The U.S. leads the world in reducing CO2 emissions

[Twilight Hue]

Nuclear fission is, to be honest, a great deal better for the environment than massive windfarms, but nobody had better mention THAT.

Now nuclear is the way to go. The technology has come a long way since the early days.

The Ford Nucleon, a concept car, is extremely interesting. Just think, you will essentially never have to worry about a gas station again.

 

[SoyLeche]

Now nuclear is the way to go. The technology has come a long way since the early days.

The Ford Nucleon, a concept car, is extremely interesting. Just think, you will essentially never have to worry about a gas station again.

 

[Augustus]

The better measurement would be how many goods and services does a country produce with the energy it uses. The U.S. produces more goods for a given unit of energy than other countries

What's this based on?

 

[Quetzal]

Solar panels are not ugly. I think they look cool.

And windmills aren't ugly. But they ARE dangerous and a great deal more problematic than the left wing types want to admit. Windfarms can be...and are...REAL hazards to the environment, Huge. But that doesn't matter to the folks who think they are politically correct and therefore harmless.

Did you hear about the idea that a 100x100 mile plot of land in Texas could power the entire country on solar energy? It was a Elon Musk-ism (a phrase perpetuated by Elon Musk, but we aren't certain if it can really happen), but it seems feasible.

 

[ChristineM]

Did you hear about the idea that a 100x100 mile plot of land in Texas could power the entire country on solar energy? It was a Elon Musk-ism (a phrase perpetuated by Elon Musk, but we aren't certain if it can really happen), but it seems feasible.

Only during the daytime. Not sure he's thought about what to use at night

 

[Revoltingest]

Solar panels are not ugly. I think they look cool.

You should move to, & vote in my town. You'd make it better.
When people own spendy houses, they become all about protecting
property values. NIMBYs regulate things for a comfortable & reassuring
sameness....even the pro-environment liberals. Things will change.

And windmills aren't ugly. But they ARE dangerous and a great deal more problematic than the left wing types want to admit. Windfarms can be...and are...REAL hazards to the environment, Huge. But that doesn't matter to the folks who think they are politically correct and therefore harmless.

They do pose a danger. But so do nuclear fission & burning fossil
fuel, which is the other way we generate electricity. (We have no
hydro to speak of in MI.) It's a question of which is worse.
WWGD? (What would Greta do?)

Nuclear fission is, to be honest, a great deal better for the environment than massive windfarms, but nobody had better mention THAT.

Nukes can be clean. But on the rare occasion...only a couple times
in history....one isn't clean, people die. It's sometimes a disaster of
enormous proportions, eg, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima,
Kyshtym, Idaho Falls, Jaslovské Bohunice, Brown's Ferry, Marcoule,
Pak, & one I drive by regularly, Oak Harbor.

Sure, sure, nuclear power plants can be better designed & better run.
But would they all meet higher standards? The problem would be the
ones which fall below. And those are the ones posing the danger.
Add to this....
In a time of war, nuclear plants would be high value targets because
these small vulnerable facilities they supply so much power, & they're
ready made dirty bombs.

 

[Shaul]

Wrong, your article showed the EU making a bigger reduction in Greenhouse emissions than USA.

No, I got it right. The EU is not a nation. I wrote that the U.S. leads as a nation. Which is even stated in the article.

 

[Shaul]

The US is 6th in production per capita. The 5 countries above them are European

Also the link you gave in the OP shows Europe leading the US in the chart
Change in energy related CO2 emissions by region, 2018-2019

Again, apples and oranges. The U.S. is a very large country. It has regions of lower productivity and regions with very high productivity. Indeed some regions, such as Silicon Valley, are among the highest in the world. A very large nation with a high productivity is more significant than a much smaller nation, even one with a higher per capita productivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

A Forest of windmills off our coastline here looks so brilliant that it has increased tourism.

I guess that some folks thought that windmills were ugly several hundred years ago, and Oast House chimneys too. They are now the face and the character of beautiful Kent, UK.

Surprising.
I like them...they're interesting & signify green electricity.
But I'm an engineer, so my tastes can be odd.

 

[Shaul]

What's this based on?

Based dividing a nation’s GNP by its energy consumption. Using such a method the U.S. is shown to be twice as efficient vis a vis the rest of the world.

 

[ChristineM]

Again, apples and oranges. The U.S. is a very large country. It has regions of lower productivity and regions with very high productivity. Indeed some regions, such as Silicon Valley, are among the highest in the world. A very large nation with a high productivity is more significant than a much smaller nation, even one with a higher per capita productivity.

Europe has twice the population of America with a larger land mass

And in 2018 co2 emissions began to increase in the US for the first time in several years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only during the daytime. Not sure he's thought about what to use at night

We need solar cells on the Sun.
(Nights there are really really short.)

 

[Augustus]

Based dividing a nation’s GNP by its energy consumption. Using such a method the U.S. is shown to be twice as efficient vis a vis the rest of the world.

While this metric in no way supports what you actually claimed, even if it did you'd still be wrong. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. are far more "efficient" on this metric.

But that's beside the point as it in no way supports your argument. I'm sure you can easily work out why

 

[metis]

The U.S. leads the world as the nation that reduced its CO2 emissions the most. Global emissions did not increase in 2019.

Global CO2 emissions in 2019 – Analysis - IEA

Yes, but a smart team doesn't celebrate a victory until the game is over, and it ain't.

 

[Quintessence]

I almost hate to say carbon emissions are a smokescreen issue (pardon the pun), but reductions won't matter if the underlying causes of the proverbial illness are not addressed. What we are doing is treating a fever, not the infection (which, sadly, is us). This angle isn't talked about nearly enough because it requires making change to civilization in what many consider a regressive direction. Humanity needs to abandon its cancer philosophy of growth being an unquestioned good because overpopulation and overconsumption, exacerbated by inappropriate technology, will continue this planet down the path of a sixth mass extinction event and global scale ecocide.

This isn't to say reducing carbon emissions isn't important, but switching from one type of calories to another doesn't address the underlying gluttony. It is likely the folks who enjoy pushing for unregulated capitalism and the myth of progress will literally consume us out of house and home before making the needed changes on that front. The collapse will be interesting to witness, and I look forward to seeing new ways of life that are established during that transformation. It might actually be easy to find an ecovillage, which would be pretty darned sweet! Here's to our future post-consumer society!

 

[columbus]

Apples and oranges. The per capita productivity of Americans is also greater. The better measurement would be how many goods and services does a country produce with the energy it uses. The U.S. produces more goods for a given unit of energy than other countries. IOW if you want produce more things with less CO2 we should make them in the USA.

Nah.
While the USA is making Facebook and reality TV, China is making steel and Mexico is making appliances and Indonesia is making clothes.

That's the apples and oranges part.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Did you hear about the idea that a 100x100 mile plot of land in Texas could power the entire country on solar energy? It was a Elon Musk-ism (a phrase perpetuated by Elon Musk, but we aren't certain if it can really happen), but it seems feasible.

Yeah, well, I also live in the land of sunfarms AND windfarms, and sun farms are not good for the ecology either. Solar panels on house roofs, buildings, covering parking lots? You betcha. Great Idea.

Sunfarms covering miles and miles of land that has just become uninhabitable by any sort of wild life as a result?

Not so good.

The solar panels are better than those horrific mirror things that aim intensely hot reflections at towers of salt to produce energy, but still....

Some times I shake my head at my self. I know that most people think of me as a hard headed capitalist 'anything goes' sort of person, but in reality I'm anything BUT that. At least, in terms of energy production, I'm not.

 

[Quetzal]

I almost hate to say carbon emissions are a smokescreen issue (pardon the pun), but reductions won't matter if the underlying causes of the proverbial illness are not addressed. What we are doing is treating a fever, not the infection (which, sadly, is us). This angle isn't talked about nearly enough because it requires making change to civilization in what many consider a regressive direction. Humanity needs to abandon its cancer philosophy of growth being an unquestioned good because overpopulation and overconsumption, exacerbated by inappropriate technology, will continue this planet down the path of a sixth mass extinction event and global scale ecocide.

This isn't to say reducing carbon emissions isn't important, but switching from one type of calories to another doesn't address the underlying gluttony. It is likely the folks who enjoy pushing for unregulated capitalism and the myth of progress will literally consume us out of house and home before making the needed changes on that front. The collapse will be interesting to witness, and I look forward to seeing new ways of life that are established during that transformation. It might actually be easy to find an ecovillage, which would be pretty darned sweet! Here's to our future post-consumer society!

I mean, yeah I get it. But let's give us a bit of credit and relief from the "Doomsday Clock" theory to at least address some good news. Source: Renewable Energy

Since 2000, we have experienced global growth in every category related to renewable energy.

• Energy consumption by way of renewable energy is growing and the trend indicates it will continue to grow.
• Use of hydroelectric has exploded since the 50s.
• Installed wind energy capacity is up 300% since 2010 worldwide.
• Wind energy consumption? Up 1220% since 2005 worldwide.
• The US is only behind China in regards to total wind energy generated.
• Since 2010, Solar energy generated (worldwide) is up 1769%.
• Again, the US only trails China in regards to solar energy generated.
• Investments in renewable energy went from $46.6 billion in 2004, to $285.9 billion in 2015. A modest uptick to the tune of 613%.

While we can sit around and talk about all of the ways we come up short, I think we can give ourselves permission to say we are doing okay and progressing in the right direction.

 

[Augustus]

While the USA is making Facebook and reality TV, China is making steel and Mexico is making appliances and Indonesia is making clothes.

That's the apples and oranges part.

China is also making the iPhones and Macbooks on their electricity bill, but the profits mostly show up in the US. Amazon warehouses and delivery vehicles exist in dozens of countries, etc.

Repeat this for countless other companies where 90% of the profits appear in America, but 90% of the energy consumption happens overseas.

Never mind digital companies like Google who pass on most of the "energy cost" to the consumer.

 

[dianaiad]

I almost hate to say carbon emissions are a smokescreen issue (pardon the pun), but reductions won't matter if the underlying causes of the proverbial illness are not addressed. What we are doing is treating a fever, not the infection (which, sadly, is us). This angle isn't talked about nearly enough because it requires making change to civilization in what many consider a regressive direction. Humanity needs to abandon its cancer philosophy of growth being an unquestioned good because overpopulation and overconsumption, exacerbated by inappropriate technology, will continue this planet down the path of a sixth mass extinction event and global scale ecocide.

This isn't to say reducing carbon emissions isn't important, but switching from one type of calories to another doesn't address the underlying gluttony. It is likely the folks who enjoy pushing for unregulated capitalism and the myth of progress will literally consume us out of house and home before making the needed changes on that front. The collapse will be interesting to witness, and I look forward to seeing new ways of life that are established during that transformation. It might actually be easy to find an ecovillage, which would be pretty darned sweet! Here's to our future post-consumer society!

Nice words.

Except that what I see, from pretty much everybody who advocates 'dialing back the consumerism,' is 'YOU do the dialing back; excuse me while I take my private plane to my second home in the Hamptons"

When someone criticizes ME for owning two cars, from the comfort of his/her yacht and/or summer cabin, I find the "you first' attitude a bit hard to swallow.

When the USA is criticized for producing greenhouse gasses, being polluters, etc.,, by those (like China, India, Russia) who do MOST Of the damage, I get cynical.

When I see Chernobyl, and the complete absence of one of the Aral Sea, and how HARD we in the USA work to avoid that sort of thing;
When I see the FACT that even though the human race has been around a long time, and Europe is so transformed by the presence of humans, and the FACT that the very first National Park and attempt to conserve wilderness areas was by the USA:
When I see the FACT that Americans in general are a great deal more environmentally responsible than just about anybody else, I get really skeptical. All the hand wringing and "sky is falling' rhetoric by US leaders who aren't about to give up any of THEIR perquisites (and yes. liberals, I AM talking about you, too) but who insist that *I* go back to the stone age in my requirements, I get

annoyed.

The hypocrisy is rampant, and it becomes incredibly obvious that those people don't give a hoot about global climate change or the environment. Their agenda is as it has always been; personal political power. They want to tell other people what to do, and make them pay for it.

That's it.

I don't believe any of 'em.