Intro to Wes Jackson
Mikey Havoc and Peter Lineham on the Exclusive Brethren [3.4MB mp3]
The Iraq war and inerrancy
Test farm run on sunlight
Source: Michael Grubb’s presentation [480KB PDF]
at the recent VUW climate change conference
What would it be like if China lived like clean green NZ?
17 responses to “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Have you seen An Incovenient Truth? I thought it amusing when it was mentioned that American cars can’t be sold in India and China because they don’t meet their emissions standards.
That graph is confusing. I don’t understand the significance of the width/height relationship. I mean, I understand how a histogram works, but in this case the units on the Y axis are already divided by the units on the X axis. What does that mean? Brain = kappow!
For each bar, width is proportion of world population. Area is total emissions. What do you mean ‘already’?
Hey Matt. You raise a good question. But seriously though, look how fat China is in that graph. I dont think there could be enough carbon in the world for them to produce that many emissions.
Your graph is of per-capita vs. population. Am I just being a hooplehead here or is that a bit skew-whiff?
..and is that Canadia, Australia and New Zealand combined, or are we all the same?
Why is it that so much of the research and reporting on ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ et al, is markedly ambiguous?
Dear Matt,
That graph doesn’t make much sense to me either.
‘Confused’
Wellington
I’m with Matt; I think this graph works. The fact that ‘per capita’ is incorporated into the Y axis just means that, as Matt said, ‘area is total emissions’.
On the other hand, it _is_ very unclear whether the can-aus-nz bar is combined or not (presumably it is). It is also difficult to compare volumes across the different shapes.
It is also difficult to draw conclusions about contries’ environmental practices — i.e. low emissions per capita in Asian countries conflicts markedly with anecdotal accounts of the pollution in Asian cities.
Dan, I don’t know why Can-Aus-NZ are combined. You could email Professor Grubb: mjg7@econ.cam.ac.uk. I don’t think it’s ‘markedly ambigious’, at least not intentionally so. I think the project of reducing emissions is a hugely complex one, which was more or less the point of Grubb’s presentation. He was trying to get across that there is no magic carbon-emissions reducing bullet – different instruments are required in different economic sectors (see slides 5–7 in the PDF. And why are ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ in quotes for you?
Jono, Tim and RDB, the graph shows that China and Western Europe produce about the same total quantity of emissions, but that Western Europe does it with under half the population of China. It also shows that Western countries in general are cranking out way more carbon per person, which is unstewardly and unjust.
I think the main point he was making was that if China and other developing nations were to achieve the life styles we in the developed world all enjoy now, we are utterly screwed. Dan, China has billions and billions of tonnes of coal to burn for all their electricity needs.
I’m thinking a slightly better graph layout could have conveyed said sentiments much clearlier.
It is a bit sad (or more than a bit really) that our technological prowess seems to be built on the backs of carbon-wastage.
Is there a graph that shows stewardliness versus carbon emission?
I guess Can-Aus-NZ are grouped together as they are all relatively small population wise but high emmitters. I would expect that Can-Aus-NZ have similar emmission rates individually.
Stewardliness versus carbon emission would require a robust definition of stewardliness that can be measured.
What would it be like if Australia signed the kyoto protocal?
No idea – ask Prof Grubb.
The Kyoto Protocol – it seems to me – is more about moving money around than it is about promoting/encouraging good stewardship.
The Kyoto Protocol is an attempt to introduce the cost of carbon to business. Hence it is about moving money with the hope that because carbon emission now costs a business they will do their best to reduce this cost by reducing emissions and increasing efficiency.