4 ms·

> - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) > - A decrease in the countries emission starting in- 2007 (-13%) > Meanwhile for the sa

by Permit 5y ago

> - Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%) > - A decrease in the countries emission starting in- 2007 (-13%) > Meanwhile for the same period China has had > - a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%) > - 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007 I can't help but read this and feel that you're deliberately leaving out the per-capita emissions of Americans vs. Chinese in favor of relative changes from 1973. China emits 8.12 tons of CO2 per-person[1]. The US emits 15.52 tons of CO2 per-person[2]. The US is the "unfair" emitter here. That said, the true "fair" emissions that an individual can have would be roughly 1.61 tons. [1] https://knoema.com/atlas/China/CO2-emissions-per-capita https://knoema.com/atlas/China/CO2-emissions-per-capita [2] https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/CO2-emissions-per-capita https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/CO2-emissi...

rory 5y ago
The overall China number is a little funky because they still have 500M people in the countryside emitting very little. On a per capita basis, many Chinese metros are among the worst, as is much of the US (especially in the midwest and south), Canada, and Australia.
tzs 5y ago
Another difference between China (and the EU) and the US is that China (and the EU) have fairly serious plans to address the issue. China plan is for emissions to peak in 2030 and then fall to reach net zero by 2060. They've just launched a big cap and trade system to support this. The EU's plan is to reach a 55% reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. They too are going for a cap and trade system, to launch by 2026. And the US? At the Federal level, we've got one major party that wants to do plans similar to the EU or China, and one major party that at best wants the government to do nothing and at worse wants to promote the increasing use of fossil fuels. Whenever the first party controls the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Presidency we can get Federal action on climate change. But whenever that party loses any one of those the other party can largely stop them from further action. When all three go to that party, they can even reverse prior actions. China has a very good chance of implementing their plan. The EU has a pretty good chance too. There is a good chance the US won't have a plan that can survive a party change for at least another generation.

by Permit 5y ago

rory 5y ago

The overall China number is a little funky because they still have 500M people in the countryside emitting very little. On a per capita basis, many Chinese metros are among the worst, as is much of the US (especially in the midwest and south), Canada, and Australia.

tzs 5y ago

Another difference between China (and the EU) and the US is that China (and the EU) have fairly serious plans to address the issue. China plan is for emissions to peak in 2030 and then fall to reach net zero by 2060. They've just launched a big cap and trade system to support this. The EU's plan is to reach a 55% reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. They too are going for a cap and trade system, to launch by 2026. And the US? At the Federal level, we've got one major party that wants to do plans similar to the EU or China, and one major party that at best wants the government to do nothing and at worse wants to promote the increasing use of fossil fuels. Whenever the first party controls the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Presidency we can get Federal action on climate change. But whenever that party loses any one of those the other party can largely stop them from further action. When all three go to that party, they can even reverse prior actions. China has a very good chance of implementing their plan. The EU has a pretty good chance too. There is a good chance the US won't have a plan that can survive a party change for at least another generation.