Evironmental Effect... Consumption v Emission

[tha malcontent™]

Consumption v Emission

Over the years I have heard all kinds of Percentages tossed around about how we are only 250 or 300 Million on this Planet of 5 Billion, but we Consume 20 or 25% of the Resources...

Is this the Baseline for Estimating Emissions?...

I have to Assume we are Estimating, because we Certainly can't Trust the Chinese Data that they Front, Hell, they Criticize us for our Culture of Execution while they Deny having one themselves, all Stocked up with Mobile Lethal Injection Buses... And don't even get me Started on the Former Soviet!... But I Digress.

I Know this for Sure about our Emissions in my Lifetime...

When I was Kid, the "Brown Cloud" in Denver was a Daily Event.

You would get a Sore Throat from a Ride Across Town with the Windows down on a Hot Day in Traffic.

That was the 70's...

Today?..

Almost a Non-Event in any given Year.

That's Reflected ALL over the Country.

The Hudson Rivers of the Past are a thing of the Past.

So my Concern again is this, does the Baseline for these Theories about our Effect on the World's Environment have it's Genesis in our Cosumption as Opposed to Actual Emission?

I Know there are other Flaws in the "Settled Science" on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", like Temperature Averages in areas that were NOT Concrete Jungles 100 years ago, but are now Plagued with the Heat Island Effect.

Anyway, I would Love to Discuss this with some People who have More Knowledge and Information on these Issues than I.

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

Bumpdigity...

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

Is this Thread Invisible?...

:)

peace...

[sisyphus]

Not invisible, just a subject that many try to avoid due to the emotional attachment many have for their POV.

Just a few items to consider:
The '"Settled Science" on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change",' is not fact, it is just another way to avoid the discussion.
All of the Cosumption vs. Emission theories are based on a static model and should be discarded for that reason, as well as that they only include approximately 1800 variables.
One of the unused variables is the fact that the atmosphere has 95% water vapor as the predominant 'greenhouse gas'.

And finally without the effect, the average global temp. would be -30 C.

[tha malcontent™]

More!...

:)

peace...

[sisyphus]

"When I was Kid, the "Brown Cloud" in Denver was a Daily Event.

You would get a Sore Throat from a Ride Across Town with the Windows down on a Hot Day in Traffic."

When was this? after 1974? (Please tell me it was)

[tha malcontent™]

"When I was Kid, the "Brown Cloud" in Denver was a Daily Event.

You would get a Sore Throat from a Ride Across Town with the Windows down on a Hot Day in Traffic."

When was this? after 1974? (Please tell me it was)

Very much so...

:

peace...

[merickson]

When I was a kid, you could regularly see both the Sierras and the Coast Range from Sacramento.

Now, very rarely can one see either.

Its not a competition. (Remember Dan Connor's bowling team chanting "We're not the Worst! We're not the Worst! We're not the Worst!")

Even if it doesn't cause Global Warming, my Boy Scout training "Leave only Footprints", suggests that the changing the composition of the atmosphere should be avoided.

[Samm]

Consumption v Emission

Over the years I have heard all kinds of Percentages tossed around about how we are only 250 or 300 Million on this Planet of 5 Billion, but we Consume 20 or 25% of the Resources...

<snip>


That's odd... I thought that the US was the producer of 43% of the World's GNP, not just the consumer of 25% of the resources. :think:

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

I'm simply for being reasonable. The more people on the planet, the more resources used. It's just math. Kind of like people and diets. It's a simple mathematical formula that most people ignore. And there is nothing wrong with a little planning. Those of us that aren't partisan on this issue just need to conserve a bit here and there. Partisans will be hard headed one way or the other.

[Samm]

I'm simply for being reasonable. The more people on the planet, the more resources used. It's just math. Kind of like people and diets. It's a simple mathematical formula that most people ignore. And there is nothing wrong with a little planning. Those of us that aren't partisan on this issue just need to conserve a bit here and there. Partisans will be hard headed one way or the other.

So... where are you headed with that? :eh:

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

So... where are you headed with that? :eh:

Just what I stated. Be reasonable with our resources. It's not much different that what my grandfather did on his farm.

[Samm]

Just what I stated. Be reasonable with our resources. It's not much different that what my grandfather did on his farm.

Ok... so what is reasonable? :eh:

Is producing double the GNP per unit of resources used compared to almost any other country a reasonable use of resources?

[sisyphus]

"Is producing double the GNP per unit of resources used compared to almost any other country..."

This is an example of the efficiency of the free enterprise system at work.
As a nation becomes more advanced, it will by definition become more efficient in its use of resources overall.
The next step is to colonize space as fast and as far as we can.....

[tha malcontent™]

Ok... so what is reasonable? :eh:

Is producing double the GNP per unit of resources used compared to almost any other country a reasonable use of resources?

On it...

:)

peace...