3 ms·

> 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

> 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]

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]