David Warren points out that two Japanese researchers have calculated out the sacrifices necessary to reach the carbon emission goal stated at the G-8 summit. Their conclusion: a modest 88% of the North American emissions would have to be cut off.
So which part of the economy would you like to shut down?
The 88 per cent is the figure for North America. The Europeans get off relatively easily: they only have to shut down 83 per cent of their economy; the Japanese 85 per cent. Only 35 per cent of the Chinese economy will have to go. And good news for India, much of which is still living in the Arcadian low-carbon past. The Indians get to gun their carbon emissions by 137 per cent over the next four decades.
With the insouciance of a charming zombie, Mr. Kanie added that he did not think the goal out of reach. "I think it is a matter of changing lifestyle and not necessarily in an austere way," he said. "For example, I often ride my bike instead of driving a car." He thought the government should provide more bicycle infrastructure.
Thank you for that suggestion, Mr. Kanie. After an incident I witnessed on the street the other day, I myself wish to be rid of cars. And after another incident on the street the day after, I would also like to be rid of bicycles: so I can go Mr Kanie one better.
And let me add a brilliant suggestion, all of my own. I have often thought that the world's food consumption — and all the extravagantly CO2-emitting factory and transport infrastructure that supports it — could be reduced by more than half, if we would just stop eating on odd-numbered days. I say "more than half" because, as I recall in Lent, people's appetites decline with reduced food consumption, so they'll tend to eat less on the even-numbered days, too. The scheme would also eliminate over a billion people now living at subsistence levels.
Warren adds that he is being sarcastic with that last suggestion. But of course, there are people who are actually advocating along those lines. So, which 88% will be selected to be eliminated? And who chooses?




These calculations must be based solely on energy consumption, which is why they are flawed. Three people asleep exhale as much CO2 in a day as an SUV driving for an hour at 55 mph. India may not be burning as much fossil fuel but they are certainly contributing more CO2 through the large amount of people and livestock that live there.
CO2 is CO2 regardless of how it is created. Which brings up war, pestilence and famine as a potential solution to "save the planet".
Over at Greenie Watch, they are reporting that polar bears are starving due to too much sea ice. http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/02/report-from-greenland-too-much-ice.html
who chooses?
One would think those who seriously believe their mere existance on this planet is destroying all living things would choose to end themselves.
After all, they have a moral obligation to save the polar bears.
’existence’ Please excuse my shameful error.
I agree with Syn. Those who think this is such a significant issue should lead the way by cutting all of their carbon usage at once.
RIGHT ON ! lead by example!