5 ms·

In the United States CO2 emissions per capita have been on a downward trend since the 1970s. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2

In the United States CO2 emissions per capita have been on a downward trend since the 1970s. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb... To the extent that long term thinking is a luxury, the U.S. is doing well because it can afford that luxury. An effective solution might be to make everyone else at least as wealthy so that they can afford to do the same.

myrmidon 6y ago
> In the United States CO2 emissions per capita have been on a downward trend since the 1970s [...], the U.S. is doing well This is very misleading, because US CO2 per capita numbers are (still) very high, and only surpassed by a few oil states and ultra-rich enclaves (picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_emissions_per_capita,_2017_(Our_World_in_Data).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...) With over 15 tons/capita/year the US is doing FAR worse than e.g. EU or China (which are at ~9). This suggests that "making everyone else at least as wealthy" is very ineffective in decreasing emissions. It seems very clear to me that any effort spent on reducing domestic emissions will have MUCH higher ROI than e.g. sponsoring the rainforest, or supporting Indian green energy projects. This is because cutting emissions from 15 to 10 tons seems (evidently?) much more feasible than e.g. getting from 10 to 5 (same gain).
- giantg2 6y ago
  One thing to point out is those numbers also include CO2 from consumption of products. So some of the CO2 listed under the US is actually produced in China but attributed to the US. If a lot of the products in the US are imported from China (or have a trade deficit in general) then the US will be assigned the CO2 numbers from the places doing the exports. It's possible that the numbers would be lower if the products were produced domestically since there are stricter requirements and the price of goods would be higher (reducing consumption). Consumption is really at the heart of it all. It will continue to grow as the population does and as the world continues to develop.
  - Retric 6y ago
    No, that page is specifically using production based accounting rather than consumption based accounting. “For a description of this method of greenhouse gas emissions accounting, see Production-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions.” Using consumption based metrics the US is still down slightly, though less than that Wikipedia article suggests. https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Retric 6y ago
Only if you’re ignoring imports: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 Net per capita US CO2 emissions peaked in 2004. It is going down very recently, but not by all that much especially if you consider recent economic issues.
- hirundo 6y ago
  Those numbers don't appear to be adjusted by population. Since the population has grown a lot the per capita graph would look a lot better, and isn't that a better measure?
  - Retric 6y ago
    Scroll down more it’s got per capita numbers as the 3rd chart.

myrmidon 6y ago

> In the United States CO2 emissions per capita have been on a downward trend since the 1970s [...], the U.S. is doing well This is very misleading, because US CO2 per capita numbers are (still) very high, and only surpassed by a few oil states and ultra-rich enclaves (picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_emissions_per_capita,_2017_(Our_World_in_Data).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...) With over 15 tons/capita/year the US is doing FAR worse than e.g. EU or China (which are at ~9). This suggests that "making everyone else at least as wealthy" is very ineffective in decreasing emissions. It seems very clear to me that any effort spent on reducing domestic emissions will have MUCH higher ROI than e.g. sponsoring the rainforest, or supporting Indian green energy projects. This is because cutting emissions from 15 to 10 tons seems (evidently?) much more feasible than e.g. getting from 10 to 5 (same gain).

giantg2 6y ago
One thing to point out is those numbers also include CO2 from consumption of products. So some of the CO2 listed under the US is actually produced in China but attributed to the US. If a lot of the products in the US are imported from China (or have a trade deficit in general) then the US will be assigned the CO2 numbers from the places doing the exports. It's possible that the numbers would be lower if the products were produced domestically since there are stricter requirements and the price of goods would be higher (reducing consumption). Consumption is really at the heart of it all. It will continue to grow as the population does and as the world continues to develop.
- Retric 6y ago
  No, that page is specifically using production based accounting rather than consumption based accounting. “For a description of this method of greenhouse gas emissions accounting, see Production-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions.” Using consumption based metrics the US is still down slightly, though less than that Wikipedia article suggests. https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Retric 6y ago

Only if you’re ignoring imports: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 Net per capita US CO2 emissions peaked in 2004. It is going down very recently, but not by all that much especially if you consider recent economic issues.

hirundo 6y ago
Those numbers don't appear to be adjusted by population. Since the population has grown a lot the per capita graph would look a lot better, and isn't that a better measure?
- Retric 6y ago
  Scroll down more it’s got per capita numbers as the 3rd chart.