Britain exceeds Kyoto target of 12.5% reduction in carbon emisssions since 1990

scorza said:
Everyone will, but only when it's too late.
Click to expand...

There is nothing the UK can do which will have any impact. If we all comitted suicide tommorrow, the subsequent reduction of global CO2 emissions would barely register.

Serious question, have you ever considered moving to a hippy commune?

They make power for themselves and there are no big corporate companies for you to wage a hate campaign against, no rich bankers for you to be jealous of, etc etc. Your life would be far less filled with rage.
 
Biohazard said:
Yeah and that makes sense...not.
Click to expand...

In what way? The Kyoto reductions were pathetically small, completely insubstantial. The actual temperature increase "saved" from the Co2 reductions are less than a tenth of a degree (depending on where you get the data from).

It was merely a stepping stone to survey different countries attitudes towards reductions. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
 
So, China, USA, Russia and India contribute 53% of the world's CO2 emissions; the UK 2%. Go Blighty! Not.

Not that any of this has any bearing whatsoever on anything... unless you're a climatologist seeking funding, or a government seeking a new form of taxation, of course!
 
meghatronic said:
So, China, USA, Russia and India contribute 53% of the world's CO2 emissions; the UK 2%. Go Blighty! Not.

Not that any of this has any bearing whatsoever on anything... unless you're a climatologist seeking funding, or a government seeking a new form of taxation, of course!
Click to expand...

Meh, we release double the worlds average per capita (world av 4.4 met ton). Which is quite a mad figure when you realise a lot of countries with massive pops (quite a few African countries for e.g) release less than .5 met ton per capita.

But I guess it depends on if you care, or think it's tin foil hats time so we can be taxed more :D
 
HeadlessChicken said:
Meh, we release double the worlds average per capita (world av 4.4 met ton). Which is quite a mad figure when you realise a lot of countries with massive pops (quite a few African countries for e.g) release less than .5 met ton per capita.

But I guess it depends on if you care, or think it's tin foil hats time so we can be taxed more :D
Click to expand...
It's hardly mad - think about what you just said. This is an instance when a mean won't suffice.

And if people go down the per capita root - the UK is even more insignificant. It just disses the the Middle East more.
 
meghatronic said:
It's hardly mad - think about what you just said. This is an instance when a mean won't suffice.

And if people go down the per capita root - the UK is even more insignificant. It just disses the the Middle East more.
Click to expand...

You are, of course correct on the first statement :p Must have been having a blonde moment ;) I was trying to stress the diverse ends to the scale.


Yeah the M.E countries are just insane, but they are the ones with all the oil at mentally low prices, so I guess they damn use it!
 
It's good news, not in the climate sense, but if our fossil fuel consumption has decreased by 12.5% then that's pretty impressive.

After all, if/when it starts to run low and the prices rise, the countries which have already adapted to low-carbon economies will be the ones that benefit.
 
scorza said:
Everyone will, but only when it's too late.
Click to expand...

It's too late! They didn't listen! Global warming is coming!!

51cykn9mwilsx320sy240.jpg


It's all just a big con. The ocean on its own can easily process all the CO2 we can possibly throw at it.
 
Robbie G said:
It's too late! They didn't listen! Global warming is coming!!



It's all just a big con. The ocean on its own can easily process all the CO2 we can possibly throw at it.
Click to expand...

It's not all a con. There are consequences to all these actions. The sea doesn't just "soak it up", and that's that. The pH changes, getting more acidic, which can have massive influences on marine life. And bearing in mind fish stocks are the majority protein source for a large percentage of global population, I'd call that a little more than a con (as I'm sure you'd also say if you were one of the percentage, and didn't have endless protein at your disposal in neatly air tight wrapped packages in the supermarket).

We don't know exactly what will happen, which, of course, is the problem surrounding all recent media hype. Regardless of weather CC is anthropogenic or not, it will still happen. And that, along with other problems which are anthropogenic (fossil fuel stocks, species extinction, habitat fragmentation etc etc) get hidden behind carp like Koyoto, IPCC, tin hats so the Gvt doesn't tax us, "it's a con" etc etc.
 
Sorry Al Gore but it is a con. We could burn all the fossil fuels available on the planet in a massive Guy Fawkes party at once then live off wind and we'd all still be fine.
 
What people forget is this WILL happen regardless. The climate changes. It will be a lot hotter than it is now and at some point it will be a lot colder than it is now. Much better to deal with the effects. That ruin the economy and achieve nothing.

If you believe in man made global warming through co2. Then you should read the IPCC reports and especially the charts, it is to late and unachievable.

I'm much more interested in energy security, energy price and pollution. than this stupid co2 movement.

More on topic, how much of that 2% have we sold to othercountries, or been a factor of industry moving abroad.
 
Robbie G said:
Sorry Al Gore but it is a con. We could burn all the fossil fuels available on the planet in a massive Guy Fawkes party at once then live off wind and we'd all still be fine.
Click to expand...

Bapping to the wrong fella, I'm one of the biggest AGW sceptics around. But people seem to forget we will have to deal with the consequences of CC weather we induced them or not.
 
Dolph said:
What a shame it is completely pointless in the grand scheme of things when other countries are ramping up emissions in ways that utterly dwarf our cuts...

It's like celebrating that you stopped a leak in the kitchen while ignoring the fact that every other tap in the house has been torn off...
Click to expand...

WEll that, except we didn't stop the leak in the kitchen, the kitchen closed down and moved to China, the leak is still there and its worse than it was, just somewhere else.

We've reduced emissions since 1990, as factories shut down and companies move production of lots of stuff to other countries.

This isn't from being fantastically brilliant in saving power, its really a result of a failing economy.

But considering the fact we simply buy stuff we used to make here, from China, which has worse regulations and so worse emissions just making the same thing, then the "carbon cost" involved in shipping all that crap over here in the first place. Its a far worse situation over all. The only difference is, China's reaping all the profit from its output from its factories, we're cleaner than we were, but have less jobs, and a weaker economy.

Thats all ignoring the fact we also quite literally ship rubbish to China to be buried/burnt rather than do it here. Again burn the stuff here, or burn the stuff there, creates the same amount of emissions, well probably more because we'd be more likely to do it in a safer way, maybe in a factory with some kind of capturing device like a catalytic convertor or something to reduce emissions, they likely won't. But then the actual cost involved in the fuel used to ship the crap there before burning. Its costing us money, to produce more emisions, its just those emissions go down on China's books, not ours, its a disgrace, nothing more than cooking the books, and at the taxpayers expense.

Fail to see how its remotely good news.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom