This is a really frightening graph published in The Economist a month and a half ago:
This is scary because China is set to overtake the U.S. as the largest overall producer of greenhouse gases and yet China produces less than one-fifth the amount per person. Imagine what the situation will be like when they catch up to us in per capita carbon dioxide emissions. They will then be producing 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, compared to 6 billion tons per year for the U.S.
China argues, quite reasonably, that the U.S. and Europe are responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, so they should be responsible for reducing that level. The West became rich through continued economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. That was fueled in part by cheap and dirty energy. Why shouldn't China have the same opportunity to increase the standard of living for its people?
Most embarrassing for the U.S. government, China outperforms the U.S. on a number of key measures of commitment to fighting emission of greenhouse gases. For example, China has tougher minimum standards for motor vehicle fuel effiency. Their current standard is 34 miles per gallon, and will be reduced to 32 miles per gallon next year. The U.S. standard is 48 miles per gallon and will not reach 32 miles per gallon for another decade even under the most ambitious legislative proposals.
I'm really hoping that the administration we elect next year takes a global leadership role in taking emission reduction seriously. It's already so sad how much we've changed the global ecosystem by our (possibly excusable) ignorance followed in recent years by our (entirely inexcucable) inactivity and arrogance.
The full story is here.
As an aside, you may be wondering why I'm reading an issue of The Economist that's a month and a half old. The Economist is the one periodical that typically read cover to cover. I make this my primary news source for two reasons. First, it takes the same rationalist-economist viewpoint that I take regarding the role of government in society: sustained economic growth and improving the standard of living for its citizens should be the primary goal of a government. (Democracy and freedom and the like are merely good ways to ensure continued economic growth rather than an end to themselves.) Second, it covers news from all over the world rather than donning blinders along with most American news outlets. The same issue of The Economist reports on a coup attempt in Laos, a hostage swap in Colombia, recent economic reforms in Kenya, and a troublesome increase in drug trafficking through Guinea-Bissau. When is the last time you've seen any coverage of events in Guinea-Bissau in any mainstream news outlet? The Economist does publish proportionally more news stories on the U.S. and Britain (where it is published) and Europe, but that's to be expected given the much larger economies there.
I am quite a fanatic about The Economist, then. It shows up in the mail each week on Saturday or Monday. Katie and I have had a long-standing battle over the magazine. Early on, just after I started switching my address with everyone to the St. Paul address, Katie would put all mail addressed to me on my desk. For some reason, though, she would collect and stack all magazines in her "to read" pile regardless of whom they were addressed to. I would fret mid-week that the week's issue of The Economist had gotten lost in the mail, only to discover the issue buried in a stack of copies of The New Yorker and home decorating magazines. When I explained how The Economist is an important weekly fix, she agreed to sort it out of the rest of her subscriptions. The issue from a month and a half ago was during this transition, but it had (unusually) escaped my attention as it was the issue during the week of our wedding. (I was thinking about other things!) Katie found it accidentally while Katie and I were looking for last week's issue, which also turned up missing by mid-week. That's why I'm reading it six weeks late, then.
We did also find last week's issue at long last, though not until the next day. Still, it happily obviated the need for me to buy it at the newsstand. It turns out that Katie deviated from her usual sequestering of the magazine because she was keen on reading it later that Saturday even before she gave it to me. It languished (unread, of course) until Thursday, when she found it in one of her ubiquitous magazine stacks.
This is scary because China is set to overtake the U.S. as the largest overall producer of greenhouse gases and yet China produces less than one-fifth the amount per person. Imagine what the situation will be like when they catch up to us in per capita carbon dioxide emissions. They will then be producing 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, compared to 6 billion tons per year for the U.S.
China argues, quite reasonably, that the U.S. and Europe are responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, so they should be responsible for reducing that level. The West became rich through continued economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. That was fueled in part by cheap and dirty energy. Why shouldn't China have the same opportunity to increase the standard of living for its people?
Most embarrassing for the U.S. government, China outperforms the U.S. on a number of key measures of commitment to fighting emission of greenhouse gases. For example, China has tougher minimum standards for motor vehicle fuel effiency. Their current standard is 34 miles per gallon, and will be reduced to 32 miles per gallon next year. The U.S. standard is 48 miles per gallon and will not reach 32 miles per gallon for another decade even under the most ambitious legislative proposals.
I'm really hoping that the administration we elect next year takes a global leadership role in taking emission reduction seriously. It's already so sad how much we've changed the global ecosystem by our (possibly excusable) ignorance followed in recent years by our (entirely inexcucable) inactivity and arrogance.
The full story is here.
As an aside, you may be wondering why I'm reading an issue of The Economist that's a month and a half old. The Economist is the one periodical that typically read cover to cover. I make this my primary news source for two reasons. First, it takes the same rationalist-economist viewpoint that I take regarding the role of government in society: sustained economic growth and improving the standard of living for its citizens should be the primary goal of a government. (Democracy and freedom and the like are merely good ways to ensure continued economic growth rather than an end to themselves.) Second, it covers news from all over the world rather than donning blinders along with most American news outlets. The same issue of The Economist reports on a coup attempt in Laos, a hostage swap in Colombia, recent economic reforms in Kenya, and a troublesome increase in drug trafficking through Guinea-Bissau. When is the last time you've seen any coverage of events in Guinea-Bissau in any mainstream news outlet? The Economist does publish proportionally more news stories on the U.S. and Britain (where it is published) and Europe, but that's to be expected given the much larger economies there.
I am quite a fanatic about The Economist, then. It shows up in the mail each week on Saturday or Monday. Katie and I have had a long-standing battle over the magazine. Early on, just after I started switching my address with everyone to the St. Paul address, Katie would put all mail addressed to me on my desk. For some reason, though, she would collect and stack all magazines in her "to read" pile regardless of whom they were addressed to. I would fret mid-week that the week's issue of The Economist had gotten lost in the mail, only to discover the issue buried in a stack of copies of The New Yorker and home decorating magazines. When I explained how The Economist is an important weekly fix, she agreed to sort it out of the rest of her subscriptions. The issue from a month and a half ago was during this transition, but it had (unusually) escaped my attention as it was the issue during the week of our wedding. (I was thinking about other things!) Katie found it accidentally while Katie and I were looking for last week's issue, which also turned up missing by mid-week. That's why I'm reading it six weeks late, then.
We did also find last week's issue at long last, though not until the next day. Still, it happily obviated the need for me to buy it at the newsstand. It turns out that Katie deviated from her usual sequestering of the magazine because she was keen on reading it later that Saturday even before she gave it to me. It languished (unread, of course) until Thursday, when she found it in one of her ubiquitous magazine stacks.
Comments
Post a Comment