shenhua's Shendong mine does. That will reduce the emission of acid-rain-generating sulfur dioxide. On that score, China is making a stab at building more efficient coal-fired power plants and also using more natural gas and nuclear power, but those will make up only a small part of its energy usage for years to come. The Three Gorges hydroelectric dam doesn't damage the air but it is nonetheless not exactly a favorite of environment-lovers. By 2020, predicts the China Coal Industry Development Research Center, it will burn 29 billion tons a year. This puts into sobering perspective the meager efforts of the US to stave off global warming by improving gas mileage. Overseeing Shenhua's growth is a career bureaucrat, Chen Biting, who had next to no experience in the industry before arriving at the company in 2000. Zhu Rongji, who was China's premier until 2003, plucked Chen from his post as a provincial deputy governor to join Shenhua's parent, government-owned Shenhua Group, as general manager. After four years of grooming, Chen took over as chairman when his predecessor retired in 2004. He's now also chairman of the parent's 81%-owned subsidiary, Shenhua Energy. "I'm a person who likes a challenge, and the job has become more and more interesting," says the bespectacled 60-year-old. Not only does Chen speak little English, but the heavy accent of his native Jiangsu province makes him tough even for many Chinese to understand . Nevertheless, Chen's goal is to turn Shenhua Energy into an international player. He hosts business leaders such as GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt when they visit China; And he's linking up with overseas partners to obtain technology, markets and money. "Going outside of China is a likely strategy," says Chen, who's usually the first among his senior managers to arrive at the office each morning. "When the company makes its first investment abroad, we will have to be prepared to work very hard in disclosing information about ourselves, letting people know who we are," he says. One prospective partner is Peabody, which signed a memorandum of understanding in April with Shenhua Group. That might lead to the two companies developing a coal mine in Australia, with the output shipped to China. Peabody says they also might team up on projects in the US to turn coal into other forms of fuel. And Shenhua hopes to learn some mining techniques from Peabody. Shenhua Group already is working with oil giant Shell and synthetic-fuel pioneer Sasol of South Africa on coal-to-gas projects in Ningxia and Shanxi; It's a gamble on a new technology that has worked on a small scale. Chen expects that the synfuels plant will be profitable if oil's price remains above $30. Synfuel success would be a happy development for this nation's planners, desperately trying to reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies. Alas, it doesn't do anything to improve the dismal chemistry of coal, which sends 22 tons of carbon dioxide into the air for every ton that is burned. Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes for Nasdaq, at least 20 minutes for NYSE/AMEX US indexes are delayed at least 15 minutes with the exception of Nasdaq, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 which are 2 minutes delayed. |
| www.csua.org/u/ggf -> yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/EmissionsIndividualOntheRoad.html Individual On the Road About 2,300 pounds of carbon equivalent per person (16% of our individual greenhouse gas emissions) are released to the atmosphere through our use of personal transportation every year. And, in fact, our emissions in this area are increasing. Together, these two trends have increased our greenhouse gas emissions from personal travel. Exit EPA This site is designed to help the public factor energy efficiency into car buying decisions. This site also offers information on the connection between fuel economy, advanced technology, and the environment. |
| www.csua.org/u/ggg -> yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ActionsTransportation.html Agriculture and Forestry Transportation We need energy to do things like drive a car, fly a plane, or make things in factories. But we need to use energy wisely if we want to help slow global warming. Virtually all human activities have an impact on our environment, and transportation is no exception. While transportation is crucial to our economy and our personal lives, the environmental impacts of transportation are equally significant and wide-ranging. Transportation specifically contributes to global warming through the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel. Any process that burns fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. Based on global warming potential, carbon dioxide accounts for over 80 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Municipal Actions - Transportation Cities and towns are in the position to take a variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy actions that can have multiple benefits including saving money, creating jobs, promoting sustainable growth, and reducing criteria pollutants. Find out what some municipalities are doing about climate change in the area of transportation. Exit EPA Sponsored by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fuel Economy Web Site is designed to help the public factor energy efficiency into their car buying decisions. This site offers information on the connection between fuel ecocomy, advanced technology, and the environment. EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality Formerly the Office of Mobile Sources, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality protects public health and the environment by controlling air pollution from motor vehicles, fuels, and nonroad equipment, and by encouraging travel choices that minimize emissions. Exit EPA Clean Cities is a program sponsored by the US Department of Energy which is designed to encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and their supporting infrastructure throughout the nation. By encouraging AFV use, the Clean Cities program will help achieve energy security and environmental quality goals at both the national and local levels. Unlike traditional command-and-control programs, the Clean Cities program takes a unique, voluntary approach to AFV development, working with coalitions of local stakeholders to help develop the AFV industry and integrate this development into larger planning processes. |
| www.csua.org/u/gge -> yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html And emissions per person have increased about 34% between 1990 and 1997. Most of these emissions, about 82%, are from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and power our cars. The remaining emissions are from methane from wastes in our landfills, raising livestock, natural gas pipelines, and coal, as well as from industrial chemicals and other sources. The US presently emits more greenhouse gases per person than any other country. Several factors can affect the emissions per person in a state, for example, the types of fuel used to generate electricity, population and vehicle miles traveled (people tend to drive longer distances in sparsely populated areas), and whether fossil fuels are extracted or processed within the state. Your Emissions As an individual, you can affect the emissions of about 4,800 pounds of carbon equivalent, or nearly 32% of the total emissions per person, by the choices you make in three areas of your life. These areas are the electricity we use in our homes, the waste we produce, and personal transportation. The other 68% of emissions are affected more by the types of industries in the US, the types of offices we use, how our food is grown, and other factors. |