Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Sees a 7-Degree Rise in Global Temperatures By 2100 (washingtonpost.com)
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century. From a report: A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe. But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet's fate is already sealed. The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump's decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
Since the EU and Asia has only increased their emissions year after year it makes sense. The EU in particular increased their carbon emissions by 1.7 percent in 2017. The problem will continue to exist until countries reduce their emissions.
Big claims. Where's your sources?
Everywhere.
The most recent numbers are for 2016.
Country Fossil fuel CO2 emissions (kt) in 2016
China 10,432,751
United States 5,011,687
See how that first number is bigger than the second one? See how that first number is in fact double the second one? The title of the first link is correct: add up US emissions and the emissions of every single EU country and combined they're still less than China. You can also perform the same exercise with the Americas. Add up US, Canadian, and Mexican emissions, plus the emissions of every single country in Central and South America, and that total is still less than China.
China is improving their standard of living. China has improved, past tense, their standard of living. They have gigawatts of electrical generation they didn't have 20 years ago. And before you start whinging about how other countries have outsourced their pollution to China, read the live link on Nature.com. Between 1980 and 2002, China's emissions were growing at 8% per year. Those were the outsourcing years. At the end of that period, they were only emitting 3,694,000 kt annually. After 2002, the number jumped to 13% per year, and sustained that through 2007. Those were their standard of living improvements. In 2018, China is estimated to emit 30% of all CO2 globally. The US is estimated to emit 15% of all CO2 globally.
The big emitter is China.
"Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
China has 4x the number of people that the US has
So the US produces 3x as much CO2 output per person than China?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Currently but the USA is the biggest per capita. China is actually investing heavily in renewables and leading in the field so their output will start to decline at some point. So you can help by not buying cheap chinese goods and not being so individually wasteful with resources and bring down the per capita usage levels.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It's actually the opposite: population in total is constricted by resource availability
[Citation Required]
Because what you're claiming flies in the face of what's happening. For example, first-world countries have very high resource availability, and have lower birth rates. Places with poor resource availability, (and high unemployment) have high birth rates.