US doing a decent job on climate change. China out of control.

[Bitek]

There was a big UN climate change conference this week, COP24.

Before I discuss how we are blowing this advantage, let's review how the major economies are doing.

The US had been in decline since the Obama admin and the revolution in shale drilling.

Per capita rates have fallen especially dramatically

However China has been a massive driver of global emissions growth. A country in which we've engaged in a trade war.


So I find it a bit baffling that we showed up to the conference not aligned with the EU and other concerned countries in trying to further push emission cuts, but rather with Russia and Saudi Arabia pushing coal and oil production and undermining the conference.

Instead of using our influence to ally with the world to isolate, criticize and undermine China... We are isolating ourselves and let their influence grow.

It's completely moronic.

There is a space for us to celebrate the overall emissions reductions we've achieved, and recognize shale NG as an important ingredient in that, as well as trying to capture the next gen energy market. We could actually show off Texas, ND and California as leaders in different ways. We could push our own green manufacturing sector, and or utilities making 0 carbon commitments, and push our technology.

Instead we chose to push fucking coal (which ain't coming back) and look like complete asshats as well as divide our own country in the process.

Moves like this is why Trump will fail the country.
His hallmark are stupid, short-sighted and unsophisticated strategies that are bound to backfire. Rid us of this cancer.

 

[dank69]

China was out of control from 2000 to 2012. They have since started going green and I believe lead the US when it comes to green efforts. Because it's socialism.

 

[WelshBloke]

Per capita rates have fallen especially dramatically
However China has been a massive driver of global emissions growth. A country in which we've engaged in a trade war.

China has way, way less per capita emissions than the US!
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

 

[JSt0rm]

we exported all of our emissions to china. It is still ours.

 

[K1052]

Like almost half the remaining US coal fleet operates at a loss and will close in the coming years. The rest isn't real far behind. There is a reason utilities are building solar/wind and NG generation exclusively. You could probably displace coal entirely from the US generation portfolio in 5-7 years to drastically reduce pollution/emissions and save many billions doing it. I can live with NG as a bridge on the way to fully renewable so long as methane emissions are kept in check.

 

[Bitek]

China has way, way less per capita emissions than the US!
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

Yes. That is a good clarification to my wording. I was referring to the US trend. Overall highest, but declining. However China's is rising rapidly.

Considering the much larger population, it will have an important impact on overall emissions growth. If overall trends continue, US and China will cross.

US needs to continue to be more carbon efficient and accelerate the decline.

China needs to quickly plateau.

 

[Instan00dles]

we exported all of our emissions to china. It is still ours.

Some people seems to forget that. China does not create all that co2 for themselves, they create it when making all the garbage we buy.

 

[nickqt]

Some people seems to forget that. China does not create all that co2 for themselves, they create it when making all the garbage we buy.

Offshored jobs, offshored ground and water pollution, same ol' air pollution.

One day, when the US government isn't owned and operated by oligarchs with wealth addictions, maybe we can stop hollowing out our country for their monetary interests, and get back to being a first world country with improving infrastructure and a positive role in the world.

One day.

 

[Paratus]

There was a big UN climate change conference this week, COP24.

Before I discuss how we are blowing this advantage, let's review how the major economies are doing.

The US had been in decline since the Obama admin and the revolution in shale drilling.

Per capita rates have fallen especially dramatically

However China has been a massive driver of global emissions growth. A country in which we've engaged in a trade war.


So I find it a bit baffling that we showed up to the conference not aligned with the EU and other concerned countries in trying to further push emission cuts, but rather with Russia and Saudi Arabia pushing coal and oil production and undermining the conference.

Instead of using our influence to ally with the world to isolate, criticize and undermine China... We are isolating ourselves and let their influence grow.

It's completely moronic.

There is a space for us to celebrate the overall emissions reductions we've achieved, and recognize shale NG as an important ingredient in that, as well as trying to capture the next gen energy market. We could actually show off Texas, ND and California as leaders in different ways. We could push our own green manufacturing sector, and or utilities making 0 carbon commitments, and push our technology.

Instead we chose to push fucking coal (which ain't coming back) and look like complete asshats as well as divide our own country in the process.

Moves like this is why Trump will fail the country.
His hallmark are stupid, short-sighted and unsophisticated strategies that are bound to backfire. Rid us of this cancer.

China is leveling off their emissions and should start to drop. It’s India thats really going to need help

China is now at ~4400 kWh per capita per year a roughly first world quality of living.

India was at ~750 10 years ago and is now at ~1150 kWh per capita per person. So to reach a roughly first world class of living they have to quadruple their energy usage for a billion people....

 

[mect]

we exported all of our emissions to china. It is still ours.

So does that mean the US isn't responsible for the CO2 produced for our exports?

 

[Bitek]

So does that mean the US isn't responsible for the CO2 produced for our exports?

Why would that be? Are countries that but our exports responsible for our emissions?

Or are we accountable for running an environmental sustainable and efficient economy?

Let's review what we import vs export. Most goods and services that are consumed are domestically produced.
Importantly, we should also note that many imports are raw materials and important precursors to our manufacturing processes.

So overall while we have a large trade and balance, it is overall a small component of US GDP, and you would expect emissions balance to be somewhat proportional.

2017 Goods and Services
Exports $2,329.3
Imports $2,895.3
Balance-$566.0
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/annual.html

Break down of the goods, import vs export.
(Services not included, but it's our largest export at nearly $800B.)

 

[dank69]

Yes. That is a good clarification to my wording. I was referring to the US trend. Overall highest, but declining. However China's is rising rapidly.

Considering the much larger population, it will have an important impact on overall emissions growth. If overall trends continue, US and China will cross.

US needs to continue to be more carbon efficient and accelerate the decline.

China needs to quickly plateau.

China WAS rising rapidly. China has already plateaued.

 

[Commodus]

The one consolation about Trump's anti-environment strategy is that it's like trying to tell the tide to stop coming in... the forces going against him are too strong for him to change.

Coal is dying, and gas-powered cars are slowly falling out of favor. Clean energy and electric cars are on the rise (VW just revealed that its ID electric car will cost as much as a Golf diesel, likely without subsidies). And importantly, most companies aren't about to exploit Trump's reckless deregulation both because it looks bad and because they know the Democrats will likely restore the rules when they regain power.

The one problem is simply that the US could be moving faster than it is. A Democrat would have kept the country in the Paris Agreement, of course (and the Democrat that replaces Trump will likely rejoin it), and they'd certainly be pursuing the climate science that Trump has tried to censor and suppress.

 

[Bitek]

China WAS rising rapidly. China has already plateaued.

That's probably a fair point to make, is that it's not good enough to hold and maintain their current per capita emissions level meanwhile pursuing an aggressive growth strategy, considering they have such a large population. Somebody made a similar comment about India which is also a fair point.

Really they also need per capita emissions reductions to reduce the total carbon output.

The takeaway is that the very large population countries, such as China and India, can never reach the per capita levels of emissions that are seen in the United States. May not seem fair, but the total carbon budget simply cannot allow it.

We tend to beat ourselves up in the US because we consume so much and emit so much on a per-capita basis, and while we are in important part of the solution, we are by no means the total solution.

Before seeing the graphs in the OP, would you have guessed that the United States emission levels are half of China's?

We could be doing a lot more, but we should also recognize the success we've had and it hasn't damaged our economy as Republicans would have you believe.

 

[Bitek]

The one consolation about Trump's anti-environment strategy is that it's like trying to tell the tide to stop coming in... the forces going against him are too strong for him to change.

Coal is dying, and gas-powered cars are slowly falling out of favor. Clean energy and electric cars are on the rise (VW just revealed that its ID electric car will cost as much as a Golf diesel, likely without subsidies). And importantly, most companies aren't about to exploit Trump's reckless deregulation both because it looks bad and because they know the Democrats will likely restore the rules when they regain power.

The one problem is simply that the US could be moving faster than it is. A Democrat would have kept the country in the Paris Agreement, of course (and the Democrat that replaces Trump will likely rejoin it), and they'd certainly be pursuing the climate science that Trump has tried to censor and suppress.

I think that is all true, but I would add that the Democrats need to make a better effort at buying the entire country into our greenhouse reduction program. Too often it's seen as a negative and job killer, and that simply not true.

What the Republicans are doing is using negativity to dissuade us from action and dividing the country. There are significant opportunities for economic expansion and manufacturing jobs if we pursue a green economy as aggressively that we pursued the petrol economy.

We can't let this be a red vs blue fight because both sides have the opportunity for jobs and prosperity, and that will benefit the entire planet.

 

[K1052]

We could be doing a lot more, but we should also recognize the success we've had and it hasn't damaged our economy as Republicans would have you believe.

Most of those predictions come from entrenched interests (coal, autos, oil, etc) and are total bullshit.

 

[dank69]

That's probably a fair point to make, is that it's not good enough to hold and maintain their current per capita emissions level meanwhile pursuing an aggressive growth strategy, considering they have such a large population. Somebody made a similar comment about India which is also a fair point.

Really they also need per capita emissions reductions to reduce the total carbon output.

The takeaway is that the very large population countries, such as China and India, can never reach the per capita levels of emissions that are seen in the United States. May not seem fair, but the total carbon budget simply cannot allow it.

We tend to beat ourselves up in the US because we consume so much and emit so much on a per-capita basis, and while we are in important part of the solution, we are by no means the total solution.

Before seeing the graphs in the OP, would you have guessed that the United States emission levels are half of China's?

We could be doing a lot more, but we should also recognize the success we've had and it hasn't damaged our economy as Republicans would have you believe.

Yes I would have guessed:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...rt-pollution-haze-visible-space/#3229081560b7

I think that is all true, but I would add that the Democrats need to make a better effort at buying the entire country into our greenhouse reduction program. Too often it's seen as a negative and job killer, and that simply not true.

What the Republicans are doing is using negativity to dissuade us from action and dividing the country. There are significant opportunities for economic expansion and manufacturing jobs if we pursue a green economy as aggressively that we pursued the petrol economy.

We can't let this be a red vs blue fight because both sides have the opportunity for jobs and prosperity, and that will benefit the entire planet.

Democrats have been saying that going green will create jobs for decades. Clinton mentioned it many times on the campaign trail. America isn't buying it because liberals are filthy.

 

[K1052]

Democrats have been saying that going green will create jobs for decades. Clinton mentioned it many times on the campaign trail. America isn't buying it because liberals are filthy.

Yes, the mean lady promised them a future. The used car salesman promised them the past.

Identity plays a huge role in this too since a lot of those places say "we're all coal families" or some such nonsense when the last person to dig it out of the ground was their parent's, grandparent's, or even great grandparent's generation while they toil at min wage service jobs going nowhere.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, the mean lady promised them a future. The used car salesman promised them the past.

Identity plays a huge role in this too since a lot of those places say "we're all coal families" or some such nonsense when the last person to dig it out of the ground was their parent's, grandparent's, or even great grandparent's generation while they toil at min wage service jobs going nowhere.

Ironic considering this story I was listening to on NPR just yesterday:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/6752...-coal-miners-regulators-could-have-stopped-it
Coal miners dying due to lack of regulation on the coal industry, which Bill Clinton was pushing back on HIS campaign trail. All attempts at regulation have been met with staunch resistance by everyone from the coal industry to republican administrations. 'Party of the Working Man' indeed. Keep this up and they won't have anyone left to vote for them except the lesser children of greater men.

 

[mect]

Why would that be? Are countries that but our exports responsible for our emissions?

Or are we accountable for running an environmental sustainable and efficient economy?

Let's review what we import vs export. Most goods and services that are consumed are domestically produced.
Importantly, we should also note that many imports are raw materials and important precursors to our manufacturing processes.

So overall while we have a large trade and balance, it is overall a small component of US GDP, and you would expect emissions balance to be somewhat proportional.

2017 Goods and Services
Exports $2,329.3
Imports $2,895.3
Balance-$566.0
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/annual.html

Break down of the goods, import vs export.
(Services not included, but it's our largest export at nearly $800B.)

So why then would we be responsible for emissions produced for China's exports?

 

[blackangst1]

 

[pmv]

That's a bit like those reports that claim [such-and-such-food] increases your risk of [some-rare-disease] by [some-large-sounding-percentage]. But without telling you what the baseline risk is.

(And what over time period are those changes measured? It's not a killer-point, but it is just irritating that it doesn't say)

Also India and China, being developing countries, are simply not in the same situation as Japan and USA. That is a fundamental problem, though, I think. How can those countries that have already gone through the CO2-intensive stage of development demand others don't do as they did, and stay poor? That's one reason why it's a bloody difficult problem (that I don't believe is going to be fixed).

And the figures there don't claim to be per-capita, which, if they are not, also doesn't seem terribly fair.

 

[woolfe9998]

China has way, way less per capita emissions than the US!
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

Yes, the OP's data shows that. It's because they have a lot of poor, rural people who don't own cars or use much energy. However, China is a much more populace country and its per capita usage is on the rise by quite a bit, while ours is on the decline.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's a bit like those reports that claim [such-and-such-food] increases your risk of [some-rare-disease] by [some-large-sounding-percentage]. But without telling you what the baseline risk is.

(And what over time period are those changes measured? It's not a killer-point, but it is just irritating that it doesn't say)

Also India and China, being developing countries, are simply not in the same situation as Japan and USA. That is a fundamental problem, though, I think. How can those countries that have already gone through the CO2-intensive stage of development demand others don't do as they did, and stay poor? That's one reason why it's a bloody difficult problem (that I don't believe is going to be fixed).

And the figures there don't claim to be per-capita, which, if they are not, also doesn't seem terribly fair.

High emissions are clearly not needed for prosperity. Just look at the comparison between US and EU. EU has over 500 million people, yet they have never had close to US emission levels, and they, like us, are currently declining in both total and per capita emissions. Yet these are not poor countries.

Americans could get by driving fewer cars and riding more bikes, scooters, or public transit, for one thing. It doesn't take a wealthy economy to make these kinds of changes. Any country in the world can make them.

 

[pmv]

High emissions are clearly not needed for prosperity. Just look at the comparison between US and EU. EU has over 500 million people, yet they have never had close to US emission levels, and they, like us, are currently declining in both total and per capita emissions. Yet these are not poor countries.

Americans could get by driving fewer cars and riding more bikes, scooters, or public transit, for one thing. It doesn't take a wealthy economy to make these kinds of changes. Any country in the world can make them.

I think that is oversimplistic. That countries who are already quite wealthy can have differing levels of emissions (but still higher than poor countries) doesn't tell us anything about the difficulties of getting from being actually poor to being middle-of-the-table while keeping emissions low.

_Perhaps_ any country in the world can make them, but its a lot more difficult for a poorer country to do so than an already rich one. At the very least they might need a bit of help to do so. Some leading-by-example might help as well.

The US has loads of problems in that regard - too dependent not only on car and air travel but also on air-conditioning. But still nothing like the challenges faced by India, say.