Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

Mainiac, Consumption Emissions (I think it's a better term) did not flatline. According to the graph I posted for example, it rose in the UK from 650 Mt to 760 Mt from 1992 to 2004. It could be that they would have gone down in a world without trade, but I'm not sure how you're going to back that claim.

I know perfectly well that saying "West" ain't very helpful, but at some points we need to talk in terms of generalities. "Developed countries" would have been a better, if more cumbersome term. However, I think my point still stand.

Also, fun fact, between 2005 and 2008, the US reduced its per capita CO2 emissions from 19.7 to 18.6 tons of CO2 equivalent (-5.6%), according to that World Bank database I linked. The UK in the meantime reduced its emissions from 9 to 8.5 (again, -5.6%). So much for the Bush presidency.

Finally, I don't think there is mission creeps. I said "CO2 emissions only goes down when growth goes down, as in the 2008 crisis". You and others replied "No, some countries managed to grow AND reduce emissions", to which I object "Those countries actually only reduced emissions through shifting their polluting industry to developing countries". A nice counter argument would be a country that achieved significant CE reductions while growing significantly.

Don't mistake me, efficiency gains are a thing. We are becoming more and more efficient, in terms of $ of GDP per unit CO2. I just claim that those efficiency gains aren't enough to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining significant growth.

[mainiac]

A nice counter argument would be a country that achieved significant CE reductions while growing significantly.

Cool.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=germany+carbon+emissions

We done then?

[Sheb]

I don't know what Google give you for results, but my top results are "Germany misses its own goal for CO2 emissions", "Germany now EU's worst polluter as CO2 emissions rise", "Germany's CO2 targets in doubt as emissions rise in 2013" and "INCREASED CO2 emissions despite Germany's green..".

If you want to act all condescending, you should at least check what you're linking to.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

There's a big chart on the top.

German CE in 1991 = 11.62 tons
German GDP in 1991 = 22,603.62

German CE in 2010 = 9.11 tons
German GDP in 2010 = 40,407.96

[Sheb]

Mmmmh, I don't get a chart. Still, that chart probably doesn't account for the CO2 embedded in trade goods.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

[10ebbor10]

I don't know what Google give you for results, but my top results are "Germany misses its own goal for CO2 emissions", "Germany now EU's worst polluter as CO2 emissions rise", "Germany's CO2 targets in doubt as emissions rise in 2013" and "INCREASED CO2 emissions despite Germany's green..".

If you want to act all condescending, you should at least check what you're linking to.

Look at longer term trends. Ie 2000 to 2014.

The entire OECD as a whole decreased emission intensity from 0.39 kg/USD GDP to 0.31 kg/USD GDP, while increasing GDP with 30%.

Don't trust the media uf you have the data. Half of them don't know the difference between a megawatt and an megawatthour.

http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch

Note: The german data from 1991 is to be observed with the consuderation that that is just after reunification. So lots of soviet infrastructur which could rapidly updated.

[mainiac]

If you want to act all condescending, you should at least check what you're linking to.

I thought it was what you wanted?  Shouldn't we be all happy and in agreement now?

Note: The german data from 1991 is to be observed with the consuderation that that is just after reunification. So lots of soviet infrastructur which could rapidly updated.

Exactly, just like we should expect to see all those horrifyingly inefficient steel mills in northern china get updated in the next 30 years or so.

[Sheb]

Mainiac, the urge to link you to a random google search that doesn't support my point in any way and then just shout "See, we're done!" is strong.

10ebbor10: If we increased carbon efficiency from 0.39 to 0.31 kg/$GDP while raising GDP by 30% over that period, that's a slight overall increase of CO2 emissions of 3%.

[10ebbor10]

10ebbor10: If we increased carbon efficiency from 0.39 to 0.31 kg/$GDP while raising GDP by 30% over that period, that's a slight overall increase of CO2 emissions of 3%.

Rounding error. In real terms it dropped a bit. You certainly can find a lot more info trawling on the site.

[Sheb]

They also don't include CO2 embedded in trade goods in their figure.

[10ebbor10]

They also don't include CO2 embedded in trade goods in their figure.

Isn't the burden of proof on your side for that.

[Sheb]

Well, I presented my proofs earlier, although I admit limited to the UK, as I could find a nice database computing that for every country. I also have some data for the US. Anyway, even your numbers showed a really small decrease in CO2 emissions, despite not accounting for the carbon embedded in industrial goods.

Edit: Looking at the numbers, it seems OCDE emissions went from 11218 Mt in 1992 (Signature of the United Nation Framework on Climate Change) to 12146 Mt in 2012, with a peak of 13000 Mt in 2005. And that's not including the deplaced CO2 from industry, with only the richest (aka, those that can most afford reducing emissions) countries. I think I'll stand by my original point.

[mainiac]

Mainiac, the urge to link you to a random google search that doesn't support my point in any way and then just shout "See, we're done!" is strong.

10ebbor10: If we increased carbon efficiency from 0.39 to 0.31 kg/$GDP while raising GDP by 30% over that period, that's a slight overall increase of CO2 emissions of 3%.

I linked you to a chart that showed exactly what you asked for.  When you had a problem with the link Mich gave you a similar chart.  Are you trying to answer a question or are you trying to do something else?  In the latter case please preface your question with "Hi, it might look like I am asking a question which can easily be solved with 5 minutes of googling but I actually have no interest in the finding out the truth of the matter."

For the record now I have changed from agreeable to condescending at this point.

[Antsan]

Where is the indication that the provided charts actually include emissions moved abroad?

How is Sheb supposed to know what you were linking to just from this post?

A nice counter argument would be a country that achieved significant CE reductions while growing significantly.

Cool.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=germany+carbon+emissions

We done then?

How is asking "We done then?" agreeable instead of condescending?