12 ms·
Just because emissions aren't growing doesn't mean the US should do nothing, especially considering our outsized historical contributions that have lead to curr
by 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 agoPer 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...