
In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions - prostoalex
https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/
======
xefer
How much of this drop is due to the US essentially "exporting" it's emissions?

The underlying data is specifically for "emissions from energy". The emissions
created during the production of goods imported into the US are not captured
here. Manufacturing that has been off-shored would look like a net positive in
US emissions, but could actually result in higher world-wide emissions.

A better view would be “consumption-based emission inventories”

See section III.5 here:

[https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

"... if we switched to a consumption-based reporting system (which corrects
for this trade), in 2014 the annual CO2 emissions of many European economies
would increase by more than 30% (the UK by 38%; Sweden by 66%; and Belgium's
emissions would nearly double); and the USA's emissions would increase by 7%.
On the other hand, China's emissions would decrease by 13%; India's by 9%;
Russia's by 14% and South Africa by 29%."

~~~
mc32
The US would still be the right direction and China and Russia would still be
in the wrong direction of the trend.

~~~
tzs
Russia: yes.

China: not so clear.

As far as climate goes, what matters is the total amount of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The amount in the atmosphere is a function of the history of emissions, not
just a function of recent emissions. Here's a chart showing cumulative CO2
emissions 1900-2002: [https://timeforchange.org/cumulative-co2-emissions-by-
countr...](https://timeforchange.org/cumulative-co2-emissions-by-country)

If we were to figure out that total maximum acceptable CO2 in the atmosphere
to keep the climate from warming to much, and divvy that up between countries
based on nearly any fair allocation method, how much of their quota each
country was using would be something like this:

    
    
      700% US
      650% Germany
      600% UK
      470% Canada
      450% Russia
      320% France
      260% Japan
      220% Italy
       30% China
       12% India
    

One could make a decent case that as long as a country is below 100%, it is OK
for it to choose growth and development even though that increases emissions.

I believe that this is why most international climate agreements include aid
for developing countries. We recognize that even if they put extraordinary
effort into it the US, Germany, Russia, etc., would not be able to get down to
100% until long after it was too late, and so we need to convince developing
countries to agree to stay well below their fair 100%.

But the way a country normally goes from developing to developed is by
exploiting cheap, but environmentally unfriendly, resources. It is only after
a country becomes a rich, developed, country that it can afford to exploit
clean but expensive technology. If we just ask the developing countries to
stay well below their fair 100%, we are in effect asking them to stay poor.
They are not going to agree to that.

Hence, developed countries need to pay to build up developing countries to the
point where developing countries can become developed countries without
needing to exploit cheap but dirty technology.

~~~
adventured
> One could make a decent case that as long as a country is below 100%, it is
> OK for it to choose growth and development even though that increases
> emissions.

No, one can't make a decent case of that. China and India have access to
radically better renewable energy technology and coal alternatives including
very safe nuclear and natural gas.

The US didn't have access to any of that in 1920. Today is not the same as 70
or 100 years ago. The excuse for burning so much coal is considerably debased
now.

It'd be like claiming that the USSR/Britain/France/Rome got to wage massive
wars of annexation in the past, why doesn't the new superpower - China - also
get to do that across all of Asia? Just because X bad thing happened in the
past, it doesn't mean countries in the future should get to replicate the
mistakes of the past and that it should be acceptable practice (so that they
too get their fair share of doing horrible things).

The whole idea of investing hundreds of billions of dollars into renewable
energy technology over decades is so we don't replicate the mistakes of the
past.

Besides the obviousness of that, China and India should desperately want to
avoid those past mistakes, both for strategic reasons and for the basic health
of their people. Strategically China has to import huge quantities of coal,
it'd be better from a security standpoint if they fulfill their energy demands
via domestic renewables and nuclear.

There is no good case to be made that China and India should get to repeat the
pollution mistakes of the past, that premise falls apart on every challenge.

~~~
tzs
You seem to be implicitly assuming that the only acceptable level of CO2 in
the atmosphere above whatever would be there without human activity is near
zero.

The mistake of the past was not that we put CO2 into the atmosphere by using
cheap fuels like coal. The mistake was that we did not treat that as a
temporary bootstrap phase to build up to where we could switch to cleaner
sources.

------
bouke
There's lies, damned lies and statistics. I think it's very nice that
percentage-wise an improvement has been made. However, when looking at the
absolute numbers from a different perspective;

    
    
        US 5087M tonnes, 327M inhabitants -> ~15 tonnes/inhabitant
        EU 4152M tonnes, 511M inhabitants -> ~8 tonnes/inhabitant
    

Seems to me that the US still has a long way to go...

~~~
moultano
Production creates emissions, not people. A more informative ratio is tons/GDP

US 5087M tons, $19.4 trillion GDP -> 262 tons/M$

EU 4152M tonnes, $17.1 trillion GDP -> 242 tons/M$

So still worse, but not as bad as that.

~~~
TheBeardKing
Higher wealth is no excuse to produce higher emissions, if anything it should
be the opposite - those with the wealth should use it to better control all
negative externalities.

~~~
mechagodzilla
Wealth != production, however. As a wealthy country, you are right to argue
that we should be more efficient, but some types of “production” just
inherently produce a lot of CO2. A country with no heavy industry will
probably have a lower per capita carbon footprint than a country with a large
steel industry, but the former country couldn’t necessarily produce that steel
with any less carbon, and the atmosphere doesn’t really care where the initial
source is, only the absolute numbers involved.

~~~
Retric
Very few manufactured goods directly require much in the way of emissions.
Currently companies simply trading off external costs for free, but their are
generally many viable alternatives should such emissions be fined.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Awesome. Let's get fining!

------
tomp
The source is fishy.

> The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, known simply
> as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is a conservative think tank
> based in Washington, D.C.

> AEI had sent letters to scientists offering $10,000 plus travel expenses and
> additional payments, asking them to critique the IPCC Fourth Assessment
> Report.[142] This offer was criticized as bribery.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute)

~~~
acheron
If you have a problem with the study or methodology, let’s hear it; otherwise,
ad hominem attacks don’t add anything to the conversation.

~~~
cthalupa
It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that the source of the information
has previously shown to be biased and use monetary incentives to garner
outcomes that fit their viewpoints.

~~~
gmu3
You can argue its justified but if its not ad hominem then what is it?

~~~
dragonwriter
It's _ad hominem_ if you say that the study must be _false_ because the source
has a history of sponsoring fabrications which suit it's ideological biases,
and that the result here is one which suits those biases.

It's not, OTOH, ad hominem to point out the same fact, for instance, as a
caution to those who might uncritically accept the conclusions offered by the
source.

------
noetic_techy
Regardless of the source, its well known that natural gas and fracking is
causing a huge emissions drop. This often flies in the face of peoples
cognitive bias on the matter, and it should. Reconcile your "faith" with fact.
Many can't except the reality that economic incentives vastly outway any
government policy. CO2 emissions wont be solved by more regulations, they will
be solved by transitioning our economy to cleaner sources, electric cars, lab
grown meats, vertical farms, self driving electric planes, ships, trucks
(think about the carbon loss of supporting a human operators. Truck stops go
away, restaurants and hotels close, etc). The government would be better
suited subsidizing or giving tax breaks to the technology we want to see roll
out, or simply get out of the way all together, rather than silly ideas like
carbon taxes and onerous regulations that just end up targeting the poorest
blue collar workers.

~~~
dangjc
Carbon taxes are a very market oriented approach, not a silly idea.

Natural gas extraction and transmission turns out to emit more methane to the
point of negating its lower CO2 emission benefits.
[https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-
failed-...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-activists-failed-to-
make-clear-the-problem-with-natural-gas-mckibben)

~~~
noetic_techy
I actually admit, after some digging, you may have a point here. My point was
more about market solutions vs big government policy. Solar and Wind typically
compete with natural gas for replacement of coal plants. I for one would
prefer more solar. I think subsidies for the tech we want to see to reach
scale and parity faster is a decent middle ground approach that acknowledges
the market forces. The problem is we tend to rip that money away all at once,
rather than scale it back VERY gradually.

~~~
dmix
Even gov subsidies turn out diasterously and is frequently a big waste of
money. See: the previous US administrations multi-billion dollar 'clean coal'
factory that ultimately doubled it's already massive budget and was delayed
repeatedly for years. And the solar company backed by the administration and
touted as a great example of public/private partnership, which proceeded to go
bankrupt and waste plenty of resources.

I know failure is common in all business but waste, cronyism, lack of urgency,
etc all seem to affect public/private deals more than industry arrangements.
Private industry is simply far better at choosing winners, coordinating
capital, recruiting talent, and managing projects.

When these projects fail everyone then blames 'markets' and private industry
for what happened... despite the massive involvement of government and the
fact it would likely never have existed without state backing. Then use those
examples as why we need negative incentives, fines, and regulations on
existing industry instead.

------
guitarbill
Based on a BP study, the US had the "largest decline" of CO2 emissions in
2017, where largest decline is in absolute terms for that period only, not in
relative terms.

~~~
acqq
[https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-
denier...](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-
deniers/front-groups/american-enterprise-institute-aei/)

“American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has a long track record of distorting the
science and solutions of climate change. Its arguments tend to de-emphasize
the environmental and economic risks of climate change, exaggerate the costs
of addressing the problem and question the value of putting a policy in place
at all.”

Now they, not surprisingly, intentionally confuse the readers using only the
numbers that support their agenda.

~~~
akuji1993
I don't trust any statistic I haven't faked myself.

------
keithnz
From the article links, I think the overall emissions are probably the better
thing to look at

[https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-
ec...](https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-
economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-co2-emissions.pdf)

seems to show year after year, we keep increasing. Except 2009 ( I wonder if
that was because of the fallout of the economic crash in 2008? )

Assuming all the warnings about climate change related to C02 emissions. Seems
like we aren't going to be able to turn the ship before it is has a massive
impact. My guess is nothing will change until we have some good alternatives
to fossil fuel (Nuclear fusion? Awesome battery tech? )

~~~
gascan
I'm a greenie, but I do figure natural gas could potentially be a stepping
stone while we try to figure out the fossil fuel alternative. I don't see it
as a long term solution, but at half the CO2 and much cleaner burning, it
definitely seems like we should be scrapping coal as fast as we can- which
could meaningfully decrease the US's total emissions.

Then, we figure out what to do next. We just need Zeno's Paradox working for
us.

~~~
pitaj
Nuclear please.

~~~
gascan
Sure, and that could be the next step. Unfortunately building reactors is a
decade long process. This can be where gas turbines, which can be built far
faster, could be a bridge.

------
jessaustin
_...in the world for 9th time this century_

That seems an important qualifier?

If we try a little harder next year, maybe our reduction will offset EU's
increase... we got close this year.

~~~
icebraining
The EU increase was a fluke, caused by the drought in Spain, which forced them
to compensate the poor hydro production with fossil fuels. But they are
already committed to close down the coal plants by the end of next year,
increasing solar and wind to compensate.

What the US should worry about is its CO2 emissions per capita, which are
still 2x the EU's. Quite a way to go.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
> The EU increase was a fluke, caused by the drought in Spain

Drought, fluke?

I was of the understanding that longer more severe weather events are
predicted by the climate models?

So rather than being a fluke isn't this directly _caused by_ unmitigated
greenhouse gas emissions?

~~~
icebraining
Fair enough, "fluke" may not be the correct word. What I mean is that it
wasn't a permanent increase, but a response to an occasional event (even if
those events are expected to become more common).

------
AndyMcConachie
This is the American Enterprise Institute quoting a report from British
Petroleum. I don't trust anything these people have to say about emissions.
They lie too much on the subject.

------
mrfusion
How can we spin this a bit so the skeptics don’t run with this?

------
panzagl
It's amazing how commentators here just cannot accept the US as anything other
than a source of evil. The US has been doing environmentalism since Europe was
busy dividing up Africa.

~~~
mc32
At this point I though it would seem farcical, if the US in some alternate
universe miraculously achieved zero net carbon emissions, people would come up
and say well, the US isn’t doing enough, it’s not importing (subsidizing bad
actors and taking their load from them) enough carbon to help carbon emitters
come in line.

~~~
ben_w
Unfortunately, I have seen it suggested that net-zero is no longer sufficient;
that the question has, for a while, been “how much damage will there be?”
rather than “will there be any damage?”

Past emissions are still in the air.

I’m not too fussed myself, because I’ve noticed that photovoltaic is growing
exponentially — literally exponentially — so we will probably soon have so
much spare power we will be trivially able to absorb CO2 from the air and turn
into petrol or something.

