Misuse of Scientific Data By the White House 577
Science data nerds writes "The White House is consistently and persistently claiming that the US is doing better than Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is false — their claim is purely based on carefully selecting the only subset of the data that supports this conclusion. When all the data are used, it is plain that European emissions have declined substantially and US emissions have grown substantially. The article, and this linked analysis, debunk the White House claims."
not true (Score:3, Funny)
Re:not true (Score:5, Funny)
The press is clear about it.
As Fry Would say... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think we're dealing with a bit of both here.
Re:As Fry Would say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As Fry Would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
A reformulation of CLarks third law by J. Porter Clark: "sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, definition 3: incompetence - "The ina
Re:As Fry Would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the link to the numbers the pacinst uses. and [epa.gov]here is the link [iea.org] to what the white house used.
Three things to be noted. One is that the IEA publication costs a lot of money so unless some one is willing to pony up the change and do the actual comparisons, we won't know for sure. Using numbers from another study or data set does nothing to show anyone mislead anything. If anything, it is misleading of this study to suggest something that doesn't exist.
Second, the IEA numbers don't cover the same numbers the other report does. It used numbers from fuel combustion were as the EPA numbers account for all use including purpose full manufacturing of Co2.
Third and probably the most important is that the EU and the rest of the world have only been attempting to reduce Co2 emisiosn since 2000 when the kyoto accord was in effect. Comparing to anything previous is senseless and misleading. It implies there was an effort that isn't and attempt to say look, we are guilty because we done this before that.
In all, It would be note worthy to have numbers that come form the same source and cover the same data. This report doesn't do it and even attempts to use the disconnect from consistancy as a basis to refute the conclusions of a report that does use the same source and same data collections. I have contacted them by email about their apparent misleading and have not received a response from them. Also they have listed this second "refined report" after that.
Re:As Fry Would say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reducing CO2 emissions is often a side effect of other efforts to curb pollution. Besides that, some of the EU-15 member states are the driving force behind Kyoto, and cared about CO2 emissions long before it was signed.
For instance, the main reasons for the favourable trend in Germany in the 90s are an effort to increase efficiency in power plants and the restructuring of the industry of the former DDR after reunification, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK was primarily the result of fuel switches from oil and coal to gas in electricity production and N2O emissions reduction measures in the chemical industry.
Also the shift towards smaller cars and diesel engines, driven by higher excise taxes on gas, and improvement of (legally required) catalytic converters on cars, are contributors, as well as thermal isolation subsidies and requirements for households in many EU-15 member states. The reform of the CAP in 1992 led to reduced use of fertilizer and less cattle, and the landfill waste directive to recovery of CH4 from landfills in the EU-15. (cf. generally Gugele et al, 2002 [europa.eu]) All of those efforts have CO2 emissions reduction as a side effect.
It is relevant to include recent history in evaluating track record, because countries that started to curb pollution early have to make a greater effort to achieve the same reduction (certainly if the target is set as a percentage of current emissions). The US has a long way to go to have CO2 emissions per capita equal to the EU-15, and the US does not have any excuses for high emissions: it's not a major exporter of energy-intensive manufactured goods like for instance Germany or Japan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry about any inconvenience or wrong interpretation that may have led to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:As Fry Would say... (Score:4, Insightful)
I do think we're dealing with a bit of both here.
Hanlon's razor
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Ignorance is too kind a word for this. It's purposeful and willful stupidity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Based on the last 6 years, the White House must be the world's largest consumer of ignorance...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As Fry Would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But, then again, I'm one of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that sort of like "truthiness"?
Re:Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Funny)
But, then again, I'm one of the .01% of people on /. who don't think that the current White House is an incarnation of Cthulhu
I'd just like to speak up to show my solidarity here. The current White House is definitely not an incarnation of Cthulhu. Cthulhu would be far more honest about his evil ways, and certainly wouldn't need to do anything as wimpy as manufacturing data.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> would be far more honest about his evil ways, and certainly wouldn't need to
> do anything as wimpy as manufacturing data.
Absolutely. You only have to look at Cthulhu's presidential policy paper to see that:
http://www.cthulhu.org/cthulhu/positions.html [cthulhu.org]
Bias (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring reality and pretending that the delusions of the current US administration could be true is a much worse form of bias than the one you're imagining to exist here.
Partisan morons like yourself need to get over their infatuations with certain politicia
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The
Re:Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, look, Republican Debating Techniques 101! Look folks, let's play: muddy the waters!
Suggesting that the strides being made in Europe on emissions are the ethical or environmental equivalent of the destructive pollution policies of the GWB administration, because, oh, "really both sides are biased," is an affront to science and to intelligence.
The policy of this administration has been unapologetically regressive. Bush loosened and terminated regulations through a stacked Congress and rolled back initiatives by presidential order, because corporate big business lobbyists told him environmental regulations were cutting into profits, "and that hurts the economy." This isn't even up for debate. He has related his policies and his actions over and over again to the press and in his speeches across the nation. We have so much going wrong in this country after 8 years that even if we get a Democratic president and Congress, it will take 10 years to recover policy-wise after this administration is finally run out of office.
The environment isn't high school debate club; this is serious and it matters, and unless Mars suddenly develops an atmosphere, we only have one shot at getting it right.
why so down? (Score:4, Insightful)
The USA will get that Mexican climate, fitting for the new owners. The old owners can move to that uninhabited area called Canada. We all get more space; the continent is kind of triangular with the big part up north.
Alaska is way bigger than Hawaii.
Opening up the Northwest Passage would be great for trade. Opening up the whole Arctic Ocean would be even better. Right now the area is a damn worthless because of the ice.
Re:Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Informative)
First, that's not what the Heidelberg appeal was about. It was signed by 4,000 self-described "scientists," not climatologists, and was essentially a position piece arguing against the idea of a "natural state," not a critique of climate change theory itself. It was written about 10 years ago, and many of its signatories have since gone on record as recognizing the reality of human causes to climate change.
You may be confusing it with the "Oregon petition." [wikipedia.org] It is now recognized, generally, as a fraud. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [wikipedia.org] is run from a small warehouse in the middle of rural Oregon. It is not a reputable scientific institute.
The truth of the matter is that these statements are motivated by forces who enjoy considerable prosperity based on practices which are threatened by responsible environmental policy. They know that they can't really win the debate on scientific grounds: instead, they want to create enough doubt and dissension that they can continue to enjoy maximal profits for as long as possible. Your "growing economy" is irresponsible and selfish.
Re:Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. One side has most of the scientific establishment behind it. The other side has a few crackpots, "researchers" paid to provide desired data, and cherry-picked data. Only the willfully ignorant at this stage give equal credibility to both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who believe the Earth is flat are crackpots. People who do not believe in the germ theory of disease are crackpots. People who do not believe in plate tectonics are crackpots.
Is this really "funny"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, this is a discussion about science. Politics is down the hall, to the left.
Science does not change depending on what your political leanings are. A republican and a democrat both fall at the same rate if they jump out a window. Doesn't matter if they believe in Newton or not.
The text you've read were not written by climate scientists. They were written by people pushing a political agenda. The entire field of climate science is unanimous in stat
Re:Ah, a nice flame war (Score:5, Insightful)
They say 2+2 is 4.
We say it's 18.
So, obviously, it must be somewhere around 11?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Open your eyes and you'll find out that it's not both sides that are making shit up. It's one side telling the truth, and one side lying.
Now guess which side Rush Limbaugh is on.
Obligatory recommended reading (Score:5, Informative)
All your Data... (Score:5, Funny)
All cited articles are from the same source (Score:4, Informative)
Pick any year since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997, Mr. Bush should have said, and the U.S. CO2 emission performance is superior to that of all major Kyoto parties, including and most notably Europe (CO2 being the focus of the many pending legislative proposals).
Also, the submission complains that the US metric shown in a positive light - surprising they'd choose something that reflects positively! - is that because only CO2 emissions are considered. Well, CO2 emissions account for nearly three quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions [wikimedia.org].
Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.
Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The good ol' SUV argument. Knew that'd come in somewhere!
1. All of GM's full size trucks and SUVs - GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, and pickup trucks and fleet vehicles - will have the most advanced two-mode full hybrid system to date [autobloggreen.com] on nearly any consumer vehicle for MY2008.
2. GM's bread and butter is the full size trucks; it can't compete with Toyota in the car market, and it doesn't have anything to do with "greener" (though increased fuel
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just kdawson... (Score:2)
This is quite typical of kdawson. Just be glad it wasn't a mention of the "stolen" 2004 presidential election.
I'm no partisan Republican myself, but I'm getting fairly tired of kdawson. I don't want to see
Well, see ya' in modded-down-to-oblivion-ville.
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:5, Interesting)
Businesses and nations which ignore emission controls are almost assured to benefit economically. If they use cheap power, have no carbon taxes to pay and no expensive pollution controls they will kill their competitors who are facing such controls, they already are(a.k.a China). The trading regime instituted in Europe has already caused stress to clean efficient plants trying to control their emissions because they face competitors in places like Morocco with no control regime who undersell them. If this happens on a large scale Europe looks great on the CO2 front but only because all the big emitters have gone off shore to Asia and Africa. The end result could be a net worsening of the climate problem because there will be a bunch of dirty plants spewing CO2 in all the "developing" world replacing cleaner but too expensive ones in developed countries.
The key point to CO2 control is it has to be applied globally and evenly or it isn't going to work. If it isn't applied globally countries who aren't participating have to have exports heavily taxed so they are forced to pay for abusing CO2 emissions. The Kyoto protocol is indeed deeply flawed because it exerts little control over India and China because they are "developing" countries but their CO2 emissions are exploding. If you crack down on the U.S., Japan and Europe but leave India and China unchecked you will just give them yet another competitive advantage. They will build even more really dirty power plants and factories and the global CO2 situation will get worse not better.
A cynic could say CO2 controls on developed countries is just another ploy to further devastate the economies of developed countries to the benefit China, India and other cheap off shoring destinations.
In China's defense they are realizing their massive abuse of coal is an ecological disaster in the making, or already made, and they are undertaking a massive switch to nuclear energy. This is a key reason processed Uranium has gone from $10/lb to $130/lb since 2003 and Toshiba bought Westinghouse's Nuclear division, to build China nukes. They are building something like 32 nuclear power plants by 2020 and 10 times that by 2050. They've also broken ground on a huge nuclear waste dump. Going nuclear is obviously a double edged sword but it is one of the not so many viable options to what China is doing now, throwing up rat trap coal fired power plants at a furious pace, with no pollution controls, terrible efficiency and which are spewing vast quantities of CO2 and Mercury in to the air.
China's peak coal in 15 years? (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Orient toward the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Coal is cheap and the U.S. and China have vast reserves of it. As long as you can throw people at mining it or strip mine it, and you can stand the mercury and CO2 pollution there isn't going to be any particularly serious energy related spike there. Why do you think the U.S. and China are on a binge of building coal fired power plants. Industries dependent on oil and gas could certainly benefit from the ef
Going Green does not hurt our economy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which city in the rust belt has a trade surplus with China and why? Erie PA. Because GE makes the most fuel efficient locomotives on the planet in Erie and even though the Chinese have lower labor costs and environmental protection standards, the GE locmotives, while costing more to purchase, pay-back the extra cost very rapidly in fuel savings. The greenest tech is the most efficient tech and it wins economically.
So, protecting and subsidizing stupidity might protect one particular set of players in an industry (GM & Ford, for instance) but overall it doesn't do the USA any good.
Green is efficient, so Green is smart business.
There's green in going green -- Friedman [publicradio.org]
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:5, Interesting)
The US shows a steady increase of greenhouse gas emissions, EXCEPT for the period between 2000 and 2002 where it shows a pretty sharp decline. This decline is NOT because of a conscious effort to reduce emissions, it's a direct result of 9/11 and its effects on the airline industry. There's no will behind the decline, it's just a freak accident, a secondary effect. And to include that decline in any sort of comparison and say "Look guys, we're doing better!" is completely dishonest.
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:5, Insightful)
So? They're growing at a much, much faster rate. And the statement you chose - that it would be like saying, "We got to industrialization first, so we're the only ones who get to benefit! Oh and you have to clean up just as much as us even though we've made a bigger mess," - is telling, but it's actually the opposite of that: it's more like, "We got to industrialization, but we'll allow other developing economies to artificially pollute much more, leaving Western economies at an even greater disadvantage than they are now when competing."
One day, when India and China are serious polluters they will curb emissions.
Oh, they will? Really? Who's going to make China curb emissions? And China has [kenyon.edu] plenty [economist.com] of [wikipedia.org] problems [zmag.org] now [go.com].
So yeah, it's not "fair" if China, especially considering the force it is already, isn't held to any standards at all; or, rather, would you find it surprising that there are other factors to consider in the US not simply wanting to happily allow a severe competitive disadvantage, and frames the discussions based on that? This isn't a "Republican" issue or a matter of "misuse" of scientific data. It's an issue of pure economics. Might it be treated more gingerly by more liberal politicians? Sure. But it wouldn't be a lot more than lip service, because no matter who is in office, the economic and other threats from China in particular are very real, and emissions are but small part of that equation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh, the problem with things like carbon credits is they are not "real" commodities; they are just...well, they are just made up. It's not like there's a giant pile of CO2, and once that pile is gone there is no more. There is actually no way to enforce something like carbon credits, unless countries are willing to destroy factories etc. that are producing emissions beyond their credits. That isn't going to happen.
Economics of scarce goods only works if the goods are really scarce. "Producing emissions" is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee... just like... every single currency on the planet. Care to explain to me, again, why that can't work?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to make an irrelevant analogy and miss the point, fine, let's do it:
Because assuming the guy on the on-ramp keeps his acceleration pace, if the cop had waited about 30 seconds longer, he'd find that he'll be doing 130 in a 55, so the focus on the guy going 70 right now, will, in retrospect, be the sign
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:4, Insightful)
A side note here... remember that the US is 3.7 million square miles in size (.0018234234... raw pollution per square mile) and the EU is only 1.7 million square miles in size (.0023706 raw pollution per square mile), and that China is about 3.7 square miles in size as well (.000986486... raw pollution per square mile), and finally, India is only 1.27 square miles in size (.000967354 raw pollution per square mile).
That paints a picture of the EU being in the worst shape, with the US slightly behind, and then China and India fairly close together.
Is pollution per land mass a more fair measurement?
Mind you, this is assuming that CO2eMt stands for Megatons of CO2 emitted. If I'm incorrect in that assumption, then I apologize. I'm also basing the per square mile amounts on your raw emissions amount.
Nephilium
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have thought that population would be a better measurement than land area. All pollution is ultimately produced for and by people, not land.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not. Have you even RTFA? (no I'm not new here)
Not only is the data 2000-2004 the only data set in which the US does better then the EU, but also, the main reason why this data set is this way is because of the sharp decline in 2001 of emissions because of a steep decrease in Airplane transportation and economic slowdown because of 9/11.
So, unless you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, there is absolutely no rea
Re:All cited articles are from the same source (Score:4, Informative)
Could it perhaps be due to the fact that Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have joined the EU since 2000, most of which are ex-Soviet satellites whose power generation systems and industries do not yet meet EC pollution standards?
Behold! Your Tax Dollars At Work... (Score:2, Funny)
The rising importance of media (Score:5, Insightful)
I just watched two movies: Control Room [imdb.com] (2004) about the media coverage of the invasion of Iraq and Al Jazeera's role and The revolution will not be televised [imdb.com] (2003) about the role of the private media in the coup in Venezuela in 2001. Neither of the two might be called very objective, but I see how difficult it would be to find an audience for more scientific analysis.
The common theme in both is how important the media has become. Now this is not really news, but during the last decade the media reaction has been part of e.g. military operation (embedded journalism) and there is a tremendous effort to control the pictures. Not so much to suppress any reporting, since it has become obvious that this will never work, but to control what is fed to the press. And unfortunately the press is not yet up to speed to get their informations from a wider number of sources.
Now with blogging, youtube, flickr etc. there seems to be a much wider range of possible information sources, even harder to suppress than in the past. But today we face the problem which of these sources to trust, there are just so many. There are attempts like newstrust [newstrust.net], which tries to be a sort of slashdot moderation system on top of existing news. But I think we need much more of this. Like greasemonkey allows you to attach things to websites that the authors did not intend to be there, we need the option to attach other sources to any news and have a large body of people vote on which of these sources should be taken into account. I have no clue how to realize this, but this is a typical case: the government using FUD to strengthen their position. People can react and argue with the claims, but there should be a way for these comments to reach the public, not only via sites like slashdot, but by default. With the increase of media sources and media power we have to become better at using and evaluating media as a group, not only as single viewers and readers.
Did anyone here actually RTFA? (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope this isnt' suppose to be news ? (Score:2)
The whole purpose of data/statistics is to prove your point. The US government has always misrepresented data to prove it's point. Its the 'tail wagging the dog'. Government makes policy, in order to not seem like a tyranny government creates data to justify policy. Let's see, War in Iraq, Spanish American war. I could go on forever this isn't new and we shouldn't' pretend it is. The problem is most people don't understand statistical data. Its not just a matter of greater than or less than, there are so ma
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so simple (Score:3, Informative)
Is the UK entry level model street legal in the US? Does it meet US emissions and safety requirements? (For that matter, what constitues a 'UK entry level model', as no model is designated as such on the UK BMW website that I can find.)
Re:Not so simple (Score:4, Informative)
It is very likely that BMW makes their cars to pass the country who has the strictest emissions and safety standards, so they can build one body shell and one engine for the whole world as this decreases manufacturing costs.
Re:Not so simple (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say the person who can be described as ignorant is the one who responds to a simple question of fact with assumptions and abuse.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
I would suggest that the problem is not with hard facts and statistics, but rather with a populace that is poorly educated in statistics and a media that is unwilling to actually analyze the statistics (and present that analysis) for fear of offending or boring an apathetic and relatively innumerate populace.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
Torture statistics enough, and it will admit to anything.
The Trial Was a Pig Circus, He Never Had a Chance (Score:4, Interesting)
a) Including 1990 as a base year for European emissions is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, up until very recently European economic growth has badly lagged that of the USA. When there is less growth, there is less emissions. Even now, European economic growth lags, as a rule. When you have 10% of your people unemployed, as the French do, it does not take them much CO2 to drive to work, as there is no work to drive to. Secondly, Europeans have been furiously gaming emissions in their own right. There's been rampant adjusting of the baseline in order to improve their own greenhouse picture. So, the real question is, are the Europeans actually seriously making their targets, or are they simply patting themselves on the back for the slow growth side effects of the nanny state.
b) The gases described by the convention do not include water vapor, which constitutes the bulk of global warming.
c) All climate conventions these days presuppose that a reduction in manmade emissions will correct the atmospheric balance of gasses, and, that, by doing so, our climate will revert to some imagined ideal state of 1700, which was in the middle of an ice age, and a billion people will easily starve to death because of a shortened growing season. This will be almost as stupid as the wide spread left wing opposition to nuclear power, which essentially doomed us to global warming to begin with. Really, if the USA had gone 100% nuclear, there would be no global warming, and, so really, all of this finger pointing at Republicans over global warming is an elaborate smokescreen to say that you Lefties once again f=== up the planet and want we superior Bush supporters to bail you out.
We told you what the answer was : Build Nukes. Build Hydro. If you don't like it, that's your problem.
I think anyone can see that humanity needs to manage the atmospheric mixture of gases. We manage the acidity of our soils to grow things, we build dams around rivers and levees around the sea. It only stands to reason that we should do battle with mother nature and preserve some happy mix of gases to benefit humanity. So, where is the call to actually build a technology that sequesters excess gases from the atmosphere? Why can't we research and build machines that eat CO2 and turn it into carbon and oxygen? Sure, the energy required to split that up is enormous, but, that's what nukes are for. Do we really seriously build an atmospheric management strategy that a geologically active planet with a radioactive core and a radically diverse ecosystem will not on occasion enter an atmospheric state on its own that we should control? What if we discover some giant CO2 source on the ocean floor that we never considered before?
Let's pursue a strategy of building nuclear plants to reduce our own emissions, and then, while we are at it, build a machine to manage the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The 18th century was the tale end of the Little Ige Age. I picked 1700 because it was unarguab
Futurama reference (Score:3, Funny)
Looking at the Data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now here's my first problem: the accusation assumes that 2000 is not a good index year, which it is. If the Bush Administration wants to make the case that they (The Bush Administration) have been more successful than the EU in reducing emissions, then the logical start point for comparison is about when they took over which would be 2001.
Now, the article points out correctly that Greenhouse emissions tend to drop during economic slowdowns. One can see that easily by looking at the graph at the end of it (the US has a drop in 1991; the EU has a drop from 92-96; the US has another drop from 00-01). If one takes these economic slowdowns into account, then 2000, the peak of the last economy, might very well be a good starting point for the Administration to start their indexing from. Why should they have to take into account the failures of past administrations (Bush I, and Clinton) when touting the success of their administration? If, hypothetically, US emissions had decreased from 1990 to 2000 and increased from 2000 to 2004, would it be fair for the Bush Administration to take the earlier data into account and claim that they had reduced emissions? No, that would be taking credit for progress they did not make. The same principle applies reverse.
The article also brings about a perpetual flaw in any sort of greenhouse gas analysis. It completely ignores economic growth and the effect it has on increasing emissions (which it candidly points out by the way). During much of the mid-90s the US economy was booming, especially compared to the EU, so of course there was going to be an increase in emissions from 1991-2000. Additionally, these indexes fail to take into account the size of the economic growth when making the comparison. If we really want a useful measure, we should be tracking "Volume of Emissions per Unit of GDP Growth." That way we could judge economies based on their environmental efficiency rather just on pure volumetric data.
Re:Looking at the Data... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for GDP/CO2 ratios, your (somewhat) trusted friend wikipedia will show you that the US ranks 39th [wikipedia.org] as of 2002 -- but note that the linked chart uses 2002 CO2 emissions with estimated 2005 GDP. Slightly better than the world average, but near the bottom of developed countries. As for CO2 per GDP, the USDOE publishes those figures -- here's an xls file for metric tons CO2 per $1000 of GDP 1980 - 2004 [doe.gov] (year 2000 dollars, using purchase parity figures). I think you'll find the data useful -- it shows that the US is one of the least efficient in terms of CO2 output, particularly large nations.
2004: 138th out of 195 entities with data.
2000: 137th
1997: 139th
1990: 135th.
So, the US has made recent gains on worldwide ranking -- but really, why should the U.S. be proud of slightly improved mediocrity?
I just wanted to comment again on the validity of the current administration looking at figures from 2000 onward. Sure, they shouldn't take credit/blame for gains/losses in productivity vs. CO2 output for years prior to 2000. Then again, they shouldn't take much credit/blame for the ratio after 2000, either. Most of the policies and economic circumstances that resulted in figures for the several years after 2000 occurred before Bush took office. Not only that, but little of it is within direct control of the administration. If you want to look at the impact the Bush administration has had on CO2 outputs, you'll need to look at 2003-4 to 2010, at least.
Like my grandpappy used ta tell me... (Score:2)
(At least I think it was something like that... I really think I shoulda wrote that down.)
Conservatives Accepting "Climate Change" ?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're finally getting what Liberals have been shouting for decades. It's just shocking that they're only agreeing with the science now.
Now all we have to do is wait 30 more years for Conservatives to accept evolution.
All I want to know is ... (Score:4, Funny)
The thing that gets me is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The other thing that gets me is that most Americans seem to prefer to believe the Whitehouse's argument because it conveniently eliminates their need to take responsibility for their own pollution.
The third thing that gets me is that even though its actually just stating true facts, this post will probably be moderated (by an American) as 'Flamebait' or 'Troll' just so they can continue to live in denial.
Pollution is directly related to population (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't readily accept that policy alone accounts for differences in a regions rate of pollution as much as there are gradually fewer and fewer people that are engaging in pollution causing activities. I'm not discounting the influence of policy but I would like to suggest that any analysis of the situation should take into account declining population.... especially in the middle and upper classes of the region.
This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fert
Impeach the lying cocksucker (Score:3, Insightful)
EU expansion (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone read the report (Score:3, Informative)
But I refuse - completely - to read any "scientific" report that has "bush is evil" and "the washington times had the nerve to discredit me" on the first page.
Why ? Because such statements DO NOT belong in a scientific study. Neutral references from both sides, in peer-reviewed journals, yes. Note that still would mean that the washington times is off limits.
Also why is the study house so young ?
There are so many things wrong with calling this a "study" that it's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"But what about deforestation ?" - Doesn't matter. Trees don't actually contribute that much to biomass (which you can verify by going into just about any forest). Certainly not compared to algae or moss or grass.
Re: (Score:2)
The submitter and both linked articles are all from the same source...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You see that? You see that you MOTHERFUCKERS? You made the cookie monster cry! Cookie Monster! For shame! Add this to the long list of Bush attrocities...not the worst, not the last, but I never thought they would go this low. Jesus...
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Funny)
Close, but no cigar?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea behind democracy is that there is an effective opposition to the government, that will call them to task if they attempt shenanigans like this. Government's might attempt stuff like this all the time; it is a measure of how well-functioning the democracy is as to whether they get away with it.
Trying to pass this off as 'everyone does it therefore it is OK', is WRONG! It is never OK, and the fact that the USA seems to get away with it again and again and again, is not a good indicator for the p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Being a patriot means wanting your government to do BETTER than those other guys. That they all do it isn't an excuse for someone who loves his country. Bush doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How blatant do the lies have to get? (Score:4, Informative)
but just see an opportunity to bash Bush.
How blatant do the lies have to be before it's justified? How can someone lie to you so much and so often yet you...apparently...seem to still support them?
Saying Bush cherry picks statistics and manipulates data to mislead the public (i.e. lying) cannot be doubted by a reasonable person. The truth doesn't have many friends these days, might ask yourself if you're one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the question I kept asking through the Clinton years...
There's no comparison in scope or depth of the deceit. It's also no justification for Bush. If he's got such an exalted moral compass then isn't his the greater evil? And what about the majority of Republicans supporting those lies? Coloring yourself the party of morality and ruling by corruption and lying. Your shame is greater...or would be if you had any. A liar, a hypocrite and a fraud. Faithful to failed, incompetent leadership.
B
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, if his name offends you, you can safely ignore anything he says no matter if it's true or not.
Second, if you honestly think that Clinton (either of them) are cut from a different cloth than Bush (either of them), you are incredibly naive.
Obivously, if you just claim that two people are both "cut from the same cloth", you can ignore their actual actions and consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They All Do It. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They All Do It. (Score:5, Informative)
China will probably become the biggest greenhouse gas emitter this year or next, International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol said in April. Ma said today this is inevitable and he can't estimate when it will happen.
The country's[China's] greenhouse gas emissions reached 5.6 billion tons in 2004, of which 5.05 billion tons were carbon dioxide, the commission said in the report. U.S. emissions that year reached 7.12 billion tons, according to the Department of Energy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that if a senator said "I took the initiative in creating the bridge from Metropolis to Anytown" that people would jump all over him for not designing the trusses or welding the frame. Doing that would
NASA Administrator (Score:5, Informative)
More to the point on emissions from various countries, here is a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tabulation of emission trends. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1 [pnas.org]. China appears to be primarily responsible for the acceleration of emissions. With the US reducing it's emissions 1.3% between 2005 and 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831796/ [msn.com], it look as though China will continue to dominate the acceleration.
While TFA has some valid points, the main thing is that industrialized countries have a better opportunity to slow or reduce emissions since, for them, efficiency improvements can pace growth while for developing nations efficiency cannot help with a growth from zero situation.
--
Out pace growth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)