4 ms·

US emissions of CO2 have fallen much faster than Europe's. Europe likes to talk a lot but not to compromise. So while they could be fracking and displacing dirt

US emissions of CO2 have fallen much faster than Europe's. Europe likes to talk a lot but not to compromise. So while they could be fracking and displacing dirty energy sources, they instead use oil and coal where the US uses natural gas.

StavrosK 8y ago
Do you have any sources on that? "Falling much faster" by itself doesn't say much when EU might already be emitting ten times less than the US, for all I know.
- growlist 8y ago
  Can't vouch for the comparison you are questioning, but did find this: 'Germany emitted more greenhouse gasses in 2016 than in the previous year, but is still seen as a positive model for the rest of the world.' https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 Best thing we could have to reduce co2 would be a massive global recession I'd say, unless that is things got so bad that we had to revert to cutting down trees to survive.
  - jamesblonde 8y ago
    Of all countries to pick on, Germany are the one doing the most to change to a carbon-free economy. Read up on the Energiewende -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany It is govt policy to reduce Co2 emissions by 80–95% by 2050. Germany is at the top in on-shore wind, off-shore wind, and solar. If they had kept nuclear power, they could be doing even better. I am sure closing the nuclear power plants will cause increases in Co2, but they are really trying to do their bit.
    - catawbasam 8y ago
      Nope. Try France (since the 70's), Sweden, Switzerland, the UK. Germany is pumping out way more CO2 per capita than most of its neighbors.
    - Reason077 8y ago
      German policy is in the right place, but in recent years the reality has been different and it’s progress on reducing CO2 emissions has not been impressive. Germany still burns huge amounts of coal including brown coal (lignite), the dirtiest form of coal.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      > It is govt policy to reduce Co2 emissions by 80–95% by 2050. Pfft. I'm German, and follow the politics to a reasonable extent. Our government (esp. under the conservatives lead by Angela Merkel) is notorious for failing to meet their own emissions goals. You didn't mention the 2020 goals; at this point, it's pretty clear that we're going to miss them. I don't know if there are any 2030 goals, but seeing how they always tout the 2050 goals, I don't think so.
    - Balero 8y ago
      Germany is not the top in off-shore wind. The UK is[0]. They are however second. Which is pretty impressive with their lack of coast. The UK has an awful lot more shore to be off! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power
    - growlist 8y ago
      Wait a sec, I quoted 'still seen as a positive role model' and yet you think I am having a pop at Germany?! Also Germany is the largest economy in the EU, so isn't it natural to look at them first? (Which in any case was not in my search terms - this came up when I was searching EU)
  - godelski 8y ago
    When Germany decided to cut their nuclear they picked up more coal and natural gas. They have put in a lot more other clean energy options, but since batteries and smart grids aren't good enough yet this causes a pickup. It'll be fixed later (unfortunately time is of the essence), but at least for now turning off nuclear wasn't a green move (like they say it is). Consider France and Sweden, who are also the top performers.
jamesblonde 8y ago
That's Foxnews-like nonsense. Here's some facts. A nice visualization of per-capita EU-US Co2 emissions over the last 20 years: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US-EU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... The US has over double the per-capita emissions of the EU. The EU has a larger economy, by GDP. The US can do a lot more - particularly leadership.
- wdr1 8y ago
  OP doesn't present the full story. Specifically the EU started far lower than the US, but it does show the US falling at faster rate.
  - jamesblonde 8y ago
    It's lower in the EU because we tax gas/fuel at a higher rate for environmental reasons. It's like losing weight. Going from 5000 calories/day to 4000 calories/day is a lot easier than going from 3000 to 2500 per day.
    - pygy_ 8y ago
      Actually, even though it started lower, Europe has been reducing its emissions at a faster rate. In 2014, Europe was at 63% of its peak of emissions, whereas the US were at 72%. The slope in log scale gives it away too (from the same data set, comparing US and Eurozone since 1971): https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png
sremani 8y ago
That is correct no country in the world has reduced CO2 emissions like the US did in the past decade, thanks to Shale revolution. Pennsylvania is the world's #3 producer of NG. I mean one state in US. Even if some people grudge this fact, the Grid is not ready for variable generation that Wind and Solar does, they do buy some time for Grid to become smarter (Grid of MicroGrids) where it can digest Solar and Wind, especially now that viable storage like batteries and fuel cells are coming off age.
- jamesblonde 8y ago
  Hang on. The US pulled out the Paris accord. The US also had a huge financial crisis that caused emissions to drop. I don't think policy can take credit for the slight reductions in Co2 emissions, from ridiculously high levels.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sremani 8y ago
    Policy tinkering as a solution to climate problem is like EU trying to force Windows to include other browsers to dethrone IE. What actually dethroned IE was Chrome and better Firefox. Policy wonking can push you in certain direction, but they do not solve. Sometimes the bridge technologies are the ones that save from imminent doom. People demonstrating urgency with climate change, can certainly set an example by cutting their quality of life by half for starters!
    - majewsky 8y ago
      Who's to say that regulations didn't play into the demise of IE? Maybe if we hadn't had the antitrust cases in the EU (and the US!), at some point MS would've been confident enough to just make it impossible to install a different browser. Similar to how Apple requires all iOS browsers to use the Apple's engine.
- Reason077 8y ago
HugoDaniel 8y ago
CO2 emissions is only part of the story. A very small part.

StavrosK 8y ago

Do you have any sources on that? "Falling much faster" by itself doesn't say much when EU might already be emitting ten times less than the US, for all I know.

growlist 8y ago
Can't vouch for the comparison you are questioning, but did find this: 'Germany emitted more greenhouse gasses in 2016 than in the previous year, but is still seen as a positive model for the rest of the world.' https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 https://euobserver.com/environment/137298 Best thing we could have to reduce co2 would be a massive global recession I'd say, unless that is things got so bad that we had to revert to cutting down trees to survive.
- jamesblonde 8y ago
  Of all countries to pick on, Germany are the one doing the most to change to a carbon-free economy. Read up on the Energiewende -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany It is govt policy to reduce Co2 emissions by 80–95% by 2050. Germany is at the top in on-shore wind, off-shore wind, and solar. If they had kept nuclear power, they could be doing even better. I am sure closing the nuclear power plants will cause increases in Co2, but they are really trying to do their bit.
  - catawbasam 8y ago
    Nope. Try France (since the 70's), Sweden, Switzerland, the UK. Germany is pumping out way more CO2 per capita than most of its neighbors.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    German policy is in the right place, but in recent years the reality has been different and it’s progress on reducing CO2 emissions has not been impressive. Germany still burns huge amounts of coal including brown coal (lignite), the dirtiest form of coal.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    > It is govt policy to reduce Co2 emissions by 80–95% by 2050. Pfft. I'm German, and follow the politics to a reasonable extent. Our government (esp. under the conservatives lead by Angela Merkel) is notorious for failing to meet their own emissions goals. You didn't mention the 2020 goals; at this point, it's pretty clear that we're going to miss them. I don't know if there are any 2030 goals, but seeing how they always tout the 2050 goals, I don't think so.
  - Balero 8y ago
    Germany is not the top in off-shore wind. The UK is[0]. They are however second. Which is pretty impressive with their lack of coast. The UK has an awful lot more shore to be off! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power
  - growlist 8y ago
    Wait a sec, I quoted 'still seen as a positive role model' and yet you think I am having a pop at Germany?! Also Germany is the largest economy in the EU, so isn't it natural to look at them first? (Which in any case was not in my search terms - this came up when I was searching EU)
- godelski 8y ago
  When Germany decided to cut their nuclear they picked up more coal and natural gas. They have put in a lot more other clean energy options, but since batteries and smart grids aren't good enough yet this causes a pickup. It'll be fixed later (unfortunately time is of the essence), but at least for now turning off nuclear wasn't a green move (like they say it is). Consider France and Sweden, who are also the top performers.

jamesblonde 8y ago

That's Foxnews-like nonsense. Here's some facts. A nice visualization of per-capita EU-US Co2 emissions over the last 20 years: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US-EU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... The US has over double the per-capita emissions of the EU. The EU has a larger economy, by GDP. The US can do a lot more - particularly leadership.

wdr1 8y ago
OP doesn't present the full story. Specifically the EU started far lower than the US, but it does show the US falling at faster rate.
- jamesblonde 8y ago
  It's lower in the EU because we tax gas/fuel at a higher rate for environmental reasons. It's like losing weight. Going from 5000 calories/day to 4000 calories/day is a lot easier than going from 3000 to 2500 per day.
  - pygy_ 8y ago
    Actually, even though it started lower, Europe has been reducing its emissions at a faster rate. In 2014, Europe was at 63% of its peak of emissions, whereas the US were at 72%. The slope in log scale gives it away too (from the same data set, comparing US and Eurozone since 1971): https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png

sremani 8y ago

That is correct no country in the world has reduced CO2 emissions like the US did in the past decade, thanks to Shale revolution. Pennsylvania is the world's #3 producer of NG. I mean one state in US. Even if some people grudge this fact, the Grid is not ready for variable generation that Wind and Solar does, they do buy some time for Grid to become smarter (Grid of MicroGrids) where it can digest Solar and Wind, especially now that viable storage like batteries and fuel cells are coming off age.

jamesblonde 8y ago
Hang on. The US pulled out the Paris accord. The US also had a huge financial crisis that caused emissions to drop. I don't think policy can take credit for the slight reductions in Co2 emissions, from ridiculously high levels.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sremani 8y ago
  Policy tinkering as a solution to climate problem is like EU trying to force Windows to include other browsers to dethrone IE. What actually dethroned IE was Chrome and better Firefox. Policy wonking can push you in certain direction, but they do not solve. Sometimes the bridge technologies are the ones that save from imminent doom. People demonstrating urgency with climate change, can certainly set an example by cutting their quality of life by half for starters!
  - majewsky 8y ago
    Who's to say that regulations didn't play into the demise of IE? Maybe if we hadn't had the antitrust cases in the EU (and the US!), at some point MS would've been confident enough to just make it impossible to install a different browser. Similar to how Apple requires all iOS browsers to use the Apple's engine.
Reason077 8y ago

HugoDaniel 8y ago

CO2 emissions is only part of the story. A very small part.