subgenius wrote:Yet, since 1995, in America the per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions has reduced by about 15% to 20%...and of the top 20 industrial carbon dioxide emitters...only 3 are American companies (with only 1 in the top 10 - #5 Exxon, #12 Chevron, #16 Peabody).
And being a skeptic of global warming prophecy is a more accurate characterization....of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.
Let's dig into sub's arguments a little to see how well they hold up. Here's a link to data on total and per capita CO2 emissions per capita up to 2016.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview. ... &sort=des9 Sub is right. The U.S. per capita is 15.56 tons per person. So, all we have to do is lean on those countries that have higher per capita usage, right? In 2016, the number one per capita baddie was the awful nation of Curacao. Followed by Quatar and Trinidad and Tobago. Problem solved. Get right on that, Sub.
Sub also leaves out the fact that per capita figure for the world is under 5, meaning our "improvement" means that we've gone from very inefficient to inefficient in terms of per capita CO2 production.
A sensible person might approach the problem by looking at the countries that produce the most total CO2 in order to get the most bang for the buck in total reductions. The three top producers are China, U.S., and India. But India's per capita production is under 2, and China's is under 8. So, if our interest is in eliminating carbon emissions, per capita emissions is not a sensible number to focus on. The stat that Sub quotes is simply a cherry picked number designed excuse the U.S. from putting forth any further effort to actually reduce total emissions.
But Sub also fails to ask why U.S. per capita emissions have fallen. One reason is that, with the advent of fracking technology, the U.S. has been substituting natural gas for coal and oil in the production of electricity. But that substitution has its own problems. First, it can't continue indefinitely -- we can't get to zero net carbon emissions by producing all of our electricity through natural gas. Second, natural gas production results in increased methane release. This is particularly important given the recent study that the EPA has been underestimating the release of methane caused by natural gas production in the U.S. by as much as 60%.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141154.htm The figure Sub cites doesn't include methane emissions.
Also, what has happened is that manufacturing has shifted from the U.S. to other countries. Where is your cell phone made? As manufacturing for products consumed by Americans has moved overseas, we have essentially outsourced our CO2 emissions to other countries. Sub himself recognizes the importance of this when he tries to shame doubtingthomas into silence by focussing on what he consumes as opposed to what he makes. Who, actually, should be responsible for CO2 emissions from manufacturing? The country where the plant happens to be located or the consumer who buys the goods? All that cheap crap from China we can buy in Wal-Mart requires the emission of carbon, regardless of where the manufacturing takes place.
What Sub is really defending is the notion that it is perfectly fine to sentence our descendants to a hellish existence so that he can exercise his right to buy cheap crap from Wal-Mart, drive as much as he chooses, and purchase more expensive, less efficient lightbulbs because... freedom.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
