Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 50593
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/09/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/21    

2008/7/16-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50593 Activity:nil
7/16    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.
        \_ 1. China's energy consumption per capita is about 1/7 of United
           States.
           \_ And, unfortunately, they're making every effort to be like us.
           2. the reason why we are in such mess is because 150 years of
           pollution by the industrized nation such as USA and UK and others.
           So, you are telling me that G7 were the culprit of climate change
           but you want China/India/Brazile to curb their emission for sake of
           humanity while US/UK/France/Germany keep their Ford Expeditions?
           \_ Gas is $11US in Germany.  I bet they don't drive a lot of Ford
              Expeditions.
           \_ Um, no.  I was quoting this because in order to solve something
              we need to understand it. -op
              \_ obviously you don't understand it. Industrialized Nations
                 are the cause of this problems, this includes United States.
                 If you want to solve the problem, you need to have a sense
                 of fairness or they will simply ignored it.  The fact is
                 globally, if United States cut emission by half, it would
                 slow down the climate change crisis by a huge deal.  but it
                 requires sacrafices, like paying $10/gallon gas, and see
                 natural gas and electric bills 3-4times of what you are paying
                 today.  Would you willing to make such sacrfice?  of course
                 not.  You want to have 4-5 children to have that traditional
                 sense of a family.  You want to keep you 5000 ft2 house while
                 there are only you and your wife live in it.  You want to
                 keep your Ford Expedition.  and if oil price is high, you
                 no longer oppose US government intervention to drive down
                 the oil price, i.e. relax the emission standards for power
                 plants and refinaries, and you no longer oppose US government
                 to invade another oil-rich nation to secure petro sources.

                 In the end, there are two things we need to look at when
                 we are looking at climate change issues.  1.  population,
                 2. energy consumption per capita.  In that sense, China's
                 one-child policy has been one of the greatest environmental
                 policy ever being implemented in the world in the 20th
                 century.  talking about sacrafices.. you really think
                 given the choice Chinese only want one child per family?

                 IF industrialized nations are TRUELY care about emission,
                 all one has to do is impose a fixed carbon tax rate at the
                 consumption level. We can even divert some of these
                 carbon tax to United Nation to enforce it.  Why consumer
                 level instead of producer level?  because if we impose tax
                 at the producer level, again, China will be end up paying
                 bulk of the carbon tax for manufacturing good consumed by
                 USA and rest of the industrialized nations.  Consumers
                 have to feel the pain, or there will be no changes in
                 behavior.   Once carbon tax made energy-intesive product/
                 activities expensive, people will 1. curb the activities,
                 2. figure out ways to achieve the same thing without much
                 energy consumption.

                 That will be another dot-com.  And innovative economy such
                 as United States will be the one reap the bulk of the
                 benefits.

                 \_ How about instead just taxing the hell out of any extraction
                    of hydrocarbons from the ground.  The oil pumpers / coal
                    miners / gas miners  can pass their costs on, thus
                    encouraging less usage.  Why make exceptions for who its
                    for, G7 or China or whatever, they all need to pay for
                    the dumping of carbon into the atmosphere.

        \_ Why doesn't China use nukular?
           \_ Because buying oil from Sudan is cheaper and the PRC has no
              moral compunctions.
              \- as opposed to the US buying oil from say SANI ABACHA.
                 \_ Surely a more modern example is available to you, Partha.
           \_ China is aggressively building nuclear power plant and hydro-
              electric plants.  Energy shortage in China is a lot more severe
              than those of United States and other Industrialized country,
              which outsourced much of the energy-intensive activities to
              China at first place.
        \_ Yes.  But if we start investing on green technologies early and
           patent everything, China will have little choice but to pay $$$ to
           buy from us when they realize they have to go green or when they're
           forced to go green by some international treaty.  One argument in
           the US against investing on green technologies is that the
           investment is not worth the saving.  But if we can sell the
           resulting technologies or the products to populus countries like
           China and India that are behind in the game, the argument no longer
           holds.
           \_ or, we'll waste tons of resources implementing our own,
              high-tech  sustainable programs, but they'll continue to use
              cheap fossil fuels, and we'll  all have to suffer through the
              same crappy environment.  Doesn't help to clean up our own acts
              when everyone else is still pissin' in the pool.
              \_ Fallacious: environmental effects do not occur globally
                 instanteously. Less air pollution in the US _will_ result in
                 cleaner air in US despite lack of reciprocity on part of PRC.
              \_ Your argument fu is very weak.
              \_ oh and china has been soo good at respecting things like
                 patents and other intellectual property rights.  If they
                 want to use the technology, they'll implement it.
                 \_ Hey, if it saves Manhattan from drowning, we will probably
                    all be better off for it, too.
2018/09/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/21    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2014/1/24-2/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54765 Activity:nil
1/24    "Jimmy Carter's 1977 Unpleasant Energy Talk, No Longer Unpleasant"
        link:www.csua.org/u/128q (http://www.linkedin.com
	...
2013/5/7-18 [Science/Physics] UID:54674 Activity:nil
5/7     http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years
        This is totally awesome.
        "equips each node in the network with quantum transmitters–i.e.,
        lasers–but not with photon detectors which are expensive and bulky"
        \_ The next phase of the project should be stress-testing with real-
           world confidential data by NAMBLA.
	...
2013/1/28-2/19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54591 Activity:nil
1/28    "'Charities' Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial"
        http://www.csua.org/u/z2w (news.yahoo.com)
        And they're getting tax-deduction out of it!
        \_ Climate denialism should quality for the religious exemption.
        \_ Koch, yes, Koch and his ilk give "millions" to this kind of thing.
           How much is spent on the other side of the issue?
	...
2012/12/4-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54545 Activity:nil
12/4    "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second"
        http://www.csua.org/u/yk6 (news.yahoo.com)
        Yes, that's *a second*.
        \_ yawn.
        \_ (12/14) "AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming"
        \_ (12/14)
	...
2012/12/7-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54550 Activity:nil
12/7    Even oil exporters like UAE and Saudi Arabia are embracing solar
        energy: http://www.csua.org/u/ylq
        We are so behind.
	...