5 ms·

This is exactly correct. The US only accounts for 12% of the total carbon output into the atmosphere. Countries like India and China have been polluting the e

This is exactly correct. The US only accounts for 12% of the total carbon output into the atmosphere. Countries like India and China have been polluting the earth for decades and the Paris accords won't solve any of these issues because there is no repercussions. Why aren't we going after these countries and demanding answers instead of going after the countries, like the US, that are actually doing something about it?

Judgmentality 7y ago
> Why aren't we going after these countries and demanding answers instead of going after the countries, like the US, that are actually doing something about it? My hunch is most voters, and especially those with more money, are more interested in short-term economic gains than contributing to a problem that won't negatively impact them because they'll already be dead.
itcrowd 7y ago
Yes, every country must do its part. No, the US is not "doing something about it" and it is clear from the article: > For a time, US emissions continued to decline modestly despite the Trump administration’s environmental vandalism; the inexorable forces of the market meant that aging coal-fired power plants continued to be replaced by cheaper, cleaner, newer, and more efficient plants powered by natural gas and renewables. But growing carbon dioxide emissions due to industry and transportation have more than offset this progress, leading to an estimated 3.4 percent growth in US emissions in 2018.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  "For a time... continued to decline modestly..." Compare that with, if I understand correctly, every single country that signed the Paris deal, who did not decline modestly, even for a time. The US might well be considered to be "doing something about it".
  - russdill 7y ago
    EU28 has been declining at a similar rate to the US.
  - russdill 7y ago
    BTW, where you you get this information? Do you even bother checking to see if it's accurate before parroting it? Here's Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/historic-emissions-de-1850-2018.jpg?itok=uSE6qxaS https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I stand corrected. Interesting that Germany has been declining since 1980, well before Paris or even Kyoto.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    > every single country that signed the Paris deal, who did not decline modestly, even for a time. Completely false. For example: the UK has been emitting less and less at least since 1990. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-uk-gree...
SiempreViernes 7y ago
You can stop paying them to emit much of that any time you want, so don’t pretend there is nothing for the USA to do about Chinese emissions.
- Pokepokalypse 7y ago
  Exactly. Global banks, if they could all act in unison, (and if fairies flew out my butt), could halt carbon output overnight. This problem is a problem caused by human behavior. Which we apparently can't change.
the_monocle 7y ago
The USA has double the carbon emission of china with only a fourth of the population. So per capita an average US citizen contributes 8 times as much to emission as an average Chinese citizen.
- russdill 7y ago
  (*Half the carbon emissions of china), but yes, per capita we are much higher. In addition, the amount of emissions in China is at least partly related to the huge amount of manufacturing we import from China. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emiss... US is #2 in the world, with more than double the emissions of the next country down the list.
  - joering2 7y ago
    Not the fear monger, but if Trump is allowed to finish his plan on maximum deregulation, USA will become #1 by emissions in less than 10 years. This does not frighten me on its own - each new President deregulate more here, while put new regulations there, depending on (frankly) who has access to put money (indirectly) to his pocket; what does concern me is that the voters seems to be fine with that. And why wouldn't they?? With so much automatization on the horizon, its silly to believe average Joe will chose clean air, clean water and healthy food, over a job security. This seems to be a new norm, I am afraid.
    - russdill 7y ago
      Someone made the point that while a future with greatly reduced carbon emissions are a certainty, every single day that's delayed means millions and even billions in additional profits for certain industries. There's enormous financial incentive to delay.
- pnako 7y ago
  Per capita does not really matter in this particular case; it's an absolute numbers thing. CO2 emissions go into one same atmosphere.
deogeo 7y ago
Because 'demanding answers', instead of leading by example or agreement, will only create conflict, and those countries will refuse to lower carbon emissions out of spite/to not appear weak/score points with voters. According to most climate models, that's not something we can afford, regardless of how fair or not it may be.
pests 7y ago
Yes, let's go after poor people in poor countries and tell them what they are and aren't allowed to do. Even if we did the same things to pull ourselves out of poverty.
- dhhdhdsbdb 7y ago
  Are you recommending we don't work this avenue out of a sense of fairness?
- planetzero 7y ago
  right..so saving the climate in 12 years doesn't matter to you? It only has to do with fairness? If people were really serious about Climate Change, India and China would be held accountable. The fact that they aren't and have never been really put the whole motivation into question.
  - pests 7y ago
    Hold them accountable to what? For trying to live their best life? I said nothing about not saving the climate.
major505 7y ago
because if you go to china protest against it, you will be thrown in a dark cell, and the key will be thown away.
c0nducktr 7y ago
What do you think India and China are doing which causes all that pollution?
triceratops 7y ago
What exactly is the US federal government doing? (I won't deny individual cities and states have announced plans) The current administration and party in the Senate majority denies that the problem even exists and is actively purging various government departments of dissenters. It has pulled our (or is pulling out) of the Paris accords, is actively pushing coal and gas production. India is going in the opposite direction. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/pledges-and-targets/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/pledges-and-t... https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/pledges-and-targets/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/pledges-and...
phire 7y ago
The existence of non-complaint countries shouldn't be a reason to give up or stop improving. We need to accept a reality where some parts of the world will need to be massively carbon negative to compensate for other parts which are carbon positive. We need to be investing in technology, polices and structures which can achieve this. Once we reach the technology/policy level where a country can choose to be massively carbon negative, we can implement the international policies to create an international carbon trading scheme. The countries that don't want to become carbon neutral can choose to financially compensate the countries who become carbon negative. And then once we have this international carbon trading scheme, countries that refuse to take part can have penalties equal to their estimated carbon emissions leaved against their imports/exports. Though this mechanism, the world can become carbon neutral (or perhaps even carbon negative) without every country having to be carbon neutral itself.
- pnako 7y ago
  If we think it's an existential crisis, there are things that we could that would cost almost nothing: * abandon any claim on patents related to nuclear power * open source all software related to civilian nuclear power * offer to train nuclear engineers and build, on a pure cost basis, nuclear reactors in every stable country that asks France could do that because its nuclear technology is entirely government-owned or controlled, the President has a lot of discretionary power, and he's been bombastic and defiant about global warming. Just do it. Just transfer all the nuclear technology to countries like India, Brazil, etc. They already have a nuclear industry, but through this technology transfer they'd be able to boost it, and build more efficient and safer reactors. Yet he's not doing that. And he's probably going to buy a house 50 meters from sea shore once he retires. So pardon me for thinking that this entire thing is just "foutage de gueule". edit: actually you can generalize my argument for technology transfer to renewable technology too.
tobib 7y ago
> The US only accounts for 12% of the total carbon output into the atmosphere. Should we take population into account? The US only accounts for ~4% of the world's population. so I wouldn't say "only".

Judgmentality 7y ago

> Why aren't we going after these countries and demanding answers instead of going after the countries, like the US, that are actually doing something about it? My hunch is most voters, and especially those with more money, are more interested in short-term economic gains than contributing to a problem that won't negatively impact them because they'll already be dead.

itcrowd 7y ago

Yes, every country must do its part. No, the US is not "doing something about it" and it is clear from the article: > For a time, US emissions continued to decline modestly despite the Trump administration’s environmental vandalism; the inexorable forces of the market meant that aging coal-fired power plants continued to be replaced by cheaper, cleaner, newer, and more efficient plants powered by natural gas and renewables. But growing carbon dioxide emissions due to industry and transportation have more than offset this progress, leading to an estimated 3.4 percent growth in US emissions in 2018.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
"For a time... continued to decline modestly..." Compare that with, if I understand correctly, every single country that signed the Paris deal, who did not decline modestly, even for a time. The US might well be considered to be "doing something about it".
- russdill 7y ago
  EU28 has been declining at a similar rate to the US.
- russdill 7y ago
  BTW, where you you get this information? Do you even bother checking to see if it's accurate before parroting it? Here's Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/historic-emissions-de-1850-2018.jpg?itok=uSE6qxaS https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I stand corrected. Interesting that Germany has been declining since 1980, well before Paris or even Kyoto.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  > every single country that signed the Paris deal, who did not decline modestly, even for a time. Completely false. For example: the UK has been emitting less and less at least since 1990. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-uk-gree...

SiempreViernes 7y ago

You can stop paying them to emit much of that any time you want, so don’t pretend there is nothing for the USA to do about Chinese emissions.

Pokepokalypse 7y ago
Exactly. Global banks, if they could all act in unison, (and if fairies flew out my butt), could halt carbon output overnight. This problem is a problem caused by human behavior. Which we apparently can't change.

the_monocle 7y ago

The USA has double the carbon emission of china with only a fourth of the population. So per capita an average US citizen contributes 8 times as much to emission as an average Chinese citizen.

russdill 7y ago
(*Half the carbon emissions of china), but yes, per capita we are much higher. In addition, the amount of emissions in China is at least partly related to the huge amount of manufacturing we import from China. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emiss... US is #2 in the world, with more than double the emissions of the next country down the list.
- joering2 7y ago
  Not the fear monger, but if Trump is allowed to finish his plan on maximum deregulation, USA will become #1 by emissions in less than 10 years. This does not frighten me on its own - each new President deregulate more here, while put new regulations there, depending on (frankly) who has access to put money (indirectly) to his pocket; what does concern me is that the voters seems to be fine with that. And why wouldn't they?? With so much automatization on the horizon, its silly to believe average Joe will chose clean air, clean water and healthy food, over a job security. This seems to be a new norm, I am afraid.
  - russdill 7y ago
    Someone made the point that while a future with greatly reduced carbon emissions are a certainty, every single day that's delayed means millions and even billions in additional profits for certain industries. There's enormous financial incentive to delay.
pnako 7y ago
Per capita does not really matter in this particular case; it's an absolute numbers thing. CO2 emissions go into one same atmosphere.

deogeo 7y ago

Because 'demanding answers', instead of leading by example or agreement, will only create conflict, and those countries will refuse to lower carbon emissions out of spite/to not appear weak/score points with voters. According to most climate models, that's not something we can afford, regardless of how fair or not it may be.

pests 7y ago

Yes, let's go after poor people in poor countries and tell them what they are and aren't allowed to do. Even if we did the same things to pull ourselves out of poverty.

dhhdhdsbdb 7y ago
Are you recommending we don't work this avenue out of a sense of fairness?
planetzero 7y ago
right..so saving the climate in 12 years doesn't matter to you? It only has to do with fairness? If people were really serious about Climate Change, India and China would be held accountable. The fact that they aren't and have never been really put the whole motivation into question.
- pests 7y ago
  Hold them accountable to what? For trying to live their best life? I said nothing about not saving the climate.

major505 7y ago

because if you go to china protest against it, you will be thrown in a dark cell, and the key will be thown away.

c0nducktr 7y ago

What do you think India and China are doing which causes all that pollution?

triceratops 7y ago

What exactly is the US federal government doing? (I won't deny individual cities and states have announced plans) The current administration and party in the Senate majority denies that the problem even exists and is actively purging various government departments of dissenters. It has pulled our (or is pulling out) of the Paris accords, is actively pushing coal and gas production. India is going in the opposite direction. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/pledges-and-targets/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/pledges-and-t... https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/pledges-and-targets/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/pledges-and...

phire 7y ago

The existence of non-complaint countries shouldn't be a reason to give up or stop improving. We need to accept a reality where some parts of the world will need to be massively carbon negative to compensate for other parts which are carbon positive. We need to be investing in technology, polices and structures which can achieve this. Once we reach the technology/policy level where a country can choose to be massively carbon negative, we can implement the international policies to create an international carbon trading scheme. The countries that don't want to become carbon neutral can choose to financially compensate the countries who become carbon negative. And then once we have this international carbon trading scheme, countries that refuse to take part can have penalties equal to their estimated carbon emissions leaved against their imports/exports. Though this mechanism, the world can become carbon neutral (or perhaps even carbon negative) without every country having to be carbon neutral itself.

pnako 7y ago
If we think it's an existential crisis, there are things that we could that would cost almost nothing: * abandon any claim on patents related to nuclear power * open source all software related to civilian nuclear power * offer to train nuclear engineers and build, on a pure cost basis, nuclear reactors in every stable country that asks France could do that because its nuclear technology is entirely government-owned or controlled, the President has a lot of discretionary power, and he's been bombastic and defiant about global warming. Just do it. Just transfer all the nuclear technology to countries like India, Brazil, etc. They already have a nuclear industry, but through this technology transfer they'd be able to boost it, and build more efficient and safer reactors. Yet he's not doing that. And he's probably going to buy a house 50 meters from sea shore once he retires. So pardon me for thinking that this entire thing is just "foutage de gueule". edit: actually you can generalize my argument for technology transfer to renewable technology too.

tobib 7y ago

> The US only accounts for 12% of the total carbon output into the atmosphere. Should we take population into account? The US only accounts for ~4% of the world's population. so I wouldn't say "only".