China's per capita CO2 production (7.2 tonnes pa) is now higher than the EU's (6.8). It's still half the USA's (16.5) per capita figure but it's increased 4 fold since 2001.
The totals are more like China 29%, USA 15%, EU 10% of total pa CO2 production.
So now what happens?
http://rationthefuture.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/world-carbon-emissions-out-of-control.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29239194
Obviously, it's all OK, because Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winning economist and NYT columnist) says "Saving the planet would be cheap; it might even be free." with a bit of carbon tax, carbon credits and other strong measures to limit carbon emissions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html
And anyone who disagrees is just indulging in "climate despair".
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/10/what-is-real-and-what-is-not.html
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/09/a-note-on-adventures-in-flatland-part-ii.html
John Michael Greer: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2014/09/dark-age-america-senility-of-elites.html
Post-Carbon Institute:
"Paul Krugman and the Limits of Hubris"
http://www.postcarbon.org/paul-krugman-and-the-limits-of-hubris/
"Paul Krugman’s Errors and Omissions"
http://www.postcarbon.org/paul-krugmans-errors-and-omissions/
And if you look at the IPCC report it's actually cheaper to live with global warming than it is to fight it.
I disagree with your conclusion.
The other 85% is immaterial!
What is interesting is that the USA per capita CO2 output pa has dropped from 21.7 to 16.5 since 2001. This is probably due to a combination of 2 major financial shocks and the outsourcing of manufacturing since US lifestyles and the US economy really hasn't changed that much.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vlksg/economic_decoupling_the_recent_relationship/
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/true-raw-material-footprint-nations
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9176121/armageddon-averted/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Matt_Ridley
Particularly not when they start of heaping praise / sucking the balls of coal baron denialists:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nigel_Lawson
But thanks for playing.
The article does a decent job of pointing out that there are many facets to a warmer climate that are positive for humans, it also talks about how some adaptive solutions can make local impacts and don't require global support.
Which goes for Ridley, Lawson, the Spectator, and yourself.
I do dispute parts of the man made warming data but others agree quite well. The important part is that we're seeking truth, the bad part is that we're spending more time attacking credibility than we are having constructive debate.
The real shame is people advocating what you are, silencing opposing views. That is directly against the scientific method, period.
The report of the article above is this: we will never be able to impact carbon emissions to a great level unless there is a cheaper alternative for developing countries. However we can manage our own emissions while also mitigating effects of warmer temperatures.
I really have no time for this style of bullshit +Shawn Dunne. Consider this a yellow card.
Addressing one final point: "The real shame is people advocating what you are, silencing opposing views."
As I noted above: it's not a matter of silencing dissent, it's of revoking voice from those who deliberately and with malice spread distruths. Shouting "no fire" in a theater which is, in fact, on fire, is just as bad as shouting "fire" in one which is not.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2g8e8c/shouting_no_fire_in_a_warming_world_as_a_clear/
I am assuming by yellow cards you like to silence any views counter to what you want as well?
"I do dispute parts of the man made warming data but others agree quite well. The important part is that we're seeking truth, the bad part is that we're spending more time attacking credibility than we are having constructive debate.
The real shame is people advocating what you are, silencing opposing views. That is directly against the scientific method, period."
You realize that this somehow labels you a "denier"
You either accept whatever they say even when contradicting themselves or you are stigmatized and demonized.
In the end I agree with you. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and we should stop the attacks and be prepared to question our own assumptions.
The article I quoted above is a great perspective on what is politically achievable. China isn't going to sign on reductions without as cheap energy alternative, but there are ways we can mitigate the impacts that are both economical and effective. THAT is the key part.
But I'll be happy to lump you in there as well, if that's the label you choose.
Don't kid yourself, the label "denier" has nothing to do with whether or not they do or don't deny things it only has to do with silencing people you disagree with.
I advocated thinking for yourself. I advocate looking at the picture and being ready and willing to challenge your own preconceived ideas.
I have not said one side is correct or one side is incorrect. I clearly stated that I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
If that is a message you are afraid of and feel the need to silence that is your prerogative. I will go ahead and leave this conversation.
Denialtard blocked.
That is: it is not actually illegal to lie.
Which seems to be all too common among denailtards and the Denial Disinformation Industrial Complex (a/k/a ALEC, the Kochs, Murdoch, Lawson, NewsCorp, Spectator, Telegraph, et al).
http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2hex4k/its_not_against_the_law_to_lie_alec_fall_on_the/
That went well! ;)
What are the Christians 7 deadly sins again?
2) This post is not about the USA, it's about the world
3) Please go and read Charles Stross' moderation rules here.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/06/moderation-policy.html
Like him, Trolling, spam, personal attacks, racism, sexism, religious evangelism, and homophobia will reliably annoy me.