Australian Politics Forum - Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30088
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #30 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:28pm

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

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?

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 Sad

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #31 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:30pm

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

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

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?

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 Sad

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #32 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:35pm

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?

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.

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30088
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #33 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:37pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #34 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:42pm

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30088
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #35 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49pm

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

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

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

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.

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 Sad

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

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #36 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:50pm

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

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?

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...

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49030
At my desk.

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #37 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #38 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 7:59pm

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.

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??

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49030
At my desk.

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #39 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #40 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 8:54pm

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.

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???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49030 At my desk.	Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries Reply #41 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:32pm It is not meant to be a cumulative measure gizmo.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #42 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:42pm

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

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

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

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?

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 Sad

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

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #43 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:45pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #44 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11pm

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

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

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.

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

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.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged