U.S. Not Doing Enough to Protect Coral Reefs

[LoneWolf]

Yes, the US is one of the biggest polluters. We are also one of, if not THE biggest exporter. The more products you produce the more pollution you are going to create. The reason most countries don't produce as much pollution isn't because they care more about the environment, it's because they are buying a lot of their stuff from the USA! If we stopped exporting products to other countries and they were forced to make their own then THEY would produce more pollution. The United States consumes more energy and produces more pollution than any other country because the United States is more PRODUCTIVE than any other country. This might be reason for scorn if the USA kept everything for themselves, but a huge amount of everything produced goes out all over the world. Of course if the US were to cut off rest of the world from the fruit of its labor than it wouldn't have to produce so much and could easily cut the amount of pollution produced. But who really needs American innovation right? Vehicles, telephones, computers, modern medicine, electricity, planes.....heck, I could go on forever with all sorts of useless American inventions rest the world doesn't need that just result in more pollution.

Sorry, I don't usually rant, especially on this board

 

[Kim]

Kim - thank you for mentioning a very current point about warming ocean water. I didn't want to bring it up, but if you insist, I refer to an article which appeared in Monday's newspaper.

Maldives nurses it's coral back to life.

And why did the coral die in the first place? From the El Nino ocean current phenomenon... which has existed LONG before increased greenhouse gas emissions.

I agree that El Nino has been around a long time. There is, however, increasing reason to believe that climate warming is making the El Nino phenomena worse than it needs to be. This is among other things particularly bad for the US West coast areas. It's hard to deliver clean water if there is no water to start with!
Great news though about the Maldives. They should do fine if the same effect never happens again!

 

[archman]

The full list can be found here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi_cap

Kim, this site rocks! Forget looking at CO2 emissions, check out the water quality stuff. There's categories in here even I don't understand!
You can even look at completely different things, like agriculture, economics... even "triggerhappiness". The U.S. is on the Top 20 for that one, Ha!
Don't go to Columbia, you're most likely to be murdered (.63 per thousand).
Even assuming that this data is only slightly accurate, it's pretty dang useful when looking at the global picture. Why didn't you list Kuwait as the #1 CO2 emitter? They dwarf the U.S. figure by leaps and bounds!

 

[Boogie711]

Kim - you didn't answer my other question. You have $500 billion to spend on the environment. You can either create permanent water treatment plants for every person on earth, or you can, according to the IPCC, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% for a period of one year.

Your call.

My choice is pretty darn clear.

 

[archman]

Yes, the US is one of the biggest polluters. We are also one of, if not THE biggest exporter.

Last I heard the U.S. imported more than it exported. I thought the biggest domestic gripe regarding jobs was how hardly anything was made in the U.S. anymore. The steadily decreasing factory and blue collar job market certainly isn't disputed by anyone.
Maybe it would be more apt to say that the U.S. is the biggest importer of foreign goods. We certainly have more "stuff" than nearly anyone else. Oh wait, I can probably look this up from Kim's neat website and see how we rank!

****slight time delay*****
Okay, according to the site the U.S. STILL is the king of world exports! However, on a per capita basis we suck royally, ranking in the 50's somewhere.
We also RULE in global imports, taking in nearly TWICE what we export! Is this good or bad... I'm so confused now.

 

[Kim]

Kim, this site rocks! Forget looking at CO2 emissions, check out the water quality stuff. There's categories in here even I don't understand!
You can even look at completely different things, like agriculture, economics... even "triggerhappiness". The U.S. is on the Top 20 for that one, Ha!
Don't go to Columbia, you're most likely to be murdered (.63 per thousand).
Even assuming that this data is only slightly accurate, it's pretty dang useful when looking at the global picture. Why didn't you list Kuwait as the #1 CO2 emitter? They dwarf the U.S. figure by leaps and bounds!

Archman - theres only about 40 people live in Kuwait isn't there? LOL That's why I posted the link though - everyone can see all the data - not just what I choose to present. I agree though - it's an interesting site!

Kim - you didn't answer my other question. You have $500 billion to spend on the environment. You can either create permanent water treatment plants for every person on earth, or you can, according to the IPCC, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% for a period of one year.

Your call.

My choice is pretty darn clear.

I thought I addressed that by pointing out that if severe climate change causes major droughts there won't be much water to purify. This is not a simple this or that argument - it's all interrelated.

 

[Boogie711]

Oh, and by the way, Kim - the link you provided so we can "research" the Bush Administrations views on the Kyoto protocol belongs to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, about half of donor dollars given to the NRDC go towards the issue they're promoting. The rest goes towards fundraising and salaries, overhead, etc. Well hey, they're better than Greenpeace, right?

Oh, and incidentally, according to your own report, not only is Kuwait the number one GHG emitter, the USA is fifth. Yet, the other five countries are exempt from the Kyoto protocol.

Kyoto is dead. It was designed as a tax on the Americans, and the American's didn't bite. Watch - now the rest of Europe will have no choice but to back away from the GHG commitments. It's OK - most GHG emissions come from the mining of petrochemicals. Thanks to American bred technologies like biodiesel and ethanol, petrochemicals will be less and less necessary in the years ahead.

 

[Boogie711]

I thought I addressed that by pointing out that if severe climate change causes major droughts there won't be much water to purify. This is not a simple this or that argument - it's all interrelated.

Kim - OK, in year two, you can use that $500 billion to put desalinization plants in every single country in the world. Plus the pipeline to deliver it there. Twice.

Furthermore - WHAT severe climate change? Don't go on rhetoric - the IPCC says 1.9 to 2.0 degrees, which will actually lead to MORE water and flooding, according to their estimates.

Still want to argue this point?

 

[archman]

...look what just popped up on CNN. And the science they're reporting is pretty solid, how refreshing.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/05/04/thewarming.west.ap/index.html

 

[calypsonick]

Boogie711. I am not flying of the handel just emphasizing my view.
However I get the feeling you take a lot for granted, eg this is worse than that, dumping v GHG and I asked you to present the facts this you have not done. I am not saying I have the numbers but asking do you ?. I would be very happy to go over them and if I am wrong then I will give you an apology then not take it for granted that you will get or deserve one

Boogie,

I won't pretend to be an expert on what is good or bad science but the IPCC (140 scientists and national experts from more than thirty countries collaborated in the creation of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997) to ensure that the emission inventories submitted to the UNFCCC are consistent and comparable between nations) is telling us that the US is #1 in GHG emissions, with the whole of the European Community in a distant second. You too can download the data at http://ghg.unfccc.int/ .

I agree with cdiver2 - show us the "good" data, Boogie.

The only way to debunk junk science is with good science.