> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of pencimen > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:58 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there > is no reliab... > > Dan wrote: > > > If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up > > after a tripling of price? > > Poor leadership. Can I have a cite for that BTW. > > > Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the > > only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. > > I think competent leaders would go a long way towards solving our > problems > > > The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not > > projected to stop it. > > > > Let's just look at the US. In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% > > above the Kyoto quota for the US. Now, it's safe to say it's >25% > > above. So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: > > delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2 > > production 20%. > > Yes, let's look at the U.S. Per capita energy consumption (2001) > 7.92 kgoe/y. Japan: 4,091.5. U.K.: 3,993.8. France: 4,458.6. > Germany 4,263.5. Russia: 4,288.8. Denmark: 3,706.1. OK, here's one > that's in the parking lot of the ballpark; Australia: 5,974.9. > That's 75% of U.S. consumption. Shame on you Australia 8^).
Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US. Since we are talking about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP At http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1p.xls there is a full listing from '80 through '04. The US is at about the 70% point in terms of increasing energy per capita. To illustrate this, let me give a subset from the list, ranked by increasing per GDP usage: Ireland 4,992 Denmark 5,653 Italy 6,044 United Kingdom 6,205 Japan 6,532 Austria 6,660 Germany 7,175 France 7,209 Greece 7,391 Taiwan 8,680 Australia 8,922 China 9,080 United States 9,336 Sweden 9,356 Netherlands 9,673 Belgium 10,254 Zambia 11,773 Norway 12,228 South Africa 12,477 Korea, South 12,567 Canada 13,530 Korea, North 15,716 Russia 15,763 Iceland 17,496 Saudi Arabia 17,554 Ukraine 18,443 United Arab Emirates 36,022 Kuwait 38,203 Syria 38,540 I did select a few more high ones than low one, but some of the unusual high ones caught my eye. I knew Canada's usage was significantly higher than the US, but I didn't realize how much Syria used. > > Looking at other industrialized nations, perhaps it isn't necessary > to be wasteful to be successful. Compact nations do have advantages in energy usage. Older nations also have an advantage...because their cities were built before cars. The country of Japan, for example, has a population density that is 75% higher than that of _the Houston Metropolitan Area_. > Beyond that, I'm guessing that there are ways that CO2 can be cut > without lowering consumption. There are, and they should be used. But, I was only pointing out the cost of the first small step. At http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Stabilizing%20CO2%20in%20Atmosphere%20at%20Cu rrent%20Levels.pdf#search=%22co2%20emissions%20reduction%20required%20stop%2 0global%20warming%22 http://tinyurl.com/zp6l9 the reduction in CO2 emissions needed to keep CO2 at the present atmospheric level is 60%. This is just the first site I googled, and I'd be happy to see other references that give other numbers. But, it's in the ball park of what I've seen elsewhere. So, I'll readily accept that, for a few trillion, the US could revamp it's infrastructure to be more energy efficient....approaching the efficiency of Japan. But, that would only be the first step to stopping global warming. I've googled some more and at: http://www.earthaction.org/en/archive/95-01-cich/alert.html I have obtained the following quote. "To reach this goal, however, will require much greater reductions in emissions than merely returning to 1990 levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of leading scientists, predicts that 60% cuts are needed." And at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/post_411.html " Unfortunately, everything else is not equal. By 2030, according to a paper published by scientists at the Met Office, the total capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon will have reduced from the current 4bn tonnes a year to 2.7bn. To maintain equilibrium at that point, in other words, the world's population can emit no more than 2.7bn tonnes of carbon a year in 2030. As we currently produce around 7bn, this implies a global reduction of 60%. In 2030, the world's people are likely to number around 8.2bn. By dividing the total carbon sink (2.7bn tonnes) by the number of people, we find that to achieve stabilisation the weight of carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 0.33 tonnes. If this problem is to be handled fairly, everyone should have the same entitlement to release carbon, at a rate no greater than 0.33 tonnes per year. In the rich countries, this means an average cut by 2030 of around 90%. The United Kingdom, for example, currently releases 2.6 tonnes of carbon (9.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide) per capita, so would need to reduce its emissions by 87%. Germany requires a cut of 88%, France of 83%, the United States, Canada and Australia, 94%." That 60% figure is quoted a lot....these were the first 3 sites I found....and the last 2 were definitely environmentalist sites. I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
