I don't have the required knowledge to form an opinion on the data or methodology, or even on another expert's opinion on those.
But I find it hard to trust the untrustworthy. Personally, I would have appreciated if the title included ", claims an organisation that used to bribe scientists".
In addition, the title is essentially clickbait, a spin on the data that's convenient for the publisher; as other commenters noted, a large absolute decrease of a really large number is still a small relative decrease; and US is still one of the most per capita polluting countries.
I don't want to sound too negative though, I definitely hope the trend continues.
Should we have that included in the title of any large agri-tech or bio-tech company then? Monsanto's bribed scientists... Bayer's bribed scientists... etc. etc. Who hasn't bribed a scientist these days?
Also, the US is now putting out the least CO2 emissions per capita in decades (since the early 60's). So atleast the US is on the right track, as this article rightfully suggests.
But I find it hard to trust the untrustworthy. Personally, I would have appreciated if the title included ", claims an organisation that used to bribe scientists".
In addition, the title is essentially clickbait, a spin on the data that's convenient for the publisher; as other commenters noted, a large absolute decrease of a really large number is still a small relative decrease; and US is still one of the most per capita polluting countries.
I don't want to sound too negative though, I definitely hope the trend continues.