3 ms·

If feel like you’re arrogantly ignoring the fact that California is part of the much larger US economy, and all the benefits that entails. And that despite the

If feel like you’re arrogantly ignoring the fact that California is part of the much larger US economy, and all the benefits that entails. And that despite the so called “good power sources” California still emits almost double the Co2 per capita than the UK (CA ~10 ton / capita; ~6 ton / capita; for 2017). You’re also forgetting that most of the UKs deforestation periods occurred during World Wars I & II, so the US also benefited significantly from this deforestation. The UK has also done a significant amount of _re_forestation. Increasing forest coverage from a low of 9% to 38% today[1]. So before you march around telling people to “step up” perhaps consider doing a little research, and examine your own impacts on the world. Don’t just belittle others. [1]: https://www.ies-uk.org.uk/deforestation.php https://www.ies-uk.org.uk/deforestation.php

renewiltord 7y ago
I'm carbon negative. I'm probably at the 0.01% in this world. Europe has led the world down a dark path and she needs to heal the wounds she has given Mother Earth. Per-capita isn't as useful a measure as carbon intensity (/km^2) or carbon efficiency (/dollar). At this point, if the UK stopped doing its slow-motion destruction of the planet and started creating more with less, it can still redeem itself for the harm it's done all of humanity present and future.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  > I'm carbon negative. I'm probably at the 0.01% in this world. I’m sure the UK has plenty of carbon negative people too, so you being carbon negative is nothing to write home about, and quite frankly irrelevant to your argument. > Europe has led the world down a dark path Right so Europe has been the worlds primary superpower for the last 50 years, not the US. And the US hasn’t been an independent nation for almost 300 years. I clearly missed that memo. > Per-capita isn't as useful a measure as carbon intensity (/km^2) or carbon efficiency (/dollar). I also don’t see the relevance of either carbon intensity or carbon efficiency. Carbon intensity just shows that CA is a large land mass, and carbon efficiency, well the UK is more “carbon efficient” at 139kg/$ compared to CA’s 154kg/$, so the UK is 10% more efficient (2017 figures, GDP/Co2). > At this point, if the UK stopped doing its slow-motion destruction of the planet and started creating more with less, it can still redeem itself for the harm it's done all of humanity present and future. Looking at the stats, it appears it’s CA that has some catching up todo. Not the UK.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    That's the trick. Present value is only so much of the picture. If I dump hecka carbon in for 350 years and then suddenly go clean for one year, I still have to account for my 350 years. The UK has a lot of sins she has to clean up after. No lectures from her till she cleans up her mess. "Yeah, I didn't kill anyone today." doesn't get you off the murder charge.
    - avianlyric 7y ago
      I don’t think anyone is claiming the UK hasn’t got its fair share of cleaning up todo. But that doesn’t change the fact that CA and the US is equally, if not more, guilty. It’s not like the US opted out of the industrial revolution, or the subsequent oil based economy. The vast majority (~70%) of total human Co2 emissions happened after 1960. Since the 1960 the US has been the largest Co2 emitter until ~2000 when China became the largest emitter. But the US has been consistently, and continues to be, the largest emitter per capita, generally emitting twice the amount per capita of the UK. So in short, the UK may have committed sins. But the US has worked hard and managed to commit even greater sins on almost every environmental metric. I’m sorry, when it comes to environmental damage the UK and EU just can’t compete with what the US has inflicted and continues to inflict.
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        In CO2 tons / sanctimony unit they certainly are the leaders. I'll gladly amend my position to condemn the US too, but the UK and the EU are on no high horse. Merely pumping out masses of people is no defence for blotting the Earth with their slime.
        avianlyric 7y ago
        I think you need to take a chill pill, and maybe reconsider some of those racist views you seem to be cultivating there. They’re make you look like a rather ugly individual.

renewiltord 7y ago

I'm carbon negative. I'm probably at the 0.01% in this world. Europe has led the world down a dark path and she needs to heal the wounds she has given Mother Earth. Per-capita isn't as useful a measure as carbon intensity (/km^2) or carbon efficiency (/dollar). At this point, if the UK stopped doing its slow-motion destruction of the planet and started creating more with less, it can still redeem itself for the harm it's done all of humanity present and future.

avianlyric 7y ago
> I'm carbon negative. I'm probably at the 0.01% in this world. I’m sure the UK has plenty of carbon negative people too, so you being carbon negative is nothing to write home about, and quite frankly irrelevant to your argument. > Europe has led the world down a dark path Right so Europe has been the worlds primary superpower for the last 50 years, not the US. And the US hasn’t been an independent nation for almost 300 years. I clearly missed that memo. > Per-capita isn't as useful a measure as carbon intensity (/km^2) or carbon efficiency (/dollar). I also don’t see the relevance of either carbon intensity or carbon efficiency. Carbon intensity just shows that CA is a large land mass, and carbon efficiency, well the UK is more “carbon efficient” at 139kg/$ compared to CA’s 154kg/$, so the UK is 10% more efficient (2017 figures, GDP/Co2). > At this point, if the UK stopped doing its slow-motion destruction of the planet and started creating more with less, it can still redeem itself for the harm it's done all of humanity present and future. Looking at the stats, it appears it’s CA that has some catching up todo. Not the UK.
- renewiltord 7y ago
  That's the trick. Present value is only so much of the picture. If I dump hecka carbon in for 350 years and then suddenly go clean for one year, I still have to account for my 350 years. The UK has a lot of sins she has to clean up after. No lectures from her till she cleans up her mess. "Yeah, I didn't kill anyone today." doesn't get you off the murder charge.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    I don’t think anyone is claiming the UK hasn’t got its fair share of cleaning up todo. But that doesn’t change the fact that CA and the US is equally, if not more, guilty. It’s not like the US opted out of the industrial revolution, or the subsequent oil based economy. The vast majority (~70%) of total human Co2 emissions happened after 1960. Since the 1960 the US has been the largest Co2 emitter until ~2000 when China became the largest emitter. But the US has been consistently, and continues to be, the largest emitter per capita, generally emitting twice the amount per capita of the UK. So in short, the UK may have committed sins. But the US has worked hard and managed to commit even greater sins on almost every environmental metric. I’m sorry, when it comes to environmental damage the UK and EU just can’t compete with what the US has inflicted and continues to inflict.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      In CO2 tons / sanctimony unit they certainly are the leaders. I'll gladly amend my position to condemn the US too, but the UK and the EU are on no high horse. Merely pumping out masses of people is no defence for blotting the Earth with their slime.
      - avianlyric 7y ago
        I think you need to take a chill pill, and maybe reconsider some of those racist views you seem to be cultivating there. They’re make you look like a rather ugly individual.