For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Andrei came close to a rational argument, but then went back to parrot mode:


freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 11:09am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 10:51am: That's not what I am arguing. I am stating the target should be total based and a flat rate. The country's figure in 1990 and the target emissions needs to be a set % of that. That way the United States has a set reduction to be say 90% of that and China should be 90% of their 1990 level. The Falklands aren't penalized absurdly then and everyone reduces. "Global emissions should be reduced to reduce the threat of climate change. We in the United States should play our part. But let me tell you something, I'll be damned if America is going to pick up the bar bill for the Chinese and everybody else" President George W Bush, Kyoto. So if a country that was dirt poor in 1990 wants to increase their standard of living, they should be forced to pay money to wealthy counties for the right to pollute at the same level? That is what it means for wealthy countries to not pay the tab for poorer countries?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:04pm:

Look, there is a tonne in that post from Karnal that I agree - particularly regarding the complexity and inter-linking of the global economy. However it doesn't deal with the actual problem itself. Whether people like it or not, China pollutes 1/3rd of the entire world's pollution. That's not a made up number its fact. China has increased its pollution over the last decade by more each year than a country like Australia pollutes in total. So in layman's terms, if Australia reduced its pollution to ZERO, China's increase would offset it and add more. China's increases over the Kyoto programme was FIVE TIMES that of all the countries reductions added together. That is the reality of the problem. Yeah there is a bleeding heart issue here. People take the "Oh but China was poor in 1990, we should let them pollute to catch up..." That's like us at work sitting around at the end of the year and going "ooooh Elf struggled in Latin America this year, we should cap our drilling and give them some of our rigs to catch up..." The route I take - everyone has a year, everyone has the % to get to - may be tough on some, but it will a step to fixing the problem. Because as the figures show you - handing China and India Get-out-of-Jail free cards pretty much fks up any advances the rest of us make.

For what it's worth, I agree with Andrei's point that we should not be paying China to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, China is in a far better position to do that and they are doing a lot more about it than Australia. 

It's not about catching up with economic levels. It's about everybody doing what they can to reduce carbon emissions now.  Forget about the past.

What is not needed is to hijack the issue by trying to restribute wealth in the guise of reducing carbon emissions.  Providing renewable power generation to Mali or Chad will achieve precisely nothing towards the goal of reducing carbon emissions.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Well I don't feel guilty...

And what does an artificial border have to do with the non-availability of EVs then??

'Artificial borders' are used all the time in the REAL World, and, in particular, in the per capita emissions argument as well..

Maybe Gizmo has a point.

I think it is terribly unfair that people in NSW pay more income tax in total than comes from Tasmanians.

I think all Tasmanians should pay about 15 times more tax than they currently do - so that an equal amount of tax would come out of Tasmania as it does from NSW.

Is this how your logic works Gizmo?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty...

you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing!

You should feel guilty.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty... you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing! You should feel guilty.

Bollocks.
Some idiot friend of my mothers told me I should feel guilty over christmas when I pointed out how tough my travel would be in Q1 of this year.

"Your carbon footprint will be huge, I hope you offset it"

What a crock of fking bollocks.

China emits the worst in the world. I couldn't give a monkeys how many people they have.
They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Letting them pollute how they like while we all try and reduce is utterly insane.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:37pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty... you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing! You should feel guilty. Bollocks. Some idiot friend of my mothers told me I should feel guilty over christmas when I pointed out how tough my travel would be in Q1 of this year. "Your carbon footprint will be huge, I hope you offset it" What a crock of fking bollocks. China emits the worst in the world. I couldn't give a monkeys how many people they have. They must play by the same rules as the rest of us. Letting them pollute how they like while we all try and reduce is utterly insane.

Ye - you have made it quite clear that you are ignorant and a bigot.  We get that.

The simple fact remains however that you are responsible for about 4 times the emissions of the average Chinese person - yet you want them to take action while you do nothing!

That is a "crock of fking bollocks".

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

China emits the worst in the world. I couldn't give a monkeys how many people they have. They must play by the same rules as the rest of us. Letting them pollute how they like while we all try and reduce is utterly insane.

So...if the Government of China announces to morrow that they are splitting into 4 independant countries - then they can pollute how they like?!!?

Sit down and have another think about this sonny.

Quote:

so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage

Can you turn this from vague waffle into a point?


Quote:

Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

Are you suggesting we revert to communism?


Quote:

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

Those dots on the end are where your conclusion should go. Do you have a conclusion, or have you not thought this through yet?


Quote:

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

So it is about nothing more than 'classification'?


Quote:

you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing!

Don't jump to conclusions. I don't think gizmo got as far as making a decision.


Quote:

They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.

What are those rules exactly?

No.

China has a 1990 figure. They should reduce to a % of that.
If they split into four, then split that up as well.

The United States has a 1990 level and we'll reduce to that.

Level playing field.

Nothing bigotted anywhere by the way. I spend enough time in China recently and they are very pleasant and welcoming to me.

I have no bad words for them as people.

So if poorer countries want to increase their emissions to those in the west, they should have to give money to western nations and pay them to reduce their emissions?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty... And what does an artificial border have to do with the non-availability of EVs then?? 'Artificial borders' are used all the time in the REAL World, and, in particular, in the per capita emissions argument as well..

the planet doesn't care about your fricken borders. You need to do your duty of care towards the planet just as much as anyone else !!

The truth of the matter is that you think you are more privileged or better than some chinaman that you can pollute much more than them. why ???

WTF are you ?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

No. China has a 1990 figure. They should reduce to a % of that. If they split into four, then split that up as well. The United States has a 1990 level and we'll reduce to that. Level playing field. Nothing bigotted anywhere by the way. I spend enough time in China recently and they are very pleasant and welcoming to me. I have no bad words for them as people.

and you reckon some chinaman has to bend over and reduce his emissions even further just so you can drive around in some 6.3 liter V8 gas guzzling piece of sh.t when a 2 liter RAV4 would do the job equally as well !!

Which fricken planet are you on mate ?

jeez some people kid themselves :(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Nothing bigotted anywhere by the way. I spend enough time in China recently and they are very pleasant and welcoming to me. I have no bad words for them as people.

No - there certainly bigotry there.

You have arbitrarily decided that one group of people must sacrifice their quality life for your benifit - so that you may continue to emit pollution at a rate 4 times greater than these other people.  Your only basis for this discrimination is based on the nationality of these people.

if that is not bigotry - I don't know what is.  Unless of course, your defense is that you are just really, really dumb and you really have no idea what you are talking about.  I suppose I could buy that.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty... you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing! You should feel guilty.

Hello!!!!! Remember me???....I'm the guy you keep failing to convince that Co2 is anything but plant food....

And no I don't....I'd like all countries to reduce their total emissions by the same percent of that countries total tonnage...(providing of course that the emissions have anything to do with 
global warming..or whatever it's called this week)...just to be fair, ya know???

None of this 'individual guilt' 5hit that goes on, just the flat TOTAL tonnage...So China drops their 7 BILLION tonnes per year by, say, half, and Australia drops out 400 MILLION tones by the same amount, the next year.


p.s....I spose i should have guessed all the usual suspects would wiggle out from under their rocks, as soon as I answered FD...first nails, then you, I guess MOTR-mouth will be next?

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:14pm:

Quote: so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage Can you turn this from vague waffle into a point?

Sure, if you like..

Instead of the current vague waffle of 'eeewww you use too much of a vanishingly small total, and the individual Chinese use less of a massive amount, so you are naughty', like it is now....

STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces..seriously, given the amount (in tonnes) that China produces, there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia..

There are over 50 coal power stations in China ( I didn't count gas, fuel oil etc) and 26 coal power stations in Australia (again, not counting gas, fuel oil etc).

Quote:

None of this 'individual guilt' 5hit that goes on, just the flat TOTAL tonnage...So China drops their 7 BILLION tonnes per year by, say, half, and Australia drops out 400 MILLION tones by the same amount, the next year.

So if poorer countries want to increase their per capita emissions to those in the west (whatever they happen to be at the time), they should have to give money to western nations for the priviledge?


Quote:

STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces

So if China split in two that would solve half the problem?


Quote:

there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia..

Can you turn this from vague waffle into an actual argument?

Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. If you equate CO2 with 'bad' then the policy should be about reducing 'bad' and not some endless guilt-ridden diatribe about why we should do more than China.

it is politically-correct bleeding heart arguments like this that make the whole ACC hysteria look unbelievable. After all, if ACC were a REAL problem then we would be making a genuine global effort not this faux-hand-wringing example of idiocy. Central to the UN's motivations are the payments of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from rich 'emitting' countries to poor 'low emitting' countries. As if that is going to reduce emissions!!!

China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else. Anything else is simply unacceptable. the biosphere does not think in per capita terms and us doing so puts lie to the supposed urgency. And do not feel sorry for China. It is arguable the worlds oldest country and it is in its poxy state thru centuries of mismanagement culminating in the communism fiasco. it does not deserve special treatment because of incompetence.

if it is a true global emergency then there is no reason for ANY special treatment at all.

but there isnt really a global emergency. is there? Just another bit of over-wrought fear based on under-done science and the opportunity to take from the rich and give to the undeserving poor yet again.

PS before anyone asks. I am using my LW58 Id because my GM one isnt working. I am on holiday using a mobile internet and this happens sometimes.

fd's right on the money about the per capita sh1t. split the u.s into 51 different countries then each individual state wouldnt have to do anything by the logic of people who oppose action on climate change.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 6:47pm:

fd's right on the money about the per capita sh1t. split the u.s into 51 different countries then each individual state wouldnt have to do anything by the logic of people who oppose action on climate change.

au contraire... In fact, you made the opposite argument. what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size. The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride thus making everyone else's emission reductions nothing more than a compettitve disadvantage while not actually doing much abotu emission reductions globally.

t is the perfect left-wing policy. Gloriously complex, doseds in guilt and utterly ineffective in its stated goals.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Quote: None of this 'individual guilt' 5hit that goes on, just the flat TOTAL tonnage...So China drops their 7 BILLION tonnes per year by, say, half, and Australia drops out 400 MILLION tones by the same amount, the next year. So if poorer countries want to increase their per capita emissions to those in the west (whatever they happen to be at the time), they should have to give money to western nations for the priviledge? [quote]STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces

So if China split in two that would solve half the problem?


Quote:

there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia..

Can you turn this from vague waffle into an actual argument?
[/quote]

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

If you want to base 'fault' on per capita, then shouldn't you be proposing sanctions against the Falklands Islands??...After all, per capita, each person there produces one tonne more per year than Australians do (as of 2009)..of course the whole place only produces 59,000 tonnes per year...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 6:54pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 5:37pm: Quote: None of this 'individual guilt' 5hit that goes on, just the flat TOTAL tonnage...So China drops their 7 BILLION tonnes per year by, say, half, and Australia drops out 400 MILLION tones by the same amount, the next year. So if poorer countries want to increase their per capita emissions to those in the west (whatever they happen to be at the time), they should have to give money to western nations for the priviledge? [quote]STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces So if China split in two that would solve half the problem? [quote]there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia..

Can you turn this from vague waffle into an actual argument?
[/quote]

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

If you want to base 'fault' on per capita, then shouldn't you be proposing sanctions against the Falklands Islands??...After all, per capita, each person there produces one tonne more per year than Australians do (as of 2009)..of course the whole place only produces 59,000 tonnes per year... [/quote]

a large part of our emissions are because of the size of our country and would still occur if no one lived here. another major component is our mining industry. Given that we export the vast majority of that to paying customers then emissions as a result of that should be deducted otherwise you end up penalising a country (like ours) because we feed large parts of the world and give them the materials to build their economy. obviously a terrible thing to do!

i repeat my position that if ACC were a REAL PROBLEM there would be none of this garbage about per-capita. it speaks to the central nature of the beast - that is is a lie and a con.

Quote:

Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you.

It is not so much a bad argument as a complete lack of an argument. If you know what people are getting at when they blurt out 'China is a really big country', please enlighten us. No-one has been able to build it into a cogent argument so far. Here is another example of lack of substance. Can you elaborate on what measure of reductions you are referring to?


Quote:

China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else.

Another example of meaningless posturing - what are those rules?


Quote:

what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size.

Quote:

The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride

How about you start with what people actually say longy? There is no point scoring grand debating victories over your imaginary foes here.


Quote:

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

OK Gizmo you got me there. How many countries would China have to split into to solve the problem?


Quote:

If you want to base 'fault' on per capita

Perhaps this is the source of your incoherence gizmo. This is not about posturing and fault and blame shifting. It is about solutions. Do you ahve any, or are you more worried about blame?


Quote:

then shouldn't you be proposing sanctions against the Falklands Islands?

;D You go from complaining that Australia has to do it's part to calling for sanctions for countries that emit slightly more.


Quote:

a large part of our emissions are because of the size of our country and would still occur if no one lived here

The emissions in question are anthropogenic.


Quote:

another major component is our mining industry. Given that we export the vast majority of that to paying customers then emissions as a result of that should be deducted otherwise you end up penalising a country (like ours) because we feed large parts of the world

I think you are confusing farmers and miners.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Quote: Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. It is not so much a bad argument as a complete lack of an argument. If you know what people are getting at when they blurt out 'China is a really big country', please enlighten us. No-one has been able to build it into a cogent argument so far. Here is another example of lack of substance. Can you elaborate on what measure of reductions you are referring to? [quote]China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else.

Another example of meaningless posturing - what are those rules?


Quote:

what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size.

Quote:

The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride

How about you start with what people actually say longy? There is no point scoring grand debating victories over your imaginary foes here.


Quote:

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

OK Gizmo you got me there. How many countries would China have to split into to solve the problem?


Quote:

If you want to base 'fault' on per capita

Perhaps this is the source of your incoherence gizmo. This is not about posturing and fault and blame shifting. It is about solutions. Do you ahve any, or are you more worried about blame?


Quote:

then shouldn't you be proposing sanctions against the Falklands Islands?

;D You go from complaining that Australia has to do it's part to calling for sanctions for countries that emit slightly more.


Quote:

a large part of our emissions are because of the size of our country and would still occur if no one lived here

The emissions in question are anthropogenic.


Quote:

another major component is our mining industry. Given that we export the vast majority of that to paying customers then emissions as a result of that should be deducted otherwise you end up penalising a country (like ours) because we feed large parts of the world

I think you are confusing farmers and miners. [/quote]

you continue to define 'bad argument' or 'lack of argument' as no more than differing with you. Gizmo and I (and others) say that there is no reason that ANY country should be treated differently. same rules for everyone. the one not making an argument is you. What possible reason - given that reducing emissions is the actual goal - is there for treating china and india and the like with lower emission reductions limits?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. If you equate CO2 with 'bad' then the policy should be about reducing 'bad' and not some endless guilt-ridden diatribe about why we should do more than China. it is politically-correct bleeding heart arguments like this that make the whole ACC hysteria look unbelievable. After all, if ACC were a REAL problem then we would be making a genuine global effort not this faux-hand-wringing example of idiocy. Central to the UN's motivations are the payments of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from rich 'emitting' countries to poor 'low emitting' countries. As if that is going to reduce emissions!!! China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else. Anything else is simply unacceptable. the biosphere does not think in per capita terms and us doing so puts lie to the supposed urgency. And do not feel sorry for China. It is arguable the worlds oldest country and it is in its poxy state thru centuries of mismanagement culminating in the communism fiasco. it does not deserve special treatment because of incompetence. if it is a true global emergency then there is no reason for ANY special treatment at all. but there isnt really a global emergency. is there? Just another bit of over-wrought fear based on under-done science and the opportunity to take from the rich and give to the undeserving poor yet again. PS before anyone asks. I am using my LW58 Id because my GM one isnt working. I am on holiday using a mobile internet and this happens sometimes.

Gee, the pot calling the kettle black?

I see, you've finally decided to make a comeback Longy?

So much for all of your earlier statements that Longy & GM weren't the same!

So, is GM now gone?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:37pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty... you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing! You should feel guilty. Hello!!!!! Remember me???....I'm the guy you keep failing to convince that Co2 is anything but plant food.... And no I don't....I'd like all countries to reduce their total emissions by the same percent of that countries total tonnage...(providing of course that the emissions have anything to do with  global warming..or whatever it's called this week)...just to be fair, ya know??? None of this 'individual guilt' 5hit that goes on, just the flat TOTAL tonnage...So China drops their 7 BILLION tonnes per year by, say, half, and Australia drops out 400 MILLION tones by the same amount, the next year. p.s....I spose i should have guessed all the usual suspects would wiggle out from under their rocks, as soon as I answered FD...first nails, then you, I guess MOTR-mouth will be next?

no one cares about whether you are convinced or not.

and if you don't believe that CO2 is anything but plant food then why are you posting your sh.t on this thread since this thread should be totally irrelevant to you ?

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:26pm: Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. If you equate CO2 with 'bad' then the policy should be about reducing 'bad' and not some endless guilt-ridden diatribe about why we should do more than China. it is politically-correct bleeding heart arguments like this that make the whole ACC hysteria look unbelievable. After all, if ACC were a REAL problem then we would be making a genuine global effort not this faux-hand-wringing example of idiocy. Central to the UN's motivations are the payments of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from rich 'emitting' countries to poor 'low emitting' countries. As if that is going to reduce emissions!!! China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else. Anything else is simply unacceptable. the biosphere does not think in per capita terms and us doing so puts lie to the supposed urgency. And do not feel sorry for China. It is arguable the worlds oldest country and it is in its poxy state thru centuries of mismanagement culminating in the communism fiasco. it does not deserve special treatment because of incompetence. if it is a true global emergency then there is no reason for ANY special treatment at all. but there isnt really a global emergency. is there? Just another bit of over-wrought fear based on under-done science and the opportunity to take from the rich and give to the undeserving poor yet again. PS before anyone asks. I am using my LW58 Id because my GM one isnt working. I am on holiday using a mobile internet and this happens sometimes. Gee, the pot calling the kettle black? I see, you've finally decided to make a comeback Longy? So much for all of your earlier statements that Longy & GM weren't the same! So, is GM now gone?

everyone knows they are the same ID dopey. As usual, you are late to the party you werent even invited to.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:26pm: Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. If you equate CO2 with 'bad' then the policy should be about reducing 'bad' and not some endless guilt-ridden diatribe about why we should do more than China. it is politically-correct bleeding heart arguments like this that make the whole ACC hysteria look unbelievable. After all, if ACC were a REAL problem then we would be making a genuine global effort not this faux-hand-wringing example of idiocy. Central to the UN's motivations are the payments of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from rich 'emitting' countries to poor 'low emitting' countries. As if that is going to reduce emissions!!! China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else. Anything else is simply unacceptable. the biosphere does not think in per capita terms and us doing so puts lie to the supposed urgency. And do not feel sorry for China. It is arguable the worlds oldest country and it is in its poxy state thru centuries of mismanagement culminating in the communism fiasco. it does not deserve special treatment because of incompetence. if it is a true global emergency then there is no reason for ANY special treatment at all. but there isnt really a global emergency. is there? Just another bit of over-wrought fear based on under-done science and the opportunity to take from the rich and give to the undeserving poor yet again. PS before anyone asks. I am using my LW58 Id because my GM one isnt working. I am on holiday using a mobile internet and this happens sometimes. Gee, the pot calling the kettle black? I see, you've finally decided to make a comeback Longy? So much for all of your earlier statements that Longy & GM weren't the same! So, is GM now gone?

which just proves that he is a liar when he is so good at accusing everyone else he doesn't like as being a liar :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:28pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:26pm: Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. If you equate CO2 with 'bad' then the policy should be about reducing 'bad' and not some endless guilt-ridden diatribe about why we should do more than China. it is politically-correct bleeding heart arguments like this that make the whole ACC hysteria look unbelievable. After all, if ACC were a REAL problem then we would be making a genuine global effort not this faux-hand-wringing example of idiocy. Central to the UN's motivations are the payments of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from rich 'emitting' countries to poor 'low emitting' countries. As if that is going to reduce emissions!!! China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else. Anything else is simply unacceptable. the biosphere does not think in per capita terms and us doing so puts lie to the supposed urgency. And do not feel sorry for China. It is arguable the worlds oldest country and it is in its poxy state thru centuries of mismanagement culminating in the communism fiasco. it does not deserve special treatment because of incompetence. if it is a true global emergency then there is no reason for ANY special treatment at all. but there isnt really a global emergency. is there? Just another bit of over-wrought fear based on under-done science and the opportunity to take from the rich and give to the undeserving poor yet again. PS before anyone asks. I am using my LW58 Id because my GM one isnt working. I am on holiday using a mobile internet and this happens sometimes. Gee, the pot calling the kettle black? I see, you've finally decided to make a comeback Longy? So much for all of your earlier statements that Longy & GM weren't the same! So, is GM now gone? which just proves that he is a liar when he is so good at accusing everyone else he doesn't like as being a liar :(

feel free to contribute to the actual topic, liquid_nails. If you can. So far, your efforts have been pititful.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Quote: Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. It is not so much a bad argument as a complete lack of an argument. If you know what people are getting at when they blurt out 'China is a really big country', please enlighten us. No-one has been able to build it into a cogent argument so far. Here is another example of lack of substance. Can you elaborate on what measure of reductions you are referring to? [quote]China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else.

Another example of meaningless posturing - what are those rules?


Quote:

what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size.

Quote:

The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride

How about you start with what people actually say longy? There is no point scoring grand debating victories over your imaginary foes here.


Quote:

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

OK Gizmo you got me there. How many countries would China have to split into to solve the problem?


Quote:

If you want to base 'fault' on per capita

Perhaps this is the source of your incoherence gizmo. This is not about posturing and fault and blame shifting. It is about solutions. Do you ahve any, or are you more worried about blame?


Quote:

then shouldn't you be proposing sanctions against the Falklands Islands?

;D You go from complaining that Australia has to do it's part to calling for sanctions for countries that emit slightly more.


Quote:

a large part of our emissions are because of the size of our country and would still occur if no one lived here

The emissions in question are anthropogenic.


Quote:

another major component is our mining industry. Given that we export the vast majority of that to paying customers then emissions as a result of that should be deducted otherwise you end up penalising a country (like ours) because we feed large parts of the world

I think you are confusing farmers and miners. [/quote]

read that comment again FD. Do you even have the slightest clue what irony is? Im a bit flabbergasted that an apparently intelligent person could not work out that Gizmo was using an extreme example to invalidate the whole per-capita nonsense. it is weird that it has to be explained to you.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 6:51pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:47pm: fd's right on the money about the per capita sh1t. split the u.s into 51 different countries then each individual state wouldnt have to do anything by the logic of people who oppose action on climate change. au contraire... In fact, you made the opposite argument. what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size. The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride thus making everyone else's emission reductions nothing more than a compettitve disadvantage while not actually doing much abotu emission reductions globally. t is the perfect left-wing policy. Gloriously complex, doseds in guilt and utterly ineffective in its stated goals.

oh really !! have you seen how some of those people live in India ? They certainly don't drive around in a Ford V8 gas guzzler when something a lot smaller and cheaper does the job for them.

you're just another selfish arsehole like hicks who thinks the world owes him much more than anyone else.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:51pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:47pm: fd's right on the money about the per capita sh1t. split the u.s into 51 different countries then each individual state wouldnt have to do anything by the logic of people who oppose action on climate change. au contraire... In fact, you made the opposite argument. what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size. The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride thus making everyone else's emission reductions nothing more than a compettitve disadvantage while not actually doing much abotu emission reductions globally. t is the perfect left-wing policy. Gloriously complex, doseds in guilt and utterly ineffective in its stated goals. oh really !! have you seen how some of those people live in India ? They certainly don't drive around in a Ford V8 gas guzzler when something a lot smaller and cheaper does the job for them. you're just another selfish arsehole like hicks who thinks the world owes him much more than anyone else.

I presume there is a point in your mundane rant against... everybody?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:42pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 7:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:51pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:47pm: fd's right on the money about the per capita sh1t. split the u.s into 51 different countries then each individual state wouldnt have to do anything by the logic of people who oppose action on climate change. au contraire... In fact, you made the opposite argument. what we are saying is actually the same rules for everyone regardless of size. The bleeding-heart lobby wants india and China to be given a free ride thus making everyone else's emission reductions nothing more than a compettitve disadvantage while not actually doing much abotu emission reductions globally. t is the perfect left-wing policy. Gloriously complex, doseds in guilt and utterly ineffective in its stated goals. oh really !! have you seen how some of those people live in India ? They certainly don't drive around in a Ford V8 gas guzzler when something a lot smaller and cheaper does the job for them. you're just another selfish arsehole like hicks who thinks the world owes him much more than anyone else. I presume there is a point in your mundane rant against... everybody?

read it again idiot.

if you want to compete on a level playing field then don't expect others in poorer countries to reduce their meager emissions even more just because you choose to live an extravagant lifestyle with your polluting V8 piece of rubbish which you don't need to drive :(

Typical selfish christian who thinks the world owes him an unsustainable lifestyle :(

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 6:54pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 5:37pm: Quote: None of this 'individual guilt' 5hit that goes on, just the flat TOTAL tonnage...So China drops their 7 BILLION tonnes per year by, say, half, and Australia drops out 400 MILLION tones by the same amount, the next year. So if poorer countries want to increase their per capita emissions to those in the west (whatever they happen to be at the time), they should have to give money to western nations for the priviledge? [quote]STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces So if China split in two that would solve half the problem? [quote]there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia..

Can you turn this from vague waffle into an actual argument?
[/quote]

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

If you want to base 'fault' on per capita, then shouldn't you be proposing sanctions against the Falklands Islands??...After all, per capita, each person there produces one tonne more per year than Australians do (as of 2009)..of course the whole place only produces 59,000 tonnes per year... [/quote]
Split China in 4 then.

Problem solved?

Or will you come up with some other pathetic excuse why you wish to emit pollution at 4times the rate of the average Chinaman -and pretend that the Chinese are all to blame, but you don't need to make any reductions!

Quote:

you continue to define 'bad argument' or 'lack of argument' as no more than differing with you. Gizmo and I (and others) say that there is no reason that ANY country should be treated differently.

More incoherent waffle. Should they be treated differently if they have different GHG emissions? If so, how? Can you start to construct a rational argument out of this? Is anyone capable of moving beyond blurting out 'China is a really big country' to a rational position on what to do about it?


Quote:

same rules for everyone. the one not making an argument is you.

Did you miss the bit when I asked you what those rules should be?


Quote:

Do you even have the slightest clue what irony is? Im a bit flabbergasted that an apparently intelligent person could not work out that Gizmo was using an extreme example to invalidate the whole per-capita nonsense.

It does not invalidate anything. It is an extreme example of Gizmo's misunderstanding, nothing more.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:51pm:

Quote: you continue to define 'bad argument' or 'lack of argument' as no more than differing with you. Gizmo and I (and others) say that there is no reason that ANY country should be treated differently. More incoherent waffle. Should they be treated differently if they have different GHG emissions? If so, how? Can you start to construct a rational argument out of this? Is anyone capable of moving beyond blurting out 'China is a really big country' to a rational position on what to do about it? [quote]same rules for everyone. the one not making an argument is you.

Did you miss the bit when I asked you what those rules should be?


Quote:

Do you even have the slightest clue what irony is? Im a bit flabbergasted that an apparently intelligent person could not work out that Gizmo was using an extreme example to invalidate the whole per-capita nonsense.

It does not invalidate anything. It is an extreme example of Gizmo's misunderstanding, nothing more.[/quote]

Umm not it's not....I clearly understand the concept behind the per capita method..( I covered in my first post) and YES I was using the Falklands as a demonstration that per capita is flawed at it's heart..

Ok, if you don't want people to be treated differently because of  their emission level, so why not go whole hog and do it on a per head basis, but drop the countries out of it...divide the world population by the world emission tonnage and use THAT figure as an individual's carbon footprint....then everyone is treated the same...

Alternatively, why not increase Australia's population to a level where our per capita emissions are equal to China??

Quote:

Umm not it's not....I clearly understand the concept behind the per capita method..( I covered in my first post) and YES I was using the Falklands as a demonstration that per capita is flawed at it's heart..

But it does not demonstrate that it is flawed. It is just another demonstration of your double standard - that we can do nothing but because the measure in use makes the falklands appear worse than us, they should get sanctions.


Quote:

Ok, if you don't want people to be treated differently because of  their emission level, so why not go whole hog and do it on a per head basis, but drop the countries out of it...divide the world population by the world emission tonnage and use THAT figure as an individual's carbon footprint....then everyone is treated the same...

That's pretty close to where the international negotiations are going. The only reason to leave the countries in it is because people will complain if China starts making laws for Australia. There is no need to discard national sovereignty.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 8:15pm:

Quote: Umm not it's not....I clearly understand the concept behind the per capita method..( I covered in my first post) and YES I was using the Falklands as a demonstration that per capita is flawed at it's heart.. But it does not demonstrate that it is flawed. It is just another demonstration of your double standard - that we can do nothing but because the measure in use makes the falklands appear worse than us, they should get sanctions. [quote]Ok, if you don't want people to be treated differently because of  their emission level, so why not go whole hog and do it on a per head basis, but drop the countries out of it...divide the world population by the world emission tonnage and use THAT figure as an individual's carbon footprint....then everyone is treated the same...

That's pretty close to where the international negotiations are going. The only reason to leave the countries in it is because people will complain if China starts making laws for Australia. There is no need to discard national sovereignty.
[/quote]

It's not a double standard, I'm trying to apply the SAME standard to everyone, the per capita method is the double standard...it punishes people for 'the sins of the father' as it were.....why should Australians be treated differently because our standard of living was higher and we have more things and comfortable lives?? Just because we used to have a manufacturing base that supplied the same goods, years ago, that people in China are just starting to acquire, it's permissible for China to produce 14 times the emission we do???

It is not meant to be a cumulative measure gizmo.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 7:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 6:26pm: Unfortunately FD, you seem to define 'bad argument' as anything that disagrees with you. If you equate CO2 with 'bad' then the policy should be about reducing 'bad' and not some endless guilt-ridden diatribe about why we should do more than China. it is politically-correct bleeding heart arguments like this that make the whole ACC hysteria look unbelievable. After all, if ACC were a REAL problem then we would be making a genuine global effort not this faux-hand-wringing example of idiocy. Central to the UN's motivations are the payments of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from rich 'emitting' countries to poor 'low emitting' countries. As if that is going to reduce emissions!!! China is the biggest emitter and as such is required to reduce emissions as much as everyone else. Anything else is simply unacceptable. the biosphere does not think in per capita terms and us doing so puts lie to the supposed urgency. And do not feel sorry for China. It is arguable the worlds oldest country and it is in its poxy state thru centuries of mismanagement culminating in the communism fiasco. it does not deserve special treatment because of incompetence. if it is a true global emergency then there is no reason for ANY special treatment at all. but there isnt really a global emergency. is there? Just another bit of over-wrought fear based on under-done science and the opportunity to take from the rich and give to the undeserving poor yet again. PS before anyone asks. I am using my LW58 Id because my GM one isnt working. I am on holiday using a mobile internet and this happens sometimes. Gee, the pot calling the kettle black? I see, you've finally decided to make a comeback Longy? So much for all of your earlier statements that Longy & GM weren't the same! So, is GM now gone? which just proves that he is a liar when he is so good at accusing everyone else he doesn't like as being a liar :( feel free to contribute to the actual topic, liquid_nails. If you can. So far, your efforts have been pititful.

Perhaps you can explain why gold medal tells so many lies.

Start with the one about the undersea volcano melting the arctic ice cap.  That was funny.

When ou re one, I have a list of a lot more he was caught red handed telling

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 8:54pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 8:15pm: Quote: Umm not it's not....I clearly understand the concept behind the per capita method..( I covered in my first post) and YES I was using the Falklands as a demonstration that per capita is flawed at it's heart.. But it does not demonstrate that it is flawed. It is just another demonstration of your double standard - that we can do nothing but because the measure in use makes the falklands appear worse than us, they should get sanctions. [quote]Ok, if you don't want people to be treated differently because of  their emission level, so why not go whole hog and do it on a per head basis, but drop the countries out of it...divide the world population by the world emission tonnage and use THAT figure as an individual's carbon footprint....then everyone is treated the same... That's pretty close to where the international negotiations are going. The only reason to leave the countries in it is because people will complain if China starts making laws for Australia. There is no need to discard national sovereignty.

It's not a double standard, I'm trying to apply the SAME standard to everyone, the per capita method is the double standard...it punishes people for 'the sins of the father' as it were.....why should Australians be treated differently because our standard of living was higher and we have more things and comfortable lives?? Just because we used to have a manufacturing base that supplied the same goods, years ago, that people in China are just starting to acquire, it's permissible for China to produce 14 times the emission we do???[/quote]errr....the reason we have a high standard of living is because of cheap energy from fossil fuels.  Co2remains in the atmosphere or up to a century.  China has a long way to go before it overtakes the historic emissions of the western industialised nations

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 8:54pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 8:15pm: Quote: Umm not it's not....I clearly understand the concept behind the per capita method..( I covered in my first post) and YES I was using the Falklands as a demonstration that per capita is flawed at it's heart.. But it does not demonstrate that it is flawed. It is just another demonstration of your double standard - that we can do nothing but because the measure in use makes the falklands appear worse than us, they should get sanctions. [quote]Ok, if you don't want people to be treated differently because of  their emission level, so why not go whole hog and do it on a per head basis, but drop the countries out of it...divide the world population by the world emission tonnage and use THAT figure as an individual's carbon footprint....then everyone is treated the same... That's pretty close to where the international negotiations are going. The only reason to leave the countries in it is because people will complain if China starts making laws for Australia. There is no need to discard national sovereignty. It's not a double standard, I'm trying to apply the SAME standard to everyone, the per capita method is the double standard...it punishes people for 'the sins of the father' as it were.....why should Australians be treated differently because our standard of living was higher and we have more things and comfortable lives?? Just because we used to have a manufacturing base that supplied the same goods, years ago, that people in China are just starting to acquire, it's permissible for China to produce 14 times the emission we do???

errr....the reason we have a high standard of living is because of cheap energy from fossil fuels.  Co2remains in the atmosphere or up to a century.  China has a long way to go before it overtakes the historic emissions of the western industialised nations
[/quote]

No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to
use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation.

I suspect you have a few correlations and causations mixed up.

bump

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11pm:

No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation.

Is there a Most Retarded Post of the Year Award here?

I think we have found an excellent nominee

STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces..seriously, given the amount (in tonnes) that China produces, there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia..

There are over 50 coal power stations in China ( I didn't count gas, fuel oil etc) and 26 coal power stations in Australia (again, not counting gas, fuel oil etc).

[/quote]

hunh??? That makes NO sense whatever.

so according to you,  we have only a fraction over half the number of coal power stations as China !! and we are what ?? 1% in population comparison... and THEY have more  'wiggle room.??)

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 9:52am: For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it. Ok, I'll try. The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's... The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage. Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets.. China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes.... If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie). as an individual you should feel guilty :( what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ? How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ? Well I don't feel guilty... And what does an artificial border have to do with the non-availability of EVs then?? 'Artificial borders' are used all the time in the REAL World, and, in particular, in the per capita emissions argument as well.. the planet doesn't care about your fricken borders[highlight][/highlight]. You need to do your duty of care towards the planet just as much as anyone else !! The truth of the matter is that you think you are more privileged or better than some chinaman that you can pollute much more than them. why ??? WTF are you ?

And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else......

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 10:11pm: No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation. Is there a Most Retarded Post of the Year Award here? I think we have found an excellent nominee

You mean YOUR post...the fact that it took you nearly 24 hours to respond is a pretty good indication of retardedness...

.................. another major component is our mining industry. Given that we export the vast majority of that to paying customers then emissions as a result of that should be deducted otherwise you end up penalising a country (like ours) because we feed large parts of the world [/quote]


wacky stuff...  ::)
do you not see the fallacy?? 

eh i'll keep on reading.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 9:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 10:11pm: No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation. Is there a Most Retarded Post of the Year Award here? I think we have found an excellent nominee You mean YOUR post...the fact that it took you nearly 24 hours to respond is a pretty good indication of retardedness...

And the first nomininee to......."Most Retarded Response to an Accusation of Most Retarded Post Is....

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:37pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 9:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 10:11pm: No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation. Is there a Most Retarded Post of the Year Award here? I think we have found an excellent nominee You mean YOUR post...the fact that it took you nearly 24 hours to respond is a pretty good indication of retardedness... And the first nomininee to......."Most Retarded Response to an Accusation of Most Retarded Post Is....

Rabbitoh07....and the Award goes to ..RABBITOH07...yay..

Sorry bu t you are STILL the most retarded person....if you misconstrued my response to be anything other than a statement of fact....We in Australia didn't create a technological society because of 'cheap fossil fuels'...our fossil fuels aren't and weren't any cheaper than Chinas...in fact, up until the early 1900s, we didn't benefit, or even 'know' that fossil fuels existed...all the 'advances' made in Australia pre 1900 were from steam, or from intelligent use of horse power..

It simply came down to a situation of very few people, trying to to do far more than they physically could...so machines became important..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else......

Yes.  So why do you keep insisting on telling us about China?  While Ignoring the century of emissions from the industrialised Western democracies?

the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...your own words.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:45pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:37pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 9:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 10:11pm: No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation. Is there a Most Retarded Post of the Year Award here? I think we have found an excellent nominee You mean YOUR post...the fact that it took you nearly 24 hours to respond is a pretty good indication of retardedness... And the first nomininee to......."Most Retarded Response to an Accusation of Most Retarded Post Is.... Rabbitoh07....and the Award goes to ..RABBITOH07...yay..

I am not the one that wrote:


Use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation.

That was all your own work.  Enshrined for eternity on the Internet.  As an everlasting monument to your ignorance and stupidity.

I think you are confusing farmers and miners. [/quote]

you continue to define 'bad argument' or 'lack of argument' as no more than differing with you. Gizmo and I (and others) say that there is no reason that ANY country should be treated differently. same rules for everyone. the one not making an argument is you. What possible reason - given that reducing emissions is the actual goal - is there for treating china and india and the like with lower emission reductions limits?[/quote]

Seems pretty obvious to me why different goals are necessary, given the individual countries you are referring to here.

Why is it it so hard to understand....????

The reason is 'reality'.  You understand the concept...?

Your careless pronouncements about everyone having to share the same load... and that IS what you are saying,... completely ignores the realities of the masses of poor... particularly in major cities in India,  and China,,, and you could also easily include  the americas ....  Mexico City, for one , if it really mattered to you.

You cannot seriously believe the world you'd wish to construct...with your rubbish ideas...

realistically ..it is unattainable.

So get on with something worthwhile for once.. 
instead of braying like donkeys that won't be getting their dinner.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:46pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:45pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:37pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 9:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 10:11pm: No, the reason we have a high standard of living is low population and high technology. We had no choice other than to use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation. Is there a Most Retarded Post of the Year Award here? I think we have found an excellent nominee You mean YOUR post...the fact that it took you nearly 24 hours to respond is a pretty good indication of retardedness... And the first nomininee to......."Most Retarded Response to an Accusation of Most Retarded Post Is.... Rabbitoh07....and the Award goes to ..RABBITOH07...yay.. I am not the one that wrote: Use technology rather than muscle power....China is basically the opposite case, they didn't have the technology base until relatively recently, so they had to make do with muscle power, which equals high populations numbers. It's very common in Western countries to have sparse population and lots of machinery, in Asian countries, the opposite used to apply, now however, technology has become available, but the population numbers haven't quite caught up yet. Witness China's 'one child' policy, this is an attempt to change that situation. That was all your own work.  Enshrined for eternity on the Internet.  As an everlasting monument to your ignorance and stupidity.

Yes, it is...and??
It's not an indictment 'against' China..it's simply a statement of fact..  Of the two methods, there isn't a 'better or worse' 'rating' there's just different methods...Neither one is any more valid than the other, just more appropriate for the particular situation of that country.. 

Emma wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

STOP making it about the number of people in the country...and make it about the amount the country as a whole produces..seriously, given the amount (in tonnes) that China produces, there is a heap more 'wiggle' room for them to reduce emissions than there is for Australia.. There are over 50 coal power stations in China ( I didn't count gas, fuel oil etc) and 26 coal power stations in Australia (again, not counting gas, fuel oil etc).

hunh??? That makes NO sense whatever.

so according to you,  we have only a fraction over half the number of coal power stations as China !! and we are what ?? 1% in population comparison... and THEY have more  'wiggle room.??)


[/quote]


Yeah, they do...mostly because coal ISN'T the main source of power..Mind you the distances involved are about the same....
China currently has 4 operation NUCLEAR power reactors..and another 26 in construction or planning...Whereas Australia is stuck in the coal/gas cycle....if we went nuclear..we'd have a carbon footprint that was far smaller than it is...

so... in your reckoning China is already far ahead of us in their mitigation attempts.  Is that right?

PERHAPS... if we stopped selling coal to China, and India,  we would be doing the world a favour. ?? :)

'cos now we move to Uranium exports...
::)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:33pm: And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...... Yes.  So why do you keep insisting on telling us about China?  While Ignoring the century of emissions from the industrialised Western democracies? the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...your own words.

Exactly, the world doesnt care a poo about countries. It cares only about total co2 emitted.  How we address that is per person.

If we only counted per-country emissions, and it got to the stage where the world was forcing Australia to halve its emissions, we could simply split the country in two to comply.

Quote:

And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else......

The people negotiating action do. Does that matter? Or do you enjoy coming up with theoretical solutions that are completely unworkable?

Basically, after many pages we have not progressed beyond people blurting out 'China is a really big country' and leaving it at that, incapable of attaching any further meaning to the outburst.

Per capita is a stupid arguement.
How many ppl in China are subsistance farmers living in mud huts with no electricity running water etc?? (200 million)

How many ppl in Australia live in houses with no electricity have a rice paddy in their backyard and sleep 20 ppl to a house with no power water etc???

SAre you suggesting we change our way of life to that of Chinese farmers??

Have you seen anyone suggest that?

No Freediver...

and woof woof ???  I think your values are skewed...  like lots of posters on this thread. You seek the sensational negative,,  ... its the old story ... divide and conquer... 

when we should be working together.. (the NEED  never on this scale before)
and not likely to happen... :(
there seems to be a mindset,  no doubt present elsewhere in the world as well, but very obvious on this Forum.

I guess Ozzies, like other nations, along with Yanks and Russkies, and to a  lesser extent,  publicly, the Brits, for example..... all suffer from the knowledge that in the past,  the developing world was sorely used!! ... and  We were the beneficiaries,  and knowing the human animal, being one, we are fearful of the consequences...  of the price that must always be paid, in one way or another.

This growling about 'developing nations subsidies'..  is simply an expression of fear.
I'll add....  deservedly.....
It is also inherent in climate change (read degradation of Earth)_ deniers.!!

See ??  things like this don't come and go in 10 yrs..... they carry on for generations....  and ,  we all suffer the consequences of previous greed and corruption,  ...  as will surviving generations, after us.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 5^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:48pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:33pm: And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...... Yes.  So why do you keep insisting on telling us about China?  While Ignoring the century of emissions from the industrialised Western democracies? the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...your own words. Exactly, the world doesnt care a poo about countries. It cares only about total co2 emitted.  How we address that is per person. If we only counted per-country emissions, and it got to the stage where the world was forcing Australia to halve its emissions, we could simply split the country in two to comply.

This is a really funny comment...considering it was rabbitoh who first brought up the splitting countries apart to reduce emissions...which probably makes as much sense as the per capita by country idea...

Of course, see as Australia's emissions account for less that 1.5%, I think it'd be a long time before it got to that point...

Far better, as I've already said, to either base it on per capita, without basing it by country....so each person is equally accountable for a portion of the total amount of emissions..(world population divided by total ghg output) or, alternatively, start at the top of the tonnage produced list, and work down..and that means China, followed by America (see I DO include Western countries), then the Eurpoean Union, India, Russia etc etc....

Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way, is going to make bugger all difference in reducing GHG emissions...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 2:05am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 5th, 2013 at 3:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:48pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:33pm: And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...... Yes.  So why do you keep insisting on telling us about China?  While Ignoring the century of emissions from the industrialised Western democracies? the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...your own words. Exactly, the world doesnt care a poo about countries. It cares only about total co2 emitted.  How we address that is per person. If we only counted per-country emissions, and it got to the stage where the world was forcing Australia to halve its emissions, we could simply split the country in two to comply. This is a really funny comment...considering it was rabbitoh who first brought up the splitting countries apart to reduce emissions...which probably makes as much sense as the per capita by country idea... Of course, see as Australia's emissions account for less that 1.5%, I think it'd be a long time before it got to that point... Far better, as I've already said, to either base it on per capita, without basing it by country....so each person is equally accountable for a portion of the total amount of emissions..(world population divided by total ghg output) or, alternatively, start at the top of the tonnage produced list, and work down..and that means China, followed by America (see I DO include Western countries), then the Eurpoean Union, India, Russia etc etc.... Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way, is going to make bugger all difference in reducing GHG emissions...

What about historic emissions?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 2:05am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 5th, 2013 at 3:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:48pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:33pm: And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...... Yes.  So why do you keep insisting on telling us about China?  While Ignoring the century of emissions from the industrialised Western democracies? the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...your own words. Exactly, the world doesnt care a poo about countries. It cares only about total co2 emitted.  How we address that is per person. If we only counted per-country emissions, and it got to the stage where the world was forcing Australia to halve its emissions, we could simply split the country in two to comply. This is a really funny comment...considering it was rabbitoh who first brought up the splitting countries apart to reduce emissions...which probably makes as much sense as the per capita by country idea... Of course, see as Australia's emissions account for less that 1.5%, I think it'd be a long time before it got to that point... Far better, as I've already said, to either base it on per capita, without basing it by country....so each person is equally accountable for a portion of the total amount of emissions..(world population divided by total ghg output) or, alternatively, start at the top of the tonnage produced list, and work down..and that means China, followed by America (see I DO include Western countries), then the Eurpoean Union, India, Russia etc etc.... Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way, is going to make bugger all difference in reducing GHG emissions... What about historic emissions?

What about them???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 2:05am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 5th, 2013 at 3:12pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:48pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2013 at 10:33pm: And that is the truth of the matter...Per capita, by country is irrelevant..the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...... Yes.  So why do you keep insisting on telling us about China?  While Ignoring the century of emissions from the industrialised Western democracies? the planet really doesn't care about countries or any thing else...your own words. Exactly, the world doesnt care a poo about countries. It cares only about total co2 emitted.  How we address that is per person. If we only counted per-country emissions, and it got to the stage where the world was forcing Australia to halve its emissions, we could simply split the country in two to comply. This is a really funny comment...considering it was rabbitoh who first brought up the splitting countries apart to reduce emissions...which probably makes as much sense as the per capita by country idea... Of course, see as Australia's emissions account for less that 1.5%, I think it'd be a long time before it got to that point... Far better, as I've already said, to either base it on per capita, without basing it by country....so each person is equally accountable for a portion of the total amount of emissions..(world population divided by total ghg output) or, alternatively, start at the top of the tonnage produced list, and work down..and that means China, followed by America (see I DO include Western countries), then the Eurpoean Union, India, Russia etc etc.... Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way, is going to make bugger all difference in reducing GHG emissions...

Thats a poor viewpoint.  Put yourself in the position of a chinese person who has just upgrade his lifestyle from owning one piece of rusty corregated iron, to a very small basic appartment with electricity to run a fridge which is all he can afford.   

Some arogant Australian comes along to him and says you have to cut your co2 emissions because your country produces more co2 than mine, then drives off back to his mc-mansion in his SUV.

Chinese man would tell said Australian to f-k off, and come back to me when you are producing less co2 than me.

Quote:

Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way

No one is demanding that small countries lead the way. Rather, countries with the highest per capita emissions should naturally lead the way. The size of the country should not make any difference to this. If you double the size, you double both the problem and the resources to solve it, but the burden on individual people comes back to how much they contribute. It goes for America just as much as it goes for Australia. Your own suggestion of a global per capita basis would achieve pretty much the same thing, and would become identical once you tried to flesh it out into workable international agreements or laws.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

Quote: Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way No one is demanding that small countries lead the way. Rather, countries with the highest per capita emissions should naturally lead the way. The size of the country should not make any difference to this. If you double the size, you double both the problem and the resources to solve it, but the burden on individual people comes back to how much they contribute. It goes for America just as much as it goes for Australia. Your own suggestion of a global per capita basis would achieve pretty much the same thing, and would become identical once you tried to flesh it out into workable international agreements or laws.

Wow FD nice misqoute (OMG,I'm channelling a certain person..)
Countries with small POPULATIONS.....and yes, you are demanding that......

And if you noticed, America was second on my list..because America has the 2nd highest total tonnage..And America is NOT a 'small country', neither does it have a small population, nor does it have a higher per capita rate than Australian.....which, once again, is the whole point...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

freediver wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 10:10pm: Quote: Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way No one is demanding that small countries lead the way. Rather, countries with the highest per capita emissions should naturally lead the way. The size of the country should not make any difference to this. If you double the size, you double both the problem and the resources to solve it, but the burden on individual people comes back to how much they contribute. It goes for America just as much as it goes for Australia. Your own suggestion of a global per capita basis would achieve pretty much the same thing, and would become identical once you tried to flesh it out into workable international agreements or laws. Wow FD nice misqoute (OMG,I'm channelling a certain person..) Countries with small POPULATIONS.....and yes, you are demanding that...... And if you noticed, America was second on my list..because America has the 2nd highest total tonnage..And America is NOT a 'small country', neither does it have a small population, nor does it have a higher per capita rate than Australian.....which, once again, is the whole point...

What exactly is your point, other than a few dots?

yeah  what is it you are saying exactly???
Sounds pretty unreasonable from what I can glean so far.

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7th, 2013 at 10:09am: freediver wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 10:10pm: Quote: Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way No one is demanding that small countries lead the way. Rather, countries with the highest per capita emissions should naturally lead the way. The size of the country should not make any difference to this. If you double the size, you double both the problem and the resources to solve it, but the burden on individual people comes back to how much they contribute. It goes for America just as much as it goes for Australia. Your own suggestion of a global per capita basis would achieve pretty much the same thing, and would become identical once you tried to flesh it out into workable international agreements or laws. Wow FD nice misqoute (OMG,I'm channelling a certain person..) Countries with small POPULATIONS.....and yes, you are demanding that...... And if you noticed, America was second on my list..because America has the 2nd highest total tonnage..And America is NOT a 'small country', neither does it have a small population, nor does it have a higher per capita rate than Australian.....which, once again, is the whole point... What exactly is your point, other than a few dots?

My point is, you (the climate change/per capita faithful) are, in fact demanding that countries with small POPULATIONS ( not small land areas), and pretty small emission amounts, do more about their emissions, than countries with larger popualtions and FAR larger emission amounts.

Blaming or trying to shame Australian people about their emissions (slightly less than 1.5% of the total), while defending and placating China about their emissions ( slightly under 25% of the World total) is a pathetic and silly move (and possibly even somewhat racist?), the sensible thing would be (in the event that the whole Co2 thing is more than a confidence trick) would be to treat every country by the total tonnage produced as a whole. (And no, the 'splitting the country' concept is completely ridiculous, but give the source, Rabbitoh, not all that surprising).

But don't worry Freediver, I do understand where the idea comes from, and the concepts behind it, the 'White Guilt' thing was still around when I was at school so I know we're all supposed to hate ourselves for being born into white, western, non-poverty stricken families..

wasn't it Tony Abbotts idea?? 

Emma wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

wasn't it Tony Abbotts idea??

What??...the white guilt idea?...No, pre-dates Abbott by years, if not a decade or more.
Very big idea with some of the counter-culture groups in the late 50's through the 60's and on into the early to middle 1970's.

Very much mainstream now and part of the foundation of the Politically Correct idea.

test

no 
i was referring to cutting Aus in two...   ::)

Emma wrote on Feb 8^th, 2013 at 1:57am:

no  i was referring to cutting Aus in two...   ::)

Nope, that was thought up by rabbitoh07

Quote:

My point is, you (the climate change/per capita faithful) are, in fact demanding that countries with small POPULATIONS ( not small land areas), and pretty small emission amounts, do more about their emissions, than countries with larger popualtions and FAR larger emission amounts.

Countries with more emissions on a per capita basis should do more to cut emissions (on a per capita basis, not on an absolute level). This is regardless of the size of the country. I am still not sure why you keep referring to the size of the country. Are you suggesting the principle does not apply to large countries?

Kyoto incorporates this principle, if a little indirectly, and many countries with higher emissions rates, including Australia, signed up for it. It would be pretty stupid to reject this principle and I have not seen any serious proposal that does. It would simply be unworkable.


Quote:

Blaming or trying to shame Australian people about their emissions (slightly less than 1.5% of the total), while defending and placating China about their emissions

Gizmo it has nothing to do with blame. It is about solutions. Do you have one? You seem to think it is more important to blame shift than do anything about it.


Quote:

the sensible thing would be (in the event that the whole Co2 thing is more than a confidence trick) would be to treat every country by the total tonnage produced as a whole

Let me guess, you will run away now instead of explaining what this actually means because you cannot bear to be faced with the stupidity of your suggestion.


Quote:

(And no, the 'splitting the country' concept is completely ridiculous, but give the source, Rabbitoh, not all that surprising).

It is only as ridiculous as your stance on this issue.

So now we are 6 pages in and still do not even have an explanation of what it means to blurt out 'China is a really big country' in the middle of an otherwise rational debate.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2013 at 7:33am:

Quote: My point is, you (the climate change/per capita faithful) are, in fact demanding that countries with small POPULATIONS ( not small land areas), and pretty small emission amounts, do more about their emissions, than countries with larger popualtions and FAR larger emission amounts. Countries with more emissions on a per capita basis should do more to cut emissions (on a per capita basis, not on an absolute level). This is regardless of the size of the country. I am still not sure why you keep referring to the size of the country. Are you suggesting the principle does not apply to large countries? Kyoto incorporates this principle, if a little indirectly, and many countries with higher emissions rates, including Australia, signed up for it. It would be pretty stupid to reject this principle and I have not seen any serious proposal that does. It would simply be unworkable. [quote]Blaming or trying to shame Australian people about their emissions (slightly less than 1.5% of the total), while defending and placating China about their emissions

Gizmo it has nothing to do with blame. It is about solutions. Do you have one? You seem to think it is more important to blame shift than do anything about it.


Quote:

the sensible thing would be (in the event that the whole Co2 thing is more than a confidence trick) would be to treat every country by the total tonnage produced as a whole

Let me guess, you will run away now instead of explaining what this actually means because you cannot bear to be faced with the stupidity of your suggestion.


Quote:

(And no, the 'splitting the country' concept is completely ridiculous, but give the source, Rabbitoh, not all that surprising).

It is only as ridiculous as your stance on this issue.

So now we are 6 pages in and still do not even have an explanation of what it means to blurt out 'China is a really big country' in the middle of an otherwise rational debate.[/quote]

Well that's not really surprising, since I don't actually recall say that....can you let me know where I did???

"Countries with more emissions on a per capita basis should do more to cut emissions (on a per capita basis, not on an absolute level). This is regardless of the size of the country. I am still not sure why you keep referring to the size of the country. Are you suggesting the principle does not apply to large countries?"

I keep referring to the size of population of countries...because that's what the per capita system is based on---punishing countries that that DON'T have massive populations.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 7th, 2013 at 9:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7th, 2013 at 10:09am: freediver wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 10:10pm: Quote: Let's face it, demanding that countries, with small populations and not much tonnage of emissions (but high 'per captia' footprints) lead the way No one is demanding that small countries lead the way. Rather, countries with the highest per capita emissions should naturally lead the way. The size of the country should not make any difference to this. If you double the size, you double both the problem and the resources to solve it, but the burden on individual people comes back to how much they contribute. It goes for America just as much as it goes for Australia. Your own suggestion of a global per capita basis would achieve pretty much the same thing, and would become identical once you tried to flesh it out into workable international agreements or laws. Wow FD nice misqoute (OMG,I'm channelling a certain person..) Countries with small POPULATIONS.....and yes, you are demanding that...... And if you noticed, America was second on my list..because America has the 2nd highest total tonnage..And America is NOT a 'small country', neither does it have a small population, nor does it have a higher per capita rate than Australian.....which, once again, is the whole point... What exactly is your point, other than a few dots? My point is, you (the climate change/per capita faithful) are, in fact demanding that countries with small POPULATIONS ( not small land areas), and pretty small emission amounts, do more about their emissions, than countries with larger popualtions and FAR larger emission amounts. Blaming or trying to shame Australian people about their emissions (slightly less than 1.5% of the total), while defending and placating China about their emissions ( slightly under 25% of the World total) is a pathetic and silly move (and possibly even somewhat racist?), the sensible thing would be (in the event that the whole Co2 thing is more than a confidence trick) would be to treat every country by the total tonnage produced as a whole. (And no, the 'splitting the country' concept is completely ridiculous, but give the source, Rabbitoh, not all that surprising). But don't worry Freediver, I do understand where the idea comes from, and the concepts behind it, the 'White Guilt' thing was still around when I was at school so I know we're all supposed to hate ourselves for being born into white, western, non-poverty stricken families..

well said and is exactly what the problem is! 'per capita' is blame-shifting exercise so beloeved of politicians where by a sleight of numbers, someone else is to blame and voila! australias 1.5% is suddenly the root of all evil - forgetting our size and the fact we feed a lot of the world AND provide so much of its building materials. yep, go ahead and cast blame.

OR you treat the problem of CO2 as a serious problem. The per capita argument seems predicated on the belief that CO2 isnt really a problem at all. No other outcome is possible.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2013 at 7:33am:

Quote: My point is, you (the climate change/per capita faithful) are, in fact demanding that countries with small POPULATIONS ( not small land areas), and pretty small emission amounts, do more about their emissions, than countries with larger popualtions and FAR larger emission amounts. Countries with more emissions on a per capita basis should do more to cut emissions (on a per capita basis, not on an absolute level). This is regardless of the size of the country. I am still not sure why you keep referring to the size of the country. Are you suggesting the principle does not apply to large countries? Kyoto incorporates this principle, if a little indirectly, and many countries with higher emissions rates, including Australia, signed up for it. It would be pretty stupid to reject this principle and I have not seen any serious proposal that does. It would simply be unworkable. [quote]Blaming or trying to shame Australian people about their emissions (slightly less than 1.5% of the total), while defending and placating China about their emissions

Gizmo it has nothing to do with blame. It is about solutions. Do you have one? You seem to think it is more important to blame shift than do anything about it.


Quote:

the sensible thing would be (in the event that the whole Co2 thing is more than a confidence trick) would be to treat every country by the total tonnage produced as a whole

Let me guess, you will run away now instead of explaining what this actually means because you cannot bear to be faced with the stupidity of your suggestion.


Quote:

(And no, the 'splitting the country' concept is completely ridiculous, but give the source, Rabbitoh, not all that surprising).

It is only as ridiculous as your stance on this issue.

So now we are 6 pages in and still do not even have an explanation of what it means to blurt out 'China is a really big country' in the middle of an otherwise rational debate.[/quote]

You are starting to get quite rude and skippy-like to people who disagree with you. it is not a good look.

Quote:

I keep referring to the size of population of countries...because that's what the per capita system is based on---punishing countries that that DON'T have massive populations.

You are confused gizmo. That is not what it is based on. It is based on per capita emissions. There are big and small countries with high per capita emissions. There are big and small countries with low per capita emissions. I am not sure why you are having such trouble with this concept.


Quote:

well said and is exactly what the problem is! 'per capita' is blame-shifting exercise so beloeved of politicians where by a sleight of numbers, someone else is to blame and voila! australias 1.5% is suddenly the root of all evil - forgetting our size and the fact we feed a lot of the world AND provide so much of its building materials. yep, go ahead and cast blame.

Actually longy it is the basis for negotiating an outcome that is actually acceptable to all parties. It is the 'China is a big country' group that is doing the blame shifting, while not actually coming up with anything meaningful. Their argument disappears as soon as you try to look at it, just like yours.


Quote:

OR you treat the problem of CO2 as a serious problem. The per capita argument seems predicated on the belief that CO2 isnt really a problem at all. No other outcome is possible.

You are confused Longy. Perhaps you should try to explain your position.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Quote: I keep referring to the size of population of countries...because that's what the per capita system is based on---punishing countries that that DON'T have massive populations. You are confused gizmo. That is not what it is based on. It is based on per capita emissions. There are big and small countries with high per capita emissions. There are big and small countries with low per capita emissions. I am not sure why you are having such trouble with this concept. [quote]well said and is exactly what the problem is! 'per capita' is blame-shifting exercise so beloeved of politicians where by a sleight of numbers, someone else is to blame and voila! australias 1.5% is suddenly the root of all evil - forgetting our size and the fact we feed a lot of the world AND provide so much of its building materials. yep, go ahead and cast blame.

Actually longy it is the basis for negotiating an outcome that is actually acceptable to all parties. It is the 'China is a big country' group that is doing the blame shifting, while not actually coming up with anything meaningful. Their argument disappears as soon as you try to look at it, just like yours.


Quote:

OR you treat the problem of CO2 as a serious problem. The per capita argument seems predicated on the belief that CO2 isnt really a problem at all. No other outcome is possible.

You are confused Longy. Perhaps you should try to explain your position. [/quote]

The only one suffering confusion is you. You absolutely and resolutely refuse to understand anyone elses position. it is one thing to disagree - that is civil. But your position is to claim that any opposing argument is based on stupidty, ignorance and an inability to formulate a basis for disagreement.

Your argument amounts to little more that "I am right' and everybody Else's is a moron who doesnt get your 'wisdom'. How about you grow up and accept that people dont think you are a genius. They dont think that the fact you hold an opinion invalidates everyone else's

Gizmo and I (and a lot of others) hold the opinion that per capita is an invalid way of dealing with Co2 emissions. We have our reasons and have articulated them clearly and powerfully. I could go through them again but to what point? You like things your way. Thats doesnt make your way right and in fact, attitudes like yours usually support the WRONG way.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Quote: I keep referring to the size of population of countries...because that's what the per capita system is based on---punishing countries that that DON'T have massive populations. You are confused gizmo. That is not what it is based on. It is based on per capita emissions. There are big and small countries with high per capita emissions. There are big and small countries with low per capita emissions. I am not sure why you are having such trouble with this concept. [quote]well said and is exactly what the problem is! 'per capita' is blame-shifting exercise so beloeved of politicians where by a sleight of numbers, someone else is to blame and voila! australias 1.5% is suddenly the root of all evil - forgetting our size and the fact we feed a lot of the world AND provide so much of its building materials. yep, go ahead and cast blame.

Actually longy it is the basis for negotiating an outcome that is actually acceptable to all parties. It is the 'China is a big country' group that is doing the blame shifting, while not actually coming up with anything meaningful. Their argument disappears as soon as you try to look at it, just like yours.


Quote:

OR you treat the problem of CO2 as a serious problem. The per capita argument seems predicated on the belief that CO2 isnt really a problem at all. No other outcome is possible.

You are confused Longy. Perhaps you should try to explain your position. [/quote]

re the highlighted comment. How dumb do can you be???  The argument is that China emits 25% of the CO2. Thats not blame SHIFTING at all. The BLAME is clearly already there without any actual shifting. 

Quote:

But your position is to claim that any opposing argument is based on stupidty, ignorance and an inability to formulate a basis for disagreement.

I only call the stupid arguments stupid. In fact I would go further to say that the opposing argument does not even exist. Feel free to correct me.


Quote:

Gizmo and I (and a lot of others) hold the opinion that per capita is an invalid way of dealing with Co2 emissions.

Did you offer an alternative position that makes sense?


Quote:

We have our reasons and have articulated them clearly and powerfully.

I must have missed that bit. Gizmo for example appears to think that a per capita comparison means smaller countries always compare unfavourably. Not that I am sure what he is getting at. Like you, he is unable to answer basic questions about what he is trying to say.


Quote:

re the highlighted comment. How dumb do can you be???  The argument is that China emits 25% of the CO2. Thats not blame SHIFTING at all. The BLAME is clearly already there without any actual shifting.

OK. We have established that China is a big country. So now what?

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Quote: But your position is to claim that any opposing argument is based on stupidty, ignorance and an inability to formulate a basis for disagreement. I only call the stupid arguments stupid. In fact I would go further to say that the opposing argument does not even exist. Feel free to correct me. [quote]Gizmo and I (and a lot of others) hold the opinion that per capita is an invalid way of dealing with Co2 emissions.

Did you offer an alternative position that makes sense?


Quote:

We have our reasons and have articulated them clearly and powerfully.

I must have missed that bit. Gizmo for example appears to think that a per capita comparison means smaller countries always compare unfavourably. Not that I am sure what he is getting at. Like you, he is unable to answer basic questions about what he is trying to say.


Quote:

re the highlighted comment. How dumb do can you be???  The argument is that China emits 25% of the CO2. Thats not blame SHIFTING at all. The BLAME is clearly already there without any actual shifting.

OK. We have established that China is a big country. So now what?[/quote]

you know how we both mutually despise the kind of stupidity that SOB puts up regularly? You are starting to reach his level. I suspect that it is not possible to actually put up an opposing argument that you are capable of understanding or accepting. It seems very much that you simply pretend that all opposing argument either doesn't exist or is idiotic.

So here we ago again.  see if you can understand the following argument. I'm not asking for you agreement, but your UNDERSTANDING.

we believe (me gizmo et al) that ALL COUNTRIES should have the same  CO2 emission restrictions placed upon them ie 1990 levels. every country, same rule.

before you argue, just tell me that you understand it and that see that it is an ACTUAL ARGUMENT founded on our ideological position. once you have done that - and not before - you may argue our position. Just don't adopt the pitiful argument that we don't have a coherent argument.

I await your response. Please don't emulate SOB.

Quote:

we believe (me gizmo et al) that ALL COUNTRIES should have the same  CO2 emission restrictions placed upon them ie 1990 levels. every country, same rule.

Oh that. Yes I do remember someone posting that. I also responded at the time by pointing out how ridiculous that would get and got ignored. Gizmo then started going on about shame and I assumed it was something to do with holding such a silly position. It seems strange that such a strong critic of Kyoto would cling so strongly to one of it's mechanisms.

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

Quote: we believe (me gizmo et al) that ALL COUNTRIES should have the same  CO2 emission restrictions placed upon them ie 1990 levels. every country, same rule. Oh that. Yes I do remember someone posting that. I also responded at the time by pointing out how ridiculous that would get and got ignored. Gizmo then started going on about shame and I assumed it was something to do with holding such a silly position. It seems strange that such a strong critic of Kyoto would cling so strongly to one of it's mechanisms. Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

do you want to solve CO2 emission problems or not? it seems you want something, but certinaly not a solution!

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

Quote: we believe (me gizmo et al) that ALL COUNTRIES should have the same  CO2 emission restrictions placed upon them ie 1990 levels. every country, same rule. Oh that. Yes I do remember someone posting that. I also responded at the time by pointing out how ridiculous that would get and got ignored. Gizmo then started going on about shame and I assumed it was something to do with holding such a silly position. It seems strange that such a strong critic of Kyoto would cling so strongly to one of it's mechanisms. Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded. Whatr exactly is the point of that?

Can you explain how your proposal is a solution if most of the world would refuse to sign up to it?

And like I have pointed out to you and gizmo countless times, my solution has nothing to do with favouring big or small polluters by an absolute measure. I am still not sure why you two are so confused about that point. You complain about my attitude to you in this thread, but in fact I have been very patient in pointing out, over and over again, some very basic concepts like this that you still do not get.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

Can you explain how your proposal is a solution if most of the world would refuse to sign up to it? And like I have pointed out to you and gizmo countless times, my solution has nothing to do with favouring big or small polluters by an absolute measure. I am still not sure why you two are so confused about that point. You complain about my attitude to you in this thread, but in fact I have been very patient in pointing out, over and over again, some very basic concepts like this that you still do not get.

do not be so arrogant as to think we 'dont get it'. quite simply, 'we dont agree with it'! Is that so hard to work out?

now as to your first objection... well it isnt as if everyone is signing up anyhow. every country is still doing AS THEY SEE FIT and not according to any global formula at all. they arent agreeing with kyoto and they arent agreeing with per capita etc. every country is doing what they feel is okay to do at greatly varying amounts. How surprising...

Your proposal seems caught up on this 'fairness' issue which will never be resolved because different people define 'fair' quite differently.

But if CO2 emissions were the global emergency we keep getting told that it is then 'fairness' would be not be an issue at any point.  it just underlines that it isnt really that urgent at all.

Quote:

do not be so arrogant as to think we 'dont get it'. quite simply, 'we dont agree with it'! Is that so hard to work out?

Longy, you would have to understand it first in order to genuinely disagree with it. You clearly do not understand, which is why both you and gizmo post rubbish like this:


Quote:

its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded

Perhaps we are too far ahead of you in this debate. You should start by trying to explain what you think 'per capita' means. Use google if you are having trouble.


Quote:

now as to your first objection... well it isnt as if everyone is signing up anyhow.

Actually Longy most first world countries already signed up to a scheme that placed no obligations at all on poorer countries, which is even more extreme. It is workable because it is common sense, unlike your suggestion which is ludicrous.


Quote:

Your proposal seems caught up on this 'fairness' issue

You should start by attempting to figure out what my proposal actually is before getting yourself even more confused.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

Quote: do not be so arrogant as to think we 'dont get it'. quite simply, 'we dont agree with it'! Is that so hard to work out? Longy, you would have to understand it first in order to genuinely disagree with it. You clearly do not understand, which is why both you and gizmo post rubbish like this: [quote]its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded

Perhaps we are too far ahead of you in this debate. You should start by trying to explain what you think 'per capita' means. Use google if you are having trouble.


Quote:

now as to your first objection... well it isnt as if everyone is signing up anyhow.

Actually Longy most first world countries already signed up to a scheme that placed no obligations at all on poorer countries, which is even more extreme. It is workable because it is common sense, unlike your suggestion which is ludicrous.


Quote:

Your proposal seems caught up on this 'fairness' issue

You should start by attempting to figure out what my proposal actually is before getting yourself even more confused.[/quote]

Is China included on that list of 'poorer' countries??

Yes. It was a reference to Kyoto.

Gizmo and Longy, do you both now concede that a per capita comparison is not "to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded"?

Also, neither of you have responded directly to this criticism:

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

Do you realise now that this makes your position totally untenable?

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Yes. It was a reference to Kyoto. Gizmo and Longy, do you both now concede that a per capita comparison is not "to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded"? Also, neither of you have responded directly to this criticism: Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations? Do you realise now that this makes your position totally untenable?

So you classify the second strongest economy in the world as a 'poor' country??....then what does that make Australia????, considering we rank at #12 and China is #2, just behind America.

Are you just pretending to be stupid?

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Are you just pretending to be stupid?

No, I'm being quite serious..

China's GDP is 7 times Australia's, just what exactly do you base the classification 'Poor', on??

I can see that line of questioning is going to be way too complicated for you, so let's go right back to the beginning. Do you agree with this?


Quote:

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

You appeared to say earlier that splitting China into two countries is absurd, but only because you would have to break it up into much smaller countries to make them equal to Australia. I thought you were joking at the time, but now I am starting to suspect you are serious. Could you please elaborate on this?

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

I can see that line of questioning is going to be way too complicated for you, so let's go right back to the beginning. Do you agree with this? Quote: 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. You appeared to say earlier that splitting China into two countries is absurd, but only because you would have to break it up into much smaller countries to make them equal to Australia. I thought you were joking at the time, but now I am starting to suspect you are serious. Could you please elaborate on this?

No, I don't agree with that..which was YOUR comment from the OP btw..

Oh that. Yes I do remember someone posting that. I also responded at the time by pointing out how ridiculous that would get and got ignored. Gizmo then started going on about shame and I assumed it was something to do with holding such a silly position. It seems strange that such a strong critic of Kyoto would cling so strongly to one of it's mechanisms.

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

Yes the very key to the conundrum.

FD?  Longy Gizmoid et al.. clearly do not understand....  that they can arrive at all sorts of ideas.... but these ideas are unworkable, in real life.

I'd say ..let 'm dream on in their fanatasies...  no amount of reason will convince them.. :(

Emma wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 12:19am:

Oh that. Yes I do remember someone posting that. I also responded at the time by pointing out how ridiculous that would get and got ignored. Gizmo then started going on about shame and I assumed it was something to do with holding such a silly position. It seems strange that such a strong critic of Kyoto would cling so strongly to one of it's mechanisms. Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations? Yes the very key to the conundrum. FD?  Longy Gizmoid et al.. clearly do not understand....  that they can arrive at all sorts of ideas.... but these ideas are unworkable, in real life. I'd say ..let 'm dream on in their fanatasies...  no amount of reason will convince them.. :(

Poor countries???...Sorry I thought we were talking about China, the US, the EU and India...

Quote:

No, I don't agree with that..which was YOUR comment from the OP btw.

I did not suggest it was your comment. I did suggest you appeared to agree with it, for example with this particularly 'enlightening' response:


Quote:

Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

;D

Combine this with your inability to even comprehend what per capita means and you have some serious questions to answer.

For example, suppose China was broken up into many smaller countries with similar total GHG emissions to Australia. How exactly would you phrase your argument then? Would this render you incapable of criticising Chinese emissions?

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Quote: No, I don't agree with that..which was YOUR comment from the OP btw. I did not suggest it was your comment. I did suggest you appeared to agree with it, for example with this particularly 'enlightening' response: [quote]Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does)

;D

Combine this with your inability to even comprehend what per capita means and you have some serious questions to answer.

For example, suppose China was broken up into many smaller countries with similar total GHG emissions to Australia. How exactly would you phrase your argument then? Would this render you incapable of criticising Chinese emissions?[/quote]

Possibly....Then the playing field would be closer to level than it is now..

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

Quote: do not be so arrogant as to think we 'dont get it'. quite simply, 'we dont agree with it'! Is that so hard to work out? Longy, you would have to understand it first in order to genuinely disagree with it. You clearly do not understand, which is why both you and gizmo post rubbish like this: [quote]its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded

Perhaps we are too far ahead of you in this debate. You should start by trying to explain what you think 'per capita' means. Use google if you are having trouble.


Quote:

now as to your first objection... well it isnt as if everyone is signing up anyhow.

Actually Longy most first world countries already signed up to a scheme that placed no obligations at all on poorer countries, which is even more extreme. It is workable because it is common sense, unlike your suggestion which is ludicrous.


Quote:

Your proposal seems caught up on this 'fairness' issue

You should start by attempting to figure out what my proposal actually is before getting yourself even more confused.[/quote]

you are just an arrogant jerk FD, typical of the CO2 hysterics. You are absolutely convinced you are right with zero evidence and abuse any and everybody else who doesnt agree with you. The difference between you and lastnail? the language. the attitude is identical. Why do you think so many people end up abandoning your threads? Because you behave in a self-righteous superior manner than few can top.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the ACC hysteria is being proven wrong every day, every week and every 'not hotter' year. It is a lot more fun being right than hysterically superior and wrong - like you.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

I can see that line of questioning is going to be way too complicated for you, so let's go right back to the beginning. Do you agree with this? Quote: 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. You appeared to say earlier that splitting China into two countries is absurd, but only because you would have to break it up into much smaller countries to make them equal to Australia. I thought you were joking at the time, but now I am starting to suspect you are serious. Could you please elaborate on this?

enter the now commonplace FD abuse and condescencion.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 7:17pm: Quote: No, I don't agree with that..which was YOUR comment from the OP btw. I did not suggest it was your comment. I did suggest you appeared to agree with it, for example with this particularly 'enlightening' response: [quote]Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does) ;D Combine this with your inability to even comprehend what per capita means and you have some serious questions to answer. For example, suppose China was broken up into many smaller countries with similar total GHG emissions to Australia. How exactly would you phrase your argument then? Would this render you incapable of criticising Chinese emissions?

Possibly....Then the playing field would be closer to level than it is now.. [/quote]

You're not talking to SOB here, you know. Gizmo isnt stupid and neither am I. we are both fully aware of what it means, although I wonder if you do and I mean that seriously. But apparently the thing that is not understood or accepted by you is the right to hold a contrary opinion. You REALLY dont get that.

Quote:

Possibly....Then the playing field would be closer to level than it is now..

Gizmo, what kind of game do you think this is?


Quote:

you are just an arrogant jerk FD, typical of the CO2 hysterics. You are absolutely convinced you are right with zero evidence and abuse any and everybody else who doesnt agree with you.

Longy, pointing out that your idiotic remarks are idiotic is not abuse. We are a long way from evidence here. You are getting tripped up on basic logic, even basic english.


Quote:

You're not talking to SOB here, you know. Gizmo isnt stupid and neither am I.

So prove it. Try putting together at least one rational argument. Or how about you try giving a straight answer for once instead of complaining that people are being mean to you? I don't think you have managed to do so once in this thread, despite 8 pages of complaining about people being mean to you about it. You just respond with more vague, meaningless gibberish. Here is an example you deflected on previously:

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

Can you also explain why your idea, which is completely unworkable, is somehow better than a principle that has already been accepted by most first world countries?


Quote:

Gizmo and I (and a lot of others) hold the opinion that per capita is an invalid way of dealing with Co2 emissions. We have our reasons and have articulated them clearly and powerfully.

Can you point out where you and gizmo have done this? Both you and gizmo have made claims that demonstrate complete inability to understand even the basics of this debate. From you:


Quote:

its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded

From Gizmo:


Quote:

I keep referring to the size of population of countries...because that's what the per capita system is based on---punishing countries that that DON'T have massive populations.

(plus his latest response above - btw do you agree with gizmo that splitting China into smaller countries would render him unable to criticise Chinese emissions? Would it also render you incapable of blurting out this meaningless gibberish?)

How else are people meant to interpret these stupid remarks?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 10th, 2013 at 7:01pm: Quote: do not be so arrogant as to think we 'dont get it'. quite simply, 'we dont agree with it'! Is that so hard to work out? Longy, you would have to understand it first in order to genuinely disagree with it. You clearly do not understand, which is why both you and gizmo post rubbish like this: [quote]its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded Perhaps we are too far ahead of you in this debate. You should start by trying to explain what you think 'per capita' means. Use google if you are having trouble. [quote]now as to your first objection... well it isnt as if everyone is signing up anyhow.

Actually Longy most first world countries already signed up to a scheme that placed no obligations at all on poorer countries, which is even more extreme. It is workable because it is common sense, unlike your suggestion which is ludicrous.


Quote:

Your proposal seems caught up on this 'fairness' issue

You should start by attempting to figure out what my proposal actually is before getting yourself even more confused.[/quote]

you are just an arrogant jerk FD, typical of the CO2 hysterics. You are absolutely convinced you are right with zero evidence and abuse any and everybody else who doesnt agree with you. The difference between you and lastnail? the language. the attitude is identical. Why do you think so many people end up abandoning your threads? Because you behave in a self-righteous superior manner than few can top.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the ACC hysteria is being proven wrong every day, every week and every 'not hotter' year. It is a lot more fun being right than hysterically superior and wrong - like you.[/quote]
If - as you seem to be implying, the plant is not warming,  why does global glacial mass balance continue to decrease?

Why is the arctic ice cap continuing to decrease?

Why are sea levels contiuing to rise?

Why are ocean temperatures continuing to increase?

Why has every single one of the past 27 years had an average global temperature above the long term average?

And could you explain, how exactly, what you call"ACC hysteria" is being "proven wrong every day"?!??!?

Quote:

Gizmo and I (and a lot of others) hold the opinion that per capita is an invalid way of dealing with Co2 emissions. We have our reasons and have articulated them clearly and powerfully. Can you point out where you and gizmo have done this? Both you and gizmo have made claims that demonstrate complete inability to understand even the basics of this debate. From you:

And here is where you lose it in typical arogant fashion. GIZMO AND I HOLD AN OPINION. now google 'opinion'  and see if it can teach you what it is.  You completely ignore the right to hold an opinion. You completely negate any argument you find inconvenient and simply discard anything not to your liking. This is why so many good posters have left this place - because good argument is punished and stupidity is reward. How else do you explain DRAH's continued protected existence (and he is protected and uis unbannable by your own word).

Gizmo and I have made a case against per-capita assessment. I dont give a crap if you like it or not. I do however care that you simply state that everything is a non-argument simply because YOU didnt make it.

No one can debate with you because your attitude is one of unrelenting arrogance.  And it is why your sometimes good ideas will never get anywhere - because you do not beleive it is possible for them to be improved on.

Just as well CO2 emissions are getting increasingly discredited as a driver of the global warming that isnt happening now anyhow. It is a metpahor for the value of your increasingly silly arguments.

Quote:

And here is where you lose it in typical arogant fashion. GIZMO AND I HOLD AN OPINION. now google 'opinion'  and see if it can teach you what it is.  You completely ignore the right to hold an opinion.

It was the "articulated them clearly and powerfully" bit I was calling you on. Are these examples of you and gizmo articulating your reasons clearly and powerfully, or merely demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about? It is hard to tell.


Quote:

its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded

Quote:

I keep referring to the size of population of countries...because that's what the per capita system is based on---punishing countries that that DON'T have massive populations.

If you wish to concede that it is merely an opinion in a vaccuum of substance I would be happy to leave it there.


Quote:

You completely negate any argument you find inconvenient and simply discard anything not to your liking. This is why so many good posters have left this place - because good argument is punished and stupidity is reward. How else do you explain DRAH's continued protected existence (and he is protected and uis unbannable by your own word).

The same way I explain you and gizmo carrying on pretending that per capita comparisons are about penalising small polluters and leaving big ones unimpeded, and pretending that your own ideas have any credibility. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how absurd.


Quote:

Gizmo and I have made a case against per-capita assessment.

;D

I suspect gizmo and longy are taking a leaf out of Tony Abbott's book - reject the science outright, but pretend to accept the need for action and follow this through with having completely absurd positions, because not believing the science justifies making no sense at all on every other aspect.

Longy do you agree with gizmo about splitting China up into smaller countries? Is that what you mean by articulating your argument clearly and strongly?

Ok you want to compare the emissions by per capita because it sounds great to raise the level of what country emits. First, per capita refers to averaging out the emissions across a populations, however, does not account to what population is actually emitting the CO2 and what proportion is not.
Is it expected that those who have minute emissions should reduce their emissions by 10% to meet your demand? Even though, they produce so little now and live a harsh life style you still expect them to reduce their emissions? You also expect to use the said ‘per capita’ figures to ask the heaviest polluters to only reduce their emission minutely, because on average they are actually polluting very little?
Or do you expect to use the other figures to determine exactly what each individual should reduce their emissions? If this is the case then you are only using an averaging figure to manipulate a population into believing something that is not actually true
‘Per capita’ figures are simply a tool for populations to scare and intimidate people into believing what politicians want you to believe. It appears you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
There is no reasonable argument for expecting a population to create good policy using these figures because there are so many variables not accounted for, who is actually emitting the CO2 being one of them. In fact no government in the world will use these figures to create policy, they have only used it to justify them to the easily manipulated an ill-informed… such is this thread demonstrates.

Quote:

Ok you want to compare the emissions by per capita because it sounds great to raise the level of what country emits.

Sigh. Another one who cannot even string a sentence together. Try again please.


Quote:

Is it expected that those who have minute emissions should reduce their emissions by 10% to meet your demand?

No. What demand are you referring to?


Quote:

Or do you expect to use the other figures to determine exactly what each individual should reduce their emissions?

What individuals do should be left to market forces.


Quote:

There is no reasonable argument for expecting a population to create good policy using these figures because there are so many variables not accounted for, who is actually emitting the CO2 being one of them. In fact no government in the world will use these figures to create policy, they have only used it to justify them to the easily manipulated an ill-informed… such is this thread demonstrates.

I think you will find that the countries subject to mandatory targets under the Kyoto protocol were chosen largely on this principle.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

Sigh. Another one who cannot even string a sentence together. Try again please.

Oh, and I thought you were such the articulate one.


freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

No. What demand are you referring to?

Sorry, further down the post you declare that this is exactly the system used when the Kyoto protocol was set.

The demand by AGW nutters that everybody has to reduce their emissions. This is why the 'Per Capita' figure was used to justify the Carbon Tax and people such as yourself are determined to defend it.


freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

What individuals do should be left to market forces.

However, that is not what you are portraying when you are in use of 'per capita' figures. You are portraying that each individual has the ability to reduce emissions, which is a fallacy.

For example, did you emit 4t of CO2 today? Do you emit the 'Per capita' amount on a daily basis? Then who, If not you? If you actually had any real idea of who is emitting the amount you proclaim to be an issue, you would be surprised.


freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

I think you will find that the countries subject to mandatory targets under the Kyoto protocol were chosen largely on this principle.

I think you will find that you are very much incorrect. I also think you know very little about the agreement of the Kyoto protocol if you assume there where mandatory targets set on any country due entirely of the fact, the only agreement reached was to make agreement that something should be done.

So far you have not addressed any point raised.
Since the fact that ‘per capita’ rates do not demonstrate who is emitting the CO2, why is it a good figure to use? An example of which is China, you say that acceptable levels of CO2 emissions are due to averaging over population. However, what percentage of the population in China are emitting the CO2? Considering a very large amount of Chinese people are emitting very little emission, hardly noticeable across the national emissions, how do you know exactly what it is? For exaggerated purposes let us say 10% of the Chinese population is emitting 90%  if the CO2, then would that not be far worse than Australia where say 10% are emitting 90% of the CO2? How do you know these figures are wrong?

dealwithit wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

I think you will find that you are very much incorrect. I also think you know very little about the agreement of the Kyoto protocol if you assume there where mandatory targets set on any country due entirely of the fact, the only agreement reached was to make agreement that something should be done.

Big fail.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Big fail.

Really? Perhaps if you actually took the time to examine the protocol you would see

Quote:

During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period, Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020; however, the composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different from the first.

from unfccc
However, to be realistic about this
Quote:

At negotiations, Annex I countries collectively agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012, relative to their annual emissions in a base year, usually 1990. Since the US has not ratified the treaty, the collective emissions reduction of Annex I Kyoto countries falls from 5.2% to 4.2% below base year.[16]:

from Wikki

Quote:

The Kyoto Protocol treaty was negotiated in December 1997 at the city of Kyoto, Japan and came into force February 16th, 2005.

from kyotoprotocol dot com
If you had taken the time to understand what has actually happened, you would be aware that no limits were set. They were negotiated and agreed to. This is extremely different to your claim that they were set by the Kyoto protocol.

Also if you want a greater knowledge of what has actually occurred. You could find out what Annex 1 countries are. Then you might have some idea how they compiled the actual agreement, to decide what level is acceptable for reductions.

dealwithit wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 11:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13th, 2013 at 10:41pm: Big fail. Really? Perhaps if you actually took the time to examine the protocol you would see Quote: During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period, Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020; however, the composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different from the first. from unfccc However, to be realistic about this[quote]At negotiations, Annex I countries collectively agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012, relative to their annual emissions in a base year, usually 1990. Since the US has not ratified the treaty, the collective emissions reduction of Annex I Kyoto countries falls from 5.2% to 4.2% below base year.[16]:

from Wikki

Quote:

The Kyoto Protocol treaty was negotiated in December 1997 at the city of Kyoto, Japan and came into force February 16th, 2005.

from kyotoprotocol dot com
If you had taken the time to understand what has actually happened, you would be aware that no limits were set. They were negotiated and agreed to. This is extremely different to your claim that they were set by the Kyoto protocol.

Also if you want a greater knowledge of what has actually occurred. You could find out what Annex 1 countries are. Then you might have some idea how they compiled the actual agreement, to decide what level is acceptable for reductions.
[/quote]
No Sonny.

You claimed that the Kyoto Protocol had no mandatory targets.  That i "the only agreement reached was to make agreement that something should be done"

You were 100% WRONG.

BiG FAIL

If you have something to say - grow up and stop making stuff up.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

I suspect gizmo and longy are taking a leaf out of Tony Abbott's book - reject the science outright, but pretend to accept the need for action and follow this through with having completely absurd positions, because not believing the science justifies making no sense at all on every other aspect.

Spot on FD.... 

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 12:10am:

No Sonny. You claimed that the Kyoto Protocol had no mandatory targets.  That i "the only agreement reached was to make agreement that something should be done" You were 100% WRONG. BiG FAIL If you have something to say - grow up and stop making stuff up.

That is correct... that is what I said. And you proclaimed that they set mandatory targets... which are incorrect. Their aim was to set mandatory reductions however that was unacceptable. So over the next few years they negotiated with each country.

So again, perhaps if you had actually done your research you would understand that it is not as cut and dry as you think it to be.

As I have quoted several articles, including the article you proclaimed as evidence of failure, I would consider that it is not 'made up' but whatever floats your boat.

However, this does not detract from the fact that the 'per capita' figure claimed to be so all important is actually only used as a political tool to baffle the weak minded and has no intrinsic value to making policy

DEMOCRACY IS DETAILED!!!!!!!

looks all nice and shiny... polished chrome, blackened tyres... 

some even have white  walls...

dealwithit wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2013 at 10:11pm: Sigh. Another one who cannot even string a sentence together. Try again please. Oh, and I thought you were such the articulate one. freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2013 at 10:11pm: No. What demand are you referring to? Sorry, further down the post you declare that this is exactly the system used when the Kyoto protocol was set. The demand by AGW nutters that everybody has to reduce their emissions. This is why the 'Per Capita' figure was used to justify the Carbon Tax and people such as yourself are determined to defend it. freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2013 at 10:11pm: What individuals do should be left to market forces. However, that is not what you are portraying when you are in use of 'per capita' figures. You are portraying that each individual has the ability to reduce emissions, which is a fallacy. For example, did you emit 4t of CO2 today? Do you emit the 'Per capita' amount on a daily basis? Then who, If not you? If you actually had any real idea of who is emitting the amount you proclaim to be an issue, you would be surprised. freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2013 at 10:11pm: I think you will find that the countries subject to mandatory targets under the Kyoto protocol were chosen largely on this principle. I think you will find that you are very much incorrect. I also think you know very little about the agreement of the Kyoto protocol if you assume there where mandatory targets set on any country due entirely of the fact, the only agreement reached was to make agreement that something should be done. So far you have not addressed any point raised. Since the fact that ‘per capita’ rates do not demonstrate who is emitting the CO2, why is it a good figure to use? An example of which is China, you say that acceptable levels of CO2 emissions are due to averaging over population. However, what percentage of the population in China are emitting the CO2? Considering a very large amount of Chinese people are emitting very little emission, hardly noticeable across the national emissions, how do you know exactly what it is? For exaggerated purposes let us say 10% of the Chinese population is emitting 90%  if the CO2, then would that not be far worse than Australia where say 10% are emitting 90% of the CO2? How do you know these figures are wrong?

You are wrong on just about every single point you make. The rest don't even make sense. How about you start by addressing what I actually post rather than these elaborate stories about what you think I am 'portraying'.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

Longy do you agree with gizmo about splitting China up into smaller countries? Is that what you mean by articulating your argument clearly and strongly?

do you even know - you retarded dimwit - that that was not his argument nor mine? do you even know how to read and comprehend another person's opinion or position because apparently you have not the foggiest clue.

You used to be a good poster with actual arguments and debating skill. You are now no better than lastnail where you simply misrepresent others posts and then abuse them.

I have oftern referred to the pro-ACC crowd as 'climate hysterics'.  Thanks for proving my point.

Quote:

do you even know - you retarded dimwit - that that was not his argument nor mine?

It is what he said Longy. I am having trouble finding the bit where you and gizmo articulated your positions 'clearly and strongly'. Is this it?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 7:17pm: Quote: No, I don't agree with that..which was YOUR comment from the OP btw. I did not suggest it was your comment. I did suggest you appeared to agree with it, for example with this particularly 'enlightening' response: [quote]Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does) ;D Combine this with your inability to even comprehend what per capita means and you have some serious questions to answer. For example, suppose China was broken up into many smaller countries with similar total GHG emissions to Australia. How exactly would you phrase your argument then? Would this render you incapable of criticising Chinese emissions?

Possibly....Then the playing field would be closer to level than it is now.. [/quote]

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

Quote: do you even know - you retarded dimwit - that that was not his argument nor mine? It is what he said Longy. I am having trouble finding the bit where you and gizmo articulated your positions 'clearly and strongly'. Is this it? gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 7:24pm: freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 7:17pm: [quote]No, I don't agree with that..which was YOUR comment from the OP btw. I did not suggest it was your comment. I did suggest you appeared to agree with it, for example with this particularly 'enlightening' response: [quote]Nope it wouldn't...because the 2 ex-china countries would be producing 11.75% of the World's emissions (still 10 times what Australia does) ;D Combine this with your inability to even comprehend what per capita means and you have some serious questions to answer. For example, suppose China was broken up into many smaller countries with similar total GHG emissions to Australia. How exactly would you phrase your argument then? Would this render you incapable of criticising Chinese emissions?

Possibly....Then the playing field would be closer to level than it is now.. [/quote][/quote]

it is not possible to articulate a position you disagree with and have you accept that an argument was even made. this is EXACTLY the lastnail style of 'debating' and just as worthless.

And just like him you are arrogant and boring. Let us all know when you return to the FD of old where you actually came down from on high and accepted that others have a position you may not agree with but is still valid. You no longer debate. you preach hysterically and then abuse those who disagree with you - virtually everyone.

You are already a lastnail clone/ are you planning to emulate SOB next?

ahem

you all like (hearing yourselves talk) writing...get over it guys this boring  ciao

Longy do you agree with what he said about splitting China up into smaller countries so their total GHG emissions are lower?

It's happening again:

Greg Combet on China's emmissions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362875051

Really the Emissions thing is just turning into a giant international fraud. That fraud is the Carbon Credits trading scheme.

A big phony bullsh.t setup that says you can pollute to your heart's content as long you you buy these 'carbon credits' which are nothing but 'hot air'.

We are controlling our emissions, good.

However this whole thing is a giant episode of smoke and mirrors.

The Carbon Trading Credits scheme is the biggest hoax foisted on the world in modern history.

So a Country wants to pump out more pollution, so they 'buy' Carbon Trading Credits. This is what is called flim flam or buying 'nothing'. So big polluting Countries can 'buy' these Carbon Credits which in reality are nothing, they are buying 'nothing' in order to pollute more.

This has been going on since the game of the thimble and the pea.

A big fat gigantic hoax.

They are not buying nothing. They are buying an actual decrease in GHG emissions.

In the great scheme of things, who gives a flying f... about our emissions levels?

Compared to those countries we are a tadpole, the world will only change if these behemoths like China, India and company change and THEY WON'T, so please stop ringing the bell with comparisons huh? It's a joke and a waste of time.

Quote:

Compared to those countries we are a tadpole, the world will only change if these behemoths like China, India and company change and THEY WON'T, so please stop ringing the bell with comparisons huh? It's a joke and a waste of time.

Sounds like you are the one making comparisons.

Do you realise that the bulk of our emissions reductions targets depend on the actions of China and India (with bipartisan support for this principle)?

Are you seriously joking free diver, China is closing down coal fired power stations but they are building new ones to replace them and beyond.

Are you seriously taking China's word, mate I thought you had more savvy than that.

Coal for thought.


China, Ecology, Global warming, Weather
China burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has reported. China’s coal use is poised to continue rising, despite the country's rapidly deteriorating environment, experts predicted.

­The latest EIA report revealed that China's coal consumption grew more than 9 percent in 2011, continuing its upward trend for a 12th consecutive year. Since 2000, the country has accounted for more than 80 percent of the global increase in coal use, the EIA reported. China currently accounts for 47 percent of global coal consumption, nearly totaling the rest of the world combined.


I rest my case, Red Baron

Quote:

Are you seriously joking free diver

You got it backwards.


Quote:

China is closing down coal fired power stations but they are building new ones to replace them and beyond.

So are we. What is your point?


Quote:

Are you seriously taking China's word

China hasn't posted here.


Quote:

I rest my case, Red Baron

What exactly is your case? That China is a really big country? No-one is disputing that. Can you take this to some sort of rational conclusion, or is interpretation beyond you?