3 ms·

Move the slider to 1921, see how suddenly the current value is 24% above that one. It's basically a meaningless, cherrypicked point in time that was submitted.

Move the slider to 1921, see how suddenly the current value is 24% above that one. It's basically a meaningless, cherrypicked point in time that was submitted. This feels misleading at best and disingenious at worst.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 5y ago
Right. Emissions now lower than when everyone was individually burning wood and coal 24 hours a day. Ok? Is that surprising or useful or actionable?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- l332mn 5y ago
  They're not, though. Household emissions are many, many times larger now. Also wood is not a fossil fuel.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > They're not, though. Are you saying the data is simply wrong? > Household emissions are many, many times larger now. The article is about per capita emissions, not household emissions. > Also wood is not a fossil fuel. Nobody said it was. What's this got to do with anything?
    - l332mn 5y ago
      > Are you saying the data is simply wrong? The data only measures cement production and fossil fuel burning, as the caption says. It says nothing about total emissions per capita. Hence the title is wrong, yes. > The article is about per capita emissions, not household emissions. Household emissions contribute the largest share of per capita emissions. But hardly any household emissions are measured by "cement production and fossil fuel burning". > Nobody said it was. What's this got to do with anything? Burning wood is carbon neutral.
zat 5y ago
1921 encompasses the tail end of a depression, which means economic activity was greatly reduced, and you would expect emissions to be greatly reduced as a result. 1918 doesn't have this issue nearly as bad. Why not pick a date during the tail end of Great Depression instead? Would that have been too obvious?
- seoaeu 5y ago
  1918 marks the last year of a world war and the start of a global pandemic. It might not be the tail end of a depression, but there's other issues with using it as a baseline...
wmf 5y ago
The all-time high is not cherry-picked and emissions have gone down since then while the economy has grown. Decoupling is possible and we just need to keep going.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chrisseaton 5y ago

Right. Emissions now lower than when everyone was individually burning wood and coal 24 hours a day. Ok? Is that surprising or useful or actionable?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
l332mn 5y ago
They're not, though. Household emissions are many, many times larger now. Also wood is not a fossil fuel.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > They're not, though. Are you saying the data is simply wrong? > Household emissions are many, many times larger now. The article is about per capita emissions, not household emissions. > Also wood is not a fossil fuel. Nobody said it was. What's this got to do with anything?
  - l332mn 5y ago
    > Are you saying the data is simply wrong? The data only measures cement production and fossil fuel burning, as the caption says. It says nothing about total emissions per capita. Hence the title is wrong, yes. > The article is about per capita emissions, not household emissions. Household emissions contribute the largest share of per capita emissions. But hardly any household emissions are measured by "cement production and fossil fuel burning". > Nobody said it was. What's this got to do with anything? Burning wood is carbon neutral.

zat 5y ago

1921 encompasses the tail end of a depression, which means economic activity was greatly reduced, and you would expect emissions to be greatly reduced as a result. 1918 doesn't have this issue nearly as bad. Why not pick a date during the tail end of Great Depression instead? Would that have been too obvious?

seoaeu 5y ago
1918 marks the last year of a world war and the start of a global pandemic. It might not be the tail end of a depression, but there's other issues with using it as a baseline...

wmf 5y ago

The all-time high is not cherry-picked and emissions have gone down since then while the economy has grown. Decoupling is possible and we just need to keep going.