China passes the US as top energy consumer

[Topaz]

China with a pop. of 1.3 Bil people has passed the US as the largest consummer of energy. The US with a pop. of 300 Mil is still uses more energy per capital than China. China and the US are the top polluters, also. http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/19072010/3/finance-business-china-passes-u-s-top-energy-consumer.html

[Guest American Woman]

China with a pop. of 1.3 Bil people has passed the US as the largest consummer of energy. The US with a pop. of 300 Mil is still uses more energy per capital than China. China and the US are the top polluters, also. http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/19072010/3/finance-business-china-passes-u-s-top-energy-consumer.html

Australia worst for per capita energy consumption

Australia has overtaken the USA and is now classified most at risk out of 185 countries, according to the CO2 Energy Emissions Index (CEEI), released by UK based, global risks analyst, Maplecroft.

Australians now emit 20.58 tons of CO2 per person annually, whereas American’s emit 19.78 tons, almost a 4% difference. Canada meanwhile emits 18.81 tons per person.

Just thought you'd want to know, since it appears Canada is a top polluter, also.

[TimG]

Australians now emit 20.58 tons of CO2 per person annually, whereas American’s emit 19.78 tons, almost a 4% difference. Canada meanwhile emits 18.81 tons per person.

So what? Measuring per capita emsission without any thought to per capita income is a meaningless exercise in social engineering.

[Guest American Woman]

So what? Measuring per capita emsission without any thought to per capita income is a meaningless exercise in social engineering.

So what's your point? Who does that ultimately present in a better light? Because I say "so what" to your observation, as it's meaningless without further elaboration.

[TimG]

So what's your point? Who does that ultimately present in a better light?

High per capitia CO2 emissions are a result of a successful society who provides a high standard of living for its members which ultimately contributes to the well being of the entire world by providing a platform for developing and perfecting technology.

The absurdity of your position is best illustrated by the example of a truck driver and a accountant. A truck driver's emissions are always going to huge compared to the accountant because of the nature of the job. Does that mean the truck driver's contribution to society is less important or that the truck driver should be punished for having emissions that exceed the average? I don't think so. Same goes for countries.

Edited July 20, 2010 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

The absurdity of your position is best illustrated by the example of a truck driver and a accountant. A truck driver's emissions are always going to huge compared to the accountant because of the nature of the job. Does that mean the truck driver's contribution to society is less important or that the truck driver should be punished for having emissions that exceed the average? I don't think so. Same goes for countries.

The absurdity of my position?? I was simply informing Topaz of the reality of the situation.

[TimG]

The absurdity of my position?? I was simply informing Topaz of the reality of the situation.

What you attempted to do is claim that per capita emissions mean that Canada and Austrialia are classed as 'top polluters'. That position is absurd. The only thing that matters is total emissions.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada heats things 10 months out of 12...Australia air conditions things 10 months out of 12. It's hard to get away from it...

[Guest American Woman]

Canada heats things 10 months out of 12...Australia air conditions things 10 months out of 12. It's hard to get away from it...

And the Northern U.S. heats as the southern U.S. air conditions. Every nation everywhere is either heating or cooling, for the most part.

What you attempted to do is claim that per capita emissions mean that Canada and Austrialia are classed as 'top polluters'. That position is absurd. The only thing that matters is total emissions.

Of course it's not the only thing that matters. It's your position that's absurd.

Edited July 21, 2010 by American Woman

[TimG]

Of course it's not the only thing that matters.

Why? There is no scientific rational for using per capita emissions since it is total amount of CO2 that matters. The only possible rational for a per capita measure is for social engineering purposes. If you disagree why don't you argue in defence of per capita emissions. Explain why they should matter inside of simply disagreeing. I explained why they should not matter. Edited July 21, 2010 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

And the Northern U.S. heats as the southern U.S. air conditions. Every nation everywhere is either heating or cooling, for the most part.

At least we can do something about it...lol (places head in fridge)

Kinda hot here today for Canada...

[Guest American Woman]

Why? There is no scientific rational for using per capita emissions since it is total amount of CO2 that matters. The only possible rational for a per capita measure is for social engineering purposes.

Of course there's a scientific rational for using per capita emissions along with other statistics. Of course it's not only the total amount of emissions that matters. Only a fool would think that 2 people emitting less emissions than 2000 people is a good thing, without taking anything else into consideration.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The US with a pop. of 300 Mil is still uses more energy per capital than China....

..but neither use as much energy per capita than Canada for reasons described above. So what?

[TimG]

Only a fool would think that 2 people emitting less emissions than 2000 people is a good thing, without taking anything else into consideration.

What if those 2 people are producing all of the food that the 2000 people eat? It is extremely unreasonable insist that equal per capita emissions is a worthwhile goal in a complex society with different people specializing in different industries with different emission requirements. Edited July 21, 2010 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

What if those 2 people are producing all of the food that the 2000 people eat? It is extremely unreasonable insist that equal per capita emissions is a worthwhile goal in a complex society with different people specializing in different industries with different emission requirements.

The main words there are "what if," to which I reply, "what if they're not?" Which is why I said "without taking anything else into consideration."

It's extremely unreasonable to insist that "the only thing that matters is total emissions." There are many factors that matter, population being one of them, and per capita being another, along with other factors. You are the one insisting only one thing matters, and that's just plain wrong; it's a combination of factors, all taken together.

Furthermore, I never said "equal per capita emissions is a worthwhile goal." My "position" is to inform

Topaz that Australia emits more per capita than the U.S. and that Canada is right up there, too, in light of her comments. A position that I think I've made quite clear.

[TimG]

The main words there are "what if," to which I reply, "what if they're not?" Which is why I said "without taking anything else into consideration."

Your initial post made no mention of such caveats. You simply stated that 'Canada is a top polluter' based on per capita number. It is also true that no one who quotes per capita numbers cares about such caveats so the use of thos numbers cannot be justifies with your caveats.

It's extremely unreasonable to insist that "the only thing that matters is total emissions."

Canada could reduce its per capita emissions by 100% an no one would notice. If China reduced its total emissions by 100% it would make a difference. The atmosphere only cares about total emsissions. Per capita emissions are only used as an excuse for wealth redistribution.

Furthermore, I never said "equal per capita emissions is a worthwhile goal."

That is what you imply by claiming that 'Canada is a top polluter' based on per capita emissions. If you wish to say something different then don't claim that having high per capita emissions means one is a 'top polluter'. Edited July 21, 2010 by TimG

[sharkman]

Personally I think total emissions should be observed, as well as per capita emissions plus any other data that may be helpful.

China passing the US as top energy consumer will have serious repercussions for the energy markets and supply, which translates into prices are going up as a result.

[TimG]

Personally I think total emissions should be observed, as well as per capita emissions plus any other data that may be helpful.

Why are per capitia emissions 'helpful'?

[sharkman]

Because they may be helpful? I'm not going to try to convert you. Think whatever you want, but greater minds than yours or mine use many methods in analyzing these matters, not just one.

[TimG]

Because they may be helpful?

Sure they are very helpful to people that have a desire for social engineering and global wealth redistribution. They server no other purpose. Edited July 21, 2010 by TimG