Bullshit. If overall per capita emissions are reduced, overall emissions are reduced. If one country (e.g. USA) indulges in far greater per capita emissions than another country, I think it is incumbent upon the higher emitters to reduce their emissions before demanding that lower emitters reduce their emissions by similar amounts. Certainly to whatever extent emissions are a proxy for standard of living.
How much of that is emitted as a consequence of making stuff that's ultimately exported to, and used by, Americans, though?
97° is 4° below the boiling point of seawater.Of what? Bromoethane?That's only 4° below boiling
Around 16% of China's exports go to the US. The next highest country is Japan with around 5%. Without the US, China would still be expanding its use of coal-fired electric plants. Just not as much. But China does not have to expand its use of coal to produce more electricity. That is a deliberate choice on their part (that Australia loves).
Much of Australia doesn't.
Bullshit3.
Duh. I have shown that US has reduced its per capita emissions ~12% between 2017 and 2020, while China has increased theirs ~6% in the same time interval.
That's just nonsense on stilts. We don't have the time to do this piecemeal, country by country. It should be a global effort. And, as I have also shown, China is building a lot of new coal-fired power plants, that should be priority, given how dirty and carbon-intensive coal is.
They are not a very good proxy. A MWh gives you a certain standard of living regardless of whether it was produced using coal, natural gas or nuclear. But the coal MWh emits almost twice as much carbon than natural gas and more than 250 times as much as nuclear.
As The Hound said, 16% of exports go to US. Not sure what percentage of emissions that would correspond to.
The graphic just said 97°
Well sure, but if that was 97°C, we'd have a whole different level of problems.
I am a long way away; I can't be expected to know what level of problems Florida might currently have.
Mealymouthed excuses don’t feed the donkey. You want to keep emitting twice as much as someone else, while demanding that THEY reduce their emissions, plain and simple.
It matters because if we produced that stuff, those emissions would be ours. We outsourced a lot of our pollution. So it isn't as easy to say Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, China are polluting and need to get their stuff in order, when their pollution is in part connected to our materialism! When people stop being stupid and start thinking of pollution as a global phenomenon, then it becomes clear we all need to cut it back, substantially. But that generally requires some levels of sacrifice, something humans suck at. In America, we are overly sprawled and that genie won't go back in the bottle. Mass transit is a four letter word in this country that demands more lanes that'll just fill up too.
Generally it is the sulfur in the groundwater. Impossible to get a good bagel. It snowballs from there.
No, not remotely. Climate change is impacting both fire and water and hurricane related insurances. Managing that isn't reducing emissions. We need more medical staff and staging for heat stroke in the south (and the north during La Nina years). This stuff is with us for a bit whether humans act or not (they won't at least not at any pace good enough to matter).
Actually it got there in the 1960s with the clean air and water acts. But 15 to 20 years later, a bunch of neocons derailed America. And now we have true believers that think what is happening is a lie.
The US was behind the times; The UK passed their Clean Air Act in 1956, and that Act was itself pre-dated in England by the Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Acts of 1853 and 1856, which recognised that it might be a poor idea to pump unlimited amounts of pollution into the air, given that we intend to continue breathing it.
We have a history of that. Slavery, Great War, WWII, Environmental considerations, Prog Rock. The US has a tendency of being fashionably late to current events. Pretty much coasting on developing a viable form of representative democracy for 250 years at this point. Though I think maybe we weren't as lazy with arable land management (well... after the dust storm issues).
And I recall reading scientists were pondering global warming in the second half of the 19th century as well.
