6 ms·
We should have embargos on the US for pursuing a climate change program that destroys the planet.
by anc84 8y ago
We should have embargos on the US for pursuing a climate change program that destroys the planet.
- jdowongns 8y agoYeah, except that the US has reduced emissions more than any other country and is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis.
- pmlnr 8y agoNumbers, please. Also, starting from the US emissions per capita, it's really not hard to reduce it.
- maxxxxx 8y agoIf you mean with competitive that the US is among the countries with the highest per capita emissions then you are right.
- realradicalwash 8y agoyou just gonna throw this out or will you back up your claims by some sources? because looking here[0] tells a very different story. while there has been a reduction since 1980, it has not been "more than any other country". and crucially, per capita emissions are pretty bad in the US. [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...
- thomasahle 8y agoI found this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/16/chart-of-the-week-the-us-is-a-leader-in-co2-reduction/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/16/chart-of-the-week-the... Which agrees in total tons. I didn't find anything per capita, or relative to current emissions.
- Udik 8y agoAnyway measuring emissions this way is pointless when the production is simply offshored to other countries.
- thinkcontext 8y agoAccording to Carbon Brief traded goods are 22% of emissions. 78% isn't "pointless" and there are things that can't be offshored like driving to work, running your fridge or heating your building. That said, I agree with the trade system accounting for CO2 emissions. https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...
- audunw 8y ago> Yeah, except that the US has reduced emissions more than any other country Starting from insanely high emission levels > and is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis. No. That's just false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- paulddraper 8y ago??? Your link says in 2013 the U.S. was near its neighbor Canada on per capita carbon emissions. That's still double the EU. But that's also 6 years ago; the gap will have closed somewhat.
- sitkack 8y agoAnd Canada reflects the emission levels of rich Americans. Canada is no roll model on carbon emission.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wolco 8y agoCanada is a huge frozen country most of the year. Comparing warmer countries to Canada doesn't make sense emission wise.
- Zenst 8y agoDoes currently, but that's climate shift for you.
- wonthegame 8y agoYeah but look at our totals. It’s very low. Per capita it is bad. We are wasteful and an oil producing country but our population is spread out and we have a colder climate. Check out the breakdown and you’ll see transportation is the offender.
- 8y ago
- okal 8y agoNot true. The US is responsible for 14% of emissions, which is unconscionable for a country that only holds ~4.5% of the world's population. You're actually doing quite horribly on a per-capita basis. China is doing far better than the US on a per-capita count.
- sadris 8y agoShould be GDP per unit of carbon. Not people.
- adventured 8y agoThat is solely because 1/3 of China's population is still living extremely impoverished lives that are equivalent to third world standards. They have 400-500 million people that are still among the poorest on earth. I can't imagine how you think that's an accomplishment that deserves recognition. Their low per capita pollution output due to extreme poverty, is not due to stellar environmental policies by China.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- EastToWest 8y agoI just want to point out that, as of 2012, there was only 6.5% of the population in China living in poverty according to World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#3 http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#3
- pygy_ 8y agoThis is only true in absolute numbers, because the US started so much higher than the rest of the world. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US-EU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... 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 (orange) and Eurozone (blue) since 1971): https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png
- pygy_ 8y agoI wish we could, but I'm afraid the international military projection of the US would make this impossible to enforce.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- VWWHFSfQ 8y agogo ahead and try it
- dunpeal 8y agoDo you also advocate for an embargo of China, which pollutes at over twice the rate of the US? How about embargo of the EU, which currently pollutes at roughly the same rate? Did you know that energy production in the US is overall more environmentally friendly than in Germany, for example?
- thatfrenchguy 8y agoThe US has one of the highest CO2 per capita of the OECD. Germany emits half the CO2 per capita that the US does. Also, Chinese people don’t drive stupid big SUV and trucks while running the AC on full blast all summer.
- slededit 8y agoThe US emits more CO2 while Europe releases far more NOx and other more “traditional” pollutants. The diesel emissions scandal in the US had a European counterpart that was never dealt with. 2018 models are still polluting far above the official limits which themselves are more lax than the US. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180921140151.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180921140151.h...
- pygy_ 8y agoThe effect of those "other more “traditional” pollutants" is mostly local, whereas global warming and ocean acidification are global.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]