"Look at me!!! I'm fashionable! I drive Prius! I use reusable bags at the grocery store. I read the Economist! I'm intelligent! I have a degree in liberal arts! See, see! LOOK AT ME!!!!"
A shinny new nickel (AND I WILL MAIL IT TO YOU REGARDLESS OF YOUR LOCALE) to whoever can point out the TRUE GAPING AND MISSING VARIABLE The (ahem, COUGH COUGH, WHEEZE, WHEEZE) "Economist" failed to contribute the drop in greenhouse gas emissions from 2007-2008.
Anyone, anyone?
Bueller? Bueller?
There is no way to compare the numbers. the chart in my mind is a complete waste of space. What were the emissions in 1997 and what are they now? Just another lefturd flunky using graphics to baffle people with BS
ReplyDeleteMy first thought is that the economic downturn would have had an effect on greenhouse gas emissions (and natural resource consumption in general). If this was a chart of American greenhouse gas emissions, the recession would definitely be a factor, but I don't know how much Europe has been affected by it.
ReplyDeleteUhhhhhhhh.....maybe the huge recession?
ReplyDeleteNormalization for GDP per head?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's pretty obvious. The "Economist" does not adjust for GDP and/or population growth anymore. If they would, we could see that actually almost every country has been able to reduce emissions during the last 20 years, even without all that fancy cap-and-trade-schemes and CAFE regulations and even before the Messiah Obama arrived.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, emissions increased in the warmer countries and dropped in the colder countries, contrary to what they said about global warming reducing energy usage.
ReplyDeleteUh, Bueller? Bueller?
ReplyDeleteWhere's Germany? Looks like the Capt. cut the last line out because it's a HUGE drop and is likely because their industrial production is down around 20% YOY.
I want that nickel in a display case Capt.
GS
You have to go to Thyme or Newsweak to get the 'knuckle dragger' driver - a world wide recession.
ReplyDeleteThe two factors the economist cites? Dimples on the ass of the real reason. I'll order the Economist again only if I'm in prison. If you have time to kill the Economist is your magazine.
Probably the fact that since GDP output has dropped so much, emissions (which mostly come from producing goods) are bound to drop. So they should probably measure emissions per GDP $.
ReplyDeleteOk, the text in the box says "Emission of greenhouse gases from the 27 countries of the European Union fell by 1.2% in 2007 compared with the year before."
ReplyDeleteSo the 1.2% drop was before worldwide recession hit, correct?
As everyone has stated, the "Economist" missed a lot of potential variables.
But I think the biggie may have been fuel prices.
See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Price_of_oil_%282003-2008%29.png
Note that 2006 started around $50, bumped to near $70 midyear and ended near $45. 2007 started at around $45 and went $85 by year end.
Dr. Bob
I guess this is what they mean by "green shoots" in the economy.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmentalism and leftist economics has succeeded at wrecking our economies to the point where arbitrary and meaningless goals are being achieved.
Watch for it, watch for it, as soon as the temperature data turns away from global warming they will claim that all their efforts to cut emissions, create carbon sinks, etc. have paid off. Then they will say that "we must do more".
Andrew won, sorry Pongo, just a few minutes late.
ReplyDeleteYes, the recession would be the primary cause of the decrease in global gasses.
Andrew e-mail me at CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com and I shall send you the shinny coveted nickel.
Cpt.
Captain,
ReplyDeleteI just saw your post about the economist.... I moved to China on expat assignment and blogspot is blocked --Behind the great firewall---
But....How right you are and how much he economist has changed and now leans left.
As to Global warming....I would love to get my hands on a 1990 Economist article that (I remember very clearly) had a twenty page discussion and showed strong evidence of 90% or so of temperature changes observed attributable to three different cycles of planetary cycles like one 140,000 years another 20,000 years then a shorter one (that's why I would love to find that copy)
Cheers from Shanghai! (feeling comfortable with a lot of my money now in RMB)
jj
Oh I forgot....that 1990 Economist article also discussed the clear possibility that C02 content (such as found in artic ice samples)...was EFFECT, rather than CAUSE....planetary orbit changes that warmed the earth thousands of years ago caused release of C02 from the oceans and vice versa...
ReplyDeletejj