4 ms·

I mean despite constant economic growth, something which fundamentally depends on increased energy consumption, the US has decreased emissions per capita by 30%

I mean despite constant economic growth, something which fundamentally depends on increased energy consumption, the US has decreased emissions per capita by 30% since 1970: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... This despite the fact that energy use has increased by about 60% during that time: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ How do you look at these facts and what you see in them is "The billionaires are destroying our planet and don't care?" How do you not see 30% less emissions on 60% more energy usage as a big win for the environment that should be celebrated? If you look at the rest of the world it generally follows the same trend, with the massive, massive exception of China: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita All this is not to let anyone off the hook - I've long said if there's any one piece of the emission reductions pie that's missing, it's political action against China as a dirty exporter that we've all come to depend on and offshore our dirty industry to. Now we are at least getting some kind of action on that front, even if it's a President and a justification that you don't like. But my real point here is, I'm so sick of these Doomer takes that are just rhetoric about why the world is awful and you need to blame someone convenient. When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. Developed countries have cleaned up their act in a big way, sure they may have more work to do, but the next big frontier is to solve the China emissions issue in a way other than just moving all the dirty industry to India, and sorry to say this is not something that a random billionaire can fix overnight.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
The Texas legislature is currently attempting to pass legislation that disadvantages solar and batteries in preference of fossil gas. They don’t care about climate change or the future. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB388 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89... https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bill-gas-over-renewables https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Additional citation: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas-self-destruct-its-clean-energy-industry https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas...
defrost 2y ago
> When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. The reality is that emissions are still increasing .. they need to stop increasing, they need to decrease considerably, and some of the emissions we've already put into the atmosphere need to be clawed back. While we can acknowledge that the US is now (14.3 tonne per person) rolling less coal per person than it was in the 1970s (21 tonne per US citizen a year) it is still the case that the US is still emitting more per person than any other country on the planet. Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries ("the China emissions" issue has a sizable component that is really "a US consumption" issue). I'm no doomer, I have a career in geophysics and have a pragmatic grounded view of the world. That said the take you have presented is papering over the very real issues.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  >Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries That's only partially true and has flattened off in recent years. In the US the deficit of goods and services imports vs exports only represents 2.8% of total GDP.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Does that counter the claim though? Is the correlation between value of goods and emissions and waste related to goods so strong that GDP value balance is an easy standin for emissions and waste balance?
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> I mean despite constant economic growth, something which fundamentally depends on increased energy consumption, the US has decreased emissions per capita by 30% since 1970 And the US population has grown from 203 million in 1970 to 331 million in 2020[0] - an increase of over 60%. I can have fun with statistics too! How do you look at these facts and what you see in them is "The billionaires are destroying our planet and don't care?" Actions taken by same. How do you not see 30% less emissions on 60% more energy usage as a big win for the environment that should be celebrated? How do you not see scientific evidence such as NASA provides? Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.[1] 0 - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange... 1 - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-tem...
chneu 2y ago
You basically just said we're still polluting enough to destroy the livable environment while championing a small efficiency gain. Wild thing to be enthusiastic about. Very short sighted.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

The Texas legislature is currently attempting to pass legislation that disadvantages solar and batteries in preference of fossil gas. They don’t care about climate change or the future. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB388 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89... https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bill-gas-over-renewables https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Additional citation: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas-self-destruct-its-clean-energy-industry https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas...

defrost 2y ago

> When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. The reality is that emissions are still increasing .. they need to stop increasing, they need to decrease considerably, and some of the emissions we've already put into the atmosphere need to be clawed back. While we can acknowledge that the US is now (14.3 tonne per person) rolling less coal per person than it was in the 1970s (21 tonne per US citizen a year) it is still the case that the US is still emitting more per person than any other country on the planet. Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries ("the China emissions" issue has a sizable component that is really "a US consumption" issue). I'm no doomer, I have a career in geophysics and have a pragmatic grounded view of the world. That said the take you have presented is papering over the very real issues.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
>Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries That's only partially true and has flattened off in recent years. In the US the deficit of goods and services imports vs exports only represents 2.8% of total GDP.
- defrost 2y ago
  Does that counter the claim though? Is the correlation between value of goods and emissions and waste related to goods so strong that GDP value balance is an easy standin for emissions and waste balance?

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

> I mean despite constant economic growth, something which fundamentally depends on increased energy consumption, the US has decreased emissions per capita by 30% since 1970 And the US population has grown from 203 million in 1970 to 331 million in 2020[0] - an increase of over 60%. I can have fun with statistics too! How do you look at these facts and what you see in them is "The billionaires are destroying our planet and don't care?" Actions taken by same. How do you not see 30% less emissions on 60% more energy usage as a big win for the environment that should be celebrated? How do you not see scientific evidence such as NASA provides? Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.[1] 0 - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange... 1 - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-tem...

chneu 2y ago

You basically just said we're still polluting enough to destroy the livable environment while championing a small efficiency gain. Wild thing to be enthusiastic about. Very short sighted.