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

HeadlessChicken · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:17

AcidHell2 said:
Because it makes no darn difference tonnage per person. It is the total tonnage released and that is countries like china. Not us.

Is it really fair to tell countries like China and India that they are not allowed to advance their industry and technology, exactly the same as we have done, because they have more people in their country? A bit of a tough one if you ask me.

Glaucus · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:18

starfighter said:
Still, it is a bit rich to tell a chinaman to use less resources when he has very little and we could go on 1 less longhaul holiday a year.

You are missing the point. Personal usage means squat all. it is not unfair. that is just the way it is. Us lowering are emissions makes sod all difference.

Monkeynut · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:19

So, by moving our industry to China we've actually worsened the problem because of less environmental regulation there. While fudging the figures to make it look like we've done some good.

Bravo boys, bravo.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:21

HeadlessChicken said:
Is it really fair to tell countries like China and India that they are not allowed to advance their industry and technology, exactly the same as we have done, because they have more people in their country? A bit of a tough one if you ask me.

It's more telling them to skip the cheap and nasty way and go to thew more expensive but "cleaner" way that saying don;t do it at all.

China does have nuclear capability and there's companies out there that would be very happy for contracts for clean coal designs.

But meh tbh it's their country that's getting ****ed by the pollution so long as the next big GFX card is cheaper because of it I'm not too bothered

starfighter · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:21

What about the middle ground, taking into account the size of the country, yes China has a lot of people but it is damn big. I can see both sides of the argument.

I just feel if it wasnt CHINA and was a load of small poor nations all adding up they wouldn' be targetted so harshly.

But the other way favours a few low population rich nations who as have done can simply push the co2 elsewhere reasonbly cheaply.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:25

starfighter said:
Still, it is a bit rich to tell a chinaman to use less resources when he has very little and we could go on 1 less longhaul holiday a year.

Yes it is complicated because of the dodgy distribution of wealth over there but it is still a mean average so the few high polluters are taken into acount.

it is down to their population really.

But say if Chinas provinces were ruled seperetly like the countries of Europe, it wouldn't change anything would it? unless all the rich people live in one place?

It just seems like they arn't allowed to make much co2 because they have so many people, the country is big enough to warrent it, perhaps km2 should be part of the calculation. te more of the earth you oen the more co2 you can make.

But the average china man wouldn't have to "use less resources". The china man building the power station would just have to adhere to stricter regs, which is desperately needed there after all more and more sites like this are occurring there.

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

HeadlessChicken · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:25

Indeed, I think we (the west) need to help developing countries with low carbon tech. The amount of coal being used in China each day is just incredible.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:26

HeadlessChicken said:
Indeed, I think we (the west) need to help developing countries with low carbon tech. The amount of coal being used in China each day is just incredible.

"We" will but just like countries in the west they'd have to pay for it.

And without legislation to force them to there is not need to spend the money on it.

starfighter · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:29

I agee that China need sorting out and could do a lot more, but to say they produce all the co2 so we should do nothing is equally bonkers.

it needs to be some kind of fair agreement which is not easy. I just don't think per country is it as it totally forgets that china is 10x bigger and has 20x more people than most other countries.

Glaucus · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:30

starfighter said:
I agee that China need sorting out and could do a lot more, but to say they produce all the co2 so we should do nothing is equally bonkers.

it needs to be some kind of fair agreement which is not easy. I just don't think per country is it as it totally forgets that china is 10x bigger and has 20x more people than most other countries.

The only thing that matters is total co2 production. And unfortunately that's per country not per person. Wever you think it is fair or not is irrelevant that is what is needed. it is pointless wrecking our economy while china swallows are tiny inroads by bringing online 80 coal power plants.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:33

starfighter said:
I agee that China need sorting out and could do a lot more, but to say they produce all the co2 so we should do nothing is equally bonkers.

it needs to be some kind of fair agreement which is not easy. I just don't think per country is it as it totally forgets that china is 10x bigger and has 20x more people than most other countries.

but most of those people don;t produce/require the co2.

And a large amount of that could be reduced by buying/investing in more expensive designed but there's no government push so they will take the cheapest they can get away with even if it involves turning rivers into horrible chemical waste + causing birth defects in the local population.

Do you think the average Chinese person would be happy that their child is crippled because the government says it's ok for the industrial waste to just be pumped out unprocessed?

Not targeting the people causing the most is like targeting elderly middle class people to reduce gang violence

*Moangroan* · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:33

I think the global warming thing is a scam. But I think the global poluting thing is no scam.

m_cozzy · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:34

starfighter said:
Still, it is a bit rich to tell a chinaman to use less resources when he has very little and we could go on 1 less longhaul holiday a year.

No thanks, I like my long haul holidays. Seems fat gord is going to make them more expensive soon with extra airport tax though, because taxing is really going to help the 'problem' of 'global warming'

Glad to seem most people on here see it as the scam it is. It seems the majority on some cycling forums I visit are such sausage jockeys they actually beleive in made made global warming

Depressing to think how many others fall for this guff.

dalin80 · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:35

HeadlessChicken said:
Is it really fair to tell countries like China and India that they are not allowed to advance their industry and technology, exactly the same as we have done, because they have more people in their country?

yes.

technology is a race, we won and got the first prize by smashing face first into the industrial revolution and getting all the benefits that provided. if other countries aren't as fast that's not our fault, its theres for being too slow and they will have to deal with the disadvantages that brings.

welcome to the world, being unfair to the slow since 4,500,000,000bc.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:39

dalin80 said:
yes.

technology is a race, we won and got the first prize by smashing face first into the industrial revolution and getting all the benefits that provided. if other countries aren't as fast that's not our fault, its theres for being too slow and they will have to deal with the disadvantages that brings.

welcome to the world, being unfair to the slow since 4,500,000,000bc.

Except they are more powerful than us and have said "**** you you need us now we're doing it".

So they're doing it now, how you going to stop them?

dalin80 · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:41

Tefal said:
Except they are more powerful than us and have said "**** you you need us now we're doing it".

So they're doing it now, how you going to stop them?

i didnt make any point about stopping them, purely commented on the fairness of trying.

it would be impossible to stop chinese capitalism now, too many western governments have sold them too many assets.

Tefal · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:42

dalin80 said:
i didnt make any point about stopping them, purely commented on the fairness of trying.

it would be impossible to stop chinese capitalism now, too many western governments have sold them too many assets.

You did seem to say we'd won the technology race though despite the fact it's never going to end?

meghatronic · 2 Feb 2010 at 21:58

starfighter said:
Still, it is a bit rich to tell a chinaman to use less resources when he has very little and we could go on 1 less longhaul holiday a year.

That Chinaman has a national debt of around £200 on his head. Your national debt (excluding personal) is around £15,000. Give or take.

LordSplodge · 2 Feb 2010 at 22:07

AcidHell2 said:
The only thing that matters is total co2 production.

What's with the focus on CO2 (and this isn't aimed directly at you AcidHell) but don't a: People get the carbon cycle and b: Understand that CO2 alone is NOT the problem?

starfighter · 2 Feb 2010 at 22:08

meghatronic said:
That Chinaman has a national debt of around £200 on his head. Your national debt (excluding personal) is around £15,000. Give or take.

We still have more GDP. we just spent it in advance.

Anyway I am really just saying per country is a bit unfair, not that per person or amont of wealth is a perfect idea either.

How about just total co2 produced per country minus how much you can absorb, by including the amount of trees and land in general it is a bit better.

For example If you own half the planet suerly you should be allowed to cause 50% of the worlds suitable amount of co2.