4 ms·

US emissions have plateaued two decades ago [0]. Emissions are growing unchecked elsewhere, a combination of population explosion and rapid industrialization.

by pacala 9y ago

US emissions have plateaued two decades ago [0]. Emissions are growing unchecked elsewhere, a combination of population explosion and rapid industrialization. [0] http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/ http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emis...

evanlivingston 9y ago
I'm curious if the various ways American's and America spends it's money and consumes its good is factored into U.S. emissions. Does the carbon it takes to produce an iphone and then ship it here count? What about all the fuel/power used by military bases abroad? Does our purchasing of Foreign cars count?
- lozenge 9y ago
  Under most measures it isn't counted. What you are looking for is called consumption-based emissions accounting and unsurprisingly it shows US emissions are still going up. Moving to consumption based accounting aligns closely with the generally accepted best economic solution for reducing emissions - a global carbon tax, which would be pushed onto developing countries as a requirement when they want to export to developed countries. Incidentally, the US military has been exempt from all climate agreements since Kyoto, and so are international flights.
vkou 9y ago
Emission growth has stopped, but what we need to do is hit net zero. We are no closer to that today then we were 20 years ago. There isn't even a vague plan for the United States to get there.
- lozenge 9y ago
  I don't know why you're downvoted. The RCPs that show us respecting the goal of the 2C limit all show emissions need to shrink globally and reach zero around 2050 or even earlier. The fact emissions have stopped growing is not really much progress. It is like we are cruising to disaster rather than accelerating towards it.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Probably because there is no practical plan to reduce them to zero. There's much hand-wringing about future technologies, but the reality of it is that it will require drastic reduction in consumption.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      Very unlikely that is the case. You are assuming that clean technologies will produce only economic cost not a net economic benefit. But that's not how technology works generally
      - vkou 9y ago
        Great, what is the national road-map for our transition to these net-beneficial clean technologies? If they are net-beneficial, why haven't we transitioned to them yet? What factors blocking this transition will be removed in the years to come, and how exactly are we going to remove them? What decade we going to hit net zero carbon? It's like a startup saying: "Well, sure, we are losing money hand over fist, and our per-unit economics don't make sense, but you're assuming that we won't discover... Something... that will make us profitable."
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        The national roadmap is absolutely massive amount of R&D going into self driving cars for example or solar batteries
        vkou 9y ago
        What exactly do self-driving cars have to do with reducing our carbon footprint? Hell, self-driving cars are the absolutely wrong solution to this problem. Personal automobiles - a 4,000lb steel and rubber box that drives a single 160lb human around, are incredibly wasteful, energy-inefficient luxuries. Trains, buses, bicycles, and better urban planning are the real solution to low-carbon personal transportation. There's no roadmap in America for any of those things.
dashundchen 9y ago
Just because emissions aren't growing doesn't mean the US should do nothing, especially considering our outsized historical contributions that have lead to current CO2 levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:Co2_cumulative_emissions_1970-2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... As one of the largest emitters per capita(more than double CO2e pp vs the EU), and at almost 15% of world emissions, there's a ton that can be done. A few items that are huge emission sources and could use some attention: * The reliance on single occupancy cars (94% of commuters) with poor gas mileage and long commutes * Heavy meat and dairy consumption leading to big agriculture emissions (especially methane from cattle) * Dominance of low quality, single family home construction that ignores local climate - poorly insulated 2x4 houses everywhere, average building is overly reliant on always on AC or furnace
- pacala 9y ago
  Per capita, USA emissions have declined by 21% since 1980 [0]. Is it enough? No! All the items you're suggesting should be tackled. But we can't have an adult conversation only focusing on one element of the equation and literally ignoring the elephants in the room. The total emissions of USA are 14.34%. Cutting them to zero would be insufficient to stop the global growth to CO2 in the atmosphere. Worse, in a few years the emissions of the rest of the world would grow to compensate the zero-emissions USA and we'd be back to square one. I have yet to see a realistic plan for a carbon-balanced world economy even in a zero-emissions USA scenario. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

by pacala 9y ago

evanlivingston 9y ago

I'm curious if the various ways American's and America spends it's money and consumes its good is factored into U.S. emissions. Does the carbon it takes to produce an iphone and then ship it here count? What about all the fuel/power used by military bases abroad? Does our purchasing of Foreign cars count?

lozenge 9y ago
Under most measures it isn't counted. What you are looking for is called consumption-based emissions accounting and unsurprisingly it shows US emissions are still going up. Moving to consumption based accounting aligns closely with the generally accepted best economic solution for reducing emissions - a global carbon tax, which would be pushed onto developing countries as a requirement when they want to export to developed countries. Incidentally, the US military has been exempt from all climate agreements since Kyoto, and so are international flights.

vkou 9y ago

Emission growth has stopped, but what we need to do is hit net zero. We are no closer to that today then we were 20 years ago. There isn't even a vague plan for the United States to get there.

lozenge 9y ago
I don't know why you're downvoted. The RCPs that show us respecting the goal of the 2C limit all show emissions need to shrink globally and reach zero around 2050 or even earlier. The fact emissions have stopped growing is not really much progress. It is like we are cruising to disaster rather than accelerating towards it.
- vkou 9y ago
  Probably because there is no practical plan to reduce them to zero. There's much hand-wringing about future technologies, but the reality of it is that it will require drastic reduction in consumption.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Very unlikely that is the case. You are assuming that clean technologies will produce only economic cost not a net economic benefit. But that's not how technology works generally
    - vkou 9y ago
      Great, what is the national road-map for our transition to these net-beneficial clean technologies? If they are net-beneficial, why haven't we transitioned to them yet? What factors blocking this transition will be removed in the years to come, and how exactly are we going to remove them? What decade we going to hit net zero carbon? It's like a startup saying: "Well, sure, we are losing money hand over fist, and our per-unit economics don't make sense, but you're assuming that we won't discover... Something... that will make us profitable."
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        The national roadmap is absolutely massive amount of R&D going into self driving cars for example or solar batteries
        vkou 9y ago
        What exactly do self-driving cars have to do with reducing our carbon footprint? Hell, self-driving cars are the absolutely wrong solution to this problem. Personal automobiles - a 4,000lb steel and rubber box that drives a single 160lb human around, are incredibly wasteful, energy-inefficient luxuries. Trains, buses, bicycles, and better urban planning are the real solution to low-carbon personal transportation. There's no roadmap in America for any of those things.

dashundchen 9y ago

Just because emissions aren't growing doesn't mean the US should do nothing, especially considering our outsized historical contributions that have lead to current CO2 levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:Co2_cumulative_emissions_1970-2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... As one of the largest emitters per capita(more than double CO2e pp vs the EU), and at almost 15% of world emissions, there's a ton that can be done. A few items that are huge emission sources and could use some attention: * The reliance on single occupancy cars (94% of commuters) with poor gas mileage and long commutes * Heavy meat and dairy consumption leading to big agriculture emissions (especially methane from cattle) * Dominance of low quality, single family home construction that ignores local climate - poorly insulated 2x4 houses everywhere, average building is overly reliant on always on AC or furnace

pacala 9y ago
Per capita, USA emissions have declined by 21% since 1980 [0]. Is it enough? No! All the items you're suggesting should be tackled. But we can't have an adult conversation only focusing on one element of the equation and literally ignoring the elephants in the room. The total emissions of USA are 14.34%. Cutting them to zero would be insufficient to stop the global growth to CO2 in the atmosphere. Worse, in a few years the emissions of the rest of the world would grow to compensate the zero-emissions USA and we'd be back to square one. I have yet to see a realistic plan for a carbon-balanced world economy even in a zero-emissions USA scenario. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...