5 ms·

Ironically the US have the highest reduction in CO2 emissions, most likely due to the increased use of gas instead of coal. The cheap gas is caused by increased

Ironically the US have the highest reduction in CO2 emissions, most likely due to the increased use of gas instead of coal. The cheap gas is caused by increased production of oil and gas due to fracking. Another example of technology making the world better. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-h...

morsch 7y ago
It's still one of the highest rates of per capita emissions in the world!
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Per capita is a red herring, what matters is the total emissions under the control of any one government. China is vastly more, on an upward trend, and not required to take any action under the Paris Accord until 2030. Which is after the end of the world by some estimates.
  - collyw 7y ago
    Its not a red herring when huge numbers of people in less developed nations see the amount that people in the US use and aspire to have similar lifestyles. I find it quite strange that people appear to fall into two camps when discussing this issue. Either The US (and other richer nations) need to cut down emissions because they emit far more per capita OR China / India need to control their population growth and associated emissions. We should be encouraging both sides to do their part not arguing over which one it is.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      “They did it why can’t we” is not a basis for serious policy making, is why. The environment doesn’t care about anyone’s lifestyle aspirations. The West in general has recognised the problem and is managing its environmental impact downwards in a controllable way. China and India are increasing their emissions as fast as they can to keep their present governments in power and no regard for the long term consequences which will ironically hit their own people hardest.
      - bryanlarsen 7y ago
        > China and India are increasing their emissions as fast as they can The metric that the Paris Accords (rightly) judges China, the US and other countries on, is the change in emissions per PPP $ of GDP. By this measure China is absolutely destroying the United States, and is on track to meet it's Paris commitments. Holding your emissions almost constant while tripling your GDP is an impressive achievement; if the US had done the same thing they too would be meeting their Paris commitments. The Europeans may have reason to criticize China for not doing enough. Americans do not. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/25/lambasting-china-over-their-emissions-might-impress-the-us-but-it-could-be-costly-for-australia https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/25/lambas...
      - dvdkhlng 7y ago
        I think western governments also manage their environmental impact downwards only as much as is possible without redistributing significant amounts of resources to the problem. I.e. they currently only look at lower hanging fruit , and to me it does not look like this will be sufficient to stay within the 1.5 deg warming target (even when disregarding countries reducing their emissions by less amounts). Look for example at the actions Germany is taking [1]. [1] https://www.aicgs.org/2019/10/germanys-new-climate-package-too-little-too-late/ https://www.aicgs.org/2019/10/germanys-new-climate-package-t...
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > Per capita is a red herring, what matters is the total emissions under the control of any one government. Per capita is useful due to the fact that it offers a view of the consumption habit of an aggregate of people. Part of the what made outsourcing economically viable was the lack of regulations in the targetted countries. What drives the demand for this production is consumption habits. But why don't these governments just tighten regulations? In doing so, they would be opening the door for manufacturing to leave because there are other opportunistic nations wanting that economic boon. How exactly are do you think the people within these nations are going to react when they start losing their jobs, when their country is lent money from the IMF, and then said new regulations have to be rolled back on condition of these new loans. Note that I don't think the blame can be blamed solely on consumption habits, but you need to acknowledge that there are very real material concerns here and that putting all of the blame on any single government is missing the forest for a single tree. > Which is after the end of the world by some estimates. I don't think anyone worth consideration believes this.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Per capita including trade or nationally including trade would make far more sense - many aspects are supra national. The developed world's multinationals relocated much of our emissions to the developing world by putting manufacturing over there, where there are fewer environmental and labour protections. Much of China and India's emissions are really the UK's or the USA's as they're now making our T shirts and electronics, scrapping obsolete ships and electronics or burning our plastic recycling.
  - tzs 7y ago
    > Per capita is a red herring, what matters is the total emissions under the control of any one government By that argument, if China and India were each to split up into several much smaller countries, with every person in each of those countries still emitting as much as they do now, or even increasing greatly their emissions--they would be doing great as far as climate change goes, because each of those small countries would only be responsible for a small amount of the total? The atmosphere does not care about national boundaries, which is why per capita is the correct way to access a countries emissions compared to other countries.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
> Another example of technology making the world better. Fracking isn't without its drawbacks. And since there is essentially no public information on what chemicals they even pump into the ground (which almost certainly leaks to groundwater sometimes, because things go wrong - like oil spills) it's a little hard to assess its environmental impact. At least in the US, the fracking companies don't have to tell anybody (including the government) what chemicals they are using.
- maxehmookau 7y ago
  > At least in the US, the fracking companies don't have to tell anybody (including the government) what chemicals they are using. This is utterly terrifying. Private companies can pump unspecified junk in to the ground with ZERO oversight? That cannot be right! This is why British people are always worried when we hear talk of closer alignment with US environmental "protections".
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    They have flint experience level to deal with whatever happens right
dvdkhlng 7y ago
That reduction in CO2 emission might be offset by an increase of methane emissions due to fracking [0]. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/fracking-boom-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphere/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/frack...
mehrdadn 7y ago
Why in the world do people cite non-normalized emissions? If you cut a country's size in half wouldn't you expect half the emissions, reductions, etc.? Does that mean suddenly half of your country is suddenly not putting in its fair share compared to your full country?? How does that make any sense?!
absove 7y ago
> Another example of technology making the world better. Surely this is sarcasm?

morsch 7y ago

It's still one of the highest rates of per capita emissions in the world!

goatinaboat 7y ago
Per capita is a red herring, what matters is the total emissions under the control of any one government. China is vastly more, on an upward trend, and not required to take any action under the Paris Accord until 2030. Which is after the end of the world by some estimates.
- collyw 7y ago
  Its not a red herring when huge numbers of people in less developed nations see the amount that people in the US use and aspire to have similar lifestyles. I find it quite strange that people appear to fall into two camps when discussing this issue. Either The US (and other richer nations) need to cut down emissions because they emit far more per capita OR China / India need to control their population growth and associated emissions. We should be encouraging both sides to do their part not arguing over which one it is.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    “They did it why can’t we” is not a basis for serious policy making, is why. The environment doesn’t care about anyone’s lifestyle aspirations. The West in general has recognised the problem and is managing its environmental impact downwards in a controllable way. China and India are increasing their emissions as fast as they can to keep their present governments in power and no regard for the long term consequences which will ironically hit their own people hardest.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      > China and India are increasing their emissions as fast as they can The metric that the Paris Accords (rightly) judges China, the US and other countries on, is the change in emissions per PPP $ of GDP. By this measure China is absolutely destroying the United States, and is on track to meet it's Paris commitments. Holding your emissions almost constant while tripling your GDP is an impressive achievement; if the US had done the same thing they too would be meeting their Paris commitments. The Europeans may have reason to criticize China for not doing enough. Americans do not. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/25/lambasting-china-over-their-emissions-might-impress-the-us-but-it-could-be-costly-for-australia https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/25/lambas...
    - dvdkhlng 7y ago
      I think western governments also manage their environmental impact downwards only as much as is possible without redistributing significant amounts of resources to the problem. I.e. they currently only look at lower hanging fruit , and to me it does not look like this will be sufficient to stay within the 1.5 deg warming target (even when disregarding countries reducing their emissions by less amounts). Look for example at the actions Germany is taking [1]. [1] https://www.aicgs.org/2019/10/germanys-new-climate-package-too-little-too-late/ https://www.aicgs.org/2019/10/germanys-new-climate-package-t...
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > Per capita is a red herring, what matters is the total emissions under the control of any one government. Per capita is useful due to the fact that it offers a view of the consumption habit of an aggregate of people. Part of the what made outsourcing economically viable was the lack of regulations in the targetted countries. What drives the demand for this production is consumption habits. But why don't these governments just tighten regulations? In doing so, they would be opening the door for manufacturing to leave because there are other opportunistic nations wanting that economic boon. How exactly are do you think the people within these nations are going to react when they start losing their jobs, when their country is lent money from the IMF, and then said new regulations have to be rolled back on condition of these new loans. Note that I don't think the blame can be blamed solely on consumption habits, but you need to acknowledge that there are very real material concerns here and that putting all of the blame on any single government is missing the forest for a single tree. > Which is after the end of the world by some estimates. I don't think anyone worth consideration believes this.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Per capita including trade or nationally including trade would make far more sense - many aspects are supra national. The developed world's multinationals relocated much of our emissions to the developing world by putting manufacturing over there, where there are fewer environmental and labour protections. Much of China and India's emissions are really the UK's or the USA's as they're now making our T shirts and electronics, scrapping obsolete ships and electronics or burning our plastic recycling.
- tzs 7y ago
  > Per capita is a red herring, what matters is the total emissions under the control of any one government By that argument, if China and India were each to split up into several much smaller countries, with every person in each of those countries still emitting as much as they do now, or even increasing greatly their emissions--they would be doing great as far as climate change goes, because each of those small countries would only be responsible for a small amount of the total? The atmosphere does not care about national boundaries, which is why per capita is the correct way to access a countries emissions compared to other countries.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

> Another example of technology making the world better. Fracking isn't without its drawbacks. And since there is essentially no public information on what chemicals they even pump into the ground (which almost certainly leaks to groundwater sometimes, because things go wrong - like oil spills) it's a little hard to assess its environmental impact. At least in the US, the fracking companies don't have to tell anybody (including the government) what chemicals they are using.

maxehmookau 7y ago
> At least in the US, the fracking companies don't have to tell anybody (including the government) what chemicals they are using. This is utterly terrifying. Private companies can pump unspecified junk in to the ground with ZERO oversight? That cannot be right! This is why British people are always worried when we hear talk of closer alignment with US environmental "protections".
- agumonkey 7y ago
  They have flint experience level to deal with whatever happens right

dvdkhlng 7y ago

That reduction in CO2 emission might be offset by an increase of methane emissions due to fracking [0]. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/fracking-boom-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphere/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/frack...

mehrdadn 7y ago

Why in the world do people cite non-normalized emissions? If you cut a country's size in half wouldn't you expect half the emissions, reductions, etc.? Does that mean suddenly half of your country is suddenly not putting in its fair share compared to your full country?? How does that make any sense?!

absove 7y ago

> Another example of technology making the world better. Surely this is sarcasm?