4 ms·

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=EU-US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... Looks pretty good on what m

• tomnipotent 8y ago
  Misleading chart. It's showing the average across the EU and not the total.
  • garmaine 8y ago
    Why should we care about the total? EU and US are different sizes to begin with. Per capita seems to be appropriate here.
    • tomnipotent 8y ago
      Then compare EU against US states individually - I'd wager the US result will drop significantly when you average the per capita results by state.
      • garmaine 8y ago
        That is not how averages work.
        • yongjik 8y ago
          Besides, doing that will most certainly inflate the number, considering US has many small rural states with much worse emission (per capita) than large, less carbon-intensive states like NY or CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_... (By the way, what the hell is happening in Wyoming? 111.55 tons per person?)
          • jcranmer 8y ago
            Low population, but exporting coal-based power to the rest of the country? The top emissions are Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, and Louisiana, which are all big energy producers, and energy producers tend to have naturally high emissions.
          • garmaine 8y ago
            Lots of cows in Wyoming.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
• wang_li 8y ago
  2017. The charts you linked to end in 2014. In 2017 the US reduced carbon emissions[1]. The EU increased their emissions[2]. 1 - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/in-2017-the-u-s-had-the-largest-reduction-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-in-the-world/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-... 2 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/eu-carbon-emissions-rose-in-2017-eurostat-idUSKBN1I50YU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/e...
  • gowld 8y ago
    The EU emits 50% as much per capita. A 0.5% reduction for the US isn't better than the EU in absolute terms.
    • wang_li 8y ago
      So? Is 6.8 tons per person carbon neutral? No? Then Europe needs to be cutting, not increasing, their emissions.
    • adventured 8y ago
      Total output is what really matters, not just the per capita. The earth has a carrying limit for total emissions. The EU has nearly 200 million more people than the US, roughly 60% more, squeezed into an area less than half the size of the US. Whose fault is that population density? The total EU emissions are ~80% as high as the US in ~45% of the land area (a drastically worse rate of emissions per km2), due to that population density. How do you think that emissions concentration impacts the local environment? Population matters, it's why we wouldn't have to care much if Iceland had 2x the per capita emission output of the US. If your nation has three billion people - ie vast over-population - you shouldn't have the same per capita emissions considerations or concerns as a nation with three million. I understand that sounds unfair. The earth sets the real limitations and it doesn't care about perceived fairness. If a country like Nigeria or Indonesia somehow rapidly expanded to five billion people, would it be acceptable for them to have the same per capita emission output of the EU? Obviously not. It'd be an environmental disaster for the planet due to the overall output. Population is the other critical factor in emissions (eg in China's case their emissions would be catastrophic at US per capita levels with 1.4b people in that small of an area).