 | Shell Sponsoring Peak Oil Communication? | The Oil Drum: Europe | McCain wants a gas tax "holiday." It's a no-brainer, right? |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
What do you prefer, to be unemployed or to have a job?
Coal and Natural Gas are both fossil fuels, why can't they be compared? And both states have Transport infrastructures largely based on Oil.
Still, I'm all ears for alternative metrics.
What do you prefer, to be unemployed or to have a job?
Would you want your taxes to be spent for digging holes in the sea?
Still, I'm all ears for alternative metrics.
What about real net* CO2 emitted per capita? It is safe to say that a Polish, Italian or a UK citizen have pretty much the same needs and wants. If the Italian citizens emit more GHG per capita then the UK ones, Italy should be incentivised to reduce its emissions and UK should be rewarded. This is the only fair approach to the problem.
GDP-metrics is loaded with so much crap inside it and by definition rewards rich countries on the expense of poorer ones, developed service-oriented economies on the expense of poor, production oriented economies. I wonder why are they still using it?... or is this a rhetorical question?
* For the products and services a country exports, the CO2 emitted during their production and transport must be subtracted from its total emissions. Similarly the CO2 used for producing its imports in the origin country must be added to the country's emission.
Ah! CO2! How could I have forgotten that?
Hope you are not being sarcastic here, because in case you do I fail to see the reason.
For the record I wasn't really addressing the CO2 or boe part of the indicatior, but the GDP part. Using higher GDP as a justification to pollute more or use more FFs for me is borderline absurd.