jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (20 posts)

Which country produces the most Carbon?

  1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Having quite the 'green' discussion at the moment.

    Leaders seem to be USA and China.
    Any other opinions out there and why?

    Also do you think we can reverse the effects in time for it to make a significant difference to our planet?

    1. AnnCee profile image76
      AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Carbon is the stuff of life.   Green things die without it. 

      The earth didn't die when the Great Plains were teaming with the largest herd of animals the planet has ever known and the earth didn't die when they were slaughtered in a few years and left to rot.

      Their farts didn't do it and their miasma didn't do it.

      The great volcanoes  have not done it.

      I think the One Worldists will have to find another religion to sell to the sheep in order to bring them quietly to the slaughter.

      Stay free.

      1. Brie Hoffman profile image80
        Brie Hoffmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        AMEN AnnCee!

      2. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Water is the stuff of life, too, but if you drink too much, too fast you die.

        When 60 million bison were roaming the planet, they were roaming on native prairie, which is one of the most effective carbon sinks known to man. Now 99% of the tallgrass prairie, 60-80 percent of the midgrass prairie, and 40-60% of the shortgrass prairie have been plowed up, paved over, or otherwise destroyed. Pavement is not a carbon sink and farm fields are carbon sources. It is therefore ridiculous to claim that the farts of 60 million bison roaming intact native prairie would have the same effect as the farts of 60 million cattle fattening in feedlots (bare dirt is not a carbon sink either) on corn shipped in from across the county (releasing more carbon), or even across the country.

        Moreover, the conversion of prairie to plowland following the destruction of the bison was one of the factors that raised atmospheric CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels of about 275-280 ppm in the mid 18th century to about 300 ppm in 1900.

        Finally, volcanoes produce a typical min-max range of 65-319 million tons of CO2 per year, depending on the level of activity, compared to approximately 30 billion tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuel burning.

        Volcanoes were major drivers of climate change at several points in the distant past, but that was during periods of much greater activity, as well as other significant differences, and the results, from a human perspective, were not necessarily pretty. They're one of the suspects in the biggest mass extinction ever, which wiped out 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, and contributed to CO2 levels of about 1800 ppm in the Jurassic, a period in which much of what is now the continental United States was under water because there were no ice caps to speak of and sea levels were dramatically higher.

        http://i55.tinypic.com/fof7ll.jpg

        So, wrong on all counts. Next?

        1. superwags profile image80
          superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You've saved me a protracted answer there Kerry, cheers.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Also do you think we can reverse the effects"
    Not as long as corporate capitalists rule the world.

    1. AnnCee profile image76
      AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Outlaw broccoli.

      1. Brie Hoffman profile image80
        Brie Hoffmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LOL

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you expand on that a little?

      Big Industries,Corporates etc..

      Personally I dont think we(humans) care enough.
      Times running out and still we produce more to pollute.

      No sense.

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Maybe a little. Nature is conservative. It does not produce excess and profit. It only replicates itself infinitely. Excess and profit would be ok except it takes something to make something like resources, say the destruction of the rain forests. The primary function of corporations is to make profits for stockholders which is ever progressive more riches. What would be necessary is political and economic systems like nature, infinite.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really enjoyed your post-interesting and sad at the same time.

      I guess most Governments try to balance profit and conservation.
      Sadly the $ seems to be the stronger magnet.

      Thanks again for your insight.

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "I think the One Worldists will have to find another religion to sell to the sheep in order to bring them quietly to the slaughter." Think they found it. It is called Fukushima.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nuclear plant...sad

  5. profile image71
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    China's coal fired power plants out pollute all of Japan's nuclear reactors, damaged or not.

  6. superwags profile image80
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    China, USA and India (respectively) are the three biggest by a fair way - though in fairness they are also the three biggest by population.

    A more pertinent question is to ask who are the biggest producers per capita:

    http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorM … bd=0$inds=

    The graph is interactive and shows CO2 oer capite vs GDP/capita on logerithmic scales - it's fun; have a play with it - press play in the bottom left to run it from the 19th century etc. Good site all round, this one.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is cool Wags-My student son is impressed.

      1. superwags profile image80
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Get him to have a look at some of the other variables and have a play with them - life expectency vs wealth etc. Great stats - all from the UN.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wow found the play button lol.

          Even tracked lil ole' New Zealand against Big Nations, amazing results. smile

          Fantastic site for students Wags!! or anyone who likes to learn.

    2. lime light power profile image59
      lime light powerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      superwags... the interactive per capita link is great find. Good job. Bookmarked.

  7. fit2day profile image83
    fit2dayposted 5 years ago

    I think slowing carbon production can take on a huge extreme. I think it's good when there are talks of reducing water pollution, planting more trees, and organic farming. The problems come in when the population control fans open their mouths.

    There are people like Bill Gates (responsible for far more energy expenditure than average), who want to reduce the world's population. It's not the population that's the problem, it's the high ups wanting to control everyone else.

 
working