Trump: "China thinks we are dumb SOBs"
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Watermarking
Next: Inter 'Board' Communication
From: TerryKing on 12 Apr 2010 04:36 > Keep in mind that US CO2 emissions are about 4x per capita of Chinese emissions.. Spehro Pefhany is SO right. Which is common, and only occasionally annoying :-) Here's the typical Chinese SUV bringing 4 kids home from school: http://terryking.us/photoalbum/v/china/home2lunch/P1050156e.jpg.html The whole album is here: http://terryking.us/photoalbum/v/china/home2lunch/
From: Mel on 12 Apr 2010 09:16 Spehro Pefhany wrote: > Keep in mind that US CO2 emissions are about 4x per capita of Chinese > emissions.. Also, just as much Chinese manufacturing is outsourced North American manufacturing, much Chinese pollution is outsourced North American pollution. Chinese manufacturers can move to cleaner processes, but it's not clear right now where North American consumers will find the money for that. Ultimately the customer pays for everything. Mel.
From: JosephKK on 15 Apr 2010 02:36 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:08:01 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:22:11 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:50:25 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:50:43 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:39:58 -0700, Jon Kirwan <snip> >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >>>>"China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more >>>>polluting power plant for each new one they build". >>> >>>All coal is bad. >> >>10000 points from Kirwan house for insanity and absolutism. > >All coal is not bad if we use it wisely and do so without >releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. Better but still way too absolutist. It is very probably intractably expensive to use coal for anything without CO2 output. Try much harder. > >>>We have centuries of it left. And we >>>cannot afford to burn any significant part of that what >>>remains, clean or otherwise, unless emissions are thoroughly >>>sequestered. >> >>This is 10 years old: >>http://www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/earthlights.htm >>We need a new one. > >The pictures are indeed pretty. Hardly the point, it also is a, not too unreasonable, map of energy use density. > >>For some real enlightenment compare it with all of the following: >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_with_key.png >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_growth_rate_world.PNG >>and noticeably useful >>http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/mod_map/map.php > >Point you are explicitly not making, being? There too many to list. Just the same, some ideas to use the data sources indicated to think about: Population statistics (of various kinds) versus energy usage by locale; Population statistics versus economic statistics by locale; Economic statistics versus energy usage by locale; See also Gini coefficients versus locale. Lots of things to learn, by studying these like i (still) do. But maybe you think your plate is too full already. YMMV > >Jon > <snip>
From: Jon Kirwan on 15 Apr 2010 02:52 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:36:10 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:08:01 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:22:11 -0700, >>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:50:25 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:50:43 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>>><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:39:58 -0700, Jon Kirwan ><snip> >>>> >>>>Thanks. >>>> >>>>>"China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more >>>>>polluting power plant for each new one they build". >>>> >>>>All coal is bad. >>> >>>10000 points from Kirwan house for insanity and absolutism. >> >>All coal is not bad if we use it wisely and do so without >>releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. > >Better but still way too absolutist. It is very probably intractably >expensive to use coal for anything without CO2 output. Try much harder. I think we will simply have to disagree about approaches, then. I _do_ agree with you that it is very expensive, currently, to sequester. H.R. 5575 is a "Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Act." Not sure if that will ever pass, but it might. We'll see. >>>>We have centuries of it left. And we >>>>cannot afford to burn any significant part of that what >>>>remains, clean or otherwise, unless emissions are thoroughly >>>>sequestered. >>> >>>This is 10 years old: >>>http://www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/earthlights.htm >>>We need a new one. >> >>The pictures are indeed pretty. > >Hardly the point, it also is a, not too unreasonable, map of energy use density. Since you didn't state a point.... >>>For some real enlightenment compare it with all of the following: >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_with_key.png >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_growth_rate_world.PNG >>>and noticeably useful >>>http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/mod_map/map.php >> >>Point you are explicitly not making, being? > >There too many to list. Just the same, some ideas to use the data sources indicated >to think about: >Population statistics (of various kinds) versus energy usage by locale; >Population statistics versus economic statistics by locale; >Economic statistics versus energy usage by locale; > >See also Gini coefficients versus locale. > >Lots of things to learn, by studying these like i (still) do. But maybe you think your >plate is too full already. If I had a solid idea where you were leading, I might dig. Since there are so many points you wanted to make that you cannot make even one, I'm not sure where to go right now and since I _do_ have lots of things keeping me busy I will just have to let go of what points even you don't feel _you_ have time to make. There is a limit, you know. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 15 Apr 2010 03:06
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:52:18 -0700, I wrote: > H.R. 5575 is a "Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Act." > Not sure if that will ever pass, but it might. We'll see. It's old, I guess, and I don't know if it has been re-introduced, or will be. What I did find, looking for its status (which I was unsure of) is that a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants is probably now in place. I had forgotten that after that 2007 US Supreme Court decision saying that the EPA is the right regulatory linchpin for CO2, the EPA only a few months back (December) finally issued a finding and confirmed that CO2 threatens human health. I think that probably now kills new plants for a time. In the US. Which is good enough for me, for now. Jon |