4 ms·

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 sus

by 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

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.