Beijing choking on thick smog - third straight day

[art-in-the-making]

China's carbon dioxide emissions are nearing double the U.S., whose own are more than double the next highest country's.

My guess is that levels of other, more toxic, substances are relatively even higher in China than in other nations.

Really sad and worrisome situation.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/beijing-choked-pollution-dangerous-levels-152536654.html

[valve37]

And some complain about Canada's 2% contribution of the worldwide total.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

And these countries that spew pollution say two things…….

1. “Why should we do anything about it, if your countries don’t?”

2. “Your countries in the past contributed mainly to the destruction of the air and land and water as we see today…..and now that you have made your millions/billions and gained your power….you condemn us for doing the same that you did when we are finally about to grow and compete with you?”

[nuvistors]

And these countries that spew pollution say two things…….

1. “Why should we do anything about it, if your countries don’t?”

2. “Your countries in the past contributed mainly to the destruction of the air and land and water as we see today…..and now that you have made your millions/billions and gained your power….you condemn us for doing the same that you did when we are finally about to grow and compete with you?”

Bafflegab !

[pigdog47]

"Beijing choking on thick smog - third straight day"

Kyoto agreement is gonna stop that right?  How about those North American imposed Tier 4 emissions laws?

Mebbe it's'bout time to give China one of those Fossil of the Day awards. 

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

A lot of people simply don't care about the earth, the water or the air. They know that by the time things really get bad........they'll be six feet under. So when it comes to the next generation or the next....it's of little interest to them. They only thing they are interested in is........ themselves.

''For greed, all nature is too little.''

- Seneca Chief

[ilurkthereforiam]

The Brits suffered through killer smogs during the 50s.

You cannot turn back time.

China should look for ways to cut back emissions just like the rest of us.

We should do more.

They make toys, paint them with lead paint and try and sell them here. They use lead paint to save money. When we catch them. We send the toys back. They put poisons as filler in pet food.

Our problem is that we keep buying their garbage.

I use energy efficient bulbs, appliances and turns off lights when we leave the room.

[valve37]

It's the airborne particulates in the smog that's killing us not CO².

CO² is carbon and oxygen, the elemnts that sustain life.

Install scrubbers and reduce the smog.

There's a glut of NG, use it forget coal. 

[art-in-the-making]

valve, Co2 causes global warming - just a question of time until the petro-biz disinformation on man-made global warming is completely discredited just like the "smoking isn't proven bad for you" campaign of the 60s/70s/80s.

The only question - will it be too late?

[nuvistors]

valve, Co2 causes global warming - just a question of time until the petro-biz disinformation on man-made global warming is completely discredited just like the "smoking isn't proven bad for you" campaign of the 60s/70s/80s.

The only question - will it be too late?

Art:  I see that you believe the BS fed to the peons by the movie maker Gore and his money making cohorts.  Global  warming is a big business.  There is no doubt it is happening but there is also very great proof that it is a natural occurance.

Why else would the movie maker spend $30,000.00 per year for electricity for his house and he recently purchsed a seaside mansion that  will soon be under water.

[art-in-the-making]

To say some people have their heads in the sand is an understatement. In this day of corporate subverted media, it may be optimistic to hope that some of these folks really have independent control of their own minds.

"evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels."

Don't forget, under Harper's policies, Canada is positioning itself to be one of China's and the U.S.'s largest fossil fuel suppliers. So, don't fool yourself into believing that our contribution to global emissions is limited to the 2% that we ourselves emit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/national-climate-assessment-global-warming_n_2458905.html?i...

[pigdog47]

"evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels"

Um, just  exactly "how" has it been conclusively proven that human activities are the cause?  

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Hard to believe that some people in the world are so uneducated that they have no idea of what humankind has done to the planet.

I suppose they just want to read what fits their agendas.

[art-in-the-making]

Sorry pd, the draft report referred to is huge, 147 m. I won't be able to read it for you.

The section you highlight is specifically stated in the "Executive Summary", which is 21 pgs by itself.

The report is a draft, prepared by 240 scientists, and is being circulated for public input.

have at it!

[pigdog47]

Thank you Art.  I've been a little leery of taking scientist's prognostications at face value ever since "Climategate"   Seems like some of those folks had Ulterior Motives to fudge / alter data to fit their agendas.  I'm hopeful that these 240 scientists used established scientific methadology to conduct experiments that are repeatable in order to arrive at their coclusions. 

Anyway, as you and I know, the size of a draft document  (or a post on CTS) has no bearing on it's veracity.

[pigdog47]

I was kinda wondering if the experiment involved putting some volunteers (T, D, and H) on an island ("A") somewhere, and giving them a bunch of coal to burn,and then measuring if/how  the climate changed on nearby islands ("B", "C", and "D:). 

How did that climate change get attributed to Tom, Dick, and Harry burning coal on Island "A", and not some other non-human factor?  It is very confusing to me, you see. 

[art-in-the-making]

Thank you Art.  I've been a little leery of taking scientist's prognostications at face value ever since "Climategate"   Seems like some of those folks had Ulterior Motives to fudge / alter data to fit their agendas.

Anyone who looks carefully at the facts of Climategate wouldn't find anything substantial there that would cause them to change an opinion about anything.

Except, the power of the petro-biz and tea party astro-turfers and related disinformation spinners...

[pigdog47]

Anyone who looks carefully at "scientific fraud and misconduct" could find that objectivity in the scientific field can be suspect.   Despite the assertions of sincere  environmental Save-the-Whales environuts, the spinning of disinformation isn't limited to the Tea Party and Petro-Biz community!  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

[valve37]

"The only question - will it be too late?"

Listening to you, Gore and Suzuki I'd conclude it is too late so go out and enjoy yourself to the limit, smoke weed if you don't already.;-)

[art-in-the-making]

This report by Price Waterhouse Coopers pretty much tells the story:

http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/low-carbon-economy-index/assets/pwc-low-carbon-economy-index-2012.pdf

In a nutshell, it says that with a determined global effort, we might be able to hold the temperature increase to 2° by the end of the century. If we keep going the way we are, it's going to be more like a 6-10° average worldwide temperature rise.

Note: Price Waterhouse Coopers is the world's largest accounting firm. Risk Assessment is one of their areas of expertise.