oil

[selftitled85]

by the year 2025 china will be consuming over 14 million barrels a day and america will almost be at 30. the world...which right now is at 78 or so million barrels a day will be somewhere closer to 110 million barrels a day consumed.

the middle east is home to more than 75% of the oil left in the world and this will be growing over time.

we are already in major talks with China and India...the two fastest growing consumers of oil about what to do with this dilemma with no solution.

what do you guys think should be done?

[FScott]

I was watching a documentary on Brazil on tv the other night and next year Brazil is going to declare there independence to foreign oil. They run cars (16 cents a gallon I believe) and such on whats called "Ethenol", its grown on farms. If anyone has more insight on the process please explain I wasn't really paying attention to that.

I was thinking how great it would be if the US could do the same but of course it would not happen in our life time. The last I heard the US, 5% of the worlds population, consumes 25% of the worlds oil.

Sorry if I'm off topic a bit.

[cal1082]

I think a good step was the nuclear deal done with India

[aminorthreat55]

There was a huge article on this in The Economist in the fall. November maybe? It was a good read.

[splitsecond]

Lets nuke China.

[YourMusicSucks]

Lets nuke China.

I second that.

But only if we annex North Korea as well.

[justinevans]

Where Does A Majority Of Corn Grow? America. What Does Ethanol Come From? Corn. They Are Already Doing It In Minnesota. Gas prices have risen because OPEC knows their oil is a dying breed.

[selftitled85]

Where Does A Majority Of Corn Grow? America. What Does Ethanol Come From? Corn. They Are Already Doing It In Minnesota. Gas prices have risen because OPEC knows their oil is a dying breed.

thats wrong still. even if america weens itself off opec oil...which is only about 25% of its oil...with the gulf countries accounting for 14% of that...

we still have countries like china and india who will be importing large sums of their oil from them. by 2025 of the 14.2 million barrels china will import over 6 from the middle east. a huge amount...

[justinevans]

thats wrong still. even if america weens itself off opec oil...which is only about 25% of its oil...with the gulf countries accounting for 14% of that...

we still have countries like china and india who will be importing large sums of their oil from them. by 2025 of the 14.2 million barrels china will import over 6 from the middle east. a huge amount...

Yes, but the problem we have now is that we do not have enough refineries. Ethenol will be the way to go by 2025 and we have the corn for it.

[richter915]

I was watching a documentary on Brazil on tv the other night and next year Brazil is going to declare there independence to foreign oil. They run cars (16 cents a gallon I believe) and such on whats called "Ethenol", its grown on farms. If anyone has more insight on the process please explain I wasn't really paying attention to that.

I was thinking how great it would be if the US could do the same but of course it would not happen in our life time. The last I heard the US, 5% of the worlds population, consumes 25% of the worlds oil.

Sorry if I'm off topic a bit.
I saw the same show! it was actually a show on CNN with that guy who kinda looks like Bill Maher.

anyhow

my solution

biodiesel. The cost is around .75 a gallon...it runs cleaner and easier than petroleum/diesel...also helps engines run for longer.

all we need is a lot of base...and a lot of fat (which america is known for)

[selftitled85]

I saw the same show! it was actually a show on CNN with that guy who kinda looks like Bill Maher.

anyhow

my solution

biodiesel. The cost is around .75 a gallon...it runs cleaner and easier than petroleum/diesel...also helps engines run for longer.

all we need is a lot of base...and a lot of fat (which america is known for)



jmu is one of the prominent researchers in biodiesel.

ethanol and biodiesel and hydrogen are all answers but until we have a lot of areas where people can fill up there tank it will never be a solution.

[IAPAI]

jmu is one of the prominent researchers in biodiesel.

ethanol and biodiesel and hydrogen are all answers but until we have a lot of areas where people can fill up there tank it will never be a solution.

then what do you suggest?

[richter915]

jmu is one of the prominent researchers in biodiesel.

ethanol and biodiesel and hydrogen are all answers but until we have a lot of areas where people can fill up there tank it will never be a solution.
ya exactly...they were talking about a hydrogen station that some guy had to put millions into...just like a gas station but whatever.

my teacher brought up a good point about how stupid people are...if we had electric cars all we'd have to do is come home and plug it into the wall...instead...when we need to drive, we have to drive the car to a gas station...stand there no matter what filling up our tanks full of a stinky, flamable liquid...then come back home.

can anyone explain the whole hydrogen power thing? I'm a bit shaky on it.

[richter915]

then what do you suggest?
put money into biodiesel plants. Put money into hybrid/electric vehicles and stations. All these would limit dependancy on oil.

[selftitled85]

put money into biodiesel plants. Put money into hybrid/electric vehicles and stations. All these would limit dependancy on oil.

right now the problem with hydrogen is that its so freaking expensive...and dangerous to set up. so we need to work on that.

biodiesel could really become the fuel of the future in my opinion. my roomate is has been working on it for a long time and its starting to look good.

what i think needs to be done is that the word on it needs to be spread. not enough people know about it. there should be town hall meetings or something of the sort so the word is spread.

[selftitled85]

im actually writing my term paper for my internship class on weening america off foreign oil...more importantly middle eastern oil as that is probably easier to do. its a very interesting topic...

[Adeniz19]

hasnt GM started making some cars with Ethanol?

[richter915]

right now the problem with hydrogen is that its so freaking expensive...and dangerous to set up. so we need to work on that.

biodiesel could really become the fuel of the future in my opinion. my roomate is has been working on it for a long time and its starting to look good.

what i think needs to be done is that the word on it needs to be spread. not enough people know about it. there should be town hall meetings or something of the sort so the word is spread.
That really doesn't sound so bad. I dunno how people don't know about it (well, I can guess)...but if you know how soap-making works...you can make biodiesel. One of my organic chemistry TAs powers all of his stuff with biodiesel and saves a ton of money.

it's odd, the first place I learned about actually making biodiesel...like what you need to buy, what to mix, etc etc...it was on some show for truckers on spikeTV...the guy showed how the most beat up truck will run really well when using biodiesel...yet people aren't interested.

the problem is the effort...it takes too much effort for individuals to do it (even if they save cash)...until it gets funded by a major corporation, I don't see it getting anywhere. The big boys of oil have a way of keeping the biodiesel people shut up though I'm sure.

[richter915]

im actually writing my term paper for my internship class on weening america off foreign oil...more importantly middle eastern oil as that is probably easier to do. its a very interesting topic...
I dunno what truth to this there is but I thought up this on my own:

I know the US has oil reserves in Alaska...we haven't really tapped into that. Right now, we're (we as in, the world) is dependant on middle eastern oil...once that runs out, doesn't that make American oil the only source? I mean, it would be worth a lot right? So doesn't it make sense that some people (those who invest in Alaskan Oil) would want to keep this dependancy on middle eastern oil regardless of the cost?

[Broken Parachute]

I don't know much about the oil supply, but I think Russia has alot of oil but we can't really get any of it because 1) Russia really doesn't like us 2) It's so cold over there, it'd be hard to obtain all that oil.

And doesn't Alaska have plenty of oil? It's cold there too..but there's nothing there but wildlife. The only thing holding them back is endangered wildlife, I believe.

Don't harrass me though, I don't know much about this oil thing.

[richter915]

there is some oil scattered around the world but nothing close to what's in the middle east:

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/solberkr.html

[exxxoduss]

why is everyone so worried about running out of oil. it has been calculated that we have enough oil on earth to last well over ten-thousand years. i sure don't think that the human race will be around that long, we are all idiots and eventually we'll just kill each other. lets tell opec to raise the production of oil so we aren't paying 3 dollars a gallon, but that would decrease their record setting profits of well over a billion dollars for one year. i'm all for alternatives to gasoline because once we find a new resource we can stop caring so much about the middle east.

[selftitled85]

why is everyone so worried about running out of oil. it has been calculated that we have enough oil on earth to last well over ten-thousand years. i sure don't think that the human race will be around that long, we are all idiots and eventually we'll just kill each other. lets tell opec to raise the production of oil so we aren't paying 3 dollars a gallon, but that would decrease their record setting profits of well over a billion dollars for one year. i'm all for alternatives to gasoline because once we find a new resource we can stop caring so much about the middle east.


that is so wrong. right now the middle east owns more than 75% of the oil reserves. but it will only be able to last us for maybe a hundred years at our current consumption needs.

also the main reason oil is so expensive is that oil is a bitch to refine. we can only refine so much oil right now as we ll as be able to transport so much using existing pipelines. because of these restraints we see supply problems.

[xllirikx]

ooooo, what an intellectual thread.

I'de like to bring up the fact that threats that we are running out of oil have existed since the 1950, and all have said the same thing - we'll be out by twenty years.

[Alex Djaferis]

alot more should be done finding alternate fuel sources. its a time bomb waiting to explode and no ones checking the dial.

[fromwithin]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/top25_f500_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

hmm, look at that. for some reason, oil companies have made record profits, even displacing wal-mart as the #1 company on the Fortune 500. but with gas prices so high, the oil companies prices should rise too right? wrong.

$1 billion a day they were pulling in!

[selftitled85]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/top25_f500_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

hmm, look at that. for some reason, oil companies have made record profits, even displacing wal-mart as the #1 company on the Fortune 500. but with gas prices so high, the oil companies prices should rise too right? wrong.

$1 billion a day they were pulling in!


if you curb how much profit the oil companies can make then you will shoot yourself in the foot. if the market does not set prices and you set a ceiling then they will only produce a specific amount which will be less than needed. so we would be fucked nonetheless.

though i think we should do it just so we can ween ourselves off oil. if we curb how much oil we have we can make it so only specific cars can drive at specific times...so people will car pool or use public transportation. make the country better.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't know much about the oil supply, but I think Russia has alot of oil but we can't really get any of it because 1) Russia really doesn't like us 2) It's so cold over there, it'd be hard to obtain all that oil.

And doesn't Alaska have plenty of oil? It's cold there too..but there's nothing there but wildlife. The only thing holding them back is endangered wildlife, I believe.

Don't harrass me though, I don't know much about this oil thing.

There not endangered. Nor are their populations limited to this tiny peice of land.

[cal1082]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/top25_f500_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

hmm, look at that. for some reason, oil companies have made record profits, even displacing wal-mart as the #1 company on the Fortune 500. but with gas prices so high, the oil companies prices should rise too right? wrong.

$1 billion a day they were pulling in!

yes.........damn their ability to make a profit on probably the most high consumed material. Just doesnt make sense

[LostSymphonies]

i really wish i cared, my only goal in life right now is graduating college in august and starting my career

[NetNerdsRevenge]

I wrote a paper last semester saying that America should tap into Iraq's oil fields and basically pay them an amount less than OPEC for exporting their oil. I did it to piss off my very far left English professor. I got a B on the essay with a paragraph of commentary about the paper. She wasn't happy

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Also, I thought Canada had large amounts of oil?

[Alex Djaferis]

Also, I thought Canada had large amounts of oil?
yeah i heard that too.

if they do, maybe they want to keep it :)

[FScott]

you mean canada has something going for them?

[selftitled85]

Also, I thought Canada had large amounts of oil?


they do.

but having large amounts and being able to use these large amounts are two completely different things. you need to set up refineries as well as build pipelines. this takes years and lots of money. not to mention it is still nowhere near as large as the amount in the middle east.

plus...most of the canadian oil is found in what is called the "oil sands." its pretty much just what i described. it makes it much harder and more expensive to refine.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

canada is your largest supplier of oil. be nice to us...;)

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/energyrel050328-en.asp

[mps]

by the year 2025 china will be consuming over 14 million barrels a day and america will almost be at 30. the world...which right now is at 78 or so million barrels a day will be somewhere closer to 110 million barrels a day consumed.

the middle east is home to more than 75% of the oil left in the world and this will be growing over time.

we are already in major talks with China and India...the two fastest growing consumers of oil about what to do with this dilemma with no solution.

what do you guys think should be done?

Oil is a politcally unstable resource as well as us not actually knowing how much there really is left. Renewable energy and sustainable development is the only way to go (nuclear is debateable still for the time being), though America will not go this way as it is more expensive and they would rather not damage their economy now and be fucked in the future. They do not plan ahead or think about the consequences (of environmental impacts, for example).

[NetNerdsRevenge]

canada is your largest supplier of oil. be nice to us...;)

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/energyrel050328-en.asp
guess that answers my question.

[cal1082]

Oil is a politcally unstable resource as well as us not actually knowing how much there really is left. Renewable energy and sustainable development is the only way to go (nuclear is debateable still for the time being), though America will not go this way as it is more expensive and they would rather not damage their economy now and be fucked in the future. They do not plan ahead or think about the consequences (of environmental impacts, for example).

apparently you're not following US energy policy from Switzerland

link 1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-22-bush_x.htm?csp=34)
link 2 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/usa/2006/usa-060218-voa01.htm)
link 3 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165030,00.html)

[mps]

apparently you're not following US energy policy from Switzerland
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why be condescending just because I live in a different country? Of course I am, and am aware of the recent developments after Bush's State of the Union speach, but nevertheless this is not nearly enough. You know just as well as I do that America is very careless with their energy, and do not give a fuck about the damage they are doing to the environment, hence the reason they did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

[mps]

link 1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-22-bush_x.htm?csp=34)
link 2 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/usa/2006/usa-060218-voa01.htm)
link 3 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165030,00.html)

And where does the waste from this go? Oh and nuclear power plants still release unwanted water vapour into the atmosphere.

[cal1082]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why be condescending just because I live in a different country? Of course I am, and am aware of the recent developments after Bush's State of the Union speach, but nevertheless this is not nearly enough. You know just as well as I do that America is very careless with their energy, and do not give a fuck about the damage they are doing to the environment, hence the reason they did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

I'm not being condescending, you're statements are just flat out wrong. Also if you think the Kyoto Protocol was going to do anything for the betterment of the world enviroment you are sadly mistaken. Any program that excludes the top polluting countries from restrictions is not for the best. Hell I'd support the Kyoto Protocol if it were a universal standard but sadly it's not.

Please look at the links in my last post.

[cal1082]

And where does the waste from this go? Oh and nuclear power plants still release unwanted water vapour into the atmosphere.

It's the next most logical, economical, and enviromental step. You don't go from gas to running cars on water over night. Technology and infrastructure must catch up before it becomes a viable sollution.

[mps]

I'm not being condescending, you're statements are just flat out wrong. Also if you think the Kyoto Protocol was going to do anything for the betterment of the world enviroment you are sadly mistaken. Any program that excludes the top polluting countries from restrictions is not for the best. Hell I'd support the Kyoto Protocol if it were a universal standard but sadly it's not.

Please look at the links in my last post.
America did not sign it, they were not excluded. Exactly my point. What do you mean by 'universal standard' ?

[cal1082]

America did not sign it, they were not excluded. Exactly my point. What do you mean by 'universal standard' ?

look at the kyoto protocol if you don't understand what i'm talking about. what i'm talking about has nothing to do with the US not signing it.

[mps]

It's the next most logical, economical, and enviromental step. You don't go from gas to running cars on water over night. Technology and infrastructure must catch up before it becomes a viable sollution.

No but you can go to running cars on ethanol, which is much more economical. Biomass. Look into it, Brazil are the pioneers in this field. Anyways the States could do much more on the front of cleaner energy, such as harnessing the wind's power (the windiest place on Earth is found in the States - Mt Washington), wave energy, hydroelectric, solar, etc etc. Many other countries have much more developed programs working towards more sustainable and cleaner energy production, and the US use the most energy, and pollute the most out of any country in the world.

[mps]

I have to go now, I'd be happy to discuss this at length later though.

[cal1082]

No but you can go to running cars on ethanol, which is much more economical. Biomass. Look into it, Brazil are the pioneers in this field.

Yes, and guess what country falls number 2 behind Brazil in ethanol production.............?
Also the energy bill that Bush signed last year increases ethanol production by 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

Anyways the States could do much more on the front of cleaner energy, such as harnessing the wind's power (the windiest place on Earth is found in the States - Mt Washington), wave energy, hydroelectric, solar, etc etc. Many other countries have much more developed programs working towards more sustainable and cleaner energy production, and the US use the most energy, and pollute the most out of any country in the world.


Everyone could do much more when it comes to cleaner energy. Point is it has to be economical, and widely available. As of yet it's not. Gas will keep climbing and you will so more and more demand for ethanol.

Also when it comes to industrialized and industrializing countries the US does not pollute the most. You are completely wrong.

[mps]

Carbon dioxide is the MAIN green-house gas.

CO2 Emissions.

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 5,762,050
#2 China 3,473,600
#3 Russia 1,540,360
#4 Japan 1,224,740
#5 India 1,007,980
#6 Germany 837,425


Municipal Waste per capita

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 720
#2 Australia 690
#3 Iceland 650

Nuclear waste

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 2,100
#2 Canada 1,340
#3 France 1,130
#4 Japan 964


Sorry, I have to run, I'll discuss more later.

[cal1082]

Carbon dioxide is the MAIN green-house gas.

CO2 Emissions.

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 5,762,050
#2 China 3,473,600
#3 Russia 1,540,360
#4 Japan 1,224,740
#5 India 1,007,980
#6 Germany 837,425


Municipal Waste per capita

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 720
#2 Australia 690
#3 Iceland 650

Nuclear waste

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 2,100
#2 Canada 1,340
#3 France 1,130
#4 Japan 964


Sorry, I have to run, I'll discuss more later.

You don't get it. It's hard to explain by typing but I'll try. Also I didnt do a good job explaining why the US arent the worst polluters.

Total production is not a good way to look at pollution. Why....? Do you really expect US pollution to be on par with that of Canada, Britian, Switzerland, or Russia? Of course not because they are not on the same economic level as the US nor are they on the same size. The US will release the most because we have the most cars on the road. For example look at China who is at number 2. They are still developing (which excluded them from cutting emmissions under the Kyotot Protocol which is why it's a bad idea) yet they are number 2 in the world in pollution. Just imagine when they are industrialized and catch up to the US..............? It's a fact that Europe's laws on emission is behind the US, but why are they not at the top of the list? Because they are not up to par with the US economy.

You'd want to look at something like per capita when looking at these stats. It just makes sense.

You have to look at what your stats are saying because you can use them to pretty much say whaterver you want. They have to be put into context and realities.

[mps]

You don't get it. It's hard to explain by typing but I'll try. Also I didnt do a good job explaining why the US arent the worst polluters.

Total production is not a good way to look at pollution. Why....? Do you really expect US pollution to be on par with that of Canada, Britian, Switzerland, or Russia? Of course not because they are not on the same economic level as the US nor are they on the same size. The US will release the most because we have the most cars on the road. For example look at China who is at number 2. They are still developing (which excluded them from cutting emmissions under the Kyotot Protocol which is why it's a bad idea) yet they are number 2 in the world in pollution. Just imagine when they are industrialized and catch up to the US..............? It's a fact that Europe's laws on emission is behind the US, but why are they not at the top of the list? Because they are not up to par with the US economy.

You'd want to look at something like per capita when looking at these stats. It just makes sense.

You have to look at what your stats are saying because you can use them to pretty much say whaterver you want. They have to be put into context and realities.

I know as an American you are going to claim fame to the biggest, best economy in the world blah blah blah, but that doesn't cover the fact that for all these years you have used your resources wastefully without care. You cannot deny the fact that the US should have done something about their current energy/pollution situation MUCH earlier. America won't ratify the Kyoto Protocol because you value your economy higher than the world's atmosphere and climate (which disruption of could cause an ironic backfire). The IPCC has already observed severe disruptions in the Earth's climate (I could go into more detail if you want, as global warming and climate change are big interests of mine). The Kyoto Protocol states that countries who ratify it commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. There is nothing stopping America ratify it, and while they are working to reduce emissions - as you deem it impossible in their current position - they could buy LEDC's quotas if they wanted. At least this would show an attempt at actually doing something about it, instead of making excuses all the time and trying to prove that they are some special exception. American has been overcome by commercialism and is just too greedy to agree to cut their losses and make a real effort to reduce emissions.

"US officials called Kyoto "fatally flawed", though all the governments of the major industrialised countries disagreed." -BBC

Funny that, eh?

I mean why would 178 countries including all the other major industrialised countries have signed up to the Kyoto protocol, but not America? What makes them so special? The US has denied global warming for years, and granted, now they have actually began to realise it is a problem, have realised too late, and are doing too little about it. To be honest with you, no one can really do much about it without the US because as the world's biggest polluter, no real dent in global warming can be made without the US. The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions, and 36% of all green house gasses -that's a lot.

"The cuts required by Kyoto would mean some fundamental changes in American lifestyle. US citizens tend to drive larger cars and make more frequent trips.

The average American produces six tonnes of carbon dioxide, the average Briton three tonnes, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.

US industry is largely dependent on coal and oil, the fuels that produce the most carbon dioxide.

The argument in the US is that the Kyoto protocol would unfairly penalise Americans and the American economy. " -BBC

Do I even need to explain?

Oh and here's some per capita stats, as you asked (the municipal waste one above is per capita btw).


Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels 2000 (per capita)

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 5.31221 per 1 million people
#2 Australia 4.82827 per 1 million people
#3 Canada 4.81634 per 1 million people
#4 Netherlands 3.90077 per 1 million people
#5 Russia 3.14461 per 1 million people
#6 Taiwan 3.01389 per 1 million people
#7 Saudi Arabia 2.83897 per 1 million people
#8 Germany 2.6689 per 1 million people


What now, ah yes, your argument about China. I would not AT ALL say that they are not industrialised - that is incorrect, as they are and have been for awhile now. If you are familiar with the demographic transition model, I would say they are approaching, and if not in, stage 4, along with the States. As you must have seen above China produce less than 1/8 the amount of CO2 per capita, per day, than the US do. This is a lot less. ALSO despite economic growth China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s. I'm sorry, but America are clearly the odd one out in the world. They are immensely richer than China, but with less population than Europe, and STILL emit more harmful chemicals than both of them. Now you wonder why we are pissed off that America are too stubborn to endorse international protocols designed to reduce such emissions.

"The world looks on flabbergasted as the world's greatest polluter cares not to take care or responsibility in the face of international pressure. "

I'll tell you why the US has not ratified it, it's because of your stupid capitalist president. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies are the power behind Bush; together, they donated more than $50 million dollars to put him in the White House. As soon as he was elected, it was payback time and Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions dead and buried. Have a look at this selfish quote the great man himself made -

"We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America" - George Bush

I'll end with a further quote which may help explain why this pisses the rest of the world off so much.

"Many environmentalists understand that developing countries do not have the technology or means to use the most modern or environmentally friendly industrial equipment. But when such a rich country as the USA fails to take responsibility for its own pollution it really annoys a lot of people worldwide. "


You cannot dispute that America are in the wrong here.

[selftitled85]

I know as an American you are going to claim fame to the biggest, best economy in the world blah blah blah, but that doesn't cover the fact that for all these years you have used your resources wastefully without care. You cannot deny the fact that the US should have done something about their current energy/pollution situation MUCH earlier. America won't ratify the Kyoto Protocol because you value your economy higher than the world's atmosphere and climate (which disruption of could cause an ironic backfire). The IPCC has already observed severe disruptions in the Earth's climate (I could go into more detail if you want, as global warming and climate change are big interests of mine). The Kyoto Protocol states that countries who ratify it commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. There is nothing stopping America ratify it, and while they are working to reduce emissions - as you deem it impossible in their current position - they could buy LEDC's quotas if they wanted. At least this would show an attempt at actually doing something about it, instead of making excuses all the time and trying to prove that they are some special exception. American has been overcome by commercialism and is just too greedy to agree to cut their losses and make a real effort to reduce emissions.

"US officials called Kyoto "fatally flawed", though all the governments of the major industrialised countries disagreed." -BBC

Funny that, eh?

I mean why would 178 countries including all the other major industrialised countries have signed up to the Kyoto protocol, but not America? What makes them so special? The US has denied global warming for years, and granted, now they have actually began to realise it is a problem, have realised too late, and are doing too little about it. To be honest with you, no one can really do much about it without the US because as the world's biggest polluter, no real dent in global warming can be made without the US. The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions, and 36% of all green house gasses -that's a lot.

"The cuts required by Kyoto would mean some fundamental changes in American lifestyle. US citizens tend to drive larger cars and make more frequent trips.

The average American produces six tonnes of carbon dioxide, the average Briton three tonnes, a Chinese 0.7 tonnes and an Indian 0.25 tonnes.

US industry is largely dependent on coal and oil, the fuels that produce the most carbon dioxide.

The argument in the US is that the Kyoto protocol would unfairly penalise Americans and the American economy. " -BBC

Do I even need to explain?

Oh and here's some per capita stats, as you asked (the municipal waste one above is per capita btw).


Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels 2000 (per capita)

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States 5.31221 per 1 million people
#2 Australia 4.82827 per 1 million people
#3 Canada 4.81634 per 1 million people
#4 Netherlands 3.90077 per 1 million people
#5 Russia 3.14461 per 1 million people
#6 Taiwan 3.01389 per 1 million people
#7 Saudi Arabia 2.83897 per 1 million people
#8 Germany 2.6689 per 1 million people


What now, ah yes, your argument about China. I would not AT ALL say that they are not industrialised - that is incorrect, as they are and have been for awhile now. If you are familiar with the demographic transition model, I would say they are approaching, and if not in, stage 4, along with the States. As you must have seen above China produce less than 1/8 the amount of CO2 per capita, per day, than the US do. This is a lot less. ALSO despite economic growth China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s. I'm sorry, but America are clearly the odd one out in the world. They are immensely richer than China, but with less population than Europe, and STILL emit more harmful chemicals than both of them. Now you wonder why we are pissed off that America are too stubborn to endorse international protocols designed to reduce such emissions.
"The world looks on flabbergasted as the world's greatest polluter cares not to take care or responsibility in the face of international pressure. "

I'll tell you why the US has not ratified it, it's because of your stupid capitalist president. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies are the power behind Bush; together, they donated more than $50 million dollars to put him in the White House. As soon as he was elected, it was payback time and Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions dead and buried. Have a look at this selfish quote the great man himself made -

"We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America" - George Bush

I'll end with a further quote which may help explain why this pisses the rest of the world off so much.

"Many environmentalists understand that developing countries do not have the technology or means to use the most modern or environmentally friendly industrial equipment. But when such a rich country as the USA fails to take responsibility for its own pollution it really annoys a lot of people worldwide. "


You cannot dispute that America are in the wrong here.



China is still classified as an emerging market. they are not that industrialized. you think they are because all you hear about is beijing and the coast. but once you move in there is nothing there.

as much as i disagree with cal on almost everything...you are taking it way too far.

yes america does a shitty job of being environmentally friendly...but cities in china and india are much dirtier than cities in the us. in beijing (i think it is this city)...there are more people getting sick from pollutants than anywhere else.

it is not all george bush's fault that america did not sign the protocol. even though pres clinton signed it beforehand the highly republican senate rejected it. it is a republican idea and they feel it infringes on sovereignty.

now yes i feel america needs to be in the front of the pack working to create better fuel efficient cars and for cleaning up the environment. but countries like china and india...with some of the fastest growing and most pollutant countries should not look the other way just because they are playing catch up.

[commatosa]

I think all the people in control of oil corporations should kill themselves. problem solved. guaranteed cold fusion's already been discovered but that guy was offed.

[cal1082]

China is still classified as an emerging market. they are not that industrialized. you think they are because all you hear about is beijing and the coast. but once you move in there is nothing there.

as much as i disagree with cal on almost everything...you are taking it way too far.

yes america does a shitty job of being environmentally friendly...but cities in china and india are much dirtier than cities in the us. in beijing (i think it is this city)...there are more people getting sick from pollutants than anywhere else

it is not all george bush's fault that america did not sign the protocol. even though pres clinton signed it beforehand the highly republican senate rejected it. it is a republican idea and they feel it infringes on sovereignty.

now yes i feel america needs to be in the front of the pack working to create better fuel efficient cars and for cleaning up the environment. but countries like china and india...with some of the fastest growing and most pollutant countries should not look the other way just because they are playing catch up.


Exactly, and that's why the protocol was and is a shit idea. Allowing industrializing countries like China and India a free pass on controlling emissions is ridiculous. All that does is tie us and other industrialized countries down. Should make you question whether protecting the enivroment is really the heart of the Kyoto Protocol

And it was mentioned that other industrialized countries did sign the protocol. Why do you think they did...........? If they really cared that much for it, it wouldnt take signging a protocol to reduce emissions. Fact is each country is doing what's in their best interest financially. Countries like Russia and Japan are going to make a profit on it by selling credits off.

[cal1082]

I think all the people in control of oil corporations should kill themselves. problem solved. guaranteed cold fusion's already been discovered but that guy was offed.

one too many val kilmer movies for you

[mps]

China is still classified as an emerging market. they are not that industrialized. you think they are because all you hear about is beijing and the coast. but once you move in there is nothing there.

as much as i disagree with cal on almost everything...you are taking it way too far.

yes america does a shitty job of being environmentally friendly...but cities in china and india are much dirtier than cities in the us. in beijing (i think it is this city)...there are more people getting sick from pollutants than anywhere else.

it is not all george bush's fault that america did not sign the protocol. even though pres clinton signed it beforehand the highly republican senate rejected it. it is a republican idea and they feel it infringes on sovereignty.

now yes i feel america needs to be in the front of the pack working to create better fuel efficient cars and for cleaning up the environment. but countries like china and india...with some of the fastest growing and most pollutant countries should not look the other way just because they are playing catch up.

I have travelled around a lot of China, and you are right, it is very polluted - though not as polluted as the US. Beijing is a special case, helped tremendously because of certain meteorological conditions that it experiences throughout the summer (I can go into more detail if required). Nevertheless, China is a much larger country than the states with a much greater amount of people, and they still pollute less. India does not have the resources as this point in time to deal with it's pollution problem, whereas the states do. China probably dont have the resources, or their corrupt government dont want to implement anything to change this. Nevertheless both these countries have populations in excess of 1 billion people, and are not half as prosperous as the US, and still pollute less overall.

You are right in accepting that the US need to make a change.

[mps]

I think all the people in control of oil corporations should kill themselves. problem solved. guaranteed cold fusion's already been discovered but that guy was offed.
Unfortunatly my friend it is not a stable form of harnessing energy, and you actually have to put more in to get something out of it. About 10miles from my house one of the most spectacular accelerators in the world is nearing completion, and will hopefully solve the - not neccesarily cold - fussion problem.

We need to save every damn drop of oil we have for everything BUT energy (in an ideal world of course), as it is the most important resource we have. More importantly it is needed for organic bassed products such as drugs, plastics, fertilisers, etc..As far as I can see, we will always live in a world that revolves around oil, not neccesarily for energy reasons.

[richter915]

It's the next most logical, economical, and enviromental step. You don't go from gas to running cars on water over night. Technology and infrastructure must catch up before it becomes a viable sollution.
do you know much about the hydrogen economy? Cause honestly...the shift is not as hard as you think. As I (and others) said earlier...there are much safer alternatives which are efficient. As others have implied, it's the profits that people make from oil that keep us in this game. At least you don't deny that.

[richter915]

it's pretty much agreed that the US tops in waste production as a result of it's mass oil/energy consumption, right? So I mean, isn't it common sense for the US to lead in finding alternative sources of fuel?

[selftitled85]

it's pretty much agreed that the US tops in waste production as a result of it's mass oil/energy consumption, right? So I mean, isn't it common sense for the US to lead in finding alternative sources of fuel?


they do. but the problem is they are still spending significantly less than they should.

instead of finding better ways to implement putting tvs in cars...find a way to make a van into a hybrid.

instead of put on all these added features that use excess enegy...use all the money to work on hydro power.

[cal1082]

they do. but the problem is they are still spending significantly less than they should.

instead of finding better ways to implement putting tvs in cars...find a way to make a van into a hybrid.

instead of put on all these added features that use excess enegy...use all the money to work on hydro power.

that's not the governments job

[mps]

they do. but the problem is they are still spending significantly less than they should.

instead of finding better ways to implement putting tvs in cars...find a way to make a van into a hybrid.

instead of put on all these added features that use excess enegy...use all the money to work on hydro power.
There is no incentive for Americans to actually make an effort on this front it seems. I just hope a decade down the line they run out of oil and global warming causes severe problems they cannot cope with, then they will realise.

[mps]

that's not the governments job
Whos job is it then? The US government have a responsability and they are not doing nearly enough about it. Honeslty it absolutely flabbergasts me that you talk about this in such an offhand way, as if it is not even an issue.

[cal1082]

Whos job is it then? The US government have a responsability and they are not doing nearly enough about it. Honeslty it absolutely flabbergasts me that you talk about this in such an offhand way, as if it is not even an issue.

No, I talk in a way in which I dont want the government controlling my choices. We have a consumer based economy, and that's a fact. America has been fortunate enough not to have to pay large prices for gas. That's quickly changing though which is why in the last 4 or 5 years you have seen more hybrids on the road, and more advertising for alternative energy sources. Let the consumer dictate............

I dont have a problem with the government funding research and so forth because you want to be ahead of the curve when the consumer is demanding these alternative sources. But forcing car makers to make a certain product is not smart.

[commatosa]

one too many val kilmer movies for you

that's where you're wrong....you can never watch too many val kilmer movies....he's a sexy man, what can I say?

[ScienceFiction]

Ive heard that one ethanol station can be run by one chinese restuarant, because it uses the same oil, or fat whatever is used in ethanol, and fast food places would probably be even more. But i think the bigger problem is our country is to wrapped up in the politics and money of oil that it will take alot for us to ever switch......and there are alot of ethanol statitions already. There are many in California. But you have to switch your engine to a diesel or some shizzle like that. And not enough people know or want to change for it to have a big enough impact on the oil company.

[selftitled85]

Ive heard that one ethanol station can be run by one chinese restuarant, because it uses the same oil, or fat whatever is used in ethanol, and fast food places would probably be even more. But i think the bigger problem is our country is to wrapped up in the politics and money of oil that it will take alot for us to ever switch......and there are alot of ethanol statitions already. There are many in California. But you have to switch your engine to a diesel or some shizzle like that. And not enough people know or want to change for it to have a big enough impact on the oil company.


you can make it so your engine runs on the excess waste from a mcdonalds. supposedly its really efficient and very healthy.