World CO2 output to rise 59 pct by 2030: U.S.
The article states the following statistics that make me wonder why the USA is considered the bad guy in global warming:
"Global carbon dioxide emissions will hit 42.88 billion tonnes in 2030, up from 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004, and 21.2 billion in 1990, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its annual International Energy Outlook."
Sounds bad for the USA at 1st glimpse until you read the rest f the story.
"The percentage of total CO2 emissions from plants that burn coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, will rise from 39 percent in 2004 to 43 percent by 2030."
What is interesting is where all this CO2 will come from.
"By 2010, CO2 output in rapidly growing China, which is rapidly building coal plants and highways, will edge out emissions from the United States, by 6.49 billion tonnes to 6.21 billion tonnes, the EIA said. That confirmed a report this spring from the Paris-based International Energy Agency that said China would overtake the United States as the world's biggest CO2 emitter either this year or next.
By 2030 Chinese emissions will be 11.2 billion tonnes annually, while U.S. output will be 8.0 billion tonnes, the EIA said."
"In 2003, U.S. individuals were far bigger emitters, at 20 tonnes per capita against China's 3.2 tonnes per capita and a world average of 3.7, according to the U.N."
What, not the USA who will be to blame, but China? Yet, they still find a way to make the USA the villian.
This is where the playing with stats comes in. China tries to justify its level of output thus: "Chinese officials point to their country's relatively low per-capita emission of greenhouse gases, saying that historically, the main culprits of the emissions buildup in the atmosphere are developed nations, which have no right to deny economic growth to others."
OK maybe that was true in the past when the technology didn't exist to cut emmisions while allowing econ0mic growth to happen. Now it does exist. Yet it sounds like you can't have both according to China. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the 2 are mutually exclusive. If the technology is there to cut emmisions it is available now for China to put into use at its plants, it should. Given how the USA is still growing with the new technology, to claim it would hurt them is bogus.
The article says that China is trying to cut emmissions: "Many environmentalists say China is working hard to cut emissions. "In terms of absolute emissions China may overtake us, but they are much larger in terms of population ... and have actually put in some real policies in place to reduce emissions," said Gary Cook, director of the U.S. Climate Action Network, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations. " OK, what 1 of the policies they have put into effect that they are lauding China (& India) for doing, that these same environmentalists are keeping the USA from doing?, generating more electricity nuclear power. This will result in a boost of "electricity generation from low-emissions nuclear power 7.7 percent annually in China and 9.1 percent a year in India from 2004 to 2030." What's wrong with this picture?
I suspect that the reality is that this isn't so much a pro-environment but an anti-American, anti-capitalism stance. France is generating enough nuclear energy to sell some to Germany. Do you hear the environmentalists decrying that? NO!
Yes, there is more the USA could do & SHOULD DO to be a good steward of the environment. Good environmental stewardship is a moral imperative that is not limited to developed nations, but the responsibility of ALL. Allowing capitalism to work will cause it to come about. As more people by cars from companies that make more fuel efficent cars the American Auto makers will have 2 choices, increase their fuel efficeny to compete or go out of business. Allowing US power companies to do what is OK in other countries, generate more power with nuclear generators is another.
But back to another fact that is ignored. China is NOT a capitalistic country. It is a communist country that isn't looking to play fair. If it did play fair then it wouldn't need to worry about the so called "unfair advantage" that developed nations alledgedly have. Given the limits they have on imports from most countries versus the almost unlimited exporting to those same countries, they seem to be the ones who aren't playing fair. Another real "unfair advantage" comes from their not having the same environmental limitations put on industry that developied nations have on theirs. Reality seems to point to China trying to sabatoge, not fairly compete with, our economy.
Then there is 1 other problem I have with all this, in 30-40 yrs who will be responsible for cleaning up the damage done by China & India to its environment? Logic would seem to dictate that if the damage could be avoided in the 1st place & done while sustaining economic development (& it can) then avoid the damage in the 1st place. In the short run the initial costs may be a little higher, in the long run, the cost savings by not having to clean up the mess, as well as having saved the environment from greater damage seems to make the most sense to me.
Yes, we do have a moral responsibility to be good stewards. Yes, we can do so here in the USA & sustain economic growth with a capitalistic system operating according to the moral standards that Vatholic teaching outlines (those standards are the only way a truly capitalistic system can work, or even be considered truly capitalistic). But, the same standards need to be applied across the board, otherwise the system is anything but fair, or capitalistic. & it is definitely anything but a moral system.