Crosswords9 mins ago
c02 out by nation
I was saying to someone the other day that i thought that China, India and the USA were the major C02 offenders, they replied that China and India combined only omit the same absolute quantity of C02 as Germany and France combined.
Given the respective populations and degree of efficiency of industry this sounds absurd to me but i cant find the figures anywhere - can anyone please help?
Given the respective populations and degree of efficiency of industry this sounds absurd to me but i cant find the figures anywhere - can anyone please help?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mkjuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You might find this site helpful mk
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/e ach-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
Based on the figures quoted on this site, I think that whoever you were talking to is underestimating Chinas output. On a per capita (per head) basis though, they would be correct.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/e ach-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
Based on the figures quoted on this site, I think that whoever you were talking to is underestimating Chinas output. On a per capita (per head) basis though, they would be correct.
With all due respect, the US accounts for 4% of the world's population, uses 25% of the energy but produces how much of the world's production? How much food/aid does the US provide for other countries?
Along with other countries rightfully so, to what extent do these collaborative teams lead research and development issues effecting the globe? Once public acceptance is acknowledged (i.e. asking "by what incentive may I gain from using this new product?"), r&d funding in alternative sources of fuel will take off, paving the way for a minimal production of pollution.
We must not forget that the critical question is it's not how much energy is consumed, but what it is used for. Everyone is guilty in misuse of resources to some extent albeit.
Along with other countries rightfully so, to what extent do these collaborative teams lead research and development issues effecting the globe? Once public acceptance is acknowledged (i.e. asking "by what incentive may I gain from using this new product?"), r&d funding in alternative sources of fuel will take off, paving the way for a minimal production of pollution.
We must not forget that the critical question is it's not how much energy is consumed, but what it is used for. Everyone is guilty in misuse of resources to some extent albeit.
How much food and aid does the US provide?
http://www.pqsystems.com/eline/2005/02/foreign _aid.jpg
And a large part of that goes to Israel who in return buy a lot of US arms
http://www.pqsystems.com/eline/2005/02/foreign _aid.jpg
And a large part of that goes to Israel who in return buy a lot of US arms
The US is a net importer of goods and energy.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Rele ase/current_press_release/press.html
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Rele ase/current_press_release/press.html
Where was I going with the fact that the US balance of trade is one of net importation?
You asked 'the US... produces how much of the world's production?' My answer above, when paraphrased, becomes 'not enough to sustain itself, yet alone other countries' (and I do appreciate that it is a simplistic view of the situation).
BTW the figures supplied by LazyGun are 10 years old; the 2003 estimates for US CO2 emissions show about a fourfold increase i.e. 5.8 billion tonnes or 20 tonnes per capita.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Profile.h tml
You asked 'the US... produces how much of the world's production?' My answer above, when paraphrased, becomes 'not enough to sustain itself, yet alone other countries' (and I do appreciate that it is a simplistic view of the situation).
BTW the figures supplied by LazyGun are 10 years old; the 2003 estimates for US CO2 emissions show about a fourfold increase i.e. 5.8 billion tonnes or 20 tonnes per capita.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Profile.h tml
-- answer removed --
The first response to jake: the site you referenced is more unreliable than Wikipedia. Looking more into the site - it's obviously a commercial venture - not academic, not government, nor by a not-for-profit. They want to sell their product, so placing any confidence in them is ill chosen I believe. The graph contained no references whatsoever. Personally, I would be wary of how people perceive my credibility if I attached that sort of thing to a statement I make. Let's not forget the purpose of citation.
To your second statement, I'd rather see a portion of aid money go to enhancing a country's defense system than for the majority of aid to go to an external, or internal, terrorist organization to fund their quasi-defense system...which you can bet is happening as I type these words. But are these really different? They are both a sort of defense system, just different in carrying out their agenda. Mmm....which agenda would I rather see be carried out though? Israel�s rightful qualm against Hezbola in their neighboring country, or toward the proliferation of al-queda cells around the world. I'll leave that answer open to debate.
As for the differences between import and export activity in the US, I can't disagree with that, and therefore do not. Yes, the US brings in a lot of goods from other countries...not sure where kempie was going with this fact...it's at least referenced from a sound research organization. I think you missed the point from my post though: I don't care what's being used now - our world is in no critical stage. What I care about is what we are doing for the future. People have so much cynicism against the US, myself included, but let's look at the work being done for the future, to make the world a suitable place to live, and which countries are actually contributing any sort of worth.
To your second statement, I'd rather see a portion of aid money go to enhancing a country's defense system than for the majority of aid to go to an external, or internal, terrorist organization to fund their quasi-defense system...which you can bet is happening as I type these words. But are these really different? They are both a sort of defense system, just different in carrying out their agenda. Mmm....which agenda would I rather see be carried out though? Israel�s rightful qualm against Hezbola in their neighboring country, or toward the proliferation of al-queda cells around the world. I'll leave that answer open to debate.
As for the differences between import and export activity in the US, I can't disagree with that, and therefore do not. Yes, the US brings in a lot of goods from other countries...not sure where kempie was going with this fact...it's at least referenced from a sound research organization. I think you missed the point from my post though: I don't care what's being used now - our world is in no critical stage. What I care about is what we are doing for the future. People have so much cynicism against the US, myself included, but let's look at the work being done for the future, to make the world a suitable place to live, and which countries are actually contributing any sort of worth.
continued:
Let's consider means of food for the rising population in Africa. What's being done to address feeding the rising population with outdated means of farming? For one, better agricultural practices in African countries. Who's helping teach African farmers better methods to employ to be able to produce a higher yield of food with a higher quality of food? Academic institutions in the US for one, I'm positive. And that's hands-on. I'm hoping other countries are doing, or will do, the same as well.
What's China going to do to find decent places of residence for thier 1.3 billion and growing population? They're going to need to find better architectural methods for building apartments - maybe communal, which basically will need to become skyscrapers someday. Who will help provide Chinese engineers and designers with personal ingenuity to progress? From how many countries will these types people emerge? I'd like to think of at least a handful.
There are two ways that the 200 and some-odd countries in the world can converge toward: become introverted or extroverted - keep everything to yourself (and I mean everything kempie), or try to have values/production/ideas coalesce with other values/products/ideas in the global community (we won't have separate ones sometime in the future). There is such a thing as the "evolution of ideas" and it's growth, just like any other evolving system, prefers more interrelationships and connections between components than less.
I can think of two types of people that prefer the former and therefore doing nothing to promote collaboration of different groups of people around the world - authoritarian and communist regimes. I will refrain from any political sentiment, but I assert that it is these countries that exhibit the most selfish form of behavior.
Let's consider means of food for the rising population in Africa. What's being done to address feeding the rising population with outdated means of farming? For one, better agricultural practices in African countries. Who's helping teach African farmers better methods to employ to be able to produce a higher yield of food with a higher quality of food? Academic institutions in the US for one, I'm positive. And that's hands-on. I'm hoping other countries are doing, or will do, the same as well.
What's China going to do to find decent places of residence for thier 1.3 billion and growing population? They're going to need to find better architectural methods for building apartments - maybe communal, which basically will need to become skyscrapers someday. Who will help provide Chinese engineers and designers with personal ingenuity to progress? From how many countries will these types people emerge? I'd like to think of at least a handful.
There are two ways that the 200 and some-odd countries in the world can converge toward: become introverted or extroverted - keep everything to yourself (and I mean everything kempie), or try to have values/production/ideas coalesce with other values/products/ideas in the global community (we won't have separate ones sometime in the future). There is such a thing as the "evolution of ideas" and it's growth, just like any other evolving system, prefers more interrelationships and connections between components than less.
I can think of two types of people that prefer the former and therefore doing nothing to promote collaboration of different groups of people around the world - authoritarian and communist regimes. I will refrain from any political sentiment, but I assert that it is these countries that exhibit the most selfish form of behavior.
Nucleardream you cannot possibly justify the level of CO2 emissions based on US aid.
Firstly the level of US aid per head of population is tiny
Sorry you didn't like the first site the data is from the OEDC
here's another with same data and source just to show I'm not picking my data selectively.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/ USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
Secondly you can hardly call it aid when the money goes out to Israel and then flows straight back to US armamant companies
http://www.cnionline.org/learn/aid/aid-gdp-of- recips.htm
Source US dept. of state.
Now I'm not saying the UK is whiter-than-white but I'm not trying to pretend that our CO2 emissions are doing the world a favour!
I also think that before you get on your high horse about authoritaran regiemes you should take a long hard look at some of the countries like Saudi Arabia that the US are very friendly with.
US foreign policy like all the foreign policy of most countries has nothing to do with making the world a nice place and everything to do with their own national interests
Firstly the level of US aid per head of population is tiny
Sorry you didn't like the first site the data is from the OEDC
here's another with same data and source just to show I'm not picking my data selectively.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/ USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
Secondly you can hardly call it aid when the money goes out to Israel and then flows straight back to US armamant companies
http://www.cnionline.org/learn/aid/aid-gdp-of- recips.htm
Source US dept. of state.
Now I'm not saying the UK is whiter-than-white but I'm not trying to pretend that our CO2 emissions are doing the world a favour!
I also think that before you get on your high horse about authoritaran regiemes you should take a long hard look at some of the countries like Saudi Arabia that the US are very friendly with.
US foreign policy like all the foreign policy of most countries has nothing to do with making the world a nice place and everything to do with their own national interests
You got me, Jake. I like to have my cake and eat it too. As for negligible differences between country's aid and % of their gni, I don't really care. I wasn't trying to justify any aid based on CO2 emissions either, just the fact that everyone is guilty of misuse of resources in all countries so on top of how much people use , we should also look at what its being used for.
Maybe I should've spent the energy used for this response in the new politics section, and it would've been met with more specific critique.
However, since I'm here, only because the US admin may be friendly with Saudis doesn't mean that should be generalized to all Americans. Many people are waiting for the Bush regime to leave anyhow. The vital interests of a country, not the collective interests of a country mind you, are defined by the presiding admininstration. Supposedly voted in by majority rule, but we all know what that really means... Absolute democracy is a farse.
Maybe I should've spent the energy used for this response in the new politics section, and it would've been met with more specific critique.
However, since I'm here, only because the US admin may be friendly with Saudis doesn't mean that should be generalized to all Americans. Many people are waiting for the Bush regime to leave anyhow. The vital interests of a country, not the collective interests of a country mind you, are defined by the presiding admininstration. Supposedly voted in by majority rule, but we all know what that really means... Absolute democracy is a farse.
1 to 13 of 13
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.