Article

2005-12-01 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-12-01 00:06|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Funny, I was just going to invite the ChiComs to kiss my ass.

Posted by Captain America 2005-12-01 00:14|| 2005-12-01 00:14|| Front Page Top

#2 You'd think they would at least wait until they took care of there benzene contaminated water problem before lecturing us on how to manage the enviroment.

Posted by ryuge 2005-12-01 06:09|| 2005-12-01 06:09|| Front Page Top

#3 *their

Posted by ryuge 2005-12-01 06:10|| 2005-12-01 06:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Dear China:

How about you first?

Posted by SR-71 2005-12-01 06:15|| 2005-12-01 06:15|| Front Page Top

#5 â¦ adding it was unfair to expect ~~China and India~~ USA_ with the world's ~~largest~~ most productive populations _ to ask their ~~impoverished~~ hard working people to cut back on energy consumption.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-12-01 07:26|| 2005-12-01 07:26|| Front Page Top

#6 What is the Chinese gross economic productivity per energy unit or per emmission unit? How does it compare to US ratio? (I can guess the answer, but am curious about the actual numbers.)

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2005-12-01 08:54|| 2005-12-01 08:54|| Front Page Top

#7 Glen, I googled a number of sites on this issue. As you can imagine there is data all over the place. But in general it seems the US and China have comparable $GDP/BTU. This makes sense when you consider that the majority of China is in rural poverty and most of the manufactured GDP is created in coastal enclaves for export. In the US, There is a lot more transportation into the interior, think Interstate highways, and houses are a lot bigger.

China is also very low on the GDP per capita scale, so it should have a much better marginal $GDP/BTU than the US as it picks the low hanging fruit. Were they to rise to the US level of GDP per capita and income distribution, it is likely they would use energy less efficiently.

Posted by Gleretch Ulaviling1097 2005-12-01 10:47|| 2005-12-01 10:47|| Front Page Top

#8 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CarbonHydrology/

Contrary to popular opinion, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the United States cannot accurately be labeled as all give and no take. In fact, of the 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide our consumer driven country coughs up a year, roughly 15 to 30 percent is reabsorbed back into the land.

Other studies have indicated even more carbon is "reabsorbed" making North America a minimal producer verging on a negative net.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-12-01 10:57|| 2005-12-01 10:57|| Front Page Top

#9 Bu Hao!

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-12-01 15:43|| 2005-12-01 15:43|| Front Page Top

23:51 JosephMendiola
23:43 Seafarious
23:40 Barbara Skolaut
23:39 Barbara Skolaut
23:32 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 RG
23:07 Silentbrick
22:47 Cyber Sarge
22:46 RG
22:40 Frank G
22:26 Redneck Jim
22:23 RG
22:19 Frank G
22:17 Frank G
22:17 49 pan
22:16 DMFD
22:11 Bobby
22:10 SR-71
22:09 Frank G
22:07 Red Dog
22:01 Cyber Sarge
21:55 RG
21:54 macofromoc
21:51 CaptainHook