14 ms·
World emissions hit record high, but the EU leads trend reversal
- CapitalistCartr 1y agoThe USA, China, and India are the leaders on Climate Change emmisions, and have to make real changes for global results. Until us three get serious, progress is nil.
- tsimionescu 1y agoIndia is not in even in the top 30 countries that can realistically reduce emissions. They have per capita emissions lower than any European country, except maybe Iceland. Lower than the Nordics, much, much lower than France or Germany or Spain. There's no way for them to reduce their emissions without severely impacting lifestyle even more drastically - which is not at all the case for us here in Europe.
- foobiekr 1y ago[flagged]
- bee_rider 1y agoI could see an argument for trying to impose a per-population cap (it’s our shared world so we should share the capacity to do damage to it equally). Or an attempt to use the market to figure out the best expenditure of emissions for economic activity; some kind of carbon tax and credit scheme. But, by whatever metric we want to use, India is with their huge population is going to end up with a lot of it. Unless is it some sort of per-country cap, which would be totally unfair, right?
- inexcf 1y agoSo you suggest western countries should get birthrates up and that will fix climate change by offsetting the main producers in the country? How is per capita relevant.
- bee_rider 1y agoNo, I think it would be most fair to split the remaining carbon budget (to the extent that there even is one) evenly, or maybe try and account for the fact that regions that have been industrialized for a long time have already used up a lot of the cap. However, I think the fair plan is impractical and would meet a lot of resistance from major economies. So, out of pragmatism I prefer a carbon credit system.
- tzs 1y agoPer capita is relevant because the atmosphere doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries that humans draw on the map. A ton of emitted CO2 does the same amount of harm no matter what person's activities cause it (directly or indirectly).
- trallnag 1y agoNot sure if this statement is correct. One consequence of India's population growth is that millions of Indians are emigrating. So the rest of the world helps solving the population problem. If one even wants to call it a problem.
- BoardsOfCanada 1y agoTo quantify this, India had a per capita CO2 emission of 2.07 tonnes per year, while Sweden had 3.43 (2023). Sweden used this to achieve a 58,100 USD per capita GDP (2025) compared to India's 2,878 USD all while using a non-unsignificant part of it as heating in the winter. It would be great for all of us if India could do better on a per capita basis since the resulting effect would be huge.
- tsimionescu 1y agoYou're forgetting the fact that Sweden (like other European countries) has had >100 years of much higher emissions than India, and has built this wealth through that. Wealth compounds - so if you want to make these sorts of arguments, you should look at total historical emissions per capita.
- hopelite 1y agoSo because others made an unknown mistake, now India should be allowed to perpetrate known, deliberate, and intentional harm? It makes India that much worse, it makes India evil! This is just unsophisticated and uncivilized excuse making and primitive rationalization.
- tsimionescu 1y agoNo, the point is that the fair way to look at this is that every country has a total carbon budget, based on population. Since atmospheric CO2 is a cumulative resource, that doesn't really decay at human time scales, looking at current emissions is misleading. It's taking an arbitrary moment in time as a 0 basis and saying "it doesn't matter how we got where we are now, from now on you shouldn't emit more than we do". The reality is that European countries (including Russia) and the USA are disproportionately responsible for the massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere today. So, they should be more responsible for fixing this - either by investing some of the wealth they accumulated through this massive energy accumulation (that resulted in the CO2 emission) into carbon capture technologies, or by subsidizing the need for other countries in the world to build energy without so much pollution.
- 1over137 1y agoIf they can’t reduce per capita, they could reduce population: free birth control, etc etc.
- tsimionescu 1y agoThe same argument can be made for us here in Europe. And it makes even more sense, since we're trying to live in this extremely northerly place, where large amounts of energy are required yearly to even make it habitable, and solar is quite inefficient.
- hopelite 1y agoIndia started around 40 new coal power plants just in 2024. Per capita is irrelevant in this matter. The presumed impacts on the environment and the planet do not care that India has long had an unsustainable, reckless population size. Per capita use in situations like this is simply ridiculous and evasive lying.
- pessimizer 1y ago> Per capita is irrelevant in this matter. Sounds like something a country with extremely high per capita emissions would say. Somebody else would say that the imaginary line drawn around a bunch of land and given a name matters a hell of a lot less. I actually don't worry about emissions at all because I compare my personal emissions to the emissions of the entire continent of Asia. It's not my fault that the inhabitants decided to be more than one person.
- hopelite 1y agoWhat did you not understand about “per capita is irrelevant”. You make my very point and don’t even realize it though. It is an incomplete measure and a bell curve distribution relative to productivity, especially when talking about one civilization that produced all the advances and one that not only uses all those advances, but has not contributed any advances. If you want to use per capita, you need to look at the qualities, make a qualitative determination; per capita net value, per capita quality score, etc. Or maybe you would suggest that Europeans should start having 20+ children per woman and that will then magically improve things because their per capita measure by moronic means will improve immensely? So get to it, Europe, have 20, 30, 40+ children per woman, because low intelligence people will then celebrate how wonderful you’ve improved your nonsense, meaningless pollution numbers.
- tsimionescu 1y agoEvery human on earth has the same right to use the planet's resources as every other human - so per capita emissions make natural sense. Countries are just arbitrary collections of people, so looking at per-country emissions is actually entirely arbitrary. Would you say that the USA should emit no more than the Vatican?
- legulere 1y agoWhy not? India could easily leapfrog fossil fuels, and replacing coal with renewables would even have a positive impact.
- tonyhart7 1y agochina is world factory stop buying cheap things from china then
- immibis 1y agoTariffs can do that
- repelsteeltje 1y agoStuff. Indeed it's mostly about stuff we buy (which is mostly from China). If you want to lower emissions, not flying and not eating meat is important. But stuff we buy - clothes, electronics, cars, furniture, even solar panels: consider if you really need it, for how long will it last, and why can't it wait. Don't click "buy now"
- tonyedgecombe 1y agoMost people’s emissions come from housing, transport and food. Cheap tat from China barely registers.
- maxglute 1y agoThen there's is no progress to be made. Developing using cheap energy regardless of emissions, i.e. the harm/ethics (positives) of poverty reduction > pollution any day. US/west sets the baseline for historic not just annual per capita emission - annual doesn't capture historic emissions for building infra/capita base. Many countries still have magnitude more steel to smelt and concrete to pour. If developing / low middle income countries does most of the growing/developing on clean generation, better, if west wants to subsidize that like prior climate pledges, they're welcome to. Until then, their per capita is floor of what everyone should aim for. Ultimately, global emissions isn't really worth worrying, as in even if it's existential for some tiny islands or climate death zones, there's shit all do because most of the world who desires to be rich and comfortable will just chug along.
- peterspath 1y agoBut at what cost? Energy is very expensive which makes everything expensive like normal cost like groceries, heating, everyday transportation. Housing market is the worst, too little houses are being build because of all the rules. Too many people are being let in which is leading to an overheated market for buying and renting houses. For normal people this is a bad situation. It’s only good for property owners (that sell houses) and the government because more tax income. I’m lucky that I am a software engineer and have an above average salary. But the average person in my country (the Netherlands) is worse off. I hear many stories of people that can’t go on holiday anymore abroad while 5 years ago they could. This all in the name of being green and being the best boy in class. Set an example. Need to start somewhere. We (our country hence the tax payers) spent billions on it. And get very very little in return.
- repelsteeltje 1y agoWould you say that lowering the climate goals / increasing emissions could meaningfully alleviate pressure on the housing market, migration, groceries, energy, etc.?
- peterspath 1y agoOne of the things we (the Netherlands) should do is get to a more average level on EU levels. Not trying to be the best. The costs are too high. Also energy cost should be as low as possible. A few nuclear plants could be a good solution. (I’m not an energy expert) When you lower energy cost, the cost of all other things can also be lowered.
- repelsteeltje 1y agoNot an expert either, but commonly nuclear energy tops the list of most expensive sources, even if we ignore cost of mining, waste storage and dismantling of old installations. There are arguments to be made in favor of nuclear, but I don't think cost is one of them
- 1y ago
- modeless 1y agoClimate scientists keep telling us that achievable emissions reductions aren't going to be enough to prevent bad climate effects. The single-minded focus on emissions reduction is not going to save the world and it has a lot of bad effects on economies and ultimately people. We need to be investing in solutions that could actually work, like stratospheric aerosol injection.
- immibis 1y ago[flagged]
- tonyhart7 1y agosounds like an true freedom country answer
- pessimizer 1y agoIf the freedom country were going to bomb the country with by far the world's highest per capita emissions, there wouldn't be a freedom country anymore.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pierot 1y agoAnd not taking care of the source of the problem? It’s like only pumping the water out of your flooded basement but not willing to fix the leak.
- ivanbakel 1y agoIsn't the consensus from climate scientists that emission reductions are totally necessary, and there is no solution which is solely based on capture of greenhouse gases or cooling technologies? Even if reducing emissions is not enough, I thought it was clear that it needs to be done - and the economic impact is a necessary evil, since in reality we are just seeing the reversal of economic benefits obtained at the cost of planetary temperatures.
- oytis 1y agoCoincidentally EU's industrial production volume is also falling
- m101 1y agoIt is not a coincidence.
- saubeidl 1y agoWhich is what everyone should be doing if we are to survive as a species
- thinkcontext 1y agoThe carbon border tax (CBAM) that is coming into effect is a good policy to help with that. Should have been done much earlier.
- rendx 1y agoIs it useful to list eight largest economic areas without accounting for the difference in population size and surface area?
- merdaverse 1y ago-Per unit of GDP-, lol. Your children will cook, but at least their bosses will make more money.
- tsoukase 1y agoEurope makes a terrible mistake. They are obsessive to decarbonate not because of climate change (they emit a measly 8% of total, the earth will feel nothing) but because the developed north wants to continue heating its homes and moving its cars after fossil fuels. But this will come after 50 or 100 years, it's too early to take so painful measures. In software design its called YAGNI.
- croes 1y agoYou do realize that the consequences of a failed reduction of carbon dioxide emissions will hit mankind in 50 to 100 years. Our children and grandchildren pay the price for the mistakes we do now. > they emit a measly 8% of total, the earth will feel nothing Earth doesn’t care, it’s not about protecting Earth it’s about protecting us. Warmer climate is better for many other species besides humans.
- isluoyu 1y agoFocusing solely on total carbon emissions without considering per capita figures, and only on the present without acknowledging historical responsibility, is blatant discrimination and exploitation of developing countries by the developed world. The European Union has certainly done a lot for environmental protection, but many of its politicians are more concerned with exploiting less developed nations through green barriers, just as they previously did through technology and patents. Don't just focus on reducing emissions; why not consider increasing carbon sinks? A balanced approach is more effective. Learn from China: its increase in forest coverage, its desert reclamation, and the massive development of wind and solar power are all results of decades of relentless effort. Stop the condescending finger-pointing. For example, China is often criticized for its ocean fishing, but critics ignore that its aquaculture production far surpasses its marine capture. How many countries in the world can achieve that? For species that are difficult to farm, they first master artificial breeding to release fry back into the sea, before advancing toward the goal of full-cycle aquaculture. People's well-being and environmental protection must be balanced, not subjected to rigid, one-size-fits-all policies made for the sake of votes.
- jemmyw 1y agoThe climate doesn't care about per capita figures and historical responsibility. Besides which, emissions have grown so much since 2000 that historical is kind of moot. Per capita is kind of silly too, all the people in the country I live in could reduce their emissions and we'd still have high per capita because such a large amount of it goes to industry which exports, funnily enough, primarily to China. We should focus on reducing emissions in every place and way possible. Carbon sinks are temporary, and suffer from the problem that they may end up releasing the carbon again in the future. We can't really rely on them for real accounting against emissions. I'm not sure why you've brought ocean fishing into it. But having lots of aquaculture doesn't excuse other behaviours by China or any other fishing nation.
- isluoyu 1y agoIgnoring historical and per-capita emissions isn't "pragmatic," it's blame-shifting. You're right to bring up "exported emissions," but you have the direction backward. The primary "carbon transfer" is from China, acting as the world's factory to meet consumer demand in the West. You can't outsource your carbon footprint and then blame the manufacturer. If we're truly going to discard fairness for "maximum efficiency" in emissions reduction, then we should target one of the biggest and easiest sources: diet. Data: Producing 1 kg of beef emits ~60-100 kg of CO₂e. Producing 1 kg of pork emits only ~7-12 kg of CO₂e. Proposal: A global ban on beef and dairy, switching to pork and poultry. The emissions saved by this simple consumer choice would surpass the total efforts of many nations. This proposal sounds absurd, right? It infringes on culture and personal choice. And that is precisely the point: any climate solution that ignores fairness, responsibility, and context is, in itself, absurd. The right to development is a human right.