Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs...


Let's see them.

---

Not that it matters, but:

9.181 x (1.07)^7 X 0.42 = 6.2 billion tonnes.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
So why are you projecting that China's BTPTD will go back up to 0.42 in 2020?

Because that's their stated goal

---

This is a low for you Geezer. When countries set emissions targets obviously the aim is to come in anywhere below that target, not try and hit it dead on.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So controlling climate change by reducing emissions is pretty much out the window, as far as you're concerned.

---

No, but setting emissions targets that make poor countries sacrifice economic growth is a non-starter. Setting emissions targets that see poor countries minimise emissions, while their economies grow, and developed countries cut emissions to offset this growth, is workable, and could produce a sustainable global fall in emissions quite soon.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Good. Then they can stop increasing emissions.

---

Very rich for America to tell China to stop growing its economy and stop increasing emissions, when it still has far more wealth and CO2 emissions per person than China. But I've made this point before...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

IEA's hope. Reading the article, China expresses skepticism. They're politely saying no.

---

As I said, a climate deal would be needed...

---

Quote:

---

6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

---

That is about 8%, not negligible, since that is the approximate amount of decrease that the USA experience (which has since gone up by the way) and what you were pointing to as a measure of our success.

---

Quote:

---

6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

---

Quote:

---

If they were actually setting a emissions target, maybe. But they're not.

---

Quote:

---

So you're okay with the potential for 100 million deaths due to climate change by 2030, as long as China's economy continues to grow?

---

Quote:

---

If the U.S. stopped carbon emissions right now: no electric generation except for renewables, no transportation, no agriculture, no heat, etc. China's expected increase alone would make up the reduction in annual emissions in a few years. This is not to mention India, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and other developing countries which are increasing emissions 5% to 10% a year.

---

Quote:

---

The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

---

Quote:

---

is not going to actually do any good in reducing emissions.

---

Quote:

---

it's negligible. At current rates, its about the amount of emissions China produces in 55 days.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

---

Haha

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If they were actually setting a emissions target, maybe. But they're not.

---

They set an emissions intensity target. And they're going to come in below it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So you're okay with the potential for 100 million deaths due to climate change by 2030, as long as China's economy continues to grow?

---

You've clearly failed to read and understand half of what I've been saying.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the U.S. stopped carbon emissions right now: no electric generation except for renewables, no transportation, no agriculture, no heat, etc. China's expected increase alone would make up the reduction in annual emissions in a few years. This is not to mention India, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and other developing countries which are increasing emissions 5% to 10% a year.

---

I don't trust any of your calculations. Especially if this is based on your earlier, wrong-headed projections, which I suspect it is. To save you time, I'm not interested.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

---

Quote?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

is not going to actually do any good in reducing emissions.

---

Wrong, a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

it's negligible. At current rates, its about the amount of emissions China produces in 55 days.

---

Way to disprove your own point. 1/6 of China's current emissions is negligible??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And as long as there's someone worse, there's no reason for us to try and do better.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not about to use what China does as an excuse for our own lack of action.

---

Neither am I. I've proposed increased efficiency, renewables, and reductions in carbon emissions several times (something you repeatedly and conveniently forget).

---

Quote:

---

China's emissions for 55 days at current levels. negligible.

---

Quote:

---

And they can increase their annual emissions over 200% while doing so.

---

Quote:

---

The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

China's emissions for 55 days at current levels. negligible.

---

Roughly 1/6 of China's total emissions. More than the annual emissions for France, Italy, Spain... Is 'negligible'. Yet another low for you Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And they can increase their annual emissions over 200% while doing so.

---

But they won't, so that's irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

---

Let's try again. Quote?

Meanwhile, here's some quotes of me saying the opposite:


"I don't think anyone is 'okay' with China's CO2 increases. But to a large extent it's inevitable: economic growth needs energy, and China, unfortunately, is reliant on coal. As I've said, the sooner we get them on board with a climate deal the better, and then they can at least use their coal more cleanly."

"The hope is that China's emissions peak relatively soon... But a climate deal will almost certainly be needed for this to happen."

"Setting emissions targets that see poor countries minimise emissions, while their economies grow, and developed countries cut emissions to offset this growth, is workable"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Is everyone as tired of the stierscheißen-meister, Herr Geezer, as I am?

---

Quote:

---

China's Per Capita CO2 Emissions Are Now Greater Than Europe's

China's per capita carbon dioxide emissions, at 7.1 tonnes, are only marginally lower than the EU average, at 7.4 tonnes. And they already are higher than France, Italy and Spain's. China's CO2 emissions are also rising by over 6 per cent each year, while the EU's are falling. Therefore we can be highly confident that China will overtake the EU in per capita emissions either last year or next year. We can also be fairly certain that it will overtake the United Kingdom in per capita emissions this year In fact by the end of the decade per capita carbon dioxide emissions will be higher in China than in almost every European country, on current trends.

For various reasons people ignore the rapid growth of China's carbon emissions - parochialism, an unwillingness to admit that the West alone cannot "save the world", or a fear that climate change "skeptics" can use it as a talking point . However the facts are the facts.

---

Quote:

---

"If US emissions continue to decline as in the last five years, then China will emit more than the US on a per capita basis in the period 2020-2025," said Glen Peters, with Norway's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO), who contributed to the report.

---

Quote:

---

A new study has found that global estimates of black carbon emissions in certain areas of India and China could be two to three more times concentrated than previously thought. Black carbon, a major element of soot, is a particle that is generated by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel or biomass.

Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers from France and China developed a new model for discerning the amount of black carbon pollution in the air. Previous models had failed to take into account regional differences, and instead provided information at the country level. By mapping regions rather than countries, the study indicated that parts of India and China could have as much as 130 percent higher black carbon concentrations than shown in standard country models.

Short-term and long-term exposure to black carbon can lead to a broad range of health impacts, including respiratory and cardiovascular effects as well as cancer and premature death, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Black carbon contributes to particulate matter, or PM, pollution, which is made up of a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. Black carbon falls within the PM2.5 category, otherwise known as “fine particles,” with diameters that are between 1.0 and 2.5 micrometers and are considered to pose the greatest health risks.

---

Quote:

---

And as usual, when you have no facts to back up your opinions, you turn to insult.

---

Quote:

---

As noted, in terms of China's emissions between now and 2020, it is negligible.

---

Quote:

---

But it is interesting that you can state that 55 days of China's emissions is more than annual emissions for France, Italy, or Spain, but don't seem to see a problem with that. Man, there is something seriously wrong with your view of the world.

---

Quote:

---

And while we're at it, Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

---

Quote:

---

Seems like you'll say pretty much anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

As noted, in terms of China's emissions between now and 2020, it is negligible.

---

What, are you adding up China's emissions over 7 years, and saying that 0.4 billion tonnes is negligible compared to that?? Why not say 0.4 billion tonnes is negligible compared with the weight of the sun? That's more emphatic, and just as relevant.

---

Quote:

---

Because China's population is more than 6x that of France, Italy, Spain combined. You're obsessed with countries' total emissions, saying that's all that really matters.

---

Quote:

---

So to you should China (and India) have much tighter environmental regulations than everyone else, to bring its 'total emissions' in line with other countries? Countries should be punished by virtue of their size?

---

Quote:

---

You demand that Chinese emissions be reduced, as part of a 'fair' climate deal. Let's say that you got your way. Would you then be happy for the US to have exactly the same environmental regulations enforced on it, reducing its emissions per capita to the same level as China's?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And while we're at it, Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

---

I'll give you all the cites you want, if you answer the above questions.

---

Quote:

---

I'm wondering why you think .4 billion tonnes is relevant to anything, and why you continue to harp on it.

---

Quote:

---

I'd be happy if they had the same regulations as everyone else

---

Quote:

---

I'd be quite happy to cap U.S. emissions at current levels and propose reductions. I'd like to see China do the same thing

---

Quote:

---

I'd like to see China do the same thing, since their emissions per capita are in line with Europe, as noted above, and may well exceed U.S. emissions per capita in six to eleven years

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I'd be happy if they had the same regulations as everyone else

---

But that's not what I asked, and that's not enough to bring China's TOTAL emissions in line with other countries. China has well over a billion people. Let's compare it to Italy - roughly 1/20th its size. According to you they have the same per capita emissions. But China's TOTAL emissions dwarf Italy's - just by virtue of China's size. So I'm asking you, should China be forced to have MUCH MORE STRINGENT emissions standards than Italy, to bring its TOTAL emissions down to be more in line with Italy's, and the rest of the world - since country's total emissions is what matters?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be quite happy to cap U.S. emissions at current levels and propose reductions. I'd like to see China do the same thing

---

Again, not what I asked.

---

Quote:

---

I don't care what may or may not happen in 6-11 years.

---

Quote:

---

That's not what I asked. If China's emissions are halted urgently, and reduced, as you say needs to happen, its emissions per capita will stay in line with Europe's. I'm asking whether you are in favour of the US having to drop its emissions per capita to match European levels AS WELL - just like China. Or are you saying that the US should be allowed to retain higher emissions per capita than China, and Europe? If so, can you say why?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
First of all, there is no reason for GEEZER to insist that China willingly reduce its emissions in the future, either voluntarily or by treaty. The reason is that the emissions policy of China can be swayed by external pressure, because - while China is many things- the one thing it is NOT is independent of the world economy. Tariffs, trade sanctions, and bank sanctions (a la Iran), or even just a simple carbon tax applied at the border, would have a profound effect on China's internal policy.

---

Quote:

---

China unlikely to set total greenhouse gas emissions reduction target

(Globalpost/GlobalPost)China is unlikely to set an overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction target under a post-2020 global framework to curb climate change, a member of the Chinese delegation to the U.N. climate change conference said Thursday.

With no senior Chinese official involved in the climate change negotiations having made any remark about China's post-2020 target so far, the comment by China's Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin offers a rare peak into the future climate change policy of Beijing, climate negotiation experts say.

In defending the view that it is hard for China to set such a target, Liu told a press conference that China remains a developing country and will obviously increase its emissions as it is still in the process of pursuing industrial growth.

Liu is deputy chief of the Chinese delegation attending the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change being held in Warsaw.

He said it is not right for the international community to expect China to make the same commitment as developed nations.

Liu also rapped Japan for its recent decision to set a lower carbon emissions target than the previous goal, saying many countries have expressed their frustration at Japan for setting a poor example in climate change negotiations.

The Japanese government decided last Friday to aim at a 3.8 percent reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions by fiscal 2020 from the level in fiscal 2005, backtracking from its earlier proposed 25 percent cut by fiscal 2020 from the fiscal 1990 level.

The government has since decided that the earlier envisioned goal of a 25 percent reduction was unrealistic assuming that Japan's nuclear power plants remain offline, leading the country to rely more on thermal power generation.

Liu urged industrialized countries to financially help developing nations to reach emissions reduction targets under a new international climate framework. He did not say, however, when China will state its own goal for emissions cut.

---

Quote:

---

Second, GEEZER is dismissing well-founded evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Show me where the UN or other international bodies are working on something like this.

---

Quote:

---

I said they should have the same regulations as everyone else, so obviously I don't think they should have tighter regulations.

---

Quote:

---

I'd be happy with something similar to the Kyoto Protocol, where a base year is determined, and countries have targets for emissions reductions based on that year's emissions.

---

Quote:

---

I'd be pleased to see the U.S. reduce emissions per capita to, say, Germany's current level (around 2.47 tonnes) in 30 years.

China's emissions per capita is currently around 1.94 tonnes , and is going up around .13 tonne a year, so they'll be at Germany's level in about four years. If they were to stop there, that would be great.

---

Quote:

---

Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I'm saying, GEEZER, is that the USA could take action, on its own, to not only internally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (and BTW become energy-independent by improving fuel savings and increasing solar and wind) but also to redirect China's energy policies irrespective of what China "wants". Instead, we are doing the exact opposite... fostering more and more greenhouse gas emissions thru our trade and energy policies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I'd be happy with something similar to the Kyoto Protocol, where a base year is determined, and countries have targets for emissions reductions based on that year's emissions.

---

That's fine (and certainly suits the US), but how do we establish China's 'base year'? Is it 2005? 2014? 2020? And what is the RATIONALE for choosing that particular year? I don't need to tell you that it will make a massive difference, which of these years we choose.

---

Quote:

---

What about other big countries, less developed than China: India, Nigeria - that have low emissions per capita - what is their base year? 2014? Do we say that they're not allowed to industrialise, and increase emissions? Do we doom them to poverty? These are questions that I don't think you've begun to think about yet.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be pleased to see the U.S. reduce emissions per capita to, say, Germany's current level (around 2.47 tonnes) in 30 years.

China's emissions per capita is currently around 1.94 tonnes , and is going up around .13 tonne a year, so they'll be at Germany's level in about four years. If they were to stop there, that would be great.

---

So you're saying that both Chinese and US emissions per capita would ideally stabilise around Germany's current level. It's just China has to stop there NOW, while the US has 30 years grace to get there. Is it not fairer to give China that same 30 years to get its emissions per capita under control, and brought down to German levels - as the US has got?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If you really were thinking about how to save the planet, you'd find your way around the politics.

---

Quote:

---

No rationale, since that is just a random year chosen as an example. I'd expect that the conference setting up a new agreement would determine this, just like they did for Kyoto.

---

Quote:

---

if they allow developing countries free rein, I see a problem cutting overall global emissions at all.

---

Quote:

---

It might be fairer, but it's not going to do anything for global emissions if you let China run theirs up for another 15 or 20 years

---

Quote:

---

Also, this depends on China slowing its growth to around 6% GDP per year

---

Quote:

---

and the Chinese said no.

---

Quote:

---

But its the politicians who have to find a way around the politics, unless you think I have control of international trade.

---

Quote:

---

So tell me what levers you think the U.S. government could unilaterally use to force/convince/sweet talk/bribe China into reducing emissions.You must have some ideas, or you wouldn't suggest the possibility.

---

Quote:

---

Stop trading with China until they reduce their emissions, perhaps? If you thought that the 2007 Great Recession was really great, Cut economic ties with our second largest trading partner and see what happens. Not to mention that this would probably violate all sorts of international agreements we've already signed, and leave us open to sanctions from the rest of the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

No rationale, since that is just a random year chosen as an example. I'd expect that the conference setting up a new agreement would determine this, just like they did for Kyoto.

---

So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

if they allow developing countries free rein, I see a problem cutting overall global emissions at all.

---

You rule out free rein, and you criticise me for saying allow them moderate emissions increases. That only leaves banning emissions increases for developing countries - and dooming them to poverty for the next century or so.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It might be fairer, but it's not going to do anything for global emissions if you let China run theirs up for another 15 or 20 years

---

We're back to punishing China because of its size.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Also, this depends on China slowing its growth to around 6% GDP per year

---

There were 3 different forecasts for 3 different scenarios of economic growth. But I'm not going to in-depth debate my cites with you; I'm wise enough to know that would be pointless. But you asked for them, and there they are.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and the Chinese said no.

---

I will point out that this is wrong on two counts. The article says: "Chinese academics in attendance responded critically to the remarks..."

Nobody ruled out anything, and the people in question were not the Chinese government, but some attendant academics...

---

Quote:

---

And anyway, countries posture all the time around these kind of things. The reality is you won't know for sure what China will concede until you get them to a negotiating table, and offer concessions of your own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

But its the politicians who have to find a way around the politics, unless you think I have control of international trade.

---

I am discussing this with you, not with them. Therefore, I've looking for YOUR ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So tell me what levers you think the U.S. government could unilaterally use to force/convince/sweet talk/bribe China into reducing emissions.You must have some ideas, or you wouldn't suggest the possibility.

---

Trade policy, as I mentioned before.

---

Quote:

---

First of all, there is no reason for GEEZER to insist that China willingly reduce its emissions in the future, either voluntarily or by treaty. The reason is that the emissions policy of China can be swayed by external pressure, because - while China is many things- the one thing it is NOT is independent of the world economy. Tariffs, trade sanctions, and bank sanctions (a la Iran), or even just a simple carbon tax applied at the border, would have a profound effect on China's internal policy.

---

Quote:

---

What I'm saying, GEEZER, is that the USA could take action, on its own, to not only internally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (and BTW become energy-independent by improving fuel savings and increasing solar and wind) but also to redirect China's energy policies irrespective of what China "wants". Instead, we are doing the exact opposite... fostering more and more greenhouse gas emissions thru our trade and energy policies.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure even you can suggest something more practical and realistic. Or is this gong to be a replay of the "conservatives have no ideas how to deal with recessions" thread, which turned out to be that Geezer had no ideas. So, I'll let you mull on that and see if you can come up with anything before I post my ideas.

---

Quote:

---

So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?


Not quite within the spirit of the Kyoto Accords, which were adopted in 1997 with a 1990 base year

---

Quote:

---

So what's your idea of "moderate emissions increases"? From above it seems that going full bore until 2020

---

Quote:

---

As noted above, and not yet addressed by you, estimates are that 300 million people could die from the effects of climate change if reductions are not made soon. I could ask why you want to punish these people so China can have a higher GDP?

---

Quote:

---

In other words, you can't support them

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thank you for actually reading and responding to my posts. Not many right-wingers do that.

There are things we could do, some of them collective and some of them unilateral.

The first thing we could do is to emplace real, effective, punishable environmental protection laws into the TPP. Or at least remain silent on the issue. Instead, the TPP leaves national/ local environmental protection laws at the mercy of a corporate trade tribunals. Big step backwards. Maybe we if we don't take so many backward steps, we wouldn't be in such a fix, neh? (China isn't part of the TPP, but the TPP effects many of China's trading partners.)

---

Quote:

---

The second thing we can do is enter climate negotiations with a real willingness to save the earth. It's not by accident that the USA has a reputation for being one of the major stumbling-blocks on climate negotiations: we have walked out of talks, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and have torpedoed every motion to put real limits in place.

---

Quote:

---

The third thing we can do is put a carbon tax on every burned carbon fuel. I think internal taxes, as long as they're evenly applied and don't affect imports more than internally produced fuel, should pass muster by the WTO. In any case, this is something that can be discussed at the WTO; they're not immune to national interests because they just created a loophole for developing nations to tariff imported food and to subsidize agricultural production in the interest of food security. The tax doesn't have to be very high at first; but it CAN ratchet up over time, making fossil fuels (and fossil fuel imports) less and less attractive over time.

---

Quote:

---

We can stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. They're very profitable, do we really need to give them $550+ BILLION every year??? Wow, help balance the budget, and help save the earth all in one package??? How sweet is that??

---

Quote:

---

Also, we have an outsized influence on the World Bank (whose President is traditionally American) and the IMF (whose President is traditionally an American-friendly foreigner). These "development banks" have a long a storied history of lending to environmentally-destructive projects.

---

Quote:

---

If worst comes to worst and China refuses to limit its per capita emissions to something like Germany's, we CAN pull the trade plug. That would require years of negotiation and preparation, and we would have to be prepared to go it alone. But yanno, it was the transnationals who outsourced manufacturing to China because of cheap labor and no environmental protection. Unfortunately, even for something as simple as sulfate pollution, it's clear that outsourcing manufacturing doesn't protect us from environmental degradation.

---

Quote:

---

This is all just off the top of my head, typing as I go. If I were to do some real research, I could probably come up with a 200-page monograph, but yanno, it's all been done before. The ideas are out there. What ISN'T there is the willingness to put the earth first.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?


Not quite within the spirit of the Kyoto Accords, which were adopted in 1997 with a 1990 base year

---

Kyoto didn't set targets for developing countries at all. The 'spirit of the Kyoto Accords' is accepting that developing countries need to develop, and that carbon reduction should come from advanced economies. Now obviously Kyoto was flawed, but capping developing countries emissions at current or past years is ridiculous, and a million miles away from 'the spirit of the Kyoto Accords'.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So what's your idea of "moderate emissions increases"? From above it seems that going full bore until 2020

---

You've misunderstood the point of my line of questioning above. It is to show that you have no rationale for choosing a fair way to cap China's CO2. And no good reason for why the US should not be capped at the same level.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As noted above, and not yet addressed by you, estimates are that 300 million people could die from the effects of climate change if reductions are not made soon. I could ask why you want to punish these people so China can have a higher GDP?

---

An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In other words, you can't support them

---

I can defend my cites, and my prediction that China will come in under its own voluntary target, I just choose not to. I've had enough blind stubbornness, dishonesty and misrepresentation of my words that I'm not going to open up the debate wider. Signy's right when she describes your debating style. All you do is dig yourself into a position and then fight to stay in it at all costs - these 'costs' being honesty, common sense, logic, evidence... You reject a graph quite clearly showing a plateau, saying there's not enough years to read a plateau. You reject a graph showing a straight flat line as invalid - for no reason. You say the difference between 6.6 and 6.2 is 'negligible'. You dismiss economic studies and analysis by the IMF, the CBO and the most respected independent financial agencies - for no reason. In my view, someone who is capable of all of these examples of flagrant dishonesty is not somebody to engage in earnest, thoughtful, prolonged debate. That's why I'm letting a lot of your wrong points fly - not because I can't answer them.

---

Quote:

---

Not to the people who die. And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotiona appeal?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER- Because every objection you made was political, you just demonstrated (again) that it really IS just about politics, and not saving the planet. But not as rappy intended to say.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Also

Quote:

---

Not to the people who die. And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotiona appeal?

---

I haven't been following this. Do you mean the Chinese people or the American people?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Of course.

I just wanted to make sure that we both agree that the issue isn't economic. Because the USA has plenty of money, but preferred to spend $3-17 trillion (depending on who's counting) on bank bailouts, slightly more than a half-trillion per year on fossil fuel subsidies, and about a trillion per year on the military (much of it linked to obtaining and defending oil).

ETA: ALSO, that the problematic politics involve the wealthy, not the average person.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
People die of poverty, and having a baseline energy allowance would alleviate that. You mean those deaths, and those people? Or are you talking about the people who would die as a result of CO2 emission reductions? Or the people who would die as a result of global climate shift?

Okay, nevermind. I'll go scroll up. No need to re-explain.

---

Quote:

---

But if China has the same emission per capita as developed countries, why isn't it considered a developed country as well?

---

Quote:

---

So you don't have an idea of Moderate emission increases

---

Quote:

---

An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.


Not to the people who die.

---

Quote:

---

And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotional appeal?

---

Quote:

---

In other words, you can't support them.

---