@Soon_U_Die:
the EU (US) refused to negotiate…you seem to object to this.
I objected that you put the EU only to blame. In the above you mention the US as well, that’s all i wanted.
I just find it humorous the EU compromised its position so much throughout in an attempt to get an agreement…any agreement. My view is that the US actually acted IAW with its principles.
What is politics? Everyone acting according to his principles, seeking compromises? Both as good as possible? None of it? Only one totally with no respect for the second?
A small point to note…‘most of those that the US wished were later implemented’… exactly…and why do you think that is? Because the EU gambled that the US would come back to the table…they did not.
This is your opinion only, and based on your reasoning only. The same applies for my opinion that the US gov’t is to be trusted as far as than i can spit cherrystones.
I have a collection of facts, and make up my mind. You have a collection of facts and make up yours.
Even with the same facts we probably would draw different conclusions.
A similar situation happened with ITER…a thread from last year. Multi-national attempt to build a fusion reactor (EU, Japan, Russia, US, Canada). They attempt to negotiate a path. The US refuses citing a number of funding and technological objections and withdraws.
Just a quick comment not to be followed on:
It’s funny that it’s always the US that withdraws and later appears right (at least in your view): If they are so sure they are right, why leave, when it’s good for the whole of mankind?
“US…let me see…we exclude half the world, including the vast majority of the actual dirty polluters” …
My statement is not inaccurate…but it is poorly worded.
Where is the difference? I can understand a difference between “wrong” and “poorly worded”/“inaccurate”, between those and “totally accurate”…
Consequently, I won’t retract it…but I will explain it.
The explanation is enough for me to accept your position (as your position), even i don’t agree with the point and esp. not the way you try to talk yourself out there.
Remember, I gave you a thumbnail sketch, not a detailed explanation.
Not inaccurate? … i thought accuracy was about details etc…
ok, i’ll shut up on this.
Just one thing: You did not explain the term “vast majority”… vast to me is more than two thirds. But i must admit, i misread your “dirty polluters” to “dirt polluters”.
So, no I will not withdraw the statement as it is/was accurate.
:) …. sorry, taht was just too tempting :)
Finally, why is the US such a big producer? Is it primarily the ‘myth’ that they don’t give a damn, are self centered and the like. No. Consider the following points:
they are the world’s largest economy and the worlds most industrialized country by far, so of course they should be much higher.
True, but if you look at the pollution per capita, the US still is in the lead by a large amount.
All facts i will state at teh end.
they are geographically a huge country with a dispersed population. This is quite different than Europe. In the US and Canada…a lot of us live in the suburbs. We have to drive cars. Public transportation sucks because of the distances. We have garages so we have larger cars. Europe is much more densely populated. Public transportation is much more viable and efficient in Europe because of this density and geography.
Yes and no. I have spent some time in Australia, who fits into the abovementioned category. Your description is correct, your conclusions are singleminded and not thinking far enough.
I must add: you se this totally wrong. In Europe, the population density across the continent is rather “flat”, at an intermediate level. In Australia, and i suppose in the US and Canada as well, you have much bigger centres, and much less polpuation outside these centres.
Thus, effectivlythe european population is dispersed: Germany with its 80 million people has only 4 cities with more than 1 million inhabitants, plus the Ruhr area, which can be counted as one city, and then would be the 5th. Australia, with its 18 million people, has 3 cities of more than one million inhabitants.
Your argument is more a counterargument.
In cities that large, a good transportation system should be no problem, with that amount of possible customers.
This means, public transportation would fit to your places much better.
I lived in Melbourne, with 3 million inhabitants. My hometown in germany is half as big in population. Still, it has a better system for public transportation.
You said “you have to drive cars”. Why do you have to drive cars? Because the public transportation system suck. Why do they suck? Your argument does not work for it. Try to think of others. Compare the investments maybe into these systems and street building.
Another point why public transportation does not work so well: It could be your mindset. You seem convinced that you need a car, regardless wether there are trains running or not. What is the maximum distance for you to cover before you change to your car (from walking/bicycle…)?
Why is “denser building” something undesirable? Why do you need your home in your suburb, even if it means driving 25 km through the city to your job?
Transportation pollutants are vastly higher proportionally in the US than in Europe. North America is the home of the long distance truck driver :) Europeans drive smaller cars, shorter distances because they have to…not because they are more environmentally conscious. You can’t even find a spot to park a car in many European cities…so the cars have to be small. Where are all your garages? ::)
This speaks of your mindset again. Would you need parking spots if the public transportation worked? Plus: It is untrue. I drive about 200 km per trip per day to work. My homevillage (6000 people) was about 40 km from the citycentre of the next large city, where most people worked. But, we were not a suburb, but there was a town and a few villages in between.
Denser building in the city makes such thing possible. And the garages in the city areoften underground or in parking buildings, if you haven’t noticed.
Whereis the need for bigger cars, if you drive from one suburb to the other?
It’s a myth that you need big cars, as you drive such long distances. How many people have SUVs, and need the “U” part in it?
Plus: We have quite a environmental conciousness.
A hint: Look at the different designs of the same cars for different continents, and at the PR-strategies used to sell them.
Long distance truck dirvers: Why can’t their job be done by long distance trains? Why wouldn’t it work in principle?
Do you know what is damaging roads most? Trucks.
Transportation is not the only thing. Our agriculture sector is spread over a much greater distance/area. Europe heavily invests in chemicals etc for so called intensive farming. For instance, I believe yields in the UK are about 3-5 times per acre that in Can/US. Instead, we have the space, and we leave huge tracts of land fallow…we are less intensive…but we burn far more fuel to till this amount of land.
True.
You have the space, and you buy your feel of freedom with the need of fuel.
Electrical generation. Without getting in to physics too much, the longer distance power travels, the less efficient the overall system. In short, you require greater proportional generating capacity. Well the US is huge, like Canada. We have a built-in disadvantage.
???
So, you think the people in New York get their Electricity from the Westcoast? The distances is not a factor. I don’t think that your powerplants are so much further away from the customers as ours. Or your costs for electricity would be much higher, or are your electrical power producers not making profits??
Weather in the US and Canada is more extreme and more varied than in Europe in general. We have four distinct seasons in much of our land, … But in the winter it is freezing and you must have central heating. …our weather necessitates greater power consumption. It is the same for Canada…actually worse. I believe proportionally we use more power than even the US…why? The weather again…if you haven’t had to let your car warm up for 15 mins before you can even drive it…you don’t know.
(1) Europe is not sub-tropical, therefore we have 4 distinct seasons as well.
(2) Canada is second to the US is per capita energy consumption.
(3) central heating? the central heating i know, or just a word for “well working heating in every room”? hopefully the second.
You are right, your weather conditions are more extreme, esp. in Canada. Not at all in Florida or southern California though. There the need for winter heating is quite reduced.
A question: Do you know how USies and Canadians build their houses? How much insulation in the walls? Double brick? brick at all? Wood? Aluminium? single/double/triple windows?
I guess at least many USies could save a lot of energy by building “smarter” houses.
All of these things affect our businesses, not just our homes. It is easy to say that we are just power hogs, but that is simplistic. There are valid reasons on why we consume so much. Europeans who move here quickly find that out.
The weather is the only difference from you towarsd the Ozzies, AFAICS.
In any case, that may indeed be our problem, but look at it from our perspective…to move any of the absolute numbers is more difficult here. A 1% change is more costly to effect here, than it is in Europe. It is just reality.
I don’t expect you to change your opinion on Kyoto, but I do hope that you will acknowledge there are real issues in North America on these issues, and solutions for you, may not be the best solutions for us because of these differences. Hopefully, you will at least acknowledge that it is not just greedy Americans as Europe likes to portray it.
I don’t think you are greedy, but i think you have to rethink one of your very basics, one of the things that kind of define you:
Space costs energy. Energy is limited. Do i need the space i use for my well being, just because the space per se (withour following costs) is so cheap? Or should i try and make up a larger sum, of all following costs?
–--------------------------------------
Stats section:
CO2 emission per capita (1995)
USA 20.5 tons
Germany 11 tons
(sorry, nothing for Canada or Aus in that list)
global sources of Greenhousegases (GHG):
Farming, Cattle, “Foodproduction” 15%
Energyusage by industry and “households” (sp?) 30%
Traffic 20%
Burning forests to gain land 15%
chemical products 20%
If you look at that, the CO2/Energy-consumption possibly comes from the second and third, with the fourth being a topic for developing countries.
And on the traffic, i strongly disagree with you and think your reasoning is shortsighted.
Total Energy usage (million tons coal equivalent units)and usage per capita (kg coal equivalent units)
USA 3021.6 11,300
Canada 320.9 10,900
Australia 140.8 7,879
Netherlands (?) 7,421 …
Traffic important for the Netherlands? Or are they just the most wasteful nation ever?
Germany 461 5,650
France 308 5,309
So, in a first model we could account about 3,000 kg per capita due to extreme weather differences between Australia and Canada.
Anyway, i don’t think your “traffic model” works. In population density, the Netherlands lead in front of Germany, in front of France.
So, there France should use more than Germany should use more than the Netherlands.