Comments on: Bush policies cause U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to soar in 2007 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:40:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13049 Robert Wed, 21 May 2008 13:04:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13049 Nice job in 2006 though. Nice job in 2006 though.

]]> By: David http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13064 David Wed, 21 May 2008 15:45:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13064 Of course it doesn't even compare to the 3.5% increase in 1996 or the 3% increase in 2000. Hmm, who was president then? Of course it doesn’t even compare to the 3.5% increase in 1996 or the 3% increase in 2000. Hmm, who was president then?

]]> By: Peter Foley http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13079 Peter Foley Wed, 21 May 2008 19:29:57 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13079 How much of the increase in in CO2 emissions was caused by negative global warming. Just what was the average heating degree days in the US during 2007? NOT ALL STATS ARE PROOF OF YOUR RELIGION. What is the GNP over CO2 stat, how does it compare with China? Or why doesn't the PPMs of CO2 follow the emissions directly? This inane carbon based delusional dystopia you are trying to create is starting to actually concern me. Just what was the increase average when Joe's administration was in office? 43 might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but in every metric he's outperformed his predessor in reducing the rate of increase in emmisions of the CO2. How much of the increase in in CO2 emissions was caused by negative global warming. Just what was the average heating degree days in the US during 2007? NOT ALL STATS ARE PROOF OF YOUR RELIGION. What is the GNP over CO2 stat, how does it compare with China? Or why doesn’t the PPMs of CO2 follow the emissions directly?

This inane carbon based delusional dystopia you are trying to create is starting to actually concern me.

Just what was the increase average when Joe’s administration was in office?
43 might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but in every metric he’s outperformed his predessor in reducing the rate of increase in emmisions of the CO2.

]]> By: John Thacker http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13112 John Thacker Wed, 21 May 2008 23:43:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13112 <em>Had we manufactured in this country everything we actually consumed over the past seven years, the rate of growth of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would have been about 50% higher.</em> OK. So? Care to explain how different US policies to reduce CO2 emissions would do anything other than push manufacturing to China more quickly? <em>while allowing gasoline prices (and the trade deficit with China) to continue to soar, so my guess is U.S. emissions will rise only slightly, if at all, this year.</em> But don't you want gasoline prices to soar? I don't see any way to reduce US CO2 emissions without increasing gasoline prices. US gasoline prices are far below the rest of the developed world. Had we manufactured in this country everything we actually consumed over the past seven years, the rate of growth of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would have been about 50% higher.

OK. So? Care to explain how different US policies to reduce CO2 emissions would do anything other than push manufacturing to China more quickly?

while allowing gasoline prices (and the trade deficit with China) to continue to soar, so my guess is U.S. emissions will rise only slightly, if at all, this year.

But don’t you want gasoline prices to soar? I don’t see any way to reduce US CO2 emissions without increasing gasoline prices. US gasoline prices are far below the rest of the developed world.

]]> By: Lamont http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13113 Lamont Wed, 21 May 2008 23:47:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13113 This is the rate of increase of carbon emissions in the US. It isn't the world-wide rate of increase of carbon emissions. It is also the rate of change of emissions. The 1% annual growth is a 1% compounding exponential growth rate of CO2 emissions. And the whole point is that Bush got lucky in 2001 and 2006. Clinton managed to work the US economy through a mid-cycle slowdown and produce an unparalleled growth and 10 years between recessions -- back before we cared as much about GHGs and climate change (global warming didn't get much press before 1998), so historically Clinton got "unlucky". Also the average emissions per year for Dubyuh was 5894 million metric tons while under Clinton it was 5486 million metric tons. And economic progress is good for the economy, bad for emissions (at least currently there's a link when all our energy inputs to our economy involve carbon emissions), while poor economic performance is good for emissions. So what does that tell you about Bush's economic policies? Plus when we buy goods at Wal-Mart that were made in china we are importing goods and exporting carbon emissions. That carbon got burned in order to make our cheap goods. This is the rate of increase of carbon emissions in the US. It isn’t the world-wide rate of increase of carbon emissions. It is also the rate of change of emissions. The 1% annual growth is a 1% compounding exponential growth rate of CO2 emissions.

And the whole point is that Bush got lucky in 2001 and 2006. Clinton managed to work the US economy through a mid-cycle slowdown and produce an unparalleled growth and 10 years between recessions — back before we cared as much about GHGs and climate change (global warming didn’t get much press before 1998), so historically Clinton got “unlucky”.

Also the average emissions per year for Dubyuh was 5894 million metric tons while under Clinton it was 5486 million metric tons.

And economic progress is good for the economy, bad for emissions (at least currently there’s a link when all our energy inputs to our economy involve carbon emissions), while poor economic performance is good for emissions. So what does that tell you about Bush’s economic policies?

Plus when we buy goods at Wal-Mart that were made in china we are importing goods and exporting carbon emissions. That carbon got burned in order to make our cheap goods.

]]> By: Finnjor http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13127 Finnjor Thu, 22 May 2008 08:23:34 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13127 Funny chaps there. The greatest nation of the world? What are they meaning? Must you obey even idiots, where is your democracy? You voted them to destroy us all? Funny chaps there. The greatest nation of the world?

What are they meaning? Must you obey even idiots, where is your democracy? You voted them to destroy us all?

]]> By: Peter Foley http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13237 Peter Foley Fri, 23 May 2008 17:23:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13237 Just how is the US destroying the rest of the world, 1.Saved France & G. Britain 1918, repeated it in 1945, saved SE Asia from Japan 1945, and Saved Japan, Saved south Korea from generations of suffering. Saved S. Vietnam for 14 years. pretty much invented the only 24/7 non carbon power- Nuke Energy, Helped keep the towel heads out of Israel, Freed the Philippines Islands--a slight stretch, freed the panama canal zone, freed Kuwait 1991, freed the Iraqis 2002, only the Former Soviet Union arguably has freed more people recently, and they are trying to unfree them. I'm embarrassed we didn't support Finland against the USSR in 1940. Finnjor, Why don't you and yours step up and take away some of the responsibility your country's failures to act has created. I don't think of the USA as the greatest nation in the world, just the least bad. I am trying to improve it. What are you doing to fix your little experiment in government?--Letting the fools in Brussels take away even more of your rights with the new constitution? Keep poking a bear/Eagle and you'll end up as bear/eagle feces. Every year the rest worlds grows faster then the US the share of the phony guilt that can be assigned to the US for actually having a rational economy that works is lessening. The US haters need to find a new characteristic of the USA to hate. It isn't our fault you have allowed your governments to mismanage your economies for decades. Just how is the US destroying the rest of the world, 1.Saved France & G. Britain 1918, repeated it in 1945, saved SE Asia from Japan 1945, and Saved Japan, Saved south Korea from generations of suffering. Saved S. Vietnam for 14 years. pretty much invented the only 24/7 non carbon power- Nuke Energy, Helped keep the towel heads out of Israel, Freed the Philippines Islands–a slight stretch, freed the panama canal zone, freed Kuwait 1991, freed the Iraqis 2002, only the Former Soviet Union arguably has freed more people recently, and they are trying to unfree them.
I’m embarrassed we didn’t support Finland against the USSR in 1940.

Finnjor, Why don’t you and yours step up and take away some of the responsibility your country’s failures to act has created.

I don’t think of the USA as the greatest nation in the world, just the least bad. I am trying to improve it. What are you doing to fix your little experiment in government?–Letting the fools in Brussels take away even more of your rights with the new constitution?

Keep poking a bear/Eagle and you’ll end up as bear/eagle feces.

Every year the rest worlds grows faster then the US the share of the phony guilt that can be assigned to the US for actually having a rational economy that works is lessening. The US haters need to find a new characteristic of the USA to hate. It isn’t our fault you have allowed your governments to mismanage your economies for decades.

]]> By: Wise Golden http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13527 Wise Golden Tue, 27 May 2008 20:23:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/bush-policies-cause-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-soar-in-2007/#comment-13527 The graph that you place in your article shows that GWB has been very effective at holding down CO2. Look at the 7 years of his Presidency vrs. the prior 8. GWB has a net increase of 2.5% over his 7 years. Clinton (with Gore as VP,) had an increase in every year, totaling 14%. 2.5% vrs. 14%…that isn’t too shabby considering the growth of the economy has been over 25% in that time frame. Now I understand that you would like to see the numbers going the other direction – so would I. But given an expansion of 25% in the economy, a CO2 increase of 2.5% seems rather heroic. I would expect better years will follow as this issue has grown in importance to many Americans, including Republicans. The graph that you place in your article shows that GWB has been very effective at holding down CO2. Look at the 7 years of his Presidency vrs. the prior 8. GWB has a net increase of 2.5% over his 7 years. Clinton (with Gore as VP,) had an increase in every year, totaling 14%.

2.5% vrs. 14%…that isn’t too shabby considering the growth of the economy has been over 25% in that time frame.

Now I understand that you would like to see the numbers going the other direction – so would I. But given an expansion of 25% in the economy, a CO2 increase of 2.5% seems rather heroic. I would expect better years will follow as this issue has grown in importance to many Americans, including Republicans.

]]>