Australian Politics Forum - Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49030 At my desk.	Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries Reply #45 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:32pm I suspect you have a few correlations and causations mixed up.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49030 At my desk.	Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries Reply #46 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:36pm bump
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 #47 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 9:16pm

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #48 - 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).

[/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.??)

Back to top

live every day

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 #49 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:33pm

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

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

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

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

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).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

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......

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

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #50 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:37pm

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

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

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

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

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #51 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:37pm

.................. 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... Roll Eyes

do you not see the fallacy??

eh i'll keep on reading.

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #52 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:45pm

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

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

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

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....

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 #53 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:46pm

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

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

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

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

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..

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:54pm by gizmo_2655 »

"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

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #54 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:48pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #55 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:50pm

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #56 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:52pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2013 at 10:58pm by Emma »

live every day

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 #57 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 11:02pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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..

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

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #58 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 11:07pm

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...

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

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries Reply #59 - Feb 4^th, 2013 at 11:18pm 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...
Back to top	live every day IP Logged