What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
108 Comments
- Condottieri, on 10/12/2007, -31/+76Well, congratulations, America. A country that has more than four times as many people as you is about to have the same pollution levels as you.
- abid786, on 10/12/2007, -19/+51@RuffRidr (#6339757): "Sooo, we should let China slide until they are producing 4 times as much pollution?"
No; we should do something about our OWN pollution problem before starting to criticize others. - longhair, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24I just bought a new Nissan Titan that gets 9 mpg.. I'm trying to help the U.S remain number one, but I can't do it alone. Step it up people.
- NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26The list of things that the United States is number one is getting shorter and shorter...
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I agree that we need to clean up our own house, before asking others to do so. But I don't think we should go around signing treaties that don't apply consistently to all of the countries.
- doodlebumm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20China's GNP is 1/8th that of the USA, so they are twice as polluting per capita in productivity. Well, I guess you could look at it that way.
- teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Not a polluter, but a CO2 emitter.
There is a huge difference. I do not care if China was emitting no CO2 whatsoever, they would still be one of the worst polluters. Have you seen the air in their cities? Yes, you can actually see it. - TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Why not? I want to see what happens when a hippy decides to live in a tree in China to slow their deforestation; or picket their factories; or have a demonstration where they burn effigies of their leader.
- dharh, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Let's not use China as a scapegoat for our own horrible pollution spewing.
- Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16"Well, congratulations, America. A country that has more than four times as many people as you is about to have the same pollution levels as you."
China emits more pollution for less economic output - that's another way to look at it. - ic00, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22Thank you, America, for outsourcing pollutant industries to China.
- kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20no we should never miss a chance to knock America. We should always be first in line for that.
I can not believe anyone would look at the U.S as anything other than a vile despicable place that has done nothing for the world but rape and plunder its resources.
We are scum and the rest of the world are to be commended on all of their efforts to make the world better for us all.
I hate you America. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14The upside of China becoming the biggest polluter is that the US will finally start to criticize them for polluting so much, not that we'll match our rhetoric with our words. But at least we'll be talking about it for once.
Of course, the downside is that it means they've increased their pollution and we haven't decreased ours. Suck it, life on earth. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8YA! Like, it's only cool to protest in Democracies. EXEMPT FOR KYOTO!
Sleep little puppet sleep. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Not really. What most people tend to forget is that three quarters of their population lives in a rural setting with almost medieval living conditions.
China has a population of roughly 1,300,000,000 but only 32% (this number is from China's Population Reference Bureau) of that population lives on the coast in areas of high development, industrial production and therefore pollution. Now it's not 100% accurate by any means but you could say with a fair degree of certaintity that the coast areas are responsible for the bulk of the emissions. Let's say 80% just for kicks.
This means that you have 416,000,000 people (32% of 1.3B) producing 80% of China's total CO2.
Now the article tells us that the American average is 20 tons of CO2 per year per capita and that China is 3.2 tons per capita. If we "back out" the 68% of China's population that is responsible for a mere 20% of the CO2 output and compare the lifestyle / output of the coastal Chinese against your "average" American what do you get? Somewhere on the order of 5 BILLION tons of C02 being emitted by around 416,000,000 people.
That's around 12 Tons per capita in the coastal group. Huh. Not as bad as 20T per capita but one helluva lot closer than 3.2T per capita.
Here's some interesting, albeit slightly outdated, information - http://www.wri.org/newsroom/topic_content.cfm?cid=4199 - mehans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I bet their toilet paper usage has gone through the roof! Where's Sheryl Crow when you need her.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Shhhh, can you hear that?
It's the sound of half a million "liberal" Diggers frantically working out how to blame this on Chimpy McHitler, Wolfowitz and the evil neocon-Zionist cabal. - hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9People will bring up the comment that the USA still has higher pollution per capita. However, I would argue that the per capita number is meaningless when it comes to pollution. What we need to look at is pollution in regards to each country's geographical size. Because the pollution is a geographic issue - if you own more land and water, the same amount of pollution has less of an effect on the environment.
Imagine if there were only 1 person living in Canada, but they produced 40 tons of greenhouse gasses. That would be double the USA's 20 ton per capita. But spread that 40 tons over the geographical size of Canada, and it's practically nothing. Spread the 20 tons * 300 million people over the geographical size of the USA, and it's quite significant.
So, since China and the USA are roughly the same size ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_area ), we should be comparing total pollution for both countries, not per capita pollution. But since people see "per capita" all the time (pollution and otherwise), they will be mislead by the media to believe that it is a justified method for comparing pollution. We really need to start using some sort of geographical measurement, perhaps just a simple per km^2 of land area and per km^2 of water area.
I would also be curious to know if China surpassing the USA is partially a result of pollution policy in the USA. While the federal government has avoided things like the Kyoto protocol ... I notice all sorts of individual energy, recycling, and conservation protocols being implemented on the local levels. I know that I recycle as much stuff (by mass or volume) as I throw away. Is China recycling on the local level? - TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Per capita is not the proper indicator here, GNP, as mentioned above by doodlebumm, is correct. If we're polluting the same, but producing 8 times more, then who's the more wasteful country?
- slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6can we still blame Bush for this too?
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Stop breathing. You're polluting the air with your CO2!
- hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19I love all the blame-america-first posts here on Digg.
What do they say about a broken clock ? - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Maybe we should start asking Americans to have more kids, thereby justifying their CO2 output.
/sarcasm - lorenski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Much of the US pollution is from products from China.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why spend the money if China is just going to minus out the effort?
- zadadka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Its a pollutant to anything that doesn't process chlorophyll.
If you think otherwise, you're education was a complete waste of money. - Ziqing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Funny how when the table starts to turn, every1 starts to talk...
- brenz990, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4OK, did I miss something here?
Since when does the Sun and the Atmosphere give a flaming ***** where , who, or how rich the ***** making all the CO2 comes from?
As the Japanese saying goes "Fix the Problem, not the Blame" (yeah, I read Rising Sun - friggin horrible book). Everyone it seems, is so hell bent on trying to justify who the biggest offending ***** are, but at the end of the day, nothing is done about it and tons of CO2 are still getting pumped into the air (regardless of who's doing the pumpin).
Sorry to say it, but I have to agree with Penn & Teller - Global Warming is..... *****. I'm more worried about Global Pollution. - FikusErectus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah, who had the bright idea of not including India or China in the Kyoto protocol?
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5See Buelldozer up above for a clarification of that.
Short Version: 416,000,000 people in China are producing 80% of the pollution.
They surpass us in 5 years at their current rate of growth. - hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4See my reply to the 5th comment up from you. I would argue that per capital pollution is a meaningless number.
- washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Well, congratulations, America. A country that has more than four times as many people as you is about to have the same pollution levels as you."
Just wait until China has reached America's industrial, technological, cultural and general standard of living. Then you can compare the two. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea well the U.N. environmental report says that *C*O*W* *F*A*R*T*S* cause more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, propeller & jet aircraft on earth, combined. And are the #1 producer of greenhouse gases on earth, bar none, not even close for mankind.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
When what YOU SAY begins to equal COW FARTS and BELCHES come back in and refresh us on the sky falling.
We'll wait with bated breath (less CO2 that way) unbrellas at the ready for chunks of sky falling
You do your part and keep your head up your ass, and you can recycle all your greenhouse gases. - thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"you're education was a complete waste of money"
I hope you didn't pay for yours. - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And, as always, this turns into a discussion about how the U.S. is very, very bad.
- kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@monkeyrun, you lost all credibility when you brought the United Nations in to the mix.
They really deserve not to be quoted in any problem that needs to be looked at with honesty and integrity.
They are whores feeding at the trough. - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Why spend the money if China is just going to minus out the effort?"
Because adding two minuses doesn't make a positive. - doodlebumm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4One thing I'd like to know--- How do they measure the pollution produced by a country? Are there little monitors everywhere asking the CO molecules where they came from? How do they measure the CO molecules produced by burning dung in the huts in the backcountry of China? With about as many Chinese in that state as there are Americans, I just don't see how they come up with their numbers.
- caution, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was thinking I should get funding for a startup to sell carbon offsets to China.
Then I realized we are the only ones stupid enough to buy them.
Another scheme down the drain. - Mactard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3sarcasm on....
This is untrue cause Al Gore said so in his all truthful, all telling movie.
..sarcasm off - jxs2151, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I'm a chemistry idiot but I still realize that their water is full of that stuff.
- moskrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who cares who's the biggest polluter? It's going to take everybody working on the problem to make a difference anyway.
- Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Ohh.....a LGF-style rant?
>Damn diggerals and followers of koslam.
+1
>You have to blame the USA for everything......
+1
>That has been in the Dem's playbook since the 1960's.....
+1
>"But blaming is patriotic"... Like hell it is... STFU.
+1
>Move to the middle east since you guys love the ragheads so much....
Minus a ***** thousand, troll. Goodbye. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@thethirdwheel
Recycling uses less energy than processing new materials from raw source to finished product. If you have any references that state otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing them.
Please - no apples to oranges comparisons like the "full life-cycle Toyota Prius vs. Hummer H2 fuel usage" canard. - CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The air is no different than say any large city in the world. They even report the haze levels with the daily weather reports now. Sad.
Clear days are becoming a rare thing in Los Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Mexico City etc.... - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The phrase you're looking for is "subsistence farming" and a lot of China is still engaged in growing the food they eat. Far from being a fine, environmentally-sensitive life-style, it's grinding poverty, endless work punctuated by periodic opportunities to starve to death.
Gee, why would anyone want to abandon a close-to-mother-earth life like that? - TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@vikingcoder, Google can help you find all of the info you need, just watch your sources and know government agencies behind recycling probably won't be the most honest information. Plastic, glass, and paper all use more energy to recycle than using raw materials; while aluminum usually saves energy overall. Of course other factors weigh in like cutting down trees for paper; but I was only talking about the impact of recycling on air pollution.
One anecdote I have which may help you realize how much energy (and money) goes into recycling: we have a local recycling plant that turns all of it's plastic bottles into........recycling bins. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is, the dirtiest jobs of the world's economy get handed to developing countries, so rich nations can stay clean. At the moment, China's doing a lot of the dirty work of the world economy. Consumers in the rich world benefit hugely from this. It's plays a big part in our high standard of living. Take a look at where your iPod, your computer, and your shoes and your t-shirts were made. The point is that the economies of rich and poor nations are connected. And the idea that we shouldn't stop polluting until they do is a bad one. Pollution is everyone's problem.
It's sad and unproductive that every discussion like this immediately becomes a USA vs China bashing match. They're only flags, people. And no matter what color your flag and no matter how much you wave it, most of the people who run your government would use you as fodder in half-a-second if it would put more money in their private bank accounts. - lintmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Title should read:
China: World's Biggest Polluter. Almost. - teleporter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2China is in the early 1900s are far as industrial technology goes. What happens when a country that size is technologically and industrially capable of what the evil United States is? Will man-made global warming, the scam of all scams, still be the fault of the most free society that written history has known? Let me guess, something along the lines of the United States not doing enough to offset China's exponential environmental pollution?
If you're lucky, we'll still have a country by then so you can freely spew your hate for the nation in which you live.
It's not Socialism, it's not Sharia Law or Radical Islam, it's not Communism, it's just the United States. Oh, if only the United States would collapse the world would be a perfect place "With trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes...Where life is beautiful all the time..."
The people you to whom you pander and appease would just assume oppress and/or make lampshades out of you and your family. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is