4 ms·

The question was “what does cutting emissions mean in real terms”. I answered that question. I never said that it was the one and only thing to do, nor did I s

by ArnoVW 2y ago

The question was “what does cutting emissions mean in real terms”. I answered that question. I never said that it was the one and only thing to do, nor did I say that it would solve everything. There is not “one” thing that will solve this. But we can, as you say, buy time, whilst we try to invent technology to find other solutions. Mind you, the Jevons Paradox will just mean that we consume away whatever improvements we create. Hence the importance of being able to restrain ourselves. We have a pretty good picture of what activities emit CO2, and for whom. An average American emits every year twice as much as an average Dutchman, and thrice the amount of an average Frenchman. Again, for a marginal improvement of standard of living. All of this is well documented and saying it isn’t is not going to make the problem go away. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... https://www.myclimate.org/ https://www.myclimate.org/

melling 2y ago
Looks like you’re just playing with numbers. The idea is to solve the problem From your chart, the average American uses less than the average Australian and Canadian, and about 20 other countries. Now explain why Americans use so much more than the French. Perhaps more nuclear power as a percentage of their electricity? Do any of your suggestions the difference. I’m sure the answer is No. US CO2 emissions have fallen significantly in the past decade because we’ve retired a lot of coal power plants. We are about to retire a significant amount of large CO2 producing coal power plants because of recent EPA regulations. Decarbonization of the grid makes a noticeable difference.
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  The Dutch have 0 nuclear. That still leaves a factor of 2. With respect not to an ideal but with respect to a country that itself is emitting too much to be sustainable. Nuclear is part of the solution, I fully agree. But it will not solve the problem alone. Technology will not solve this problem alone. As said, the reasons behind the American emission levels are not some unknowable mystery. The emissions attributions are quite detailed now. Americans have more cars per inhabitant, and they are heavier and less optimised. American houses are bigger and consume more energy. Americans have a diet that is more emission heavy. It may be hard to hear, but that’s currently unsustainable, and by a wide margin. You are right in saying that there are other countries that are worse. That does not liberate you from the obligation to strive towards sustainability. Sustainability does not mean reduce to zero, just reduce enough to give those after us a livable world. Don’t complain or hide behind the others, but lead by example. That’s what a superpower does.
  - melling 2y ago
    You are hand waving and just making up assertions without actually providing any data. “ It must be the big cars” “it’s the American diet” Please explain Canada and Australia being more than the United States You also aren’t accounting for any industry either. Once again, the use of coal is demonstrably significant. No hand waving necessary: “New EPA directive will cut pollution equivalent to the emissions of 328m cars” https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule-compels-us-coal-fired-power-plants-to-capture-emissions-or-shut-down https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule...
    - ArnoVW 2y ago
      I typed into Google "co2 emissions per household europe vs us" and the 1st and 3rd results were these pages. https://palanan.com/blogs/news/why-does-the-u-s-have-twice-as-much-emissions-compared-to-european-countries https://palanan.com/blogs/news/why-does-the-u-s-have-twice-a... https://www.zerofy.net/2022/04/04/household-co2-emissions.html https://www.zerofy.net/2022/04/04/household-co2-emissions.ht... I would like to think that this settles it for you. But something tells me you prefer to continue to repeat to yourself that "I don't have to do anything, it's because other people won't switch from coal to nuclear".
      - melling 2y ago
        Whenever someone posts from a site that I’ve never heard of before, I tend to believe they’re wrong. Have the large American homes and cars been responsible for the large drop in per capita emissions over the past 20 years? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... Want to do a correlation between car size and home size with this large drop in emissions? Since Americans have purchased larger cars and homes, we have a negative correlation!
        ArnoVW 2y ago
        You could of course try to find some information yourself. But I spent 30 seconds and found pages on the NYT and the Economist. Will that do? https://web.archive.org/web/20240429104301/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/03/11/why-american-cars-are-so-big https://web.archive.org/web/20240429104301/https://www.econo... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/automobiles/european-us-cars-automakers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/automobiles/european-us-c... You are right in saying that emissions have been reducing, even in the US. That's because a lot of people are actively working the problem. The issue is not that they're not reducing. The issue is that they're not reducing fast enough. Mostly because gains on one hand are offset by increases in production (the Jevons paradox). Again, the US is emitting (per capita) twice that of European countries. And the europeans still have a lot of work ahead of them to become sustainable. As the saying goes, statistics are like bikinis. What they show is nice, but what they hide is even more important. Your statistic shows "Per capita carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels in the United States" That means that your statistics account only for CO2 that is physically produced in the US. Since the US, like most other western countries, has moved it's industry to the 2nd and 3rd world, those are missing from your image. If you look at "consumed CO2" : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption... ...you'll notice that the emissions are reducing veeeery slowly. This also explains why "CO2 from fossil fuels in US" has been reduced : those emissions have been progressively moved to China, who have been doing your industrial production since the 90s. It also means the statistic only shows CO2 that is emitted from fossil fuels, and not any other processes. Also, it only shows CO2, and not other Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. For example, methane accounts for 16% of GHG emissions. It is 28x more potent as a GHG than CO2. It is emitted for example by the beef industry, and waste management. I have a page for you : https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane Guess what? US emissions of methane are up : https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_methane.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_met... But something tells me that more data is not going to change your opinion. Because changing your opinion would mean that you would have to accept that your current behavior has to change. I wish you the best of luck explaining yourself to your kids in 15-30 years.

by ArnoVW 2y ago

melling 2y ago

Looks like you’re just playing with numbers. The idea is to solve the problem From your chart, the average American uses less than the average Australian and Canadian, and about 20 other countries. Now explain why Americans use so much more than the French. Perhaps more nuclear power as a percentage of their electricity? Do any of your suggestions the difference. I’m sure the answer is No. US CO2 emissions have fallen significantly in the past decade because we’ve retired a lot of coal power plants. We are about to retire a significant amount of large CO2 producing coal power plants because of recent EPA regulations. Decarbonization of the grid makes a noticeable difference.

ArnoVW 2y ago
The Dutch have 0 nuclear. That still leaves a factor of 2. With respect not to an ideal but with respect to a country that itself is emitting too much to be sustainable. Nuclear is part of the solution, I fully agree. But it will not solve the problem alone. Technology will not solve this problem alone. As said, the reasons behind the American emission levels are not some unknowable mystery. The emissions attributions are quite detailed now. Americans have more cars per inhabitant, and they are heavier and less optimised. American houses are bigger and consume more energy. Americans have a diet that is more emission heavy. It may be hard to hear, but that’s currently unsustainable, and by a wide margin. You are right in saying that there are other countries that are worse. That does not liberate you from the obligation to strive towards sustainability. Sustainability does not mean reduce to zero, just reduce enough to give those after us a livable world. Don’t complain or hide behind the others, but lead by example. That’s what a superpower does.
- melling 2y ago
  You are hand waving and just making up assertions without actually providing any data. “ It must be the big cars” “it’s the American diet” Please explain Canada and Australia being more than the United States You also aren’t accounting for any industry either. Once again, the use of coal is demonstrably significant. No hand waving necessary: “New EPA directive will cut pollution equivalent to the emissions of 328m cars” https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule-compels-us-coal-fired-power-plants-to-capture-emissions-or-shut-down https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/new-rule...
  - ArnoVW 2y ago
    I typed into Google "co2 emissions per household europe vs us" and the 1st and 3rd results were these pages. https://palanan.com/blogs/news/why-does-the-u-s-have-twice-as-much-emissions-compared-to-european-countries https://palanan.com/blogs/news/why-does-the-u-s-have-twice-a... https://www.zerofy.net/2022/04/04/household-co2-emissions.html https://www.zerofy.net/2022/04/04/household-co2-emissions.ht... I would like to think that this settles it for you. But something tells me you prefer to continue to repeat to yourself that "I don't have to do anything, it's because other people won't switch from coal to nuclear".
    - melling 2y ago
      Whenever someone posts from a site that I’ve never heard of before, I tend to believe they’re wrong. Have the large American homes and cars been responsible for the large drop in per capita emissions over the past 20 years? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... Want to do a correlation between car size and home size with this large drop in emissions? Since Americans have purchased larger cars and homes, we have a negative correlation!
      - ArnoVW 2y ago
        You could of course try to find some information yourself. But I spent 30 seconds and found pages on the NYT and the Economist. Will that do? https://web.archive.org/web/20240429104301/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/03/11/why-american-cars-are-so-big https://web.archive.org/web/20240429104301/https://www.econo... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/automobiles/european-us-cars-automakers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/automobiles/european-us-c... You are right in saying that emissions have been reducing, even in the US. That's because a lot of people are actively working the problem. The issue is not that they're not reducing. The issue is that they're not reducing fast enough. Mostly because gains on one hand are offset by increases in production (the Jevons paradox). Again, the US is emitting (per capita) twice that of European countries. And the europeans still have a lot of work ahead of them to become sustainable. As the saying goes, statistics are like bikinis. What they show is nice, but what they hide is even more important. Your statistic shows "Per capita carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels in the United States" That means that your statistics account only for CO2 that is physically produced in the US. Since the US, like most other western countries, has moved it's industry to the 2nd and 3rd world, those are missing from your image. If you look at "consumed CO2" : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissions?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption... ...you'll notice that the emissions are reducing veeeery slowly. This also explains why "CO2 from fossil fuels in US" has been reduced : those emissions have been progressively moved to China, who have been doing your industrial production since the 90s. It also means the statistic only shows CO2 that is emitted from fossil fuels, and not any other processes. Also, it only shows CO2, and not other Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. For example, methane accounts for 16% of GHG emissions. It is 28x more potent as a GHG than CO2. It is emitted for example by the beef industry, and waste management. I have a page for you : https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane Guess what? US emissions of methane are up : https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_methane.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_met... But something tells me that more data is not going to change your opinion. Because changing your opinion would mean that you would have to accept that your current behavior has to change. I wish you the best of luck explaining yourself to your kids in 15-30 years.