This is pretty cool...apparently the numbers are in for carbon emissions in 2009 and the US is down by a pretty impressive 7%.

linkage: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... mpaign=rss

Part of it is due to the economic issues, but mostly it's a cleaning up of the energy sector and moving away from dirtier enterprises. Pretty neat. US carbon emissions are back down to levels they were at in the mid 90s.

Pretty sweet yeah.

I think the handling of carbon emissions on an international scale could be one of the biggest challenges in international geo-econo-politics (that's not a word but you get my drift) in the coming few years. Not just the reduction of it, but also how we deal with the increasing need for energy/resources of the gigantic rising nations like China and India. On the one hand, it would be silly to hamstring our economies completely and let them go bananas with the pollution they create. On the other, their argument that the West was allowed its period of unfettered (and polluting) growth too and that it's now their turn has a point. It would indeed be rather hypocritical to pretend like we weren't/aren't part of the problem to begin with and that we have some divine right to tell them off.

Tight rope to walk for everyone, it seems. And no real international agreement/cooperation is in place yet (don't think there'll be one soon tbh).

During the stone age it was perfectly legal to whack someone and steal their loots and now it is my turn?

I agree with Peltz, I don't follow the argument that it's their turn now. At the time when the West went through its massive growth, there really weren't any alternatives to the dirty industries, and besides that, we had no idea what kind of long-term impact it would have on the planet. The west did the research and development for greener technologies... these 3rd world countries can reap the benefits with no need to do the research themselves.

Personally, I'm waiting for ubiquitous solar power that eliminates the need for an electrical grid entirely.

Dyson spheres eh?

And well, the current cost/benefit of eco-friendly energy production is a lot higher still than that of fossilized fuels. Most current green energy isn't all that efficient either. It works, but it's a) not as productive and b) requires a serious starting investment. Given the fact that they need humungous amounts of energy compared to the US or Europe green energy isn't really an option for them if they want to maintain their explosive growth. There's also other factors like the infrastructure which is much more optimized and efficient in the West (simple measures like homes using energy-saving light bulbs etc.).

Some of those can clearly be helped over time, but as long as they're in the growth phase the new energy sources aren't really an option for them. I'm not saying give them a free pass, but there must be some consideration. There's always nuclear energy of course, which I wholeheartedly support. But the international community always gets nervous when new countries start developing their nuclear energy.

not all renewable energy lacks scalability. Granted, solar and wind require huge investments of space and money, but geothermal, hydro and tidal energy are all pretty cheap and efficient. Besides, because these people are 3rd world countries, much of their population is without energy, with unreliable energy, or uses very little power. So to build these people out, it would be just as easy to build something green as it would be to build a coal-fired plant.

BTW, did you know that Texas has the largest wind farm in the world? Hah! Bet you didn't see that coming!


We use it to drive oil rigs. Not really.

They may be 3rd world countries, but they're growing rapidly so I don't think they intend to keep their population in the no-electricity-or-comfort slums forever. Hence the exponential growth of demand for resources. You're right that some naturally generated energy isn't necessarily cumbersome/inefficient, but there are other obstacles than just the production process itself. Because of lousy existing infrastructure, many plants will not be adapted to modern (ie electricty) power supply - not to mention that there is a severe lack of existing, reliable energy lines. Until that is fixed (and that can take many years and billions of yak in these mammoth countries), resources like coal are still king and they will not steer away from it to hamper their development.

They may end up with a nasty surprise in years from now when resources start running low and their countries are still in infrastructural shambles though - so I'm guessing they'll work on that while burning away the coal. Meanwhile we should take care to perfect what we have in the West (like fixing the unreliable power nets in large parts of the US or dealing with the space/transport issue in Europe).

lol @ wind farm. Crazy Texans, always want to have the biggest of everything eh? Does your ID say you're a Texan btw? Or just that you're an American living in Texas? Just wondering to what extent there is such a thing as 'state nationality' in the US.

State "nationality" does exist. Everyone is a citizen of a certain state. As such you gain benefits of that state and lack benefits for the other states. This ultimately comes down to state taxes... most states levy their own taxes that they use for state-run benefits, like libraries, schools, etc. People that don't pay these taxes don't have full access to these benefits (usually they have to pay more). Texas actually doesn't have a straight state tax, though it does have a state sales tax that serves the same purpose. Some states have both a sales and straight tax.

Well, the thing about 3rd world countries is that they need to build out their infrastructure, but building a dirty coal plant isn't necessarily all that more expensive than building out greener technologies. Personally, I want nuclear power to become the standard. It's clean, it's safe, it would make a great export for 1st world countries, and it provides massive amounts of power. Meh, we'll see.

The problem is with the way things are going now, in 20 years the US and all the 1st world countries will have scaled back their carbon and other bad emissions, while India and China will be pouring out more than we ever were. Because they'll be economic powerhouses, we'll be in no position to force them to change... they'll just further destroy the environment. China is an excellent example of greed trumping even basic human ethics... remember the poison baby formula?