|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
drkalbi

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: Australia overtakes US as biggest polluter |
|
|
SYDNEY (AFP) - Australians have overtaken Americans as the world's biggest individual producers of carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming, a risk consultancy says.
British firm Maplecroft placed Australia's per capita output at 20.58 tons a year, some four percent higher than the United States and top of a list of 185 countries.
Canada, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia rounded out the top five. China remains the world's biggest overall greenhouse gas polluter, followed by the United States.
Maplecroft added that China and India's per person carbon production came in at just 4.5 and 1.16 tons respectively, in sharp contrast to their big overall figures.
"Australia has about five times the per capita emissions of China for instance but China produces over 20 times the carbon emissions of Australia because China has such a huge population," University of Adelaide professor Barry Brook told public broadcaster ABC.
"So you can play around with these numbers all you want but ultimately what matters is the total global carbon budget," he said.
"And unless humanity as a whole can find solutions to that problem, then all of that petty bickering amongst nations about who's more or less responsible isn't really going to be very helpful."
The report was released ahead of a major UN summit in Copenhagen in December aiming to thrash out a new climate change treaty.
Australia, whose vast size and isolation make for high transport costs for goods and people, has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 percent by 2020 compared to 2000 levels.
However, emissions trading legislation was defeated in the Senate last month, leaving the target in doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let me guess... is a conservative party in office in Australia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hyeon Een

Joined: 24 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
| Let me guess... is a conservative party in office in Australia? |
No.
Want another guess?
Also, what was your point, it was unclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kg2095
Joined: 23 May 2009 Location: Hwaseong City
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
| Let me guess... is a conservative party in office in Australia? |
Not now but the previous government was very conservative.
They were in power for over 10 years, up until 2 years ago.
During their term in office Australia just like the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Also the Prime Minister of that time was a proud climate change skeptic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is it the Chinese domino effect? Australia is a strong trade partner with China in so many ways now. I'm sure it's infectious. Just check out what is happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo. China is doing a number on its resources and decimating its once magnificent rain forests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Australians have to drive far from work to home, and vice versa.
That's pretty much what this says to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kg2095
Joined: 23 May 2009 Location: Hwaseong City
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Australians have to drive far from work to home, and vice versa.
That's pretty much what this says to me. |
No, not really. Most Australians live in the suburbs of one of several large cities. Similar to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cheonmunka

Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd like to know who goes out there and measures the stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
when the aboriginals first saw james cook arrive in his ships, they knew their country was going to be destroyed!
Im curious.. they say that the aboriginals have been living off the land for 40.000 years or more..
do you think with the whites as the new owners of the land it will last even 10.000 years? hhahahaahhaa 10k Im being generous!
the native Indians are no different.. they connected with the land spiritually, the white man connected with the land economically.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
manlyboy

Joined: 01 Aug 2004 Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Here's another interesting fact: Did you know that ecochondriacs from leftist looniversity bins pull 69% of all statistics out of their arses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kg2095 wrote: |
| bassexpander wrote: |
| Let me guess... is a conservative party in office in Australia? |
Not now but the previous government was very conservative.
They were in power for over 10 years, up until 2 years ago.
During their term in office Australia just like the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Also the Prime Minister of that time was a proud climate change skeptic. |
Kyoto Protocol was a sham. Why would the US put their signature on a piece of garbage like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackjack

Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Location: anyang
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
when the aboriginals first saw james cook arrive in his ships, they knew their country was going to be destroyed!
Im curious.. they say that the aboriginals have been living off the land for 40.000 years or more..
do you think with the whites as the new owners of the land it will last even 10.000 years? hhahahaahhaa 10k Im being generous!
the native Indians are no different.. they connected with the land spiritually, the white man connected with the land economically.. |
This is rubbish, the idea that indigenous people are protectors of the land. A perfect example of this is the Maori in New Zealand. Within 500 years they had wiped out over 30 species of bird and destroyed over 25% of the forest cover.
The aborigines and native american indians did plenty of damage, just their damage was done along time ago, horses started off in North america and died off around 10,000 years ago a few thousand years after humans arrived coincidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
when the aboriginals first saw james cook arrive in his ships, they knew their country was going to be destroyed!
Im curious.. they say that the aboriginals have been living off the land for 40.000 years or more..
do you think with the whites as the new owners of the land it will last even 10.000 years? hhahahaahhaa 10k Im being generous!
the native Indians are no different.. they connected with the land spiritually, the white man connected with the land economically.. |
This is rubbish, the idea that indigenous people are protectors of the land. A perfect example of this is the Maori in New Zealand. Within 500 years they had wiped out over 30 species of bird and destroyed over 25% of the forest cover.
The aborigines and native american indians did plenty of damage, just their damage was done along time ago, horses started off in North america and died off around 10,000 years ago a few thousand years after humans arrived coincidence? |
what are you on about????? 25% of the forest cover of new zealand??
NO WAY!!! dream on...
The natives took from the earth what they needed to survive!
the maori killed 30 species of bird? SO WHAT! how many more species have man killed for wealth throughout the world!!
I believe ivory and tiger fur is still being sold...killed for the skins and tusk!
Im not talking about that..
the native Indians , aboriginals, maori lived off the land, they built everything made out of biodegradable things..
the damage they left wouldnt of left any permanent damage for the future people.. we already know this....
they might have killed animals.. but they needed to eat! but they only took what they needed...
Im not saying the old inhabitants where better role models or being human beings, jesus no, half of them would eat you or me!
all I am saying is, our own greed will end up being our downfall..
Global warming is real! and its a result of our greed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackjack

Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Location: anyang
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| blackjack wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
when the aboriginals first saw james cook arrive in his ships, they knew their country was going to be destroyed!
Im curious.. they say that the aboriginals have been living off the land for 40.000 years or more..
do you think with the whites as the new owners of the land it will last even 10.000 years? hhahahaahhaa 10k Im being generous!
the native Indians are no different.. they connected with the land spiritually, the white man connected with the land economically.. |
This is rubbish, the idea that indigenous people are protectors of the land. A perfect example of this is the Maori in New Zealand. Within 500 years they had wiped out over 30 species of bird and destroyed over 25% of the forest cover.
The aborigines and native american indians did plenty of damage, just their damage was done along time ago, horses started off in North america and died off around 10,000 years ago a few thousand years after humans arrived coincidence? |
what are you on about????? 25% of the forest cover of new zealand??
NO WAY!!! dream on...
The natives took from the earth what they needed to survive!
the maori killed 30 species of bird? SO WHAT! how many more species have man killed for wealth throughout the world!!
I believe ivory and tiger fur is still being sold...killed for the skins and tusk!
Im not talking about that..
the native Indians , aboriginals, maori lived off the land, they built everything made out of biodegradable things..
the damage they left wouldnt of left any permanent damage for the future people.. we already know this....
they might have killed animals.. but they needed to eat! but they only took what they needed...
Im not saying the old inhabitants where better role models or being human beings, jesus no, half of them would eat you or me!
all I am saying is, our own greed will end up being our downfall..
Global warming is real! and its a result of our greed! |
| Quote: |
Forest destruction by Polynesians had reduced the forest cover from 80% to 50% of land area by about 1840. Subsequent forest removal (largely by Europeans, but also some further by Maori) has reduced forest cover to about 24% of land area.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7730e/w7730e09.htm |
sorry I was wrong, it was closer to 40%
| Quote: |
Extinctions since 14th century Māori settlement
North Island Adzebill, Aptornis otidiformis
South Island Adzebill, Aptornis defossor
Eyles' Harrier, Circus eylesi
Haast's Eagle, Harpagornis moorei
Giant Chatham Island Rail or Hawkins' Rail, Diaphorapteryx hawkinsi
Hodgen's Waterhen or Hodgen's Rail, Gallinula hodgenorum
Snipe-rail, Capellirallus karamu
Chatham Islands Coot, Fulica chathamensis
New Zealand Coot, Fulica prisca
Giant Chatham Island Snipe, Coenocorypha chathamica
New Zealand Owlet-nightjar, Aegotheles novaezealandiae
Grant-Mackie's Wren, Pachyplichas jagmi
Yaldwyn's Wren or Stout-legged Wren, Pachyplichas yaldwyni
Long-billed Wren, Dendroscansor decurvirostris
Chatham Islands Raven, Corvus moriorum
New Zealand Raven, Corvus antipodum
North Island Raven, Corvus antipodum antipodum
South Island Raven, Corvus antipodum pycrafti
New Zealand Musk Duck or De Lautour's Duck, Biziura delautouri
Chatham Islands Duck, Pachyanas chathamica
New Zealand Pink-eared Duck or Scarlett's Duck, Malacorhynchus scarletti
Finsch's Duck, Chenonetta finschi
North Island Goose, Cnemiornis gracilis
South Island Goose, Cnemiornis calcitrans
New Zealand Swan, Cygnus atratus sumnerensis
Scarlett's Shearwater, Puffinus spelaeus (600 BP)
Moa
Bush Moa, Anomalopteryx didiformis
Upland Moa, Megalapteryx didinus/benhami
Heavy-footed Moa, Pachyornis elephantopus
Crested Moa, Pachyornis australis
Mappin's Moa, Pachyornis geranoides
Stout-legged Moa, Euryapteryx gravis
Coastal Moa, Euryapteryx curtus
Eastern Moa, Emeus crassus
North Island Giant Moa, Dinornis novaezealandiae
Giant Moa, Dinornis robustus
Waitaha penguin, Megadyptes waitaha[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_New_Zealand_animals
|
| Quote: |
New evidence based on accurate optically stimulated luminescence and Uranium-thorium dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.[3] The dates derived show that all forms of megafauna became extinct in the same rapid timeframe — approximately 47,000 years ago — the period of time in which humans first arrived in Australia. The dates derived suggest the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a then much less fire-adapted landscape; analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes from teeth of megafauna indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and the diet of surviving marsupial species, as well as the loss of megafaunal species. Further analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes from teeth of megafauna indicate the arid regional climates at the time of extinction were similar to arid regional climates of today, and that the megafauna were well adapted to arid climates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna
|
The idea that tribal societies live in harmony with their environment is a myth. The only reason they didn't do more damage is they lacked the tools to do so. They didn't just "take what they needed". They took what they could get |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aboxofchocolates

Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Location: on your mind
|
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
The idea that tribal societies live in harmony with their environment is a myth. The only reason they didn't do more damage is they lacked the tools to do so. They didn't just "take what they needed". They took what they could get |
Maybe not all tribal societies live in harmony with nature. And maybe many don't have a spiritual connection with mother earth. But if you are going to compare impact on the ecosystem, hunter gatherer VS capitalist modes of production, then smart money is on capitalist society as the heavy weight contender.
I highly doubt aboriginees were sadly shaking their heads as captain cook landed, thinking about the ecological footprint he was going to leave. But I am pretty sure if you compare ecosystems pre and post agricultural australia (never mind industrial capitalism) you'll find pre agricultural australia a little more robust.
Oh, congrats aussies, you may have moved into number one as a nation- Canadians are still the reigning champs as individual consumers, though. Neener. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|