GOOD Sheet: CO2 World

Hey takitak:  what you’re proposing is a bit like saying ‘we’re really bad at running, so let’s only compare ourselves to other bad runners’.  So, the US is a lot worse than Sweden, a lot better than… Kuwait & Qatar.That’s fine if it makes you feel better, but doesn’t help solve the real question: how do we arrest a climate crisis?

I’m not sure I’m entirely on board with the idea that we should narrow the discussion to “large, multicultural nations that have both a higher Human Development Index *and* a higher average househould income (PPP basis) than the US.” But it’s definitely an interesting way to focus the comparison.

Here are HDI the rankings:
1. Iceland 0.968
2. Norway 0.968
3. Australia 0.962
4. Canada 0.961
5. Ireland 0.959
6. Sweden 0.956
7. Switzerland 0.955
8. Japan 0.953
9. Netherlands 0.953
10. France 0.952
11. Finland 0.952
12. United States 0.951

And not one of the countries with a higher HDI has higher carbon emissions per capita according to Wikipedia. So (apologies takitak) that ignores the PPP, but it’s a start. You don’t need to emit as much carbon per capita as the U.S. to have a high HDI at least.

Not sure it’s propaganda so much as a map for lay people (myself included) to navigate a very complex subject. 

This was an amayzing designed chart.  I think Edward Tufte would love it. 

I think it is important to address levels of development and population when comparing per capita CO2 emissions.  Perhaps more important, however, is taking measure of the inverse relationship between responsibility for climate change and vulnerability to its impact. I’ve become familiar with these issues by working on http://www.nineplanetswanted.org which is based entirely on http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/  

I think the information is a really GOOD place to start but I also think it might be helpful to offer some potential good things that can be donbe to manage the problem.  An example is using CO2 under pressure (dense phase) to replace dry cleaning processes and to enable cold sterilization.  Also investing in using algae as a better alternative to corn as a renewable fuel source that will also help increase the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2.  There will always be two sides and if we don’t see them we just get depressed and angry…not GOOD.

Found this in Starbucks today-really enjoyed it. I think it’s a great partnership…

I too found this sheet in Starbucks, and again it leaves me asking, “Why?” Sure, it was printed on 45% postconsumer waste paper and the related carbon emissions “have been offset…” But wouldn’t it be better not to print it at all? Not use the paper, not use the ink, not use the delivery trucks? Is one more weekly print publication really the “good” response to the rising greenhouse emissions detailed inside?

I realize “The GOOD Sheet” promises a nonpartisan exploration of “some of the major issues facing us this election season.” So why do I doubt I’ll see a “graphical exploration” of abortion or the development of a fetus alongside my delicious Starbucks coffee?

The one note that was interesting, to me, was about the Amazonian rain forest decreasing.  It would be interesting to know what the total CO2 penalty is, that is occurring, as there are two components in this event: 1) burning of the trees while clearing the land – adding to the CO2, and 2) the loss of CO2 uptake by the trees so destroyed.  Granted this is aimed at US readers, but helping us understand the problems elsewhere could possibly help us put together a Global process of resolution.

I disagree with Takitak a few posts down, and agree with Andrew Price and a few others.  In my opinion, the bottom line is: CO2 emissions is a problem and we are among the top contributors to this problem.  Therefore, argue as you wish about how we stack up against other countries, we need to address this issue.  It’s easy: if you’re part of the problem, then you need to make yourself a part of the solution.  We should think of ourselves as having a particularly great responsibility because in America we, as consumers, have a lot of control over how we address these issues.  In China (one of the other major parts of the problem), it is not so.  We, the people, truly have the power to make change.

I think this sheet is doing a great job and pointing in the right direction.Where can I get hold of it on paper?

As much as I love GOOD for its fantastic non-bias information on important public issues, they completely dropped the ball on this one. According to a meterological study the rise in temperature for the world is not directly in affect to CO2 emmissions but rather by the solar activity of the sun.  You can find the study here ->>  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdfAnd I am also disappointed in GOOD because it used Lbs. to scale the impact of CO2 contributions rather than percentages.  Based on the above picture GOOD would have you believe that by changing a few light bulbs or by taking public transportation a huge dent could be made against CO2 emmissions, however this could not be any further from the real truth.  Take the country of Australia for example, they recently passed a bill that would completely replace all incandescent bulbs on the country with energy effecient flourescent bulbs by 2010.  The Australian government lauded that it would save an estimated 800,000 metric tons CO2 per year, where in reality that amount is actually equal to only 0.21 percent of Australia’s emmissions.  To put it another way, an entire continent being forced to use flourescent lightbulbs will reduce world emmissions by (dun dun dun) 0.003 PERECENTAnd to put the final nail in the coffin for GOOD’s presentation, it has failed to show one the largest contributions to greenhouse emissions… livestock.  Livestock is responsible for more greenhouse gas emmissions that the world’s entire transportation sector.   According to a UN report on climate change in November 2006 livestock and the industry revolving around it are responsible for 18 of all greenhouse gases when measured in CO2 equivalent. 
Based on the above information, instead of taking public transportation and changing your light bulbs, the best way for all of us to stop global climate change would for us to become meatatarians (you’re either with or your against us vegans and vegetarians).

I get frustrated with this.  First of all, CO2 is actually not the most prevalent greenhouse gas…water vapor is.  Since water vapor has a higher heat capacity, it actually has a much much larger impact on temperature.  This can be seen on a micro level in places like Houston, where humidity in the air retains the heat a great deal.  CO2 is not only a trace gas when considering greenhouse gases, it is even more so when thinking of the overall makeup of our atmosphere.  I appreciate the reference to ICECAP below.  A quality blog where people such as myself are not ridiculed for questioning poor science.  It has been shown through the study of ice core samples that CO2 levels actually lag temperature change by a few thousand years.  The earth undergoes a cycle where it goes through warming and cooling periods, these cooling periods are known as ice ages.  In every instance, the temperature spikes drastically which is followed by a correlating spike in ppm levels of CO2.  Currently, our planet is higher than pre-industrial carbon levels by a large amount (~100 PPM), yet as ICECAP reported recently, temperatures are actually not increasing.  My challenege to anyone interested in this topic is to do research on both ends of the spectrum.  After all, if you are attempting to make a point, it is a necessity that you are well informed on both sides of the issue.icecap.gov – great speculation blog