Posted on 02/22/2007 8:53:02 AM PST by InvisibleChurch
Despite constant criticism from environmental activists at home and across Europe claiming the U.S. government is doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, new evidence suggests America's efforts are more effective than Europe's. According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the United States has spent more on research and technologies to reduce climate change than any other country, and its business-led efforts are paying off.
"The United States is doing a far better job reigning in its emission than Europe, even though it has a faster-growing economy and population," says Burnett. "Rather than signing treaties that look good on paper but do nothing to really bring about reductions, U.S. industry has taken the lead as a business matter, reducing emissions as a matter of efficiency -- saving costs and improving the bottom line."
According to data from the United Nations:
America's rate of growth in CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2004 was 8 percentage points lower than from 1995 to 2000. By comparison, the original 15 European Union nations saw an increase of 2.3 percentage points. From 2000 to 2004, EU-15 emissions grew at nearly double the U.S. rate. During the same time, the U.S. economy grew by almost $1.9 trillion, the equivalent of adding Italy to the U.S. economy. Further, the U.S. population increased by 11.3 million people, adding more than the population of Greece. "U.S. businesses are succeeding where European bureaucracy is failing," says Burnett. "Further, efforts like the Asian-Pacific partnership will do far more than Kyoto to have a lasting effect on greenhouse gas emissions."
Source: "NCPA: U.S. cutting greenhouse gases better than Europe," ReliablPlant.com, Jan./Feb. 2007.
For text:
http://www.reliableplant.com/article.asp?pagetitle=NCPA:%20U.S.%20cutting%20greenhouse%20gases%20better%20than%20Europe&articleid=4889
For more on Global Warming/Impacts and Responses:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=impacts-and-responses
For more on Global Warming:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=32
And this is why we're still "criminals" and "sinners" in the eco-left's eyes. All of this has little or nothing to do with ecology, and everything to do with the abolition of private property and personal freedom. If it isn't a government-imposed "solution", it doesn't matter. If it is a government-imposed "solution", then it's a "good thing" regardless of how ineffective (or even harmful) the measure is.
It's about control, not emissions.
ping
Since MIT has proven that you can economically use waste CO2 to feed algae, that in turn produces large amounts of biodiesel and some ethanol, I am all for turning this waste product into almost pure profit.
Companies that currently go to great lengths to control huge amounts of CO2 at great expense, could redirect it into making them money. It is a win-win situation.
This suggestion has been hinted around Europe for a year now. Without enforcing Kyoto...the US is quietly doing what they wanted the US to do. But there are reasons for this. The US went to a higher filtered coal powered situation. The US lessen production of industrial items...shifting production to Mexico and other 3rd world countries. US factories that were unproductive...were shut down...while productive factories were beefed up and had money invested into them. For Europe...the coming of the Euro created a brief episode of more production...mostly in cheaper countries though (Spain and Italy). More demand in Europe for larger vehicles...like SUV's...also occurred.
Transfer payments.
Well, thank goodness we signed the Kyoto treaty.
/sarc
Yeah, now that this news doesn't get reported by the press,
I can still sell 'carbon offsets'.
Latest Weather Channel Headline:
GORE CUTS ANOTHER GLOBAL FLATULENCE. USA RESPONDS!
bump
I have never laughed more...
Certainly energy consumption drops if the costs are trippled - what a big surprise.
And given the fact that US citisens are awful energyhogs compared to europeans it's not much of a surprise they have tweaked their efficiency more than europeans did.
They just had to avoid driving to the letterbox with a humvee 2 times a day ;-)
This here articel makes for the bovine excrement award big time.
Most didn't change their driving patterns at all because although the costs doubled it still wasn't all that much and many of us live in places where to walk to the store would take far too much time.
Great.
Now that its shown that the United States is producing less CO2 (and is actually consuming more than it produces, if you include trees), the enviromarxists will now state that we are at risk of global cooling...and the United States is hogging all the CO2.
They haven't gone up that dramatically in germany because 75% of e.g. fuel costs are taxes :/
Energy efficiency should be on top of the agenda.
Or do you have the feeling that pumping money into Russia and the middle East is a bright idea ?
Energy, not just energy efficiency, should be at the top of the agenda.
Improving energy efficiency alone will not make us independent of the Middle East. Not even close.
There is a significant baseload shortage looming (this is already showing up in Californai and the Northeast). There are better choices for peak load supplies other than burning natural gas (like California has chosen).
Alternate petroleum sources and alternatives to petroleum-based fuels will do much more to move us away from supporting terror-laiden countries. Tar sands and shale oil are nearly economically feasible - if some price stability could be established for a barrel of oil, it probably would be. Honda has a natural gas car that allows the owner to fill up at home, for about half the price of gasoline; this would catch on if more public natural gas pumps were available (for emergency fill-ups). Hydrogen cars are NOT part of any near term solution. Providing a choice for automotive fuels (biodiesel, natural gas, ethanol) would introduce competition to OPEC, which would do a lot to drop the price of a barrel of oil.
Drilling for domestic oil and improving energy efficiency will play a role in sticking it to the Mid-East during the development of these alternatives, but to depend on improving efficiency as a long term solution, while politically correct, is irresponsible planning.
Find later bump
Start in 2007 for at least one new nuclear plant per state.
One design, for all plants.
Tell the Sierra club to go plant trees instead of hindering our plan to reduce CO2 with nuclear plants.
You hit the nail on the head.
There are about two new dozen nuclear power plants in one stage of planning or another in the United States. Most of them will use the Westinghouse AP1000 design.
The Sierra Club SHOULD plant more trees since they think CO2 is a pollutant. Those of us who don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant enjoy them, and they have plenty of post-growth uses.
If you include trees, the United States is a net CONSUMER of CO2 (for those who are worried about CO2).
Of course the Kyoto treaty isn't interested in net CO2, its interested in CO2 production (thus planting trees doesn't affect Kyoto)...its a wealth redistribution program disguised as an environmental agreement
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
