Uh yeah, like nobody else has forests (Siberia, anyone?)! And quite
beside this fact, the net carbon sink potential of mature forest is
negligible anyway. Beyond sticking your head in the sand (and
consequently showing the world your asshole), there is simply no denying
that the USA is by far the largest per capita polluter, even before you
consider the large proportion of off-shore pollution by US based
multinationals whose profits line your pockets. "Large negative
teritory" is pure bollocks (TM).
I'm very ashamed to admit that the country I live in (or at least it's
government) is similarly selfish and blinkered.
Dylan
> John Hudson wrote:
> >Nick Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Barker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm afraid that you gentlemen and ladies of the US are sitting ducks
> > > > when it comes to this subject. The price of fuel for cars, trucks
> > > > and industry in Europe is below what it costs to clean up after it -
> > > > before you consider the damage caused by global warming. In the USA
> > > > the cost differential is of course much greater.
> > >
> > > Greenhouse gas emission change, 1990-98
> > > U.S. +11.2%
> > > Russia -35.4%
> > > Japan +9.7%
> > > Germany -15.6%
> > > Canada +13.2%
> > > U.K. -8.3%
> > > France +0.9%
> > > Italy +4.4%
> > > Australia +14.5%
> > > Ukraine -50.5%
> > > Poland -28.7%
> > > Spain +21.0%
> > > Netherlands +8.4%
> > > Romania -38.1%
> > >
> > > -Nick
> >
> >Deduct the positive effects of the massive forests in north America,
> >Canada in particular, and north America is in large negative territory.
> >
> >jh
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|