Well the inopportune buffoon is at it again, jet setting around the global, getting face time to save the world from global warming (Nobel peace prize). Speaking in Madrid he had the following to offer:
According to the article the Chinese have said they would work on their emissions after other industrialized nations make changes. Hmmmm, with all of the things in our house that have "Made in China", it would seem to me that their might be at least some industry in China. According to a 1995 paper by the fine unbiased folks at the UN, the United Nations Environmental Programme (That's the way they spell it guess they really don't want anything US even the words when they can avoid it), btw the acronym for thier club is UNEP, rhymes with inept, coincidence? Anyway, I digress, they have this 1995 paper that shows China as the #2 greenhouse gas producer in the world. Yes their per-capita amount is a lot lower than many countries, but if the goal is to prevent the big blue marble from turning into a bag of Orville Redenbacher's the the total amount should matter, not how many serfs you have under your thumb. Look for yourself here
In another article, from another source dated 2003 it shows CO2 emissions had increased from 1995 to 2003 by 9.5% in the USA and by 25% in China. See that pdf file here Furthermore, that paper shows that the share of global emissions for the USA in 2003 was 22.9%. So even if the USA held steady or reduced our emissions, what does that mean? Do the math, not much, but why is everyone in such a tizzy about the USA and its emissions? It all has to do with money, power and pecking order.
Getting back to something I mentioned earlier, most of these organizations relate everything back to a per capita basis. My objection (aside from the science is totally flawed in all of this) is what in the hell does per capita have to do with global warming, if human emissions of CO2 can cause global warming, then we need to look at how much CO2 is produced in total, not per person. The per capita slant gives away the entire ponzi scheme, the US does in fact emit the most CO2, we are very industrialized, we are a wealthy nation. So in the name of saving the plant as a smaller (relative term, can apply to geographic size, economy, brain, body parts, take your pick) country, how can I knock down the big dog? Easy, chip away at our economy, find ways to make it harder for us to compete, while not imposing the same restrictions on your own smallness. Welcome to the UN, Al Gore, Global Warming, and everything in between.
If you've read my Environmental Hot Air stuff before, you know I like curveballs. Here are two more. What was the population of the earth at the beginning of the past 3 centuries? Answer:
- 1800 - 1 Billion
- 1900 - 1.5 Billion
- 2000 - 6 Billion
So? Well CO2 emissions have increased at the same rate as population, NOT in the same rate as industrialization, there is a difference. Each person breaths out approximately one ton of CO2 per year. That is 27% of the total emissions in the 1995 UN paper. Now ad to that the increase in animal livestock needed to feed these people and what do animals exhale......think hard......that's right, CO2. (See this isn't nearly as hard as you thought).
Ready for curveball #2? Where do a lot of people live? (not location, but in what thing?) A house, an apartment, a building of some sort. What do they sit and sleep on.....furniture. What renewable resource is used to make these things? Wood.
On top of logging for lumber, either for building or manufacturing, you have forests that are clear cut to make room for agriculture (to feed the growing masses). Ok what do trees do for us. (This is harder, think way back to those school days......) Plants take in CO2, and give back O2.
Picture this you are trapped in a bar with 10 chain smokers, but you have 30 Sharper Image Ionic Breezes in the room, so the smoke is negligible if not non-existant. Well one by one we have to take out the Ionic Breezes to make room for new chain smoking patrons, what is going to happen to the air? Going to get smokey isn't it?
So if we chop down more and more trees, turn more rolling meadows into parking garages and malls, remove every tree in sight to build a house, plant a field, create livestock grazing land. Doesn't this enter into the CO2 equation? I would say yes, but Al "The Bloviator" Gore still thinks the problem is soley a US not signing the Kyoto agreement problem.
Yo Al, political will is looking at a plan, a ponzi scheme, and knowing that it will do harm to the people of your country. Al, harm is bad. Political will is looking at a problem and raising questions on how the problem is defined by those that want you to sign on the dotted line. Like going into a car dealership, the dealer says "It was driven by an old lady to church each Sunday, and that's all." Isn't it reasonable to test the theory, explore it for completness or shall I say it, flaws, omitted facts, skewed statistics? Political will is standing up against greater numbers when you know it is the right thing to do. But Al, you wouldn't know that, you are weak, your are corrupt, you are a hypocrite. Congrats on the Nobel Al, I know the selection is months away, but this just like many things in the UN this is very predictable. Don't let it go to your head though, you are just being used as a pawn, just like Carter was before you, to sway the lemmings of our time. More propaganda to move the masses into their cattle chutes and pens. Congrats Al, you are a leader after all now sit back down on your laurels (in your CO2 emitting limo, learjet, huge mansion(s) ) and take your medicine.
powered by performancing firefox
