Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Twisties

Cap and Trade vs Other Mechanisms for Limiting Carbon Emission

Recommended Posts

Bill_Walker

And again: if you think mitigating climate change is too expensive, wait until you see how much it costs to adapt to it.  We're going to pay the costs either way, and the latter will cost more.  Take off your anti-tax blinders and get real.

Share this post


Link to post
lawnchairboy

Jan:  thanks for the thoughtful post regarding the political realities of attempting environmental legislation.  Not knowing much about Oregon, I would have guessed that anything "cap and trade" flavored would sail right through the PNW political universe but I guess you have to follow the $$.  

 

Bill:

 

" If we stopped all carbon emissions cold turkey today, the planet would continue warming for another 40 years."  I believe I read that assertion twice, you state it with so much assurance.  With as much assurance as Time magazine did in the 70's heralding the oncoming ice age. 

 

Setting aside whether or not ________ causes or does not cause changes in earth's temperature;  What scientist/scholar/monk/oracle/seer could possibly accurately predict climate 40 years from now?  It would seem to me that that type of prediction would require MANY Assumptions.  Is there evidence that climate modeling from the past has accurately predicted exactly where we are today?  I'm asking.  I am sure that increasing computing power has certainly markedly increased mathematical modeling capabilities. 

 

As for me, I would love to be around for 40 more years and would like to enjoy them, but that is probably unrealistic.   In 40 years many of us will be dead.  100% probability.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

Bill:

 

You have clearly stated your belief that taxes will solve the problem and that if the American Tax Payer pays more the world will be a better place.  So if we examine this convoluted logic lets see what we get. First look at the elected officials who bang the same drum, Ms. Warren and Mr. DeBlazio believe that imposing taxes on the very wealthy will solve many issues, exorbitant taxes by any measure have been proposed.  Your girlfriend AOC believe a 70% tax will solve all the issues!  Do you believe there will be a compelling reason to work after sales taxes and real estate taxes etc. are added to that mix, wouldn't you agree, crazy? They, like you, chose to ignore the fact that the Top 1% paid 37.3%  of all the taxes collected in the United States, which is more than the bottom 90% who paid 30% of all taxes. The top 50% paid 97% of all taxes which means that the bottom 50% paid virtually nothing.  To qualify as the top 5 percent of earners, your household needs to make $300,000 or more. To qualify as one of the top 10 percent, the cutoff is around $118,000. Doesn't sound like much income to raise a family, now does it?

Want a house? Senator Kamala Harris will help pay for it if you are African American. Want free college tuition? Almost all the candidates are promising it. Hate your college loans? Gone by Senator Bernie Sanders. Want free medical, no problem, lets also include illegals. Want clean air, no problem, more dollars are needed with no accountability.  You see, Bill, all of the proposed lunacy has a cost and it must be funded through a wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the government to redistribute, create more bureaucracy and become more inefficient on our re-distributed tax dollars.  

The issue, and you see it on the West Coast and New York is, Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. The rich leave, and now what do you do?”

The loss of those top earners can be devastating. The top 1 percent, who are being constantly attacked by the Left pay for nearly half of the income tax revenue in New York City. A family of four earning $175,000 will pay 25 percent of their income in New York in taxes, this does not take into account Federal Taxes, Social Security, Sales Tax, Real Estate taxes, Fees, etc. in contrast to the 14 percent paid by the same family in Florida. The wealthy can leave not just the state of New York and California but the entire country.

So Bill, with those salient facts in mind, how much do you propose we raise taxes on the taxpayers of the United States to solve a global problem equitably with the other countries?   Bill, what do you propose that will take my anti-tax binders off and make this "Getting Real," however you might define it, , and how do you think it should work? What percentage increase in wealth transfer is palatable to you, now knowing the facts and that you will participate in the transfer of wealth solution? Would you accept a 30% lower standard of living, or 70% because of this wealth transfer through an increase in your taxes? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
12 hours ago, lawnchairboy said:

" If we stopped all carbon emissions cold turkey today, the planet would continue warming for another 40 years."  I believe I read that assertion twice, you state it with so much assurance.  With as much assurance as Time magazine did in the 70's heralding the oncoming ice age.

 

 

In the 1970s, Time Magazine did not herald an oncoming ice age with any assurance.   There was a 1974 article titled "Another Ice Age?" that discussed that possibility, but noted the widespread uncertainty about it within the scientific community.  In 1976, Time Magazine affirmed that lack of assurance by following up with this:

 

Quote

Environment: The World's Climate: Unpredictable

Monday, Aug. 09, 1976
 
Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody can do much about it even today. Short-range forecasting has improved enormously in recent years, even though squalls occur on days when the weatherman insists the precipitation probability is near zero. And despite great advances in techniques and technology, the discipline of climatology—the study of long-range trends in weather—is still an inexact science, to say the least. Climatologists still disagree on whether earth's long-range outlook is another ice age, which could bring mass starvation and fuel shortages, or a warming trend, which could melt the polar...

 

Sorry, it's subscription from that point on.  

 

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences had this to say about climate change:

Quote

...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate.

...

The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.

...

If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible." For that reason, it stated, "the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change.

 

In other words, the scientific community in the 1970s acknowledged that climate science was in its infancy, and Time Magazine acknowledged the same.  At the time, the scientific effort involved in studying climate change was relatively small, and we had a very limited understanding of the mechanisms involved in regulating the earth's climate, very limited real-world data to put into climate models, and very limited computing power on which to run those models.  I'd say all of those aspects of climate science have changed dramatically in the last 40+ years.

 

There is still uncertainty in the climate change predictions, but it's much less than there was in the 1970s...and all of the models are predicting a temperature increase.  This being the information age, one need not rely on the media for their interpretation of the state of affairs; there's plenty of primary-source science publications available directly on the internet.   There's also the Wikipedia page on climate change denial, which I found really interesting; it's worthwhile reading for anyone who wants to get a sense of why so many people express doubts about climate change. 

Share this post


Link to post
lawnchairboy
16 minutes ago, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

 

In the 1970s, Time Magazine did not herald an oncoming ice age with any assurance.   There was a 1974 article titled "Another Ice Age?" that discussed that possibility, but noted the widespread uncertainty about it within the scientific community.  In 1976, Time Magazine affirmed that lack of assurance by following up with this:

 

 

Sorry, it's subscription from that point on.  

 

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences had this to say about climate change:

 

In other words, the scientific community in the 1970s acknowledged that climate science was in its infancy, and Time Magazine acknowledged the same.  At the time, the scientific effort involved in studying climate change was relatively small, and we had a very limited understanding of the mechanisms involved in regulating the earth's climate, very limited real-world data to put into climate models, and very limited computing power on which to run those models.  I'd say all of those aspects of climate science have changed dramatically in the last 40+ years.

 

There is still uncertainty in the climate change predictions, but it's much less than there was in the 1970s...and all of the models are predicting a temperature increase.  This being the information age, one need not rely on the media for their interpretation of the state of affairs; there's plenty of primary-source science publications available directly on the internet.   There's also the Wikipedia page on climate change denial, which I found really interesting; it's worthwhile reading for anyone who wants to get a sense of why so many people express doubts about climate change. 

thank you Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
On 8/4/2019 at 8:57 AM, Patallaire said:

If you think the press is unfair to AOC, try watching her You-Tube video on a garbage disposal.  Classic. 

 

Out of curiosity, I went and looked this up.  According to Snopes, there's at least one parody out there, so you gotta be careful which one you dig up - but I think this one is the real deal:

 

 

If you've lived with a garbage disposal all your life, then it's hard to understand her reaction (see "the curse of knowledge").  But as Snopes points out, garbage disposals were illegal in NYC (where she grew up) until 1997...and even now, they're extremely rare, with an adoption rate of perhaps a couple percent.  If she's like me, then the crappy apartments she lived in while attending college probably didn't have them, either. And even after she came back to NYC and took a job as a bartender, she still wouldn't have had direct experience with these things, since - even after 1997 - they were still illegal in commercial establishments.  

 

So yeah, suppose for a moment you've never seen a garbage disposal in person...and then you flip on what you assume is a light switch, and suddenly your sink starts shuddering and buzzing.  I think it's fair to cut her a bit of slack for being rattled, don't you?

 

On 8/3/2019 at 8:25 AM, Patallaire said:

...you stated the known facts without any solutions. 

 

...we can all Google Stats.

 

...We can grouse about it, wave our arms like AOC, raise our voices to argue our points, but until it is an international solution with everyone on the same page, not just the American Taxpayer, we are just jawboning!

 

You and I both know that this entire thread is pretty much just jawboning.  But on the off-chance that it inspires someone to action, I'd like that action to be based on a clear understanding of the facts, and I'm disappointed that you don't hold facts in the same high regard.  Here's a review:

 

On 7/6/2019 at 4:29 PM, Patallaire said:

I believe [Al Gore] used alternate facts to promote an alarmist agenda, so much so that the British Courts banned [An Inconvenient Truth] and referenced it as Political propaganda.

 

As Bill pointed out, the fact is that An Inconvenient Truth was not banned in the UK.  

 

On 7/7/2019 at 9:03 AM, Patallaire said:

I will concede that [An Inconvenient Truth] was not banned, however it was released with a caveat that it was more fiction then fact in England.

 

The fact is that a court of law found that the movie was "broadly accurate."  

 

On 7/1/2019 at 7:52 AM, Patallaire said:

While it appear that the deflection to China, India, Russia, Poland etc. lacks a fix in this country, the facts support that they pollute far more than we do.

 

The fact is that out of all those countries, only one - China - puts out more CO2 on a national basis than we do, and that's only by virtue of having four times as many people.  When I observed that the other three countries put out considerably less than we do, you said:

 

On 7/30/2019 at 8:12 AM, Patallaire said:

The facts are that we have more industry then India and have a denser population then Russia.  So our CO2 emissions will be greater.  

 

The fact is that if you could somehow sequester all of the CO2 due to US industry, we'd still be putting out twice as much CO2 as India - with 1/4 as many people.  (and I still don't get what you were trying to say about Russia.)

 

 

On 8/2/2019 at 8:30 AM, Patallaire said:

[AOC] said that cows are a major source of pollution among other brilliant idiotic statements. 

 

Given the amount of research on the environmental impact of beef production, I can't think of any factual basis for describing her claim as "idiotic."

 

On 7/31/2019 at 8:08 AM, Patallaire said:

If I asked AOC what India should do, she would suggest killing the cows!  

 

Not sure why you'd think that.  Regarding the climate effects of agricultural meat production, AOC had this to say:

 

Quote

“And so, it’s not to say you get rid of agriculture. It’s not to say we’re going to force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that. But it’s to say, listen, we’ve got to address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

She's got a point with that last sentence.  Americans lead the world in meat consumption, averaging almost ten ounces per person per day.  If the rest of the world got their meat consumption down to, say, six ounces per day, would you be willing to follow suit?*

 

On 8/4/2019 at 8:15 AM, John Ranalletta said:

 

Here's a good first step before dealing with human food supply: eliminate all pets except service dogs.

 

Bad news for environmentally conscious pet owners: cats’ and dogs’ eating habits are responsible for dumping as many as 64 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year — roughly the equivalent of driving over 13 million cars.

 

Interesting, isn't it?  That's about 1% of our national carbon footprint, a noteworthy amount.   You mentioned the potential use of taxes as "targeted penalties" to deter behaviors (the Gas Guzzler tax is maybe one of the most famous such taxes).    Would you support such a tax to maybe dial back rates of pet ownership?

 

 

 

 

 

*This is a trick question: the rest of the world already averages just 3 ounce of meat per day.  Perhaps not a level to aspire to, since much of the world is malnourished - but there are prosperous, industrialized countries with healthy populations who eat only a little more meat than that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
John Ranalletta
Quote

Would you support such a tax to maybe dial back rates of pet ownership?

 

Anything that leads to many fewer dogs and cats.   (except service dogs, bomb sniffers, etc.)

 

Quote

That's about 1% of our national carbon footprint, a noteworthy amount.

 

Every little helps, or so I'm told.

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

That was the real deal, about the disposal, and really do you believe that she lived under a rock and had never seen a Garbage Disposal.  Never dated a guy with one, never traveled or spent time with people who had one, she is 29 years old and in the House of Representatives, so while I find her highly entertaining, I do not see her intellect or act as deserving slack.   I saw the parody also, which was just as funny as her reaction.  The British government did say there was a modicum of truth, "Broadly Accurate" which means specifically inaccurate,  but they also felt that the disclaimer need to be stated. In your line of work, would "Broadly Accurate" be good enough? AS to the cows, she backtracked after so much push back. Why would I or anyone want the government telling me what to eat and how much?  Where does she come off suggesting what people eat at any time, unless she is paying, which perhaps under her Socialist agenda she might be rationing out everything, why would I enjoy that? Her suggestion was not a solution it was a sound bite.   By the way, I eat very little beef. Her comments when linked together and an analysis on a cost basis for these Green New Deals boarders on lunacy.  How could you not see that the costs equaled or exceeded the annual budget of the Country?  As to the Stats on CO-2 emissions, in addition to Industry, we have 811 cars per 1000 people  vs. India with 22 per 1000, so assuming we are all driving them, we would have more CO2.

The point of the entire discussion, in my mind, is "Who will pay?" and How? The problems are the problems, the solution, as I have demonstrated, is not taxing the American Tax payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Vtbob

A shrinking number of people here in the US do not think climate change is a problem.    Most of them are conservative.  It is sort of the definition of conservative is to like things the way they are, resisting change.  Keeping what they have, what they have worked hard for. Often they enjoy looking back at the way thing were in the past, in their youth.  Remembering often thru rose colored glasses a better time.   They enjoy those memories.   Make America Great Again!

 

Unfortunately  our world the real world is changing.   Technology has made us old farts obsolete, smart phones, 5 G, Artificial Intelligence , etc etc.  It is our youth that will lead us forward if we let them.  Don't make too much fun of them.

 

The world has changed.  In early 20th Century, Europe reigned supreme.  Later, after WWII, the US came to dominance financially and military.  Now that is being challenged and will likely be over taken by Asia, lead by China.  Their economy is rapidly catching up with ours.  So is their technology.   They lead in  5G now, are investing more in AI than we are, are aggressively absorbing and expanding aerospace technology toward world leadership.  They are the leaders in solar manufacturing and development.  Working hard to be the leader in electric vehicles.  They now make more cars that we do.  Buy more cars than any other country.

 

They see climate change as a opportunity to leap frog the US and the western world in the technology and business that will surely emerge from this crisis.  It is very real to them as they have so many people to worry about too.

 

Unfortunately, our conservative leadership has put the brakes of the US efforts to fight, let alone see climate change as an opportunity to maintain our leadership.

 

The question to the American people is do we lead, follow or get out of the way.  

 

Recently have gotten out of the way and taken a seat on the park bench and fed ducks with fears of non-white people.   Our eyes have grown clouded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
John Ranalletta

IMO, a shrinking number of people trust government capable of fixing it.  Nowhere have I read or heard a statement starting with, "To fix this problem, people will have to give up....."

 

Let's start making a list

 

Pets

Leisure travel, motorized or jet

Lawns

(feel free to add your suggestions)

Private jets

 

Raising taxes on everyone without a plan that includes sacrifices from all quarters is a non-starter because it will simply turn into another social welfare program and pork barrel bonanza.

Share this post


Link to post
Rinkydink
10 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

Raising taxes on everyone without a plan that includes sacrifices from all quarters is a non-starter because it will simply turn into another social welfare program and pork barrel bonanza.

 

This is exactly how I see it also. You would be hard pressed to find something a government tax has fixed.

 

I often ask the “tax the wealthy” proponents how much extra they donate on April 15th. I have yet to hear anyone say they do. If we taxed the wealthy at 100% it would run the US government for what, 4-5 months?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
John Ranalletta

One could make the ultimate sacrifice and purchase a $75k Tesla!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Bill_Walker
On 8/6/2019 at 5:46 AM, Patallaire said:

The issue, and you see it on the West Coast and New York is, Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. The rich leave, and now what do you do?”

I live in California.  The rich haven't left.  High taxes have so devastated our economy that if California were a nation, it would rank #5 in GDP in the world.

 

You guys are completely impervious to data.

Share this post


Link to post
Bill_Walker

Mitch, I admire your patience and tenacity.  These guys are exactly why human civilization is screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Bill_Walker
On 8/5/2019 at 3:06 PM, lawnchairboy said:

Setting aside whether or not ________ causes or does not cause changes in earth's temperature;  What scientist/scholar/monk/oracle/seer could possibly accurately predict climate 40 years from now?  It would seem to me that that type of prediction would require MANY Assumptions.  Is there evidence that climate modeling from the past has accurately predicted exactly where we are today?  I'm asking.  I am sure that increasing computing power has certainly markedly increased mathematical modeling capabilities. 


From Forbes in 2017: The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

From the Guardian in 2018: 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

 

Here's an overview from NOAA on how climate models work: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

 

As to my claim that the earth will keep warming for 40 years if we stop emitting now, that's not a climate model prediction.  That's just physics.  CO2 has a very long life in the atmosphere.  Climate Change: the 40-year Delay Between Cause and Effect

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
On 8/6/2019 at 5:34 PM, Patallaire said:

That was the real deal, about the disposal, and really do you believe that she lived under a rock and had never seen a Garbage Disposal.  Never dated a guy with one, never traveled or spent time with people who had one, she is 29 years old and in the House of Representatives, so while I find her highly entertaining, I do not see her intellect or act as deserving slack.

 

OK, now I'm not at all clear on what your point is with regard to her garbage disposal video.  Are you saying her reaction was just an act?   

 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:34 PM, Patallaire said:

The British government did say there was a modicum of truth, "Broadly Accurate" which means specifically inaccurate,  but they also felt that the disclaimer need to be stated.

 

You're the only person I know who would equate "broadly accurate" with "more fiction than fact," which was how you described it upthread (after first having claimed it had actually been banned).  

 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:34 PM, Patallaire said:

AS to the cows, she backtracked after so much push back.

 

It might surprise you to know that cows weren't even mentioned in the official Green New Deal.  The only section in the official document that was submitted to Congress that actually discussed agriculture at all was this:

 

Quote

(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

 

(i) by supporting family farming;

 

(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

 

(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

 

The "farting cows" reference that has caused so much uproar actually appeared on a fact sheet that was released to the media in conjunction with the unveiling of the GND.  That fact sheet was quickly acknowledged to have been a working draft that was never supposed to be released to the public.  The use of the word "farting" in a document published by a US congresswoman's office ought to lend some credence to that claim.

 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:34 PM, Patallaire said:

How could you not see that the costs equaled or exceeded the annual budget of the Country?

 

I haven't made any claims about what I see or don't see.

 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:34 PM, Patallaire said:

 As to the Stats on CO-2 emissions, in addition to Industry, we have 811 cars per 1000 people  vs. India with 22 per 1000, so assuming we are all driving them, we would have more CO2.

 

You're doing a nice job of island-hopping.  Your initial claim was that India puts out more CO2 than we do.  When I pointed out that you were wrong about this, you said we put out more CO2 than they do because we have more industry.  When I pointed out that you were wrong about this, you now claim that we put out more CO2 than they do because we drive cars more.   You are wrong on this point too.

 

Here's the same greenhouse gas plot I posted upthread, along with a companion plot:

 

 

image.thumb.png.7aa7b3f9abb0510ddea5ca9f9ad232bd.png

 

The second plot shows that GHG emissions from "light-duty vehicles" - this includes cars - is 59% of the transportation sector, which in turn is 29% of our overall national GHG emissions.  In other words, cars are responsible for 17% of our national GHG emissions profile.  Take all of America's cars away, and we would still put out more than twice as much GHG as India.  The bottom line is that the US puts out an awful lot of GHG, and it's the combined effect of a multitude of sources; we can't point to any single source and say "that's THE reason."

 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:34 PM, Patallaire said:

The point of the entire discussion, in my mind, is "Who will pay?" and How? The problems are the problems, the solution, as I have demonstrated, is not taxing the American Tax payer.

 

I understand your point - you are opposed to unilateral action on climate change.  That's fine, but you don't get to make up facts to support your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
Quote

 

"I live in California.  The rich haven't left.  High taxes have so devastated our economy that if California were a nation, it would rank #5 in GDP in the world.

 

You guys are completely impervious to data

 

Bill, whose data do you want to use? 

"800,000 people will leave New York and California over the next three years due to the new tax bill, conservative economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore said in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal."

9 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

These guys are exactly why human civilization is screwed.

Bill, Another statement that you are right??  How right are you willing to pony up to prove your righteousness?   What tax rate would you propose would be a comfortable increase ,which would cause a  reduction of your life style, to accomplish lower C0 2 emissions?  Seriously, Bill, that is a fair question.

50 minutes ago, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

OK, now I'm not at all clear on what your point is with regard to her garbage disposal video.  Are you saying her reaction was just an act?   

Yes, in her cute little over acted voice.

 

 

You're the only person I know who would equate "broadly accurate" with "more fiction than fact," which was how you described it upthread (after first having claimed it had actually been banned).  

 

You are in a highly technical field, would you accept, "Broadly Accurate?"  That is like suggesting, Close Enough for Government work.

 

 

It might surprise you to know that cows weren't even mentioned in the official Green New Deal.  The only section in the official document that was submitted to Congress that actually discussed agriculture at all was this:

 

 

The "farting cows" reference that has caused so much uproar actually appeared on a fact sheet that was released to the media in conjunction with the unveiling of the GND.  That fact sheet was quickly acknowledged to have been a working draft that was never supposed to be released to the public.  The use of the word "farting" in a document published by a US congresswoman's office ought to lend some credence to that claim.

 

Was it released "Accidently" or Accidently on purpose.   Either way, it was there and is now in the Public Domain, so there is a definite factual content and she did backtrack it after it caused an uproar. The fact that she used "Farting" does not add or detract from her command of the English language. She used it, it is out there. She is the office. She owns the comment.

 

Quote

 

 

I haven't made any claims about what I see or don't see.

 

 

You're doing a nice job of island-hopping.  Your initial claim was that India puts out more CO2 than we do.  When I pointed out that you were wrong about this, you said we put out more CO2 than they do because we have more industry.  When I pointed out that you were wrong about this, you now claim that we put out more CO2 than they do because we drive cars more.   You are wrong on this point too.

 

Here's the same greenhouse gas plot I posted upthread, along with a companion plot:

 

 

image.thumb.png.7aa7b3f9abb0510ddea5ca9f9ad232bd.png

 

The second plot shows that GHG emissions from "light-duty vehicles" - this includes cars - is 59% of the transportation sector, which in turn is 29% of our overall national GHG emissions.  In other words, cars are responsible for 17% of our national GHG emissions profile.  Take all of America's cars away, and we would still put out more than twice as much GHG as India.  The bottom line is that the US puts out an awful lot of GHG, and it's the combined effect of a multitude of sources; we can't point to any single source and say "that's THE reason."

 

 

I understand your point - you are opposed to unilateral action on climate change.  That's fine, but you don't get to make up facts to support your position.

I am not opposed to any action on Climate Change, I am opposed to the US being responsible through tax payer dollars and no other country having accountability to the outcome.  As to the math on cars, we own 800+ per 1000 of us, India owns, 23 per 1000, simple math would demonstrate if we all drove them our emissions would be higher, that is a fact! 

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
9 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

I am opposed to the US being responsible through tax payer dollars and no other country having accountability to the outcome.  

 

Um, yep, that's pretty much what I meant when I used the word "unilateral", as in "you are opposed to unilateral action on climate change. "

 

12 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

As to the math on cars, we own 800+ per 1000 of us, India owns, 23 per 1000, simple math would demonstrate if we all drove them our emissions would be higher, that is a fact! 

 

Gonna need some clarity here.  Are you saying:

 

A) US GHG emissions are higher than they would be if we didn't drive cars so much, or

 

B) US GHG emissions are higher than India's simply because we drive cars so much?

 

Because A) is kind of obvious, and B) has been shown to be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

I am positive that you are not correct about number of cars ~ You can extrapolate to the facts.

 
 
 
 

List of countries by vehicles per capita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
Jump to navigationJump to search
220px-Chang%27an_avenue_in_Beijing.jpg
 
China became the world's largest new car market in 2009

This article is a list of countries by the number of road motor vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants. This includes cars, vans, buses, and freight and other trucks; but excludes motorcycles and other two-wheelers.

The People's Republic of China has the largest fleet of motor vehicles in the world, with 340 million motor vehicles in 2019 including 250 million cars,[1] and in 2009 became the world's largest new car market as well.[2][3] In 2011, a total of 80 million cars and commercial vehicles were built, led by China, with 18.4 million motor vehicles manufactured.[4]

# Country or region Motor
vehicles
per 1,000
people
Total Year
1 20px-Flag_of_San_Marino.svg.png San Marino 1,263   2013[5]
2 19px-Flag_of_Monaco.svg.png Monaco 899   2013[5]
3 23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png New Zealand 860 4,240,000 2018[6]
4 21px-Flag_of_Iceland.svg.png Iceland 824 278,924[7][8] 2016
5 23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States 811 263,765,695[9] 2017
6 23px-Flag_of_Liechtenstein.svg.png Liechtenstein 773   2016[10]
7 23px-Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg.png Luxembourg 734 422,534[7] 2015
8 23px-Flag_of_Australia_%28converted%29.s Australia 730 19,200,000[11] 2018
9 23px-Flag_of_Malta.svg.png Malta 738 324,517 [7] 2015
10 23px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei 721 300,897[7] 2015
11 23px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy 695 42,241,934[7] 2015
12 23px-Flag_of_Guam.svg.png Guam 677   2014[12]
13 23px-Flag_of_Canada_%28Pantone%29.svg.pn Canada 650 23,846,147[13] 2017
14 23px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png Poland 631 24,250,373[7] 2015
15 21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png Norway 616 3,183,262[7] 2015
16 23px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png Japan 615 77,938,515[14] 2018
17 23px-Flag_of_Austria.svg.png Austria 598 5,201,750[7] 2015
18 23px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png Estonia 596 783,200[7] 2015
19 23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain 591 27,462,976[7] 2015
20 23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany 589 48,427,094[7] 2015
21 23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png United Kingdom[15] 579 38,893,300[7] 2016
22 23px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France[15] 569 38,652,000[7] 2016
23 23px-Flag_of_Slovenia.svg.png Slovenia 576 1,187,775[7] 2015
24 23px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium 573 6,426,136[7] 2015
25 23px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png Portugal 566 5,871,700 [7] 2015
26 23px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png Czech Republic 559 5,889,700 [7] 2015
27 23px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Netherlands 556 9,395,000[7] 2015
28 23px-Flag_of_Greece.svg.png Greece 556 6,205,256[7] 2015
- 23px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png European Union 543 294,886,307[7] 2015/2016
29 16px-Flag_of_Switzerland.svg.png  Switzerland 539 4 602 688[16] 2018
30 23px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png Sweden 536 5,279,391[7] 2015
31 23px-Flag_of_Cyprus.svg.png Cyprus 512 594,240[7] 2015
32 23px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png Bulgaria 504 3,629,898[7] 2015
33 20px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark 497 2,838,218[7] 2015
34 23px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png Finland 494 2,708,172[7] 2015
35 23px-Flag_of_Ireland.svg.png Ireland 494 2,315,671[7] 2015
36 23px-Flag_of_Kuwait.svg.png Kuwait 477 1,876,188[7] 2015
37 23px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png Lithuania 463 1,353,815[7] 2015
38 23px-Flag_of_Libya.svg.png Libya 439 2,740,000[7] 2015
39 23px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png Slovakia 439 2,378,601[7] 2015
40 23px-Flag_of_Malaysia.svg.png Malaysia 433 13,308,716[7] 2015
41 23px-Flag_of_Bahrain.svg.png Bahrain 422 578,471[7] 2015
42 23px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea 411 20,989,885[7] 2015
43 23px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png Qatar 411 1,020,000[7] 2015
44 23px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png Croatia 394 1,662,700[7] 2015
45 23px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png Latvia 388 769,843[7] 2015
46 23px-Flag_of_Barbados.svg.png Barbados 387 110,000[7] 2015
47 21px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png Israel 384 3,373,139[17] 2017[18]
48 23px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png Hungary 377 3,711,228[7] 2015
49 23px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png Russia 373 54,779,626 2018[19]
50 23px-Flag_of_Belarus.svg.png Belarus 369 3,501,981[7] 2015
51 23px-Flag_of_Syria.svg.png Syria 368 6,900,000[7] 2015
52 22px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png Brazil 350 74,454,951[20] 2019
53 23px-Flag_of_Suriname.svg.png Suriname 349 193,000[7] 2015
54 23px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg.p Taiwan 333 7,842,423[21] 2016[21]
55 23px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png Montenegro 326 202,322 2016[22]
56 23px-Flag_of_Argentina.svg.png Argentina 316 13,726,226[7] 2015
57 23px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png Romania 303 6,009,285[7] 2015
58 23px-Flag_of_Mexico.svg.png Mexico 297 37,353,597[7] 2015
59 23px-Flag_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago.svg.png Trinidad and Tobago 292 397,000[7] 2015>
60 23px-Flag_of_Serbia.svg.png Serbia 288 2,052,067 2015[23]
61 23px-Flag_of_Georgia.svg.png Georgia 281 1,043,900[7] 2015
62 23px-Flag_of_Uruguay.svg.png Uruguay 280 960,000[7] 2015
63 23px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg. Bosnia and Herzegovina 258 910,969[7] 2015
64 23px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png Kazakhstan 251 4,397,354[7] 2015
65 23px-Flag_of_Chile.svg.png Chile 230 4,444,941[7] 2015
66 23px-Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.sv United Arab Emirates 234 2,140,000[7] 2015
67 23px-Flag_of_Oman.svg.png Oman 233 980,000[7] 2015
68 23px-Flag_of_Antigua_and_Barbuda.svg.png Antigua and Barbuda 230   2009[5]
69 23px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png Thailand 226 15,490,503[7] 2015
70 23px-Flag_of_Costa_Rica.svg.png Costa Rica 224 1,076,041[7] 2015
71 23px-Flag_of_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis.svg.p Saint Kitts and Nevis 223   [24]
72 23px-Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg.png Kyrgyzstan 223 1,330,000[7] 2015
73 23px-Flag_of_Ukraine.svg.png Ukraine 219 9,290,000[25] 2018
74 23px-Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg.png Saudi Arabia 209 6,600,000[7] 2015
75 23px-Flag_of_North_Macedonia.svg.png North Macedonia 206 425,764[7] 2015
76 23px-Flag_of_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grena Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 204   2008[5]
77 23px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png Moldova 201 715,480[7] 2015
78 23px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png Turkey 199 15,360,956[7] 2015
79 23px-Flag_of_Mauritius.svg.png Mauritius 192 236,853[7] 2015
80 23px-Flag_of_Fiji.svg.png Fiji 188   2010[5]
81 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China 179 250,000,000 2019[26]
82 23px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png Iran 178 14,130,000[7] 2015
83 23px-Flag_of_Botswana.svg.png Botswana 177 391,686[7] 2015
84 23px-Flag_of_Seychelles.svg.png Seychelles 176   2010[5]
85 23px-Flag_of_Tonga.svg.png Tonga 174   [24]
86 23px-Flag_of_South_Africa.svg.png South Africa 174 9,600,412[7] 2015
87 23px-Flag_of_Panama.svg.png Panama 171 677,356[7] 2015
88 23px-Flag_of_Armenia.svg.png Armenia 167 489,346 2018 [27]
89 21px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png Albania 167 481,114[7] 2015
90 23px-Flag_of_Saint_Lucia.svg.png Saint Lucia 165   2010[5]
91 23px-Flag_of_Dominica.svg.png Dominica 163   [24]
92 23px-Flag_of_Nauru.svg.png Nauru 159   2004[28]
93 23px-Flag_of_the_Dominican_Republic.svg. Dominican Republic 153 1,610,551[7] 2015
94 21px-Flag_of_Kosovo.svg.png Kosovo 150   2013[29]
95 23px-Flag_of_Singapore.svg.png Singapore 170 957,006[30] 2018
96 23px-Flag_of_Kiribati.svg.png Kiribati 146   2008[5]
97 23px-Flag_of_Venezuela.svg.png Venezuela 145 4,510,000[7] 2015
98 23px-Flag_of_Ecuador.svg.png Ecuador 141 2,267,344[7] 2015>
99 23px-Flag_of_Algeria.svg.png Algeria 140 5,570,000[7] 2015
100 23px-Flag_of_Belize.svg.png Belize 139 50,000[7] 2015
101 23px-Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg.png Azerbaijan 135 1,301,926[7] 2015
102 23px-Flag_of_Tunisia.svg.png Tunisia 129 1,450,000[7] 2015
103 23px-Flag_of_Jordan.svg.png Jordan 123 1,130,000[7] 2015
104 23px-Flag_of_Grenada.svg.png Grenada 122   [31]
105 23px-Flag_of_Lebanon.svg.png Lebanon 117 683,000[32] 2018
106 23px-Flag_of_Colombia.svg.png Colombia 116 5,800,000 2018[33][34]
107 23px-Flag_of_Guatemala.svg.png Guatemala 115 1,862,535[7] 2015
108 23px-Flag_of_Turkmenistan.svg.png Turkmenistan 107   2010[5]
109 23px-Flag_of_Namibia.svg.png Namibia 106   2008[5]
110 23px-Flag_of_Iraq.svg.png Iraq 105 3,900,000[35]
111 23px-Flag_of_Morocco.svg.png Morocco 103 3,570,000[35]
112 23px-Flag_of_Cape_Verde.svg.png Cape Verde 101   2007[5]
113 23px-Flag_of_Paraguay.svg.png Paraguay 98 652,886[35]
114 23px-Flag_of_Guyana.svg.png Guyana 95   2008[5]
115 23px-Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg.png Hong Kong 92 674,253[7] 2015
116 23px-Flag_of_Eswatini.svg.png Swaziland 89   2007[5]
117 23px-Flag_of_Indonesia.svg.png Indonesia 87 22,512,918[7] 2015
118 23px-Flag_of_the_Bahamas.svg.png Bahamas 81   2007[5]
119 23px-Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg.png Nicaragua 79 480,000[7] 2015
120 23px-Flag_of_Peru.svg.png Peru 78 2,444,478[7] 2015
121 23px-Flag_of_Samoa.svg.png Samoa 77   2007[5]
122 22px-Flag_of_Bolivia.svg.png Bolivia 72 770,000[7] 2015
123 23px-Flag_of_Mongolia.svg.png Mongolia 71   2010[5]
124 23px-Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg.png Sri Lanka 70 1,469,821[7]  
125 23px-Flag_of_Jamaica.svg.png Jamaica 66 190,000[7] 2015
126 23px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png Nigeria 64 11,458,370[36] 2017
127 23px-Flag_of_Egypt.svg.png Egypt 62 5,733,810[7] 2015
128 23px-Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg.png Zimbabwe 60 940,000[7] 2015
129 23px-Flag_of_Bhutan.svg.png Bhutan 57   2009[5]
130 23px-Flag_of_Vanuatu.svg.png Vanuatu 54   [24]
131 23px-Flag_of_Afghanistan.svg.png Afghanistan 47 1,572,663[7] 2015
132 23px-Flag_of_Senegal.svg.png Senegal 44 660,000[7] 2015
133 23px-Flag_of_Palestine.svg.png Palestine 42   2010[5]
134 23px-Flag_of_Cuba.svg.png Cuba 42 480,000[7] 2015
135 23px-Flag_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire.svg.pn Cote d'Ivoire 41 940,000[7] 2015
136 23px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png El Salvador 41 260,000[7] 2015
137 23px-Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg.png Tajikistan 38   2007[5]
138 23px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png Philippines 38 3,822,544[7]
139 23px-Flag_of_Uzbekistan.svg.png Uzbekistan 37   2004[37]
140 23px-Flag_of_the_Federated_States_of_Mic Micronesia, Federated States of 37   2007[5]
141 23px-Flag_of_Yemen.svg.png Yemen 37 1,000,000[7] 2015
142 23px-Flag_of_the_Comoros.svg.png Comoros 33   2007[5]
143 23px-Flag_of_Guinea-Bissau.svg.png Guinea-Bissau 33   2008[5]
144 23px-Flag_of_Angola.svg.png Angola 32 880,000[7] 2015
145 23px-Flag_of_Ghana.svg.png Ghana 32 890,000[7] 2015
146 23px-Flag_of_Kenya.svg.png Kenya 29 1,381,473[7] 2015
147 23px-Flag_of_Maldives.svg.png Maldives 28   2010[5]
148 23px-Flag_of_Djibouti.svg.png Djibouti 28   [24]
149 23px-Flag_of_Madagascar.svg.png Madagascar 27 660,000[7] 2015
150 23px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.s Congo, Republic of the 27   2007[5]
151 23px-Flag_of_Sudan.svg.png Sudan 27   2007[5]
152 23px-Flag_of_Togo.svg.png Togo 27 198,000[7] 2015
153 20px-Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_ Congo, Democratic Republic of the 25 1,900,000[7] 2015
154 23px-Flag_of_Benin.svg.png Benin 24 252,000[7] 2015
155 23px-Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png Vietnam 23 2,170,000[7] 2015
156 23px-Flag_of_Zambia.svg.png Zambia 23 370,000[7] 2015>
157 23px-Flag_of_India.svg.png India 22 28,860,000[38] 2015
158 23px-Flag_of_Cambodia.svg.png Cambodia 21   2005[5]
159 23px-Flag_of_Laos.svg.png Laos 20   2007[5]
160 23px-Flag_of_Myanmar.svg.png Myanmar 20 1,065,897[39] 2017
161 23px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg.png Honduras 18 160,000[39] 2017
162 23px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png Pakistan 17 10,000,000[7] 2015
163 23px-Flag_of_Burkina_Faso.svg.png Burkina Faso 16 297,000[7] 2015
164 23px-Flag_of_Cameroon.svg.png Cameroon 15 347,000[7] 2015
165 20px-Flag_of_Gabon.svg.png Gabon 14   2004[40]
166 23px-Flag_of_Mozambique.svg.png Mozambique 14 400,000[7] 2015
167 23px-Flag_of_Liberia.svg.png Liberia 14 63,000[7] 2015
168 23px-Flag_of_Equatorial_Guinea.svg.png Equatorial Guinea 13   2004[41]
169 20px-Flag_of_Papua_New_Guinea.svg.png Papua New Guinea 13   [24]
170 23px-Flag_of_Uganda.svg.png Uganda 12 490,000[7] 2015
171 23px-Flag_of_Mali.svg.png Mali 12 203,000[7] 2015
172 23px-Flag_of_Eritrea.svg.png Eritrea 11   2007[5]
173 23px-Flag_of_North_Korea.svg.png North Korea 11   2006[42]
174 23px-Flag_of_Mauritania.svg.png Mauritania 10 41,000[7] 2015
175 23px-Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg.png Ethiopia 9 831,000[43] 2017
176 23px-Flag_of_Malawi.svg.png Malawi 8 139,000[7] 2015
177 23px-Flag_of_Haiti.svg.png Haiti 7 80,000[7] 2015
178 23px-Flag_of_Tanzania.svg.png Tanzania 7 380,000[7] 2015
179 23px-Flag_of_The_Gambia.svg.png Gambia 7   2004[5]
180 18px-Flag_of_Niger.svg.png Niger 7   2009[5]
181 23px-Flag_of_Burundi.svg.png Burundi 6 63,000[7] 2015
182 23px-Flag_of_Sierra_Leone.svg.png Sierra Leone 6   2008[5]
183 23px-Flag_of_Chad.svg.png Chad 6   2006[5]
184 23px-Flag_of_Guinea.svg.png Guinea 5   [24]
185 16px-Flag_of_Nepal.svg.png   Nepal 5   2007[5]
186 23px-Flag_of_Rwanda.svg.png Rwanda 5   [24]
187 23px-Flag_of_the_Central_African_Republi Central African Republic 4   [24]
188 23px-Flag_of_Lesotho.svg.png Lesotho 4   2004[44]
189 23px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png Bangladesh 4 620,000[7] 2015
190 23px-Flag_of_Somalia.svg.png Somalia 3   [24]
191 23px-Flag_of_the_Solomon_Islands.svg.png Solomon Islands 3   2004[45]
192 23px-Flag_of_Sao_Tome_and_Principe.svg.p São Tomé and Príncipe 2   2007[5]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "China's automobile population totals 250 million units by June 2019". Autonews.gasgoo.com. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  2. ^ "Automobiles and Truck Trends". Plunkett Research. Retrieved 2011-08-18.
  3. ^ John Sousanis (2011-08-15). "World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units". Ward AutoWorld. Archived from the original on 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  4. ^ John Voelcker (2012-03-29). "80 Million Vehicles Built Globally Last Year - A New Record". Green Car Reports. Retrieved 2012-03-29.
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah "World Bank Data: Motor vehicles (per 1,000 people)". The World Bank. Archived from the original on February 9, 2014. Retrieved 2014-02-09. Archived.
  6. ^ [1]
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh "total no of vehicles". Gov.uk.
  8. ^ "Iceland in figures 2018" (PDF). Retrieved 2019-05-20.
  9. ^ "Highway Statistics 2017". Retrieved 2019-05-20.
  10. ^ "Passenger cars in the EU - Statistics Explained". Ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
  11. ^ [2]
  12. ^ "World Vehicles In Use All Vehicles" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-02-19.
  13. ^ "Motor vehicle registrations, by province and territory". Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2019-05-20. (Motorcycles and mopeds subtracted)
  14. ^ "自動車保有台数に関する統計情報" (PDF). 日本自動車整備振興会連合会. Retrieved 2019-05-20.
  15. ^ Jump up to: a b "Passenger cars in the EU - Statistics Explained". Ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  16. ^ "vehicles" (official site) (in English, German, French, and Italian). Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Federal Statistical Office FSO. Retrieved 2019-05-05.
  17. ^ "כלי רכב מנועיים 2016" (PDF). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-18. Retrieved 2018-02-15.
  18. ^ "כלי רכב מנועיים 2017". Israel Central Bureau of Statistics.
  19. ^ "ЕМИСС". Fedstat.ru. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
  20. ^ "how many cars are there in brazil?" (in Portuguese). BALCONISTA S/A. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  21. ^ Jump up to: a b "Motor Vehicle Registration". Ministry of Transportation and Communications, R.O.C.
  22. ^ "Montenegrin statistical office, 2017" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-11-13.
  23. ^ "Serbian statistical office, 2017" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-11-13.
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j "Motor vehicles (most recent) by country". Nationmaster.com. Retrieved 1 April 2012.
  25. ^ "Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine Statistics". mtu.gov.ua. Retrieved 23 June 2019.
  26. ^ "China's automobile population totals 250 million units by June 2019". Autonews.gasgoo.com. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  27. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-06-18. Retrieved 2018-06-18.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
  28. ^ "Nauru General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  29. ^ "Motor vehicles (per 1,000 people)". Data.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2014-11-03.
  30. ^ "MOTOR VEHICLE POPULATION BY VEHICLE TYPE" (PDF). lta.gov.sg. Retrieved 2019-04-15.
  31. ^ "Grenada General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  32. ^ "865 شخصاً". Al-akhbar.com. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  33. ^ "ANDEMOS advierte sobre el envejecimiento de la población vehicular en Colombia". Andemos.org. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  34. ^ "¿Cuántos somos?". Dane.gov.co. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  35. ^ Jump up to: a b c "Iraq Motor Vehicle Registered [2005 - 2019] [Data & Charts]". Ceicdata.com. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  36. ^ "Road Transport Data (Q1 2017)" (PDF). Nigeria: National Bureau of Statistics. 2017. Retrieved 2019-02-12.
  37. ^ "Uzbekistan General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  38. ^ "India Motor Vehicle Registered [2005 - 2019] [Data & Charts]". Ceicdata.com. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  39. ^ Jump up to: a b "Myanmar Motor Vehicle Statistics". Ceicdata.com. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  40. ^ "Gabon General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  41. ^ "Equatorial Guinea General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  42. ^ "North Korea General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  43. ^ "Number of Vehicles in Ethiopia". 2merkato.com.
  44. ^ "Lesotho General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
  45. ^ "Solomon Islands General Data". Populstat.info. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
show
By country
 
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
South America
Oceania
 
Data
History
Manufacturers
Organisations
Related topics

|}

<img src="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1" alt="" title="" width="1" height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />
 

 

 

  • Powered by MediaWiki
 
 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
lawnchairboy
22 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:


From Forbes in 2017: The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

From the Guardian in 2018: 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

 

Here's an overview from NOAA on how climate models work: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

 

As to my claim that the earth will keep warming for 40 years if we stop emitting now, that's not a climate model prediction.  That's just physics.  CO2 has a very long life in the atmosphere.  Climate Change: the 40-year Delay Between Cause and Effect

Thank you Bill

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
12 hours ago, Patallaire said:

I am positive that you are not correct about number of cars ~ You can extrapolate to the facts.

 

Thanks for pasting in the entire Wikipedia page, but really, it's enough to just paste a link.  You don't even need to use the fancy link naming tool, you can literally just copy-and-paste the link, like this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

 

And we can see from your link that, yes, you are correct about the number of cars per capita in India the the US.  But I'm not wrong about the number of cars, because I never made any sort of claim about the number of cars.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
Quote

A) US GHG emissions are higher than they would be if we didn't drive cars so much, or

 

B) US GHG emissions are higher than India's simply because we drive cars so much?

 

Because A) is kind of obvious, and B) has been shown to be false.

You did state that "B" was false, by extrapolation you can determine the claim you made.

 

Is it possible that the entire narrative is built on a false supposition?  CO-2 emissions are not the culprit? According to Shaviv a 47 year old Astrophysist who suggests that it is the sun's activity, not C02 emissions that are impacting global change, which he has demonstrated accounts for more than half or 3/4s of global climate change.  The article appeared in Forbes  and was written by Doron Levin. Look it up. This could take the liberal conversation in an entirely different direction! It would change the "Throwing money at the problem" argument also.  Can't control the sun.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/2019/08/09/global-warming-an-israeli-astrophysicist-provides-alternative-view-that-is-not-easy-to-reject/#605291046945

Share this post


Link to post
Antimatter

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

 

It's a nice thought, but there's little evidence that solar activity actually correlates with the warming trend observed in the climate.  A bunch of folks have researched the hypothesis, and none have been able to find a direct (or indirect) correlation between cosmic ray activity, solar activity, and atmospheric warming. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
4 hours ago, Patallaire said:

You did state that "B" was false, by extrapolation you can determine the claim you made.

 

I will repeat my claim here:

 

 In other words, cars are responsible for 17% of our national GHG emissions profile.  Take all of America's cars away, and we would still put out more than twice as much GHG as India.  The bottom line is that the US puts out an awful lot of GHG, and it's the combined effect of a multitude of sources; we can't point to any single source and say "that's THE reason."

 

The CO2 output of America's light-duty vehicle fleet is a function of how many vehicles there are, how much we drive them, and their average fuel economy.  I did not make or imply any specific claims about any of those individual parameters.  

 

For clarity: The American light-duty vehicle fleet puts out a lot of GHG, but - contrary to your claim - this is not the sole reason the US total annual GHG output is so much higher than India's.  

 

4 hours ago, Patallaire said:

Is it possible that the entire narrative is built on a false supposition?  CO-2 emissions are not the culprit? According to Shaviv a 47 year old Astrophysist who suggests that it is the sun's activity, not C02 emissions that are impacting global change, which he has demonstrated accounts for more than half or 3/4s of global climate change. 

 

Well, Antimatter has already linked us to one site that debunks his theories.  Here's another link:

http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2016/12/nir-shaviv-debunked.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

Apparently Shaviv Has and is most certain about his hypothesis. I also asked if it was possible, not factual, I didn't state that it was..  There are also a plethora of dissenting opinions to the opposition to his work, as there are opinions that support his work.  So, if the scientists can't agree, who are we to even entertain re-gurgitation of the work of others and offering our opinions. I will accept that " We can't point to a single source and say "That's the reason." I will however re-point to the math of the number of cars being driven as a culprit vs. India .

I again reiterate my position that it is not the responsibility of the US taxpayer to fund whatever the solution may be.  I encourage Bill to fund it, however! :18:

Share this post


Link to post
Bill_Walker

Please.  Oil-funded "scientists" have been pushing the solar output theory for decades, and it doesn't hold up.  It's measurable.  The sum total of all factors other than CO2 and methane emissions, including solar output, would be producing cooling now.  So, we're responsible for OVER 100% of the measured warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm

 

It's funny how many denier arguments start from assuming that climate scientists must have forgotten to include some forcing other than CO2.

 

And funnily enough, Pat, following your Forbes link now takes you to a page that says "After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Bill_Walker
On 8/7/2019 at 4:21 AM, Rinkydink said:

I often ask the “tax the wealthy” proponents how much extra they donate on April 15th. I have yet to hear anyone say they do.

 

Because it wouldn't do any good.  The IRS would just return it as an overpayment.  It's not budgeted or allocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

Interesting that it was pulled down Bill, as it just posted this morning!  Well another theory destroyed!

 

Actually, while technically true it is not true that they will accept donations.  They will.

 

When the IRS receives checks for more than an individual owes, it simply refunds the money. The agency recommends that you send your donation to the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt. ... By the way, there's no need to wait for tax time; the Treasury accepts contributions year-round.

So Bill, have at it, you will be helping the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Rinkydink
1 hour ago, Bill_Walker said:

 

Because it wouldn't do any good.  The IRS would just return it as an overpayment.  It's not budgeted or allocated.

My point is everyone always wants someone else to pay more in taxes. Those mean old wealthy people that (in most cases) worked hard and maybe got some good luck. They shouldn’t be penalized any more than you or I 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
On 8/4/2019 at 8:57 AM, Patallaire said:

As to Buffett's quote, he donates money for tax deducibility to lower his income taxes and thus offsets any or many gains he might have paid taxes on for the year. 

 

I'll plead ignorance on this.  Are you saying that by making charitable donations, Buffett's total outlay (donations  + taxes) ends up being less than it would be if he had not made any such charitable donations?

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

Yes, Charitable donations are a deduction against gross Income. If he had gains and donated they could offset each other.  Thus you see him saying that his tax bracket is the same as his employee, while the % may be, the actual dollars are significantly different. How he got to the same % would be through deductions and Charitable gifts. You too can donate and deduct it, its just that his numbers are larger. Even better, the ultra rich set up their own Charitable foundations, donate to them and have their children run them, the children take an income, as well as board members in many cases.   Thus the donor has a tax deductible gift and their child may benefit.  It is  within the parameters of the tax code. The Clinton's do it all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Antimatter
37 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

Yes, Charitable donations are a deduction against gross Income. If he had gains and donated they could offset each other.  Thus you see him saying that his tax bracket is the same as his employee, while the % may be, the actual dollars are significantly different. How he got to the same % would be through deductions and Charitable gifts. You too can donate and deduct it, its just that his numbers are larger. Even better, the ultra rich set up their own Charitable foundations, donate to them and have their children run them, the children take an income, as well as board members in many cases.   Thus the donor has a tax deductible gift and their child may benefit.  It is  within the parameters of the tax code. The Clinton's do it all the time.

 

Yes, and the Trump Foundation got shut down after actual criminal conduct was found.  The horrible, fake news New York Times called it a 'Shocking Pattern of Illegality'. 

But hey, Bill and Hillary are obviously the enemies here.  Wasting all that money in third world countries when they could have been spending it on themselves.  Remind me again what this has to do with climate change or cap and trade?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
1 hour ago, Patallaire said:

Yes, Charitable donations are a deduction against gross Income. If he had gains and donated they could offset each other.  Thus you see him saying that his tax bracket is the same as his employee, while the % may be, the actual dollars are significantly different. How he got to the same % would be through deductions and Charitable gifts. You too can donate and deduct it, its just that his numbers are larger.

 

So for the sake of argument, let's say he collected $10M in gains, and he made $10M in charitable donations.  They offset each other exactly, and he ends up paying zero taxes, but his net worth hasn't increased either (since his charitable donation exactly offset his $10M in gains).  How does he come out ahead on this?  Wouldn't it be better, financially, to just pay a few $M in taxes on the gains and end up going home with a few million dollars instead of zero?

 

1 hour ago, Patallaire said:

Even better, the ultra rich set up their own Charitable foundations, donate to them and have their children run them, the children take an income, as well as board members in many cases.   Thus the donor has a tax deductible gift and their child may benefit.  It is  within the parameters of the tax code. The Clinton's do it all the time.

 

If you're referring to the Clinton Foundation, they claim that none of the Clintons - Hillary, Bill, or Chelsea - draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

If only that were the math, but the charitable donations are usually higher and if he just paid the taxes, he would get no satisfaction of helping people. You may deduct charitable contributions of money or property made to qualified organizations if you itemize your deductions. Capital gains are at a different tax level.  Generally, you may deduct up to 50 percent of your adjusted gross income, for charitable donations, but 20 percent and 30 percent limitations apply in some cases.De As to the Clintons, as an example when a donation was made to the foundation suddenly Bill got a $500,000 speaking engagement. Critics have accused the Clinton family of using the foundation to enrich themselves and give donors special access to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was its head. The 'Foundation" can make expenditures for political campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Vtbob
13 hours ago, Patallaire said:

If only that were the math, but the charitable donations are usually higher and if he just paid the taxes, he would get no satisfaction of helping people. You may deduct charitable contributions of money or property made to qualified organizations if you itemize your deductions. Capital gains are at a different tax level.  Generally, you may deduct up to 50 percent of your adjusted gross income, for charitable donations, but 20 percent and 30 percent limitations apply in some cases.De As to the Clintons, as an example when a donation was made to the foundation suddenly Bill got a $500,000 speaking engagement. Critics have accused the Clinton family of using the foundation to enrich themselves and give donors special access to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was its head. The 'Foundation" can make expenditures for political campaigns.

As a financial advisor you certainly have lots of ideas how Trump and his family are using their realestate on other investment to both shield income tax but also hide payment for influence thru their hotels, golf courses and other investment.  Just one case  Trump buys a fancy condo for $1.2 m and some how finds a Russian tycoon to buy it 6 month later for $3.5M....All perfectly legal on the face of it but crooked as H***  .

 

Trump knows this and it is why he is doing his best to shield sun light reaching his tax returns.

 

sorry this has nothing to do with cap and trade

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

Ok, I am sure you know all the details factually.  But as you said, all legal. I am not sure I ever said anything about Trump's use of Real Estate for any purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Stir
On 6/28/2019 at 12:39 PM, Twisties said:

(some climate dialog)

 

I saw this on ABCNews:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/island-imperiled-climate-change-threatens-greenland-its-way-life-ncna1054921

What makes me laugh is when they start talking about the history of the Inuits.  They talk about a MUCH colder world and the ICE bridge that spans Canada to Greenland.  The Inuits walked across.  My question, "Do you think the Inuit nightly news blamed walrus farts on the melting of that ice bridge?" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
On 7/30/2019 at 9:24 PM, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

On 7/30/2019 at 12:44 PM, John Ranalletta said:

Read recently that the production of cement contributes up to 7% of all CO2 production. Okay, let's stop making cement.  That shouldn't have much effect on things and we'll all need dual sports to get around town.  Won't need cars as super highways, overpasses and bridge structures will be too expensive to build w/o cement.

 

The unwritten assumption there is that we will/should/could never do any R&D to come up with alternative construction materials that are less CO2-intensive.  I think that's a faulty assumption.

 

Stopping back here again to note that someone just figured out how to reduce the CO2 impact of cement production by 40%.  Since it's solar-based, it also eliminates the cost of the fuel used in traditional cement production methods, which can provide a financial incentive for rapid adoption by industry.  

Share this post


Link to post
John Ranalletta
5 hours ago, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

Stopping back here again to note that someone just figured out how to reduce the CO2 impact of cement production by 40%.  Since it's solar-based, it also eliminates the cost of the fuel used in traditional cement production methods, which can provide a financial incentive for rapid adoption by industry.  

 

Does that potential assume all Portland cement will be produced where the sun shines; and, all the requisite ingredients be shipped to those locations; and, the Portland cement manufactured then be transported (using fossil fuels) across the land?

 

Looks like it has potential for the SW but not feasible elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Joe Frickin' Friday
15 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

 

Does that potential assume all Portland cement will be produced where the sun shines; and, all the requisite ingredients be shipped to those locations; and, the Portland cement manufactured then be transported (using fossil fuels) across the land?

 

Looks like it has potential for the SW but not feasible elsewhere.

 

If the cost of the fuel used in processing cement is eliminated, then there's money available to direct toward solving other aspects of the problem.  Some idle speculation:

 

Maybe the plant is oversized, so it can produce in high volumes on sunny days (to offset the lack of production on cloudy days).  

 

Maybe you invest in electric rail transport (either battery or electrified rail) so you can transport raw materials (and processed cement) to/from your facility using renewable energy.

 

The article mentioned the need for a storage system so that energy could be collected on sunny days and used on cloudy days.  Cement kilns need to heat the raw lime to about 1450C; you'd have to have a heat transport fluid (possibly just steam) to take heat from the solar collector and dump it into a massive insulated heat sink (possibly just gigantic bricks of iron or tungsten).  

 

Challenging problems to address, no doubt, but I wouldn't automatically say that these things are impossible to address economically.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...