Forums | MacLife

Cyberpawz wrote:

Actually I've already provided several links that point that specific groups are stating that the US was one of the sources of the majority of the pollution of the world...

No, you haven't provided "several links."  You've provided ONE LINK, that says this:

Still, the United States remains the largest energy consumer in the world, and also the world's largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide. With the exception of Australia, most other industrialized countries rely much less heavily on coal, which is highly carbon intensive, to meet domestic energy needs than does the United States.

Stating that the United States is "the world's largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide" is NOT the same thing as saying the U.S. is the source of "the majority of the pollution in the world."  It's not even the same thing as saying "the U.S. is the source of the majority of the energy-related carbon dioxide in the world." 

You're simply wrong.  Again.

PAWNED

bratboy wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Actually I've already provided several links that point that specific groups are stating that the US was one of the sources of the majority of the pollution of the world...

No, you haven't provided "several links."  You've provided ONE LINK, that says this:

Still, the United States remains the largest energy consumer in the world, and also the world's largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide. With the exception of Australia, most other industrialized countries rely much less heavily on coal, which is highly carbon intensive, to meet domestic energy needs than does the United States.

Stating that the United States is "the world's largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide" is NOT the same thing as saying the U.S. is the source of "the majority of the pollution in the world."  It's not even the same thing as saying "the U.S. is the source of the majority of the energy-related carbon dioxide in the world." 

You're simply wrong.  Again.

Look at the quote you showed... it shows it as not only the largest energy consumer, but also the largest energy-related CO2... what part of that does not state that the US is the largest polluter in the world?

I'm not talking about per capita, I'm talking per country... if you want to go via per capita, Qatar wins that title.

YES. 

"Largest producer" DOES NOT EQUAL "produces the majority of."

OK, if this doesn't go somewhere productive shortly it's getting locked.

If at all possible, I'd still like to know what's the whole point of arguing that the US isnt the biggest polluter. What exactly does that change? Does it make caring for the environment any less important?

bratboy wrote:

John makes 3 pies.  Sally makes 1 pie.  Tom makes 1 pie.  Sue makes 1 pie.  Mike makes 1 pie.

John was the "largest" single-producer of pies.  John made "the most" pies.  However, John did not make the "majority" of the pies (he made 3 out of 7 total). 



...and any statement about pies is not the same as a statement about all desserts.

You do realize...well it is obvious you don't...

The US produces 5,762,050 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
China Produces 3,473,600 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
Russia Produces 1,540,360 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
Japan Produces 1,224,740 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
India Produces 1,007,980 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
Germany Produces 837,425 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
The UK Produces 558,225 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)
Canada Produces 521,404 metric tons of CO2 pollution (not per capita)

And from there is drops nearly 100,000 metric tons and drops sharply after the fact...

The world produces 22,829,463.2 metric tons of CO2 pollution... at last notified... The US produces 25% of all pollution... The rest of the world produces 75% of the rest of the pollution....and the last time I checked we are ahead of schedule for reducing out pollution as a whole.

StaticAge wrote:

If at all possible, I'd still like to know what's the whole point of arguing that the US isnt the biggest polluter. What exactly does that change? Does it make caring for the environment any less important?

The point is that the US is one of the largest, if not largest exporter and importer in the world, it seems to what I've been reading online including from several european papers that the world seems to forget that the US does about the most amount of production for the amount of material it uses as a country.

Pollution control is important, but so is the fact that the rest of the world seems to not be able to produce the same amount of material without increasing it's pollution output.  China has proven that at least by the NASA satellite images at the beginning of the posting. The US seems to be the only country under a microscope in this matter, and all those who pollute more, while producing much less with greater pollution effort seems to me to be calling the kettle black.

Last edited by Cyberpawz (2006-06-02 5:28 pm)

Cyberpawz wrote:

The world produces 22,829,463.2 metric tons of CO2 pollution... at last notified... The US produces 25% of all pollution... The rest of the world produces 75% of the rest of the pollution....and the last time I checked we are ahead of schedule for reducing out pollution as a whole.

The point is that the US is one of the largest, if not largest exporter and importer in the world, it seems to what I've been reading online including from several european papers that the world seems to forget that the US does about the most amount of production for the amount of material it uses as a country.

Pollution control is important, but so is the fact that the rest of the world seems to not be able to produce the same amount of material without increasing it's pollution output.  China has proven that at least by the NASA satellite images at the beginning of the posting. The US seems to be the only country under a microscope in this matter, and all those who pollute more, while producing much less with greater pollution effort seems to me to be calling the kettle black.

The US burns a lot of coal in dirty fashion.  President Bush just relaxed the enviornmental controls on refineries.  You sure we're still "ahead of schedule for reducing our pollution" ?

The US, being one of the largest importer/exporters, yet having like 5% of less of the world population, should maybe stop using so much stuff!

And for the "pot calling the kettle black" bit, the web site you linked to is an American one.  So, that's like the pot calling itself black (with soot, one would assume).  I don't believe the governments of India or China have said that only the US needs to reduce emissions.  Which would be a pot calling the kettle sort of thing.

NOx is still a serious problem, and, unlike CO2, it has a visible effect, so you don't have to admit that global warming is caused by man to call it a pollutant.

kb5zhh wrote:

I heard that this thread has punch and pie.


So CP, why are treating all the different pollutants as if they are interchangeable?

My guess is because a larger number looks better, and scarier than actually breaking down the different pollutants separately... Makes the environmentalists seems to have a stronger case than they really do. It also allows people to twist facts...

It is one of the reasons I don't listen to the per capita claim... it isn't a true status of the amount of pollutants being pushed into the air.

This started in the first post when Pawz said

pawz wrote:

've known for some time the US us far from being the worst polluter in the world, yet people seem to blame the US for the majority of the pollution/Air quality problems of the world

A quick google for "US worst polluter" comes up with several sources using that phrase "US worst polluter"
(world's worst polluter is divided between the US and Australia).

Pawz was half right.
How about we drop it now.

Cyberpawz is really stupid if he thinks winds do not blow across borders.