Slashdot Mirror
The US Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History (nytimes.com)
Justin Gillis, and Nadja Popovich, writing for The New York Times: The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air-conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet. "In cumulative terms, we certainly own this problem more than anybody else does," said David G. Victor, a longtime scholar of climate politics at the University of California, San Diego. Many argue that this obligates the United States to take ambitious action to slow global warming. Against that backdrop, factions in the Trump administration are engaged in a heated debate over whether to remain a party to the 195-nation agreement on climate change reached in Paris in 2015. President Trump promised on Wednesday to announce his decision at 3 p.m Thursday in the White House Rose Garden. A decision to walk away from the accord would be a momentous setback, in practical and political terms, for the effort to address climate change. Several news outlets, citing people in the administration, reported on Wednesday that the US is likely to pull out of the agreement.
The Trump administration made clear months ago that it would abandon the emissions targets set by Obama, walk away from pledges of money to help poor countries battle global warming, and seek to cut research budgets aimed at finding solutions to climate change.
This is assuming that carbon is a "pollutant".
It fits the definitions found in the dictionaries that I looked in.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can we quit with the hyperbole, please? Climate change research is a serious matter. I know that's all journalists know how to do, but we need everyone to get on board with at least researching this stuff.
Saying it's "Scorching the Planet" is inflammatory and highly unrelatable to 99% of the people of the Earth, having likely only seen nearly undetectable average temperature increases.
I'm from the U.S., and you probably wouldn't even have to cite me any sources for me to believe we have generated the most cumulative CO2 of any other country. That doesn't seem like it should be news to anyone..
We saved the world from Hitler and the Soviets and created air conditioning, internet, mobile phones, air travel, and thousands of other critical inventions. The rest of the world hasn't done much to thank us or help us out in any way.
So I see no need to feel bad about some CO2. Especially since US emissions are falling faster than other countries due to cheap natural gas from fracking - another great US invention.
Let's remove all of it from the atmosphere then. Life will then be great.
The US was ahead of the technology curve vis-a-vis other countries. We learned to use fossil fuels effectively in the 1800's and developed both drilling and refining capacity before almost anyone else.. We bought cars and lived middle class lifestyles before the Chinese and Indians. Honestly, my perception is that folks in those countries are basically butthurt because they were still humping goats in the rice patty fields while we were building skyscrapers. Now, they want the US to pay for our sins by carbon taxing ourselves into oblivion while they do very little or nothing at all. I'm not a climate change denier. Yes, this is manmade. However, I'm also not convinced that the USA is the sole evil climate killer. China is polluting more than us right now. What about that fact? What about the fact that they have HUGE populations and in places like India, they can't be bothered to try and control them. China tries marginally, but they already have more than 1.3 Billion people. The US population is a rounding error on China's. Face it, the main problem is actually overpopulation. If we don't do something about that obvious issue, being "green" isn't going to help much. People just can't imagine having to restrict the number of children they have. Just wait until some enterprising molecular biologist figures out a way to do it for 99% of the population via some nasty vector + gene drive. That would be effective against climate change.
As in most Asian metro centres. Such as Beijing, Shanghai, any of China's tier 1 to 3 cities, plus Siberia, pretty much anywhere in India, and the list goes on. Not to mention large parts of Africa and South America.
Their rate of pollution in any sense is staggering and increasing, while the USA has been better than any of them for 20 odd years if not longer.
Adding insult to injury the level of ground water pollution, let alone carbon, in those places is staggering.
I have been to environmental protests where the event ends and everyone climbs into their SUVs and pickup trucks and drive home. It's hard to get someone to shut down a pipeline when you keep buying their product. We have Three Mile Island nuclear power plant closing down now because the cost to generate electricity with natural gas is so low. We should be protesting coal burning plants, not nuclear ones.
Which other pollutants are essential for all life on earth?
Sulfur.
Without nitrates, nitrites and ammonia plants would die off, and animals would follow, yet they are definitely pollutants for animals.
Metals such as copper, iron, and magnesium are highly toxic in high concentrations to most life forms, yet are essential for most life.
Pollutants might be beneficial for life in small doses, but too much IS a pollutant even if it is needed for life.
Heck, if the earth was buried 3 feet deep in pizza. Pizza would be considered a pollutant. Being needed for life does not mean it isn't a pollutant.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Better than purposefully misunderstanding all problems?
So big countries with high per capita production have high per capita carbon emissions? I guess carbon emissions must be related to production and living standards then, with lower carbon emissions correlated to lower standards of living.
Do you think this is why there might be some resistance to schemes to reduce carbon emissions at any cost?
The USA has a unique mix of:
High Population.
High Population dispersal. (Low population density means higher per capita).
Prosperous Economy.
Combination of Hot Summers and Cold Winters/ continental effect across much of the country (not much off-time for in-building climate regulation).
So yes, the US has a high per capita carbon pollution, but it's because the people living their are uncaring polluting jerks (although some clearly are), it's because of the unique situation the US is in.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Anything is a pollutant if there is too much of it.
If you removed all CO2 from the atmosphere, the earth would have a stable temperature of about 3-deg Kelvin. It's the greenhouse effect from those trace amounts of CO2 that has kept us cozy and warm for the last few billion years.
Did you get that nugget knowledge from another Trump supporter on the Internet?
Clue: Mars isn't at 3 degrees Kelvin, not even fucking Pluto is at 3 degrees Kelvin.
No sig today...
The world as a whole has gained from the productivity and innovation found in the US. The US has been getting "green" since I was a kid in the late 60s, meaning we have had concerns with pollution and environmental impact. No, it's not something you can fix by hitting it with a mallet, but Yes we have been working toward cleaner solutions, restoration, reforestation, recycling, etc.. Not just changing/updating machinery, but huge cash investments in public awareness and education as well.
Meanwhile counties that have benefited from the US technology boosts have become bigger polluters without the same traction for becoming "green". That is not necessarily nefarious, but because industrialization takes time to implement, and then you have to go back and start fixing stuff to make it "green".
I am really tired of the demonization of the US. The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
The Paris Climate Treaty was firstly illegal, because a treaty requires congressional approval not an EO. It also happens to punish the American Public, and not for some direct action of the US Public. These are not even punishing for the sins of our father, it's more akin to punishing sins of a second cousins father in-laws adopted brother. If we all somehow got rich polluting the world and continue to do so, where the hell is my share?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I hope he pulls out. It will be a GOOD THING to have denialism firmly endorsed by a man that most of the world (and much of America) views as an idiot. This will give political cover to other leaders around the world to take stronger action on climate change.
In practical terms, the agreement means almost nothing, since it requires almost no actions, and has no penalties for violations.
The solutions to global warming will come from us nerds (scientists and engineers) not politicians. We need better solar panels, better wind turbines, geothermal, carbon sequestration, etc.
I am a scientist majored in chemistry. I think US should pull out. CO2 only contributed to 10% of warming effect, while H2O contribute the main green house effect. Controlling CO2 will cost trillions of dollars over the years without much effect. The model and predictions have a bad record. Even if the earth get warmer for 2C degree by 2100, although unlikely, it is good for humanity. Look at the benefit.
"Blah, blah, blah...Just how did the Pentagon come to be exempt from climate agreements?...blah, blah, blah"
Oh, are the Russian, Chinese, ISIS military following the accords? Yeah, I didn't think so. Once you get the world to sing Kumbaya, then you'll have a valid argument, but until that, STFU.
Just another day in Paradise
He appears to have the intellectual capacity of an Etch a Sketch.
And yet he is worth several billion dollars and is the most powerful person on the planet. Think about it for a moment. He is the first person in history to beat the Clinton-MSM team in open combat. I am going with "he is way smarter than people realize."
By this logic, the top 3 most productive and best countries to live in on Earth are Qatar, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Netherlands Antilles. Sweden at #74 and France at #65 must be poverty-ridden hellholes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel