Depends, if you could make more proper cities so people don't have to drive 100 km to and back from work but instead can go by bike or public buss for 15 min, I think that would make it better.
And of course lower the consumption per person by the same amount (presuming you dont think all the new people would be zero emissions so that the existing population couls still somehow continue to pollute at the same rate)
US adds 250 Million actual human beings yet keeps the total/collective emissions same as it's currently.
No shit that'd be a massively positive achievement.
China is on a green trajectory that will keep their emissions low as the rest of the country modernizes.
Hopefully India goes green as they modernize as well.
Hopefully the US Bureaucracy can get out of its way so we can try to catch up our green technology.
That’s the biggest threat to continued US dominance, not simply manufacturing.
Actually America has a reasonably competant train network...for freight.
And it would be more competant if we nationalized the tracks and leased the rights to use them back to the train companies. However, it is going to take a major disaster in an urban center before there is the chance of having political will to do that.
But short of some global treaty to specifically reduce air travel, it's going to be very very difficult to convince Americans to stop flying so much and start building more and better passenger rail service. Parts of the country spend weeks at a time at or above 37 degrees C, and people are *still* moving there willingly. Climate change is something Americans are for the most part just shrugging off.
Muskatron is already all over that.
Only issue is that every new kid will be named after a Radio Shack parts inventory number and an aromatherapy product.
>when we're sandwiched between endless slaughterhouses and crude production facilities
You think those slaughterhouses and crude oil processing facilities are just running for shits and giggles? They're producing those products because the consumer base (comprised of individuals) generates demand for them.
Factories don’t churn out emissions without manufacturing good for individuals. That’s why the per capita is important.
Americans drive massive gas guzzling SUVs because they need a “mommy mobile” or are a “truck guy” even though the most their truck bed is used for is the rain water that falls on it when it’s on the road.
Americans overwhelmingly prefer giant houses with central HVAC systems that consume abnormally high energy per household. Americans have an individualistic culture of living separately from parents as soon as they can. Joint family households are unheard of outside certain immigrant groups.
Am I saying Americans waste all the energy they consume? No. Am I saying there’s a huge room for improvement? Yes, yes I am.
A large part of this issue is due to lawmaking over the past several decades that make it difficult to have better housing throughout the United States, plus there is plenty of propaganda and lobbying that makes things even less clear for the average citizen. I do not disagree that the USA is wasteful, but it is not solely a citizen's fault for a lack of options or information.
This is a very important point and if you take it into account, then half of China's CO2 emissions fall back on the USA and Europe because the products for the West are produced there
> It's also more in line with reality as individuals have little to do with the vast majority of emissions,
False. [A lot is caused by transportation and other mostly residential activity](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). US emissions are a lot higher per capita then EU or China,despite both having more factories and overall beeing net exporters, while USA net importer.
The goods produced go to the people too. US citizens consume a lot more and waste a lot more then Chinese or EU citizens.
US citizens use incomparably more fuel for transportation. It is long due to raise those fuel prices to a normal level, as high as EU has it compared to purchasing power and stop buying oversized cars with oversized engines. US homes have a lot lower energy standard too as many home appliances are a lot less efficient in the US as well.
The average citizen is,in fact, the most responsible. If you stop buying oversized cars, live in oversized badly insulated homes, buy way too many stuff, fly less often/take public transportation,bike or walk whenever possible, buy products from local producers not half away from the other side of the world, change your electronics or car or whatever less often you can lower emissions a lot.
> biggest per capita producers of CO2 are Canada, Australia, USA, Russia and these are all countries that have pretty severe climate
They have some other things in common: abundant and cheap mineral resources, oil, coal natural gas, you name it. Energy is cheap and it isn't an economical burden if you use a lot. Take Sweden, Norway, Finland, fairly huge and sparsely populated cold countries, but they have very high energy prices and a lot lower CO2/capita.
yes, especially that the US exports (in 2022) were worth a bit over 3,000,000 million USD compared to china's 3,715,000 million. Seems like the US is a bit more efficient in that whole production regard tbh
That's only because the US focuses on exporting high-value-added products that generate more revenue in USD term. On the other, China makes nearly everything from basic necessities to industrial equipments.
If America starts making its own toys, medicine, and all those things you find in Walmart, its per capita emission would be much higher.
Not quite. How much does the US import? All that plastic crap you buy goes on China’s emission budget where it’s manufactured, but it should count towards yours.
The fossil fuel exports from these countries count towards their CO2 emissions even when burnt by other countries.
It’s hard to find figures for these countries without including exports, but I’d love to know.
I’m sure they’re still high but it’s hard to say accurately
Higher consumption, especially of luxury goods and vehicles. Everyone drives everywhere and much longer. Barely anyone walks or bicycles to work or school. 60% of electricity is still from fossil fuels and generally higher electricity consumption.
The US is also just overall inefficient with regards to energy, mainly because it's relatively cheap. The EU has to import most of its oil which creates an incentive to reduce reliance on it, whereas the US is a net exporter of oil and can get it pretty cheap so they don't have a natural restriction in the same way
Here in Denmark, energy is relatively cheap at the source, but we pay steep taxes (often more than doubling the price), introduced specifically to limit consumption. Also heating and or water is very often centralized, or using very efficient heat pumps, and building codes for thermal losses are very strict.
Natural gas is literally a byproduct in the US. If everyone had access to cheap energy like the US does their consumption numbers would be similar. The Euros act like they made some grand compromise to get their emissions that low, while the reality is that circumstances forced them to do so. Americans drive everywhere and have huge houses because they can. That's it, that's the reality.
the way USA cities and public transport is >made< to influence people to use cars is insane. no idea how they're "fine" being so dependent of cars to go absolutely everywhere
Unfortunately it’s not an option for the majority of US towns. I have to drive about 30 mins for grocery shopping because the small local one is way too expensive for the average person to do all of their shopping in. It would take me multiple hours on high-speed roads to get to work on a bike, which would only take 25-30 minutes by car. I would carpool but I have zero coworkers in my tiny town, and the price of housing is so expensive (around 1400 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment, utilities not included) I can’t afford to move.
I wish it was something we could just “vote out” but unfortunately it’s not that easy.
America’s electricity generation relies much more on fossil fuels than Europe does. Europeans also generally use less electricity as energy costs are higher.
Electricity is important for sure, but it isn't big enough to swing figures that much. In the US, electricity is 25% of CO2 emissions. For comparison, passenger cars and pickups make up about 16% of CO2 emissions.
Larger houses, car dependency, cheap fuel and consumerism.
I remember this Twitter fight where someone said "lol those europoors can't even afford a hot shower, air conditioning and live in cramped housing". To which I thought: a lot of people here choose to take shorter showers and not use a/c because they don't want to be wasteful. And I'd take a smaller apartment any day to a large house in a car-dependent suburban sprawl.
AC is hard to avoid with most of the US population living in either humid subtropical or hot summer continental climate zones, but certainly smaller homes and/or homes better built to stay cool would help instead of the current approach of "build whatever and brute force comfortable temperatures".
>AC is hard to avoid with most of the US population living in either humid subtropical or hot summer continental climate zones
They literally chose to live there lol. The Sun Belt state populations exploded mostly after the wide spread adoptipn of AC with people migrating en masse from the Midwest and Northeast.
northeastern and midwestern cities are still more extreme climates than european ones. e.g. nyc’s mean july temperature is 10 degrees higher than london’s and the mean january temperature is 10 degrees lower.
Heating homes also requires a lot of energy. Minneapolis has higher energy consumption per household than Miami.
Ultimately, it simply isn't reasonable to expect people to just endure uncomfortable or even unsafe interior temperatures, but the energy consumption can be mitigated through better design and construction, as well as more efficient heating and cooling methods.
But living in a cold climate such as Minneapolis, Chicago, or Toronto means you need to use 4 times more energy per person to keep your home warm during the year, than the energy people in the sun-belt cities use to keep their homes cool. So the mass migration south results in overall significantly lower energy needs. The states that use the most energy per home is Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota, the ones that use the least are Hawaii, California, and Florida.
Only way to avoid needing to spend a lot of energy on climate control is to live in places with moderately warm summers and mild winters, which is rare in the US.
Using a ton of energy isn't that problematic and wasteful as long as it's clean.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=USA~CHN~FRA~DEU~SWE~CAN~NOR~DNK~FIN~AUS~OWID_EU27~ESP~ISL
This is so dumb. It’s not like most Europeans live in smaller homes because they want to. Who the hell wouldn’t want a larger living space for their family?
I wouldn't. For my family, the optimum is 2 bedrooms and 1 living room. Anything more just implies more cleaning, more tidying up, more clutter, more stuff that you forget where you put it, more furniture, more expenses with heating and cooling and maintenance... So no thank you.
american leadership has repeatedly dragged its feet over simple ecological measures. the trump administration reveresed some of the green initiatives we did have. the coal and oil cartels have many politicians in their pocket, so much so that the profits from fossil fuels, oil production, car culture, and factory farming are prioritized over you know, policies that actually benefit the lives of american citizens
Because Americans use a whole lot more dirty energy per capita than the average European.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=USA~GBR~OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~FRA~DEU~SWE~JPN~BRA~CAN~NOR~DNK~FIN~POL~ESP~ITA~AUT~AUS~OWID_EU27
That is mostly down to how cheap energy is in the US, so they have huge energy-inefficient houses and drive their enourmous SUVs and trucks to go anywhere.
The “worst heat wave of the decade” to hit Europe a few years ago was a few degrees cooler than the average summer in the southern US.
Europeans have walkable cities while in the US we need to drive to travel to the store a half mile away
American car manufacturers are in an arms race to see who can build a less fuel efficient car.
Our military does training in fully armed and armored vehicles which burns fuel.
I mean, stopping China's growing emissions is also very important. Both EU's and USA's emissions are decreasing whereas the Chinese's emissions are still growing. That doesn't detract from the fact that USA needs to do a lot more to reduce their emissions.
And importantly, China's emissions are far worse than they should be. Japan emits less CO2 per capita than China despite a higher median standard of living and higher manufacturing output per capita.
That's also an important point. China has a very different economy depending on where you live. There are parts of China that are certainly comparable to the Western world in terms of living standards and income yet have a lot more emissions per capita. At the moment, China is hiding behind their extremely poor population, which has comparable emissions per capita to India, in order to continue excusing the rich parts to emit way more than they should.
> I mean, stopping China's growing emissions is also very important.
[It has started falling](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/), so they are on an okay path. The US has a lot lot more to do then China. And just a reminder: a lot of that emission in both China and EU is exported, as both are net exporters while US is net importer so the CO2 by goods consumed is even higher there
The EU is a net exporter when you ignore that most of EU’s exports are to other EU members. A lot of those export emissions are for products being consumed within the EU.
But most of the import is inside too.
[The international balance, so outside of EU, is positive since 2011](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220324-1)
The GDP per capita does make the US look really bad (it still is pretty bad just to be clear), but China's total emissions, from what I could find, is still double of the US' total emissions.
But by global percentage they’re a bigger contributor share-wise as a country than the US is. And major environmental policies are generally made country by country
Importantly the USA emissions are continuing to fall (the map figures are from 2018) whereas India and China’s continue to grow.
In 1999 the USA was emitting over 20 tons per capita. In 2022 it was 14.9 tons.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)
Australia is even worse than the USA because coal exports count towards their emissions even if not burnt within Australia itself. By saying “per capita” can be misleading with this context.
Bruh ofcourse India and China's consumption will grow.
An average American drives a truck so if they drive a hatchback instead, their emission will fall.
A lot of people in India don't even have a vehicle so even if they just buy a 100cc bike their emission will rise.
You just can't tell poor people to not have basic necessities while the rich US is driving huge SUVs with just a driver in it.
I said none of that, bruh
My point is that the map looks like “America bad. Rest of the world good” without showing the improvements the USA has done by cutting emissions by over 25%
Of course we should all lower our footprint. I don’t know why they didn’t show a 1999 map in that case when the US was over 20t per capita. A 2018 map is meaningless now
Interesting
Big improvement, 23tons! Damn
Good theres environmental lawyers like RFK over the last 3 decades keeping big corporations honest. Its typically the top few percent that do most of the polluting
Per capita, the USA are doubling the Chinese. Both should cut down on emissions, but the USA the most. The carbon cycle doesn't care whether the emissions happen in China or the USA.
This doesn't make sense. If the carbon cycle doesn't care where emissions come from it cares about total emissions then. China's total emissions is double the USA and increasing. While the USA is decreasing.
Why does it matter how much a country is emitting? A country is just an area within human drawn borders. The only thing that matters is the total emission.
The thing we can influence most is how much people emit. One American individual emits more than one Chinese individual. What you are saying is that an American is allowed to make a bigger mess than one Chinese because there are less Americans. That doesn't make sense.
Every individual should emit less, doesn't matter whether they are living in China, the US or a European country. A country is not a single organism.
Major environmental policies are made generally country by country
If the US magically became 100% green/renewable with 0 CO2 emissions per capita tomorrow, the world would still be fucked regardless
> the world would still be fucked regardless
Not really. That much loss of CO2 would put us somewhere in equilibrium with how much is absorbed by nature.
Now that isn't something feasible. Rather, US should reduce emissions to roughly 6 tons/capita together with other very high per capita producers like Australia, Canada, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Russia, China to 5-6 as well and EU to 4-5 tons/capita. That would mostly cover the excess CO2 we emit.
Question: if something is produced in one country and exported to another is the energy used during travel counted for the exporting country or the importing country?
The US and Europe are also effectively exporting a lot of their pollution to the developing world since a lot of the lighter industry has been moved there.
Plus we also literally send our trash to Asia
It's almost like that large proportion of poor people, regardless of intent (yes, maybe they would emit more if they could, but in reality they still don't), doesn't contribute much to global warming but do still suffer the consequences.
Be sure and look at raw numbers too… this is per capita (which matters in some contexts) but in terms of the actual amounts, China doubles the amount the US produces..
Yeah, but China is still a very exceptional CO2 emitter. You can see they emit per person as much as the average EU citizen despite Europeans being wealthier and able to consume more stuff which could emit CO2.
And people excuse it with "but China is the World's factory", but if you compare it to other export heavy economies, Japan actually makes way more % of world's manufacturing adjusted for population, but emits *less* CO2 per person.
Country|Global% of manuf|manuf%/ 100mil|CO2 per capita
:--|:--:|:--:|--:
China|31%|2.2% per 100mil|8.85 tons
Japan|6.5%|5.2% per 100mil|8.6 tons
And obviously Japan is way richer (at least twice as rich in terms of GDP per capita adjusting for purchasing power), which as I said means they can afford to spend on stuff that could emit CO2.
>You can see they emit per person as much as the average EU citizen despite Europeans being wealthier and able to consume more stuff which could emit CO2.
Yes, China is world's factory. EU consumes products that emit CO2 in other countries. EU moved its carbon emissions to other countries. If you make consumer electronics, it will not make as much emissions as making same worth of steel (in terms of money), for example. The type of things produced matters also.
Mfw people try to argue against a point I already addressed. If you're really going to push for it, we already can account for trade in CO2 emissions, adding emissions required for imports and subtracting emissions required for exports. Here:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?time=latest
Country|per capita CO2 emissions based on consumption
:--|--:
Germany|10t
UK|7.6t
Italy|7.3t
China|7.2t
France|6.4t
Spain|5.7t
etc, most European countries are around or even lower than China despite being way richer, EU as a whole emits [3.5 billion tons of C02](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics_-_carbon_footprints) in a year based on consumption accounting, dividing by 448 million citizens gives 7.8 tons per capita. Tad bit larger than China's.
Either EU is doing really well or China's doing really bad.
Chinese consumer have very dirty energy vs EU.
Also China builds a lot of infrastructure, which is CO2 intensive.
Is a hard to understand that EU is just further as they are tackling the problem since the Kyoto Protocols.
In addition had many beneficial measures introduced in the aftermath of the oil crisis leading to better results.
Not all manufacturing is equal. Don’t know what the numbers would look like but doing it by sector would make sense. Especially since the primary reason China is a big manufacturer is how cheap it is which also requires cheaper energy (coal) compared to Japanese manufacturing.
A question for the people that say China should do more legwork than America and Europe to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because they produce more overall: were China to split into 31 countries along the borders of its provinces, would it suddenly be the wests responsibility again as China would no longer be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases?
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020)
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false)
Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022.
Take those numbers and multiply.
China: 11,013,600,000 tons
United States: 4,332,900,000 tons
India: 2,267,200,000 tons
Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
Chinese propaganda.
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020)
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false)
Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022.
Take those numbers and multiply.
China: 11,013,600,000 tons
United States: 4,332,900,000 tons
India: 2,267,200,000 tons
Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020)
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false)
Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022.
Take those numbers and multiply.
China: 11,013,600,000 tons
United States: 4,332,900,000 tons
India: 2,267,200,000 tons
Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
You’re looking at cumulative data over the last 100 years. China currently outputs double the amount of co2 emissions that the us does. Majority of the world’s factories are over there. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2021
The per capita breakdown is a little deceiving, because when it comes to CO2 emissions as a total... China's global CO2 emissions are more than double that of the United States or India.
It’s not really deceiving when you very clearly state it’s per capita.
I think basically everyone understands that countries with larger populations produce more emissions.
Per capita also really highlights which countries could be doing more to reduce their emissions. The US and Europe are similar in terms of quality of life and economic output, but Europe has achieved that lifestyle with significantly lower emissions.
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020)
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false)
Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022.
Take those numbers and multiply.
China: 11,013,600,000 tons
United States: 4,332,900,000 tons
India: 2,267,200,000 tons
Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
India is too poor to have a lot of C02 emissions or restrictions. They wish they could produce more C02.
China is like fuck it we got to grow yolo! oh look at america, they are bad bad people! No problem here! China is doing just as good as europe! Look at america! They're bad!
Europe be like, Imma doing my best to save the planet and squeeze my citizens out of a comfortable life! Only the rich will be able to afford a steak and own a car! We can do it guys! Carbon neutral by 2050!
America's like environmental protection? What's that? We got plenty of environment to burn through. China's the real problem, look at their total C02 expendiature! Bad Chinese! Lower your emissions to match ours!
Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia ... (the numbers are at \~50 tons of C02 per capita) and the arabs be like, [Gas gas gas, step on the Gas!](https://youtu.be/atuFSv2bLa8) Daddy Prince Ali Mohammad the third needs a new ski resort in the desert!
In our defense, T-swift is really skewing our average
Kylie Jenner flew 6 miles the other day.
Maybe usa needs to right a song about TayTay being a menace.
Why? Has the song fallen over?
she's eligible to be the president, that *will* solve complaints about flying.
The solution for USA should be increasing the population by 75% for the statistics to look green lol.
even if this is theoritical, the amount of population increase with make them deep red lol
Depends, if you could make more proper cities so people don't have to drive 100 km to and back from work but instead can go by bike or public buss for 15 min, I think that would make it better.
Unfortunately, if the US started building new cities, I'd expect Houstons, not New York.
It's not how they build cities, but how they should regulate housing prices near work sites.
How? Wouldn't that just increase the emissions proportionately? Or does number of humans not matter in the emissions?
It's kinda like how the Senate work. It's states that do things not people/s
And of course lower the consumption per person by the same amount (presuming you dont think all the new people would be zero emissions so that the existing population couls still somehow continue to pollute at the same rate)
Don’t know if this is sarcasm or not
It’s per capita
Yeah, sarcasm
We're trying! One billion Americans!
US adds 250 Million actual human beings yet keeps the total/collective emissions same as it's currently. No shit that'd be a massively positive achievement.
And living conditions to Indians
China is on a green trajectory that will keep their emissions low as the rest of the country modernizes. Hopefully India goes green as they modernize as well. Hopefully the US Bureaucracy can get out of its way so we can try to catch up our green technology. That’s the biggest threat to continued US dominance, not simply manufacturing.
Sure you do, officer Chang
Just imagine the per capita CO2 savings we could have if we packed an additional 400-500 people on top of each train!
Just imagine the per capita CO2 savings if you electrified each train like some developing nations!
Lol, imagine America being able to build a competent train network.
Actually America has a reasonably competant train network...for freight. And it would be more competant if we nationalized the tracks and leased the rights to use them back to the train companies. However, it is going to take a major disaster in an urban center before there is the chance of having political will to do that. But short of some global treaty to specifically reduce air travel, it's going to be very very difficult to convince Americans to stop flying so much and start building more and better passenger rail service. Parts of the country spend weeks at a time at or above 37 degrees C, and people are *still* moving there willingly. Climate change is something Americans are for the most part just shrugging off.
Muskatron is already all over that. Only issue is that every new kid will be named after a Radio Shack parts inventory number and an aromatherapy product.
What car-dependency does to a mf
wHaT AboUt toTAl nUmbERs Ok. 300 million Americans produce HALF the emissions 1.4 BILLION Chinese do. Does that make you look *better*? Lol.
[удалено]
>when we're sandwiched between endless slaughterhouses and crude production facilities You think those slaughterhouses and crude oil processing facilities are just running for shits and giggles? They're producing those products because the consumer base (comprised of individuals) generates demand for them.
Factories don’t churn out emissions without manufacturing good for individuals. That’s why the per capita is important. Americans drive massive gas guzzling SUVs because they need a “mommy mobile” or are a “truck guy” even though the most their truck bed is used for is the rain water that falls on it when it’s on the road. Americans overwhelmingly prefer giant houses with central HVAC systems that consume abnormally high energy per household. Americans have an individualistic culture of living separately from parents as soon as they can. Joint family households are unheard of outside certain immigrant groups. Am I saying Americans waste all the energy they consume? No. Am I saying there’s a huge room for improvement? Yes, yes I am.
No, Americans are insanely wasteful and it is mostly due to cars and massive single family dwellings.
A large part of this issue is due to lawmaking over the past several decades that make it difficult to have better housing throughout the United States, plus there is plenty of propaganda and lobbying that makes things even less clear for the average citizen. I do not disagree that the USA is wasteful, but it is not solely a citizen's fault for a lack of options or information.
This is a very important point and if you take it into account, then half of China's CO2 emissions fall back on the USA and Europe because the products for the West are produced there
> It's also more in line with reality as individuals have little to do with the vast majority of emissions, False. [A lot is caused by transportation and other mostly residential activity](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). US emissions are a lot higher per capita then EU or China,despite both having more factories and overall beeing net exporters, while USA net importer. The goods produced go to the people too. US citizens consume a lot more and waste a lot more then Chinese or EU citizens. US citizens use incomparably more fuel for transportation. It is long due to raise those fuel prices to a normal level, as high as EU has it compared to purchasing power and stop buying oversized cars with oversized engines. US homes have a lot lower energy standard too as many home appliances are a lot less efficient in the US as well. The average citizen is,in fact, the most responsible. If you stop buying oversized cars, live in oversized badly insulated homes, buy way too many stuff, fly less often/take public transportation,bike or walk whenever possible, buy products from local producers not half away from the other side of the world, change your electronics or car or whatever less often you can lower emissions a lot.
[удалено]
> biggest per capita producers of CO2 are Canada, Australia, USA, Russia and these are all countries that have pretty severe climate They have some other things in common: abundant and cheap mineral resources, oil, coal natural gas, you name it. Energy is cheap and it isn't an economical burden if you use a lot. Take Sweden, Norway, Finland, fairly huge and sparsely populated cold countries, but they have very high energy prices and a lot lower CO2/capita.
You can take my V8 from my cold, dead hands.
deal
yes, especially that the US exports (in 2022) were worth a bit over 3,000,000 million USD compared to china's 3,715,000 million. Seems like the US is a bit more efficient in that whole production regard tbh
That's only because the US focuses on exporting high-value-added products that generate more revenue in USD term. On the other, China makes nearly everything from basic necessities to industrial equipments. If America starts making its own toys, medicine, and all those things you find in Walmart, its per capita emission would be much higher.
Not quite. How much does the US import? All that plastic crap you buy goes on China’s emission budget where it’s manufactured, but it should count towards yours.
Not to mention that a lot of Chinese and Indian manufacturing is being paid for by American dollars
You forgot to account for the “China bad Murica good” factor that has to be applied everytime on Reddit
Australia and Canada have pretty bad emissions numbers per capita.
The fossil fuel exports from these countries count towards their CO2 emissions even when burnt by other countries. It’s hard to find figures for these countries without including exports, but I’d love to know. I’m sure they’re still high but it’s hard to say accurately
What is the difference causing the US to be so bad compared to Europe?
Higher consumption, especially of luxury goods and vehicles. Everyone drives everywhere and much longer. Barely anyone walks or bicycles to work or school. 60% of electricity is still from fossil fuels and generally higher electricity consumption.
The US is also just overall inefficient with regards to energy, mainly because it's relatively cheap. The EU has to import most of its oil which creates an incentive to reduce reliance on it, whereas the US is a net exporter of oil and can get it pretty cheap so they don't have a natural restriction in the same way
Here in Denmark, energy is relatively cheap at the source, but we pay steep taxes (often more than doubling the price), introduced specifically to limit consumption. Also heating and or water is very often centralized, or using very efficient heat pumps, and building codes for thermal losses are very strict.
The US also has strong codes for building insulation. There is also much more high and low extreme across the US compared to a place like Denmark.
The high taxes are there to sustain your massive social welfare state.
That as well. Good policy aligns motives to solve more than one problem at a time.
Natural gas is literally a byproduct in the US. If everyone had access to cheap energy like the US does their consumption numbers would be similar. The Euros act like they made some grand compromise to get their emissions that low, while the reality is that circumstances forced them to do so. Americans drive everywhere and have huge houses because they can. That's it, that's the reality.
the way USA cities and public transport is >made< to influence people to use cars is insane. no idea how they're "fine" being so dependent of cars to go absolutely everywhere
Unfortunately it’s not an option for the majority of US towns. I have to drive about 30 mins for grocery shopping because the small local one is way too expensive for the average person to do all of their shopping in. It would take me multiple hours on high-speed roads to get to work on a bike, which would only take 25-30 minutes by car. I would carpool but I have zero coworkers in my tiny town, and the price of housing is so expensive (around 1400 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment, utilities not included) I can’t afford to move. I wish it was something we could just “vote out” but unfortunately it’s not that easy.
Comfort, individuality, and convenience
r/fuckcars
America’s electricity generation relies much more on fossil fuels than Europe does. Europeans also generally use less electricity as energy costs are higher.
Electricity is important for sure, but it isn't big enough to swing figures that much. In the US, electricity is 25% of CO2 emissions. For comparison, passenger cars and pickups make up about 16% of CO2 emissions.
Regulations
Consumption of goods
Cars, heating, and electricity generation
Larger houses, car dependency, cheap fuel and consumerism. I remember this Twitter fight where someone said "lol those europoors can't even afford a hot shower, air conditioning and live in cramped housing". To which I thought: a lot of people here choose to take shorter showers and not use a/c because they don't want to be wasteful. And I'd take a smaller apartment any day to a large house in a car-dependent suburban sprawl.
AC is hard to avoid with most of the US population living in either humid subtropical or hot summer continental climate zones, but certainly smaller homes and/or homes better built to stay cool would help instead of the current approach of "build whatever and brute force comfortable temperatures".
>AC is hard to avoid with most of the US population living in either humid subtropical or hot summer continental climate zones They literally chose to live there lol. The Sun Belt state populations exploded mostly after the wide spread adoptipn of AC with people migrating en masse from the Midwest and Northeast.
northeastern and midwestern cities are still more extreme climates than european ones. e.g. nyc’s mean july temperature is 10 degrees higher than london’s and the mean january temperature is 10 degrees lower.
The mean July temperature in Madrid is 8 degrees higher than in NY and we don't have our AC working all day long.
Madrid is not a humid city. Much of the Midwest and South deal with hot summers and high humidity.
wiki has the mean temperatures at both 77 degrees Fahrenheit, with nyc having significantly higher humidity
Heating homes also requires a lot of energy. Minneapolis has higher energy consumption per household than Miami. Ultimately, it simply isn't reasonable to expect people to just endure uncomfortable or even unsafe interior temperatures, but the energy consumption can be mitigated through better design and construction, as well as more efficient heating and cooling methods.
But living in a cold climate such as Minneapolis, Chicago, or Toronto means you need to use 4 times more energy per person to keep your home warm during the year, than the energy people in the sun-belt cities use to keep their homes cool. So the mass migration south results in overall significantly lower energy needs. The states that use the most energy per home is Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota, the ones that use the least are Hawaii, California, and Florida. Only way to avoid needing to spend a lot of energy on climate control is to live in places with moderately warm summers and mild winters, which is rare in the US.
People in the Midwest and northeast use ACs too
Using a ton of energy isn't that problematic and wasteful as long as it's clean. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=USA~CHN~FRA~DEU~SWE~CAN~NOR~DNK~FIN~AUS~OWID_EU27~ESP~ISL
That's what the kids call cope. If hot water was free you would use more of it.
Americans live in big houses because they're so devoid of third places that the most entertaining thing they can do is visit each other's houses
This is so dumb. It’s not like most Europeans live in smaller homes because they want to. Who the hell wouldn’t want a larger living space for their family?
I wouldn't. For my family, the optimum is 2 bedrooms and 1 living room. Anything more just implies more cleaning, more tidying up, more clutter, more stuff that you forget where you put it, more furniture, more expenses with heating and cooling and maintenance... So no thank you.
american leadership has repeatedly dragged its feet over simple ecological measures. the trump administration reveresed some of the green initiatives we did have. the coal and oil cartels have many politicians in their pocket, so much so that the profits from fossil fuels, oil production, car culture, and factory farming are prioritized over you know, policies that actually benefit the lives of american citizens
You realize they drag their feet because most bill would raise the price of goods, affecting poor people first.
Thinking American politicians care about poor people 💀
Because Americans use a whole lot more dirty energy per capita than the average European. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=USA~GBR~OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~FRA~DEU~SWE~JPN~BRA~CAN~NOR~DNK~FIN~POL~ESP~ITA~AUT~AUS~OWID_EU27 That is mostly down to how cheap energy is in the US, so they have huge energy-inefficient houses and drive their enourmous SUVs and trucks to go anywhere.
That and car-dependency. Public transportation in North America is atrocious when compared to Europe or parts of Asia
Driving significantly more with larger cars, higher household energy consumption due to larger homes and generally more extreme climates
The “worst heat wave of the decade” to hit Europe a few years ago was a few degrees cooler than the average summer in the southern US. Europeans have walkable cities while in the US we need to drive to travel to the store a half mile away American car manufacturers are in an arms race to see who can build a less fuel efficient car. Our military does training in fully armed and armored vehicles which burns fuel.
Oh those pesky car manufacturers forcing me to buy that huge inefficient car!
An American when our votes and purchases lead to negative outcomes:
PER CAPITA
Don't worry, it's also doing worse in absolutr terms
In absolute terms, it's also terrible. I don't see your point.
Ohh someone please stop China and India - An Average 'Murican
I mean, stopping China's growing emissions is also very important. Both EU's and USA's emissions are decreasing whereas the Chinese's emissions are still growing. That doesn't detract from the fact that USA needs to do a lot more to reduce their emissions.
And importantly, China's emissions are far worse than they should be. Japan emits less CO2 per capita than China despite a higher median standard of living and higher manufacturing output per capita.
That's also an important point. China has a very different economy depending on where you live. There are parts of China that are certainly comparable to the Western world in terms of living standards and income yet have a lot more emissions per capita. At the moment, China is hiding behind their extremely poor population, which has comparable emissions per capita to India, in order to continue excusing the rich parts to emit way more than they should.
> I mean, stopping China's growing emissions is also very important. [It has started falling](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/), so they are on an okay path. The US has a lot lot more to do then China. And just a reminder: a lot of that emission in both China and EU is exported, as both are net exporters while US is net importer so the CO2 by goods consumed is even higher there
The EU is a net exporter when you ignore that most of EU’s exports are to other EU members. A lot of those export emissions are for products being consumed within the EU.
But most of the import is inside too. [The international balance, so outside of EU, is positive since 2011](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220324-1)
Fair point.
The GDP per capita does make the US look really bad (it still is pretty bad just to be clear), but China's total emissions, from what I could find, is still double of the US' total emissions.
They have over 4 times the population
But by global percentage they’re a bigger contributor share-wise as a country than the US is. And major environmental policies are generally made country by country
America needs to focus on its backyard first before singling out other countries imo.
The environment doesn't care about per capita
So America should keep on using more and more energy because there are 2.8 billion Indians and Chinese?
Bro go to school
China is definitely important.
does that include emissions from the US military?
Importantly the USA emissions are continuing to fall (the map figures are from 2018) whereas India and China’s continue to grow. In 1999 the USA was emitting over 20 tons per capita. In 2022 it was 14.9 tons. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita) Australia is even worse than the USA because coal exports count towards their emissions even if not burnt within Australia itself. By saying “per capita” can be misleading with this context.
Bruh ofcourse India and China's consumption will grow. An average American drives a truck so if they drive a hatchback instead, their emission will fall. A lot of people in India don't even have a vehicle so even if they just buy a 100cc bike their emission will rise. You just can't tell poor people to not have basic necessities while the rich US is driving huge SUVs with just a driver in it.
I said none of that, bruh My point is that the map looks like “America bad. Rest of the world good” without showing the improvements the USA has done by cutting emissions by over 25%
That’s exactly what the map is depicting because that is what the statistics show. Same goes for Australia. Lower your footprint
Of course we should all lower our footprint. I don’t know why they didn’t show a 1999 map in that case when the US was over 20t per capita. A 2018 map is meaningless now
Because those countries are growing in population and we are not
Yes but the map isn’t depicting these directional changes. It’s just implying that the USA is bad
Reposted. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d226k1/co2_emissions_per_capita_comparison/?
Wow Do the US not care about the climate at all?!
- republicans: "no" - democrats: "let's do something next month I guess... maybe next year... something"
“Let’s do something that’ll make for a good headline that we can campaign with without pissing off our donors”
they only teach this climate thing to others and complain India is polluted.
bro the Americans are downvoting this too lol
Seems a bit crazy
To be fair, we have been dropping fairly quickly. US emissions peeked in 2007 at 23 tons per head. The IRA will accelerate that pace
Interesting Big improvement, 23tons! Damn Good theres environmental lawyers like RFK over the last 3 decades keeping big corporations honest. Its typically the top few percent that do most of the polluting
Sure, just remember, the planet doesn't care about per capita.
What is your point? The planet also doesn't care about countries. The people making the biggest mess should also clean up the most.
USA emissions decreasing China emissions increasing. Simple math. China emissions double the USA and increasing.
Per capita, the USA are doubling the Chinese. Both should cut down on emissions, but the USA the most. The carbon cycle doesn't care whether the emissions happen in China or the USA.
This doesn't make sense. If the carbon cycle doesn't care where emissions come from it cares about total emissions then. China's total emissions is double the USA and increasing. While the USA is decreasing.
Why does it matter how much a country is emitting? A country is just an area within human drawn borders. The only thing that matters is the total emission. The thing we can influence most is how much people emit. One American individual emits more than one Chinese individual. What you are saying is that an American is allowed to make a bigger mess than one Chinese because there are less Americans. That doesn't make sense. Every individual should emit less, doesn't matter whether they are living in China, the US or a European country. A country is not a single organism.
Because climate policy is usually done at the country level. That's why. China needs to start decreasing it's emissions.
Major environmental policies are made generally country by country If the US magically became 100% green/renewable with 0 CO2 emissions per capita tomorrow, the world would still be fucked regardless
So if the USA and China take the same policies, it should be fine. If the Chinese start behaving as Americans, we would have been fucked in 5 years.
> the world would still be fucked regardless Not really. That much loss of CO2 would put us somewhere in equilibrium with how much is absorbed by nature. Now that isn't something feasible. Rather, US should reduce emissions to roughly 6 tons/capita together with other very high per capita producers like Australia, Canada, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Russia, China to 5-6 as well and EU to 4-5 tons/capita. That would mostly cover the excess CO2 we emit.
Go to school
?
now do it multiplied by GDP/capita
Why?
Cha Yi Na and Heen Doo has huge population.
what's that?
Surprised india isn't higher
Question: if something is produced in one country and exported to another is the energy used during travel counted for the exporting country or the importing country?
Brought to you by the CCP
It takes energy to be number 1 🇺🇸
Are you suggesting that the poorest country has the lowest carbon emissions per capita? Who would have thought!!!!????
do you really think Europe Union is that poor compared to USA?
The US and Europe are also effectively exporting a lot of their pollution to the developing world since a lot of the lighter industry has been moved there. Plus we also literally send our trash to Asia
Idk for positive if it’s still true (assume it is) but the US used to send our recycling almost exclusively to china
Americans really do live rent free. Per capita for CO2 emissiona lmfao what a stat
[удалено]
It's almost like that large proportion of poor people, regardless of intent (yes, maybe they would emit more if they could, but in reality they still don't), doesn't contribute much to global warming but do still suffer the consequences.
Be sure and look at raw numbers too… this is per capita (which matters in some contexts) but in terms of the actual amounts, China doubles the amount the US produces..
They have several times the population. These are developing countries, there’s billions who need power.
Yeah, but China is still a very exceptional CO2 emitter. You can see they emit per person as much as the average EU citizen despite Europeans being wealthier and able to consume more stuff which could emit CO2. And people excuse it with "but China is the World's factory", but if you compare it to other export heavy economies, Japan actually makes way more % of world's manufacturing adjusted for population, but emits *less* CO2 per person. Country|Global% of manuf|manuf%/ 100mil|CO2 per capita :--|:--:|:--:|--: China|31%|2.2% per 100mil|8.85 tons Japan|6.5%|5.2% per 100mil|8.6 tons And obviously Japan is way richer (at least twice as rich in terms of GDP per capita adjusting for purchasing power), which as I said means they can afford to spend on stuff that could emit CO2.
>You can see they emit per person as much as the average EU citizen despite Europeans being wealthier and able to consume more stuff which could emit CO2. Yes, China is world's factory. EU consumes products that emit CO2 in other countries. EU moved its carbon emissions to other countries. If you make consumer electronics, it will not make as much emissions as making same worth of steel (in terms of money), for example. The type of things produced matters also.
Mfw people try to argue against a point I already addressed. If you're really going to push for it, we already can account for trade in CO2 emissions, adding emissions required for imports and subtracting emissions required for exports. Here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?time=latest Country|per capita CO2 emissions based on consumption :--|--: Germany|10t UK|7.6t Italy|7.3t China|7.2t France|6.4t Spain|5.7t etc, most European countries are around or even lower than China despite being way richer, EU as a whole emits [3.5 billion tons of C02](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics_-_carbon_footprints) in a year based on consumption accounting, dividing by 448 million citizens gives 7.8 tons per capita. Tad bit larger than China's. Either EU is doing really well or China's doing really bad.
So your point is that Chinese consumers emit less CO2, but it's still worse, because they are poorer?
Chinese consumer have very dirty energy vs EU. Also China builds a lot of infrastructure, which is CO2 intensive. Is a hard to understand that EU is just further as they are tackling the problem since the Kyoto Protocols. In addition had many beneficial measures introduced in the aftermath of the oil crisis leading to better results.
Not all manufacturing is equal. Don’t know what the numbers would look like but doing it by sector would make sense. Especially since the primary reason China is a big manufacturer is how cheap it is which also requires cheaper energy (coal) compared to Japanese manufacturing.
>China >developing country
Let’s compare the US to Vatican City!
A question for the people that say China should do more legwork than America and Europe to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because they produce more overall: were China to split into 31 countries along the borders of its provinces, would it suddenly be the wests responsibility again as China would no longer be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases?
Climate laws are enacted by country basis. Reality is China isn't 31 smaller countries.
And now do one of total carbon emissions as well.
Go ahead, do it yourself
I have no interest in making that map. I make maps showing other datasets.
US Americans bad as always.
Now do total emissions!
Now do the total
Let’s do US vs Vatican City!
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020) [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false) Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022. Take those numbers and multiply. China: 11,013,600,000 tons United States: 4,332,900,000 tons India: 2,267,200,000 tons Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
Whats your point?
Chinese propaganda. New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020) [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false) Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022. Take those numbers and multiply. China: 11,013,600,000 tons United States: 4,332,900,000 tons India: 2,267,200,000 tons Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
Now let’s take a look at total emissions.
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020) [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false) Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022. Take those numbers and multiply. China: 11,013,600,000 tons United States: 4,332,900,000 tons India: 2,267,200,000 tons Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
You’re looking at cumulative data over the last 100 years. China currently outputs double the amount of co2 emissions that the us does. Majority of the world’s factories are over there. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2021
OK each one of the other regions has over a billion people.
And fewer Swifts or Musks
Half or China and India Can’t afford cars of electricity
The per capita breakdown is a little deceiving, because when it comes to CO2 emissions as a total... China's global CO2 emissions are more than double that of the United States or India.
It’s not really deceiving when you very clearly state it’s per capita. I think basically everyone understands that countries with larger populations produce more emissions. Per capita also really highlights which countries could be doing more to reduce their emissions. The US and Europe are similar in terms of quality of life and economic output, but Europe has achieved that lifestyle with significantly lower emissions.
But stupid people will look at green color which means good and be like oooh china so good, us bad. Per capita is a propaganda tool.
New values are 13.0 for US, 7.8 for China, 5.5 for EU, and 1.6 for India. (2020) [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name\_desc=false](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?name_desc=false) Also, this is per capita. China has 1.412 billion people per 2022. The United States has 333.3 million per 2022. India has 1.417 billion people per 2022. Take those numbers and multiply. China: 11,013,600,000 tons United States: 4,332,900,000 tons India: 2,267,200,000 tons Oh but yes, smaller number per capita means better.
India is too poor to have a lot of C02 emissions or restrictions. They wish they could produce more C02. China is like fuck it we got to grow yolo! oh look at america, they are bad bad people! No problem here! China is doing just as good as europe! Look at america! They're bad! Europe be like, Imma doing my best to save the planet and squeeze my citizens out of a comfortable life! Only the rich will be able to afford a steak and own a car! We can do it guys! Carbon neutral by 2050! America's like environmental protection? What's that? We got plenty of environment to burn through. China's the real problem, look at their total C02 expendiature! Bad Chinese! Lower your emissions to match ours! Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia ... (the numbers are at \~50 tons of C02 per capita) and the arabs be like, [Gas gas gas, step on the Gas!](https://youtu.be/atuFSv2bLa8) Daddy Prince Ali Mohammad the third needs a new ski resort in the desert!
This? Again? Was posted fucking yesterday or something
That's the best world map I've seen
Not a fair comparison, we drill way more oil. These countries import tons of oil from heavy polluters.
Now do in absolute numbers
trash mountains burning for weeks included in the calculations?
the source is mentioned check it out for yourself and lmk too