![](https://www.baconsrebellion.com-content/uploads/2018/07/CO2_emissions.jpg)
Wasn’t the U.S. Supposed to Be the Villain Here?
![](https://www.baconsrebellion.com-content/uploads/2018/07/CO2_emissions.jpg)
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
24 responses to “Wasn’t the U.S. Supposed to Be the Villain Here?”
-
Interesting, but meaningless unless the starting point was level for all the categories measured. That chart just measures change, not actual output. The US might have started out the highest per capita and stayed the highest per capita with that chart still being accurate….it probably reflects the fact that we spent the whole year holding our breath (and exhaling less CO2) waiting to see what Trump would say or do next.
-
Sure, U.S. CO2 levels per unit of GDP are higher than Europe’s. I’m not saying we’re more virtuous. But we’re moving in the right direction and Europe isn’t.
-
-
Europe is not moving in the right direction? From one chart?
-
Yup.
Maybe 2018 will look better for Europe.
-
-
Here is a better look at the data:
“China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined-
The U.S. was historically the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter, but China now emits more than the U.S. and EU combined.”http://www.rrapier.com/2018/07/6019/
See CO2 graphic in middle of article.
-
Ok – yeah, that makes the point I think Jim was getting at. It also shows US has peaked and is trending down. Of course next will be somebody complaining the data if from BP and thus must be false (Larry or Peter, that’s your cue.)
We just need to get the world back to how poor it was around 1945 or so….poor but great air!
-
I’m a little skeptical , yes, especially when you consider how much people in the US drive their cars….compared to other countries where car ownership is much lower and commuting 50 miles from your job in a car where gasoline costs $7 a gallon is insane. People in Europe and China typically live in much smaller homes than us and they often do not heat or cool the whole house. Many in Europe use on-demand water heaters because the cost of electricity is so high.
So I’d guess I’d like to see a break-down of the sources of the emissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
-
You are so predictable 🙂
-
Larry – many our ancestors generally came to the United States, the British Colonies or even places like New Netherlands, to get away from Europe (and now from other continents) and its/their way of life. They came at different times and circumstances but all did (and many people still do) because they didn’t want to live where they were living. We can always move back – maybe, if their immigration laws permit.
I support renewable energy use and think we need to be very careful about what we emit into the atmosphere, including CO2, but beyond that we know darn little about climate. I also think that, as with most political issues, this has a lot to do with rent seekers and lust for political power.
I read an article this week that stone tools were found in China that are estimated to be 2.1 million years old. That makes me feel quite small and, hopefully, a bit more humble. If only the science-based rent-seekers were a bit more humble too.
-
Those on-demand water heaters used in Europe are almost invariably gas.
The electrical load of an electric on-demand water heater capable of a 60F temp rise at 2GPM would overload many US electrical services, let alone smaller European-sized ones. It’s about 75 amps @240V.
There really isn’t much savings comparing an electric on-demand with an electric tank. The electric tanks are very well insulated and have very low standby loss.
It’s a different story for gas–gas tanks cannot be completely insulated, not nearly as well as an electric tank.
-
-
-
Hilarious, Steve!
-
Well, the other real solution could be borrowed from Jonathan Swift. Malthus was just thinking too much about food and not enough about trash, pollution and waste heat.
-
-
It’s a bit amusing to be honest to hear – sometimes – the denials of GW and that it’s a conspiracy and not real and then later… discussion of CO2 emissions, etc.
Seems like if one debunks the idea of GW .. then why worry about CO2 emissions at all?
-
I’m sure someone will chime in here with detail or to correct me, but I think the biggest culprit in Europe is they are moving away from zero emissions nuclear. Renewables are growing at a significant rate, but they need to burn lignite coal when renewables can’t cover demand.
-
It’s true about the move away from Nuclear – both Europe and Japan but in general, people in Europe and Asia have a smaller energy footprint. Many do not own cars and the ones that do , drive them less because fuel is twice or 3 times what it is here and they tend to live in much smaller homes … heat/cool only the occupied spaces … use on-demand water heaters rather than tanks kept heated, etc.
So, one proxy might be energy use per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
the top three are Iceland, Canada and the US. The UK and Germany is 1/2 of us. Iceland is a bit of an outlier because it gets it’s energy from geothermal.
We do look a little bit better on electricity use per capita but we’re still in the top 10. But if you look at per capita gasoline use – we are tops in the world – higher than even the OPEC countries and 3 times as much as other industrialized nations.
so, yes, we have managed to cut our use but in overall terms of use – we typically use about twice as much overall energy per capita as the other industrialized nations. Even if we got ALL of our electricity from nukes and wind/solar – because of our gasoline consumption – we’d still be tops.
So this is about what some folks want to believe – the prism they want to view the world through – rather than the actual facts and reality – so they pick the appropriate chart and graph to try to reflect their perspective but it’s a false one.
And again – for those who do not believe in GW – then why this infatuation with CO2 emissions…?
-
Natural gas growth has slowed globally.
Right now the projection is 2040 is when natural gas will catch up to coal as the second leading energy source (I presume oil is No. 1). -
We also need to understand that environmental groups don’t truly want a solution to CO2 emissions, renewable energy or the “climate” problem because a solution would make their existence unnecessary, at least in their current form. In this regard, they are no different from Dominion, which also works to maintain its existence.
While we do have far to march towards a nation of inexpensive, reliable, renewable energy, progress lessens the likelihood of the “horrible of horribles” and weakens fundraising.
-
I would probably cite different rationale/motives/politics at play in the USA, but I come out at a similar place.
-
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.