6 ms·

But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The

But there is no clear link between GDP and carbon emissions. For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU. The idea that investing in alternative energy and the like will cost jobs or even lives is total bunk. If we can create a market around things we don't need (like gourmet potato chips) then we can create a market around things we do need, like clean air and water.

w00pla 17y ago
> For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations. The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particulate matter, mercury, sulphur emissions, etc...).
- bballant 17y ago
  France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.
  - w00pla 17y ago
    Of course there are other reasons. The United states is more affluent which means that more people will drive cars. The USA also has a lower population density which means that CO2 caused by transportation would be lower. Many countries (such as Germany and some Eastern European countries) use natural gas in electricity generation in some places. This has lower carbon emissions, yet is substantially more expensive. It would also be interesting to consider CO2 imports and exports (if you buy a product that was manufactured in another country, then you import CO2). As an example, power hungry aluminium smelters are located where electricity is the cheapest. Yet everybody uses aluminium. I would also like a citation for the “example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.” statement.
    - Retric 17y ago
      Aluminum Smelting is actually one of the main industries in Iceland due to cheep electricity costs which are below below US, Europe, and China. At the same time Iceland's renewable energy industry provides over 70% of all the nation's primary energy and 99.9% of Iceland's electricity being generated from renewables. Iceland has explored the feasibility of exporting hydroelectric energy via submarine cable to mainland Europe and also actively seeks to expand its power-intensive industries, including aluminium and ferro-silicon smelting plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland
      - w00pla 17y ago
        > one of the main industries in Iceland due to Iceland is a geologic freak which allows for geothermal energy generation. Even though it has this, the energy production isn't that great. AFAIK, Iceland generates about 1336MW total capacity (calculated from CIA world factbook calculations). A modern nuclear power plant generates 1600MW. A large aluminum smelter uses 1GW of power or even more (that is why they are often next to hydroelectric dams). Also note that the EU emits about 70% of the Carbon dioxide that the US does. Calculation: Production per year kW hours 11710000000 Production per day (kWh) 32082191.78 Production per hour (kW) 1336757.991 MW: 1336.757991
        Retric 17y ago
        The largest geothermal power plant is in the US and Iceland actually receives most of it's electric power from Hydro Power. They are almost done another 690 MW peak 525 MW av hydro power dam which is being created for the Fjarðaál smelter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rahnj%C3%BAkar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rahnj%C3%BAkar They do use geothermal for home heating which has an above normal payout in large part due to the cold preventing normal heat pump's from working at reasonable efficiency and the long winders preventing solar home heating system from working when they are most needed them. Most of the continental US can use solar hot water heating systems with a fairly fast payback for lower cost than Iceland's geothermal systems. I am just pointing out that "green" tech is already competing with fossil fuels and winning in many areas. It's not a question of turning off coal and other fossil fuels today, but rather limiting their use to the most useful systems such as cars and airplanes. PS: Many homes in the US would reduce their CO2 emissions more by adding insulation than they would by doubling the fuel economy of their cars.
DaniFong 17y ago
It's a pretty clear link. Take a look at about 8:58 in Hans Rosling's TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... Practically every country has gotten out of poverty at the cost of carbon emissions. The link isn't perfect but it is very strong. We need to get on a different curve. There doesn't seem to be any other way.
- bballant 17y ago
  It is true that a developing nation typically needs to exploit its natural resources and cheap labor to industrialize and grow, which means CO2 emissions, but this is not true in modern, primarily service-based, economies, like the US. Again, US's GDP is roughly the same (slightly higher) per capita as that of the EU, but our CO2 emissions are (pitifully) over double the EU's, per capita. If there was a clear link, the the US's GDP should be much higher in comparison. Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    "Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment." This is what I meant when I said "We need to get on a different curve."

w00pla 17y ago

> For example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU The biggest reason for this is France which generates the majority of its power (80%+) from nuclear power stations. The environmentalists were extremely successful in the 70ies and 80ies to ensure that the USA does not use nuclear power. Since then their coal power stations have done untold damage to human health (particulate matter, mercury, sulphur emissions, etc...).

bballant 17y ago
France generates the majority of their power from nuclear power stations, but it is certainly not the "biggest reason" the EU's CO2 emissions are half of the US's.
- w00pla 17y ago
  Of course there are other reasons. The United states is more affluent which means that more people will drive cars. The USA also has a lower population density which means that CO2 caused by transportation would be lower. Many countries (such as Germany and some Eastern European countries) use natural gas in electricity generation in some places. This has lower carbon emissions, yet is substantially more expensive. It would also be interesting to consider CO2 imports and exports (if you buy a product that was manufactured in another country, then you import CO2). As an example, power hungry aluminium smelters are located where electricity is the cheapest. Yet everybody uses aluminium. I would also like a citation for the “example, US's GDP is slightly less than the EU's but our CO2 emissions are double the EU.” statement.
  - Retric 17y ago
    Aluminum Smelting is actually one of the main industries in Iceland due to cheep electricity costs which are below below US, Europe, and China. At the same time Iceland's renewable energy industry provides over 70% of all the nation's primary energy and 99.9% of Iceland's electricity being generated from renewables. Iceland has explored the feasibility of exporting hydroelectric energy via submarine cable to mainland Europe and also actively seeks to expand its power-intensive industries, including aluminium and ferro-silicon smelting plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland
    - w00pla 17y ago
      > one of the main industries in Iceland due to Iceland is a geologic freak which allows for geothermal energy generation. Even though it has this, the energy production isn't that great. AFAIK, Iceland generates about 1336MW total capacity (calculated from CIA world factbook calculations). A modern nuclear power plant generates 1600MW. A large aluminum smelter uses 1GW of power or even more (that is why they are often next to hydroelectric dams). Also note that the EU emits about 70% of the Carbon dioxide that the US does. Calculation: Production per year kW hours 11710000000 Production per day (kWh) 32082191.78 Production per hour (kW) 1336757.991 MW: 1336.757991
      - Retric 17y ago
        The largest geothermal power plant is in the US and Iceland actually receives most of it's electric power from Hydro Power. They are almost done another 690 MW peak 525 MW av hydro power dam which is being created for the Fjarðaál smelter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rahnj%C3%BAkar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rahnj%C3%BAkar They do use geothermal for home heating which has an above normal payout in large part due to the cold preventing normal heat pump's from working at reasonable efficiency and the long winders preventing solar home heating system from working when they are most needed them. Most of the continental US can use solar hot water heating systems with a fairly fast payback for lower cost than Iceland's geothermal systems. I am just pointing out that "green" tech is already competing with fossil fuels and winning in many areas. It's not a question of turning off coal and other fossil fuels today, but rather limiting their use to the most useful systems such as cars and airplanes. PS: Many homes in the US would reduce their CO2 emissions more by adding insulation than they would by doubling the fuel economy of their cars.

DaniFong 17y ago

It's a pretty clear link. Take a look at about 8:58 in Hans Rosling's TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... Practically every country has gotten out of poverty at the cost of carbon emissions. The link isn't perfect but it is very strong. We need to get on a different curve. There doesn't seem to be any other way.

bballant 17y ago
It is true that a developing nation typically needs to exploit its natural resources and cheap labor to industrialize and grow, which means CO2 emissions, but this is not true in modern, primarily service-based, economies, like the US. Again, US's GDP is roughly the same (slightly higher) per capita as that of the EU, but our CO2 emissions are (pitifully) over double the EU's, per capita. If there was a clear link, the the US's GDP should be much higher in comparison. Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  "Finally I reject the notion that there doesn't seem to be any other way. I have much more faith in human innovation than that. I firmly believe that there is a market for green technologies, that, when fully developed, will create jobs, boost economies, and improve our global environment." This is what I meant when I said "We need to get on a different curve."