Start A Petition

10 Global Cities & Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Environment  (tags: environment, cities, CO2emissions, greenhousegases, nature, protection )

Cher
- 3552 days ago - ecoworldly.com
A new report ranks ten leading world cities on their greenhouse gas emissions. It also examines how and why the emissions differ.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Fiona Ogilvie (562)
Friday September 25, 2009, 8:16 am
3 US cities among the worst of the worst, Most discouraging. Thank you, Cher, for the information nevertheless.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 1:25 pm
That just means those cities are alive and breathing...and may even have real economies.

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born

"The North Carolina conference, which
took place Oct. 26-29, 1975, was cosponsored
by two agencies of the U.S.
National Institutes of Health: the John E.
Fogarty International Center for Advanced
Study in the Health Sciences and the
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. (Mead had been a Scholar in
Residence at the Fogarty Center
in 1973.)
It was at this governmentsponsored
conference, 32 years
ago, that virtually every scare
scenario in today’s climate hoax
took root. Scientists were
charged with coming up with the
“science” to back up the scares,
so that definitive action could be
taken by policy-makers.
Global cooling—the coming
of an ice age—had been in the
headlines in the 1970s, but it
could not easily be used to sell
genocide by getting the citizens
of industrial nations to cut back
on consumption. Something
more drastic and more personal
was needed."
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
 

JennyLynn W (246)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 1:52 pm
As a scientist and educator, I sometimes get discouraged that people so readily abandon facts and yell 'hoax' when it's inconvenient to acknowledge the truth. It's too bad some people cannot deal with reality. Yes, every city, however dirty and choked with pollution, has a real economy. And it's just silly to insist that so many billions of people on the planet somehow magically have no bad effects on it. Sheesh. For those unwilling to do the tiniest things to leave a better world to future generations - fine. They'll judge for themselves and it won't be a judgment on the basis of selfishness and greed, it'll be based on what we left them. The selfishness and greed on the part of people denying the facts will be clear to all.
 

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 5:04 pm
Thanks for the information Cher - the best antidote to the denialist prapaganda :)
 

Gorilly G (339)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 5:09 pm
alive and breathing Judy???? Screw thier economies...especially if we have no planet left to have one.....

Big Gorilly Hgs
 

Paul Puckett (46)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 5:55 pm
JennyLynn W, as a scientist, take a look at the actual study and how it was conducted. I'm not knowledgeable enough about something called "urban metabolism". If I'm reading the study correctly, at , there were no actual measurements taken and the ten cities shown were the only cities studied. A group of scientist calculated emissions based on a number of factors including transportation, electricity usage, population density, etc. In essence, it doesn't look like anything was measured using some form of equipment, rather calculated using a formula based on Urban Metabolism. Does that method make scientific sense and were the ten cities listed the only ones studied?

Not arguing the results, just curious about the methodology and how many cities were included. Denver surprises me, particularly since cities like Atlanta and Norfolk, that I am very familiar with, seem much more industrial, spread-out, etc. Thoughts?
 

Paul Puckett (46)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 6:13 pm
Nevermind, found a link buried in the link of my last comment. The study included only the ten cities referenced. Urban metabolism is a model developed by Abel Wolman in the 60's. It is a mathematical model.

I should have read the title of the article more accurately. I inferred that it meant the 10 worst cities, when it actually meant results of 10 cities only. I also inferred that something was actually measured when nothing was.

Not implying anything about the articles point that pollution should be reduced, I definitely think that it should. But, as a guy who deals with numbers in an industry known for manipulating them (I'm an investment advisor), I tend to get picky when conclusions are drawn based on models created based on someone's hypothesis. You are a scientist, so I defer to you on this study, just wanted to clarify my last post since I was able to find the references.
 

. (0)
Monday September 28, 2009, 8:24 am
Global pollution is a huge problem... one cannot deny the yellow haze that sits over a city that can be seen from vast a distance away or from an aircraft when flying... my brother has been diagnosed with lung cancer... he never smoked but lived all his life in a polluted city... car fumes and everything else under the sun... so you cannot deny that...
 

Paul Puckett (46)
Monday September 28, 2009, 9:02 am
Chaz, I'm sorry to hear about your brother and I am not denying pollution. I use rainbarrels, have one of the lowest utility bills of anyone I know, and eat primarily organic produce. I think the biggest danger facing the environmental movement is pseudoscience. When we shoot down people who don't believe in Global Warming, because we do believe in it, we need to accept that maybe, just maybe, Global Warming is still a theory. It has not been proven. If it is ever shown to be incorrect, many will stop recycling, using less fuel, etc., because their motivation for doing what they do is to prevent something that may not be happening.

This article is based on a study of 10 randomly selected cities with 3 of them in the US. Rome, Bangkok, Beijing, Moscow, Dubrovnik, Berlin, Paris, etc., were not in the study. My major issue with this study is that nothing was actually measured. I've been in many cities that smell or have a pollution cloud over them, but can't tell which one of them is emitting the most greenhouse gas. There are instruments that can measure that but they were not involved in this very limited, model-based, study based on an Urban Metabolism model that was developed in the 60's. Cool title, neat study, no facts. and misleading since the rest of the cities on the planet were not included.

If someone turned in this study to their high school science teacher, I'm doubtful they would get an A.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.