Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose At 'Alarming' Rate Last Year, US Data Shows (theguardian.com) 179
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: Record temperatures, devastating floods and superstorms are causing death and destruction across the planet but humans are failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions fueling the climate emergency, new US data shows. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide -- the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity that are the most significant contributors to global heating -- continued to increase rapidly during 2022, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).
Carbon dioxide levels rose by more than two parts per million (ppm) for the 11th consecutive year: the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases since monitoring began 65 years ago. Before 2013, scientists had never recorded three consecutive years of such high CO2 growth. Atmospheric CO2 is now 50% higher than pre-industrial levels. The 2022 methane rise was the fourth-largest since records began in 1983, following record growth in 2021 and 2022, and now stands at an average of 1,912 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is a potent greenhouse gas less abundant than CO2 but which warms the Earth's atmosphere much faster, and today is responsible for about 25% of the heat trapped by all greenhouse gases. "Methane levels in the atmosphere are now more than two and a half times their pre-industrial level," adds the Guardian. "The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane, which can also cause medical complications, fires and even engine failure leading helicopters to fall out of the sky."
"Levels of nitrous oxide, the third-most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, are now 24% higher than preâ"industrial levels, following a 1.25ppb rise last year." While fossil fuel-powered vehicles are a major source of nitrous oxide, the primary culprits behind the rising levels have been synthetic fertilizers and livestock manure from industrialized agriculture, says the report.
The NOAA report can be found here.
Carbon dioxide levels rose by more than two parts per million (ppm) for the 11th consecutive year: the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases since monitoring began 65 years ago. Before 2013, scientists had never recorded three consecutive years of such high CO2 growth. Atmospheric CO2 is now 50% higher than pre-industrial levels. The 2022 methane rise was the fourth-largest since records began in 1983, following record growth in 2021 and 2022, and now stands at an average of 1,912 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is a potent greenhouse gas less abundant than CO2 but which warms the Earth's atmosphere much faster, and today is responsible for about 25% of the heat trapped by all greenhouse gases. "Methane levels in the atmosphere are now more than two and a half times their pre-industrial level," adds the Guardian. "The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane, which can also cause medical complications, fires and even engine failure leading helicopters to fall out of the sky."
"Levels of nitrous oxide, the third-most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, are now 24% higher than preâ"industrial levels, following a 1.25ppb rise last year." While fossil fuel-powered vehicles are a major source of nitrous oxide, the primary culprits behind the rising levels have been synthetic fertilizers and livestock manure from industrialized agriculture, says the report.
The NOAA report can be found here.
Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
The text is shocking but there's the graph. The change per year is pretty much the same for 65 years, +/- some trivial inside the error bar number. That is not exciting.
What is actually important to note is that the rate hasn't changed despite all the efforts in the West to reduce co2 emissions which has generally trended downwards from Western nations.
So.... why hasn't global co2 dropped? Who is still building new coal plants like they're the pathway to eternal bliss? You know who.
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is still building new coal plants like they're the pathway to eternal bliss? You know who.
And who is still producing twice as much greenhouse gas as them per capita? You know who.
This is the 600lb guy telling the 300lb guy he should be on a diet.
(Yes he should be on a diet, but...)
Besides: That other country is adding renewables even faster.
Re: (Score:2)
(Yes he should be on a diet, but...) :P
If he is made from pure muscles: nope
Re: (Score:2)
This is the 600lb guy telling the 300lb guy he should be on a diet.
This is the fat short guy saying the slightly chubby tall guy needs to not become fat, or he's gonna break the bed. But they're still both in the same bed.
Re: (Score:2)
And who is still producing twice as much greenhouse gas as them per capita? You know who.
That doesnt change the fact that it's quite disheartening to see the progress that we have made in the US essentially erased by countries like China and India. It also makes it much harder for us to create the political will to do more as too many people point to this fact to justify no further action.
That also doesnt change the fact that China and India are growing their carbon footprints https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net] , https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org] while here in the US we're shrinking ours https:/ [epa.gov]
Re:Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it's not fair that the west got to pollute a ton in the context of developing and now we're telling the third world that they cant in the context of their own development but global warming doesnt care about fair.
The technology advancements should offset that somewhat.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not, global warming is still worsening as a whole https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] .
Globally emissions took a dip during Covid but they're higher than ever now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
what has "per capita" got to do with anything? The planet, if it is being destroyed by carbon emissions, doesn't care if you have 100 people putting out 1m tonnes or 1m people putting out 1m tonnes. The result on the planet is the same: 1m tonnes.
The 'per capita' argument only serves 1 purpose: to highlight how disingenuous the climate change scam is, as it shows that you don't care about carbon emissions, only punishing western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it shows that America puts out 10x the carbon as Canada, so if we're going to ignore per capita, America needs to cut its CO2 to 10%. You get similar numbers comparing Australia to the USA. So just sticking to western countries, America puts out 10x more CO2 then it should while pointing fingers.
Re: (Score:3)
Per-capita is about fairness.
There is only one big pie, but how does one go about dividing it? If emissions per country mattered, then dividing China or the US into 50 separate countries each would solve the problem right? Well, no, the pie is still the same size. To shrink the whole pie, every person in every country should control their emissions. You can't go after the big countries and ignore the dozens of smaller ones that add up to the same size.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's guys like you telling healthy people they should stop eating, because they are immoral. The reality is that China simply wants to attain the same per capita standard of living as Europe and the US. I interpret the gp as saying that whatever the "west" does will have no effect because China has its own interests and will pursue them, and the result will be higher global ghg emissions.
If you want a change, you will have to go after China. That is an issue for those who want change, not those who n
Re: (Score:2)
over 2.2 billion of those per capita breathe, fart, and consume too, you know who? Frankly, the idea that 1/3 of the planet's population is going green while the other 2/3rds isn't doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Thailand.
We all have:
a) electricity - most of the time: cost free
b) water - most of the time: cost free
c) G5 - 200TBH aka $5 a month
d) fibre - 450 TBH aka $11 a month
The CO2 problem on the planet is caused by you idiots.
I have a neighbour, who owns two cows, and build a straw/bamboo hut in front of his house: who has 2 solar panels.
I doubt he makes $2k in a year. Yes, two thousand dollars - a year. As I do not use much energy, I get it for free. Not even connection fees, our king pays for them. S
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, its always someone else's fault and they have to pay so you can enjoy your free electricity that ... oh wait
Thailandâ(TM)s Carbon Dioxide Emissions Have Significantly Increased Over the Past 10 Years [climatescorecard.org]
Thailan's emissions are just under the United Kingdom's (0.8% compared to 0.9% of global emissions), but I imagine you'd still think the western country is responsible for all ills. Give it a couple of years though, and you'll be emitting more, the trends are very clear.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Thailand. We all have:
a) electricity - most of the time: cost free
b) water - most of the time: cost free
c) G5 - 200TBH aka $5 a month
d) fibre - 450 TBH aka $11 a month
I have 96 solar panels thanks and at last check Thailand isn't China so uh thanks for telling your story even if it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Were you just sharing your anecdote? I do not understand the purpose of your post.
Dude, I know you think you are way smarter than everybody else on the planet, but if Thailand can make those things generally available to most of their population so can China.
Re: (Score:2)
Can? Sure maybe.
Are? Not happening.
So what's the point of saying so?
Lots of countries can do lots of things. But they are not doing them.
When china brings the modern world to hundreds of millions living in primitive ass villages, let me know. Until then per capita is a bullshit statistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Can? Sure maybe.
Are? Not happening.
So what's the point of saying so?
Lots of countries can do lots of things. But they are not doing them.
When china brings the modern world to hundreds of millions living in primitive ass villages, let me know. Until then per capita is a bullshit statistic.
Internet connectivity in Thailand is ~80%, Internet connectivity in China is ~76%. All you need to do to bring internet connectivity to hundreds of millions living in 'primitive ass villages' (your words, not mine) is build mobile antennas and China is on its way to become the biggest economy on earth. Furthermore, since you are so much smarter than everybody else, why don't you explain to us why per-capita is a bullshit statistic. Do you have any data to back up your authoritative assertions or are they al
Re: (Score:2)
> per capita is a bullshit statistic.
Sometimes no sometimes yes, like going by country too. I don't think it's all bullshit here.
What about historical emissions and the current state of affairs? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] - take from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anecdote. My siblings, friends and coworkers are taking more and more vacations by plane halfway around the world. While it seems the US, the EU and most western nations CO2 emissions are pretty much holding steady.
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is a joke. How much of their population are subsistence level rice farmers who are lucky to have roads and few have power?
If only there were a way to find out that number... oh, wait, we live in an age where all information is a couple of clicks away!
LMGTFY: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Answer: 100% of households in China have electricity.
How many are farmers? About 35% (compare to 10% in the USA)
Re: (Score:2)
"Answer: 100% of households in China have electricity."
That's not what your link says liar. It says that according to China 100% of the population has access to electricity, which could mean that 100% of the population is within 100km of a bicycle generator for all we know (if it's not just totally made up). What's your game here anyway?
Re: Reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am saying the opposite. You can't use per capita math when hundreds of millions neither contribute nor benefit in any real way from either side of the equation.
Their conditions are appalling.
Plrease re-read what I said. It should be clear to an objective reader.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
China is roughly half the CO2 emissions of U.S. per capita, but, they have 3 times as many people.
And Americans seem to think the Chinese shouldn't be able to have a similarly wasteful lifestyle because ... there's more of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but as of 2019 they still output more emissions than the entire world combined.
7-10% of china's food supply is also imported. So yes per capita they are outputting less emissions but they also cannot support their country's food requirements. Farming creates a lot of greenhouse gas which is why this is relevant.
The majority of their country is poor. The emissions per capital isn't lower due to being eco-friendly. It's lower because people can't afford anything. So you are implying that people in the US
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but as of 2019 they still output more emissions than the entire world combined.
No.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/... [pinterest.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You a moron? Your own link even shows my statement as fact except it's updated for 2021 instead of showing 2019.
Maybe you should click the article that Pinterest links to instead of just linking to Pinterest?? I dunno, maybe even read it lol??? You posted a dumb-dumb chart that sums all emissions since 1970. How about you look at the current output since we're talking about CURRENT OUTPUT and how it's going in the wrong direction. Literally in that same article.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what you're referring to. I picked that image because it was a visual summary of the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions by country, showing China at 29% of the world's emissions.
(Perhaps you were confused by the phrase "rest of the world"? That refers to the rest of the world other than the countries shown (not "rest of the world other than China")
You can find numerical data many other places. For example, https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
In 2021:
China 11.5 billion tons
World 37.1 billion ton
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Americans seem to think the Chinese shouldn't be able to have a similarly wasteful lifestyle because ... there's more of them.
While hypocritical, it's not wrong. The biosphere can't sustain what we're doing, and we need to change. But it could sustain them doing the same thing even less, and that's a fact.
At this point, though, it seems likely that the permafrost will release enough methane that it's all moot
Re: (Score:2)
And Americans seem to think the Chinese shouldn't be able to have a similarly wasteful lifestyle because ... there's more of them.
Again, fuck off. I don't get to decide if I have to drive 60 miles to go to work. That is decided for me through economics. I do not get to decide how the electricity I use for food storage, lights, and cooling/heating is generated (and if you think that is too luxurious, go fuck yourself again).
The average Chinese person also doesn't have a fucking choice. You are barking at the wrong animals here. Why aren't you wasting your time with the people who do get to choose? Because your words mean absolutely fuc
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Per capita is meaningless
Only when you're trying to avoid any personal responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say it's an urban/rural divide, but at least here in the US it's typically the more rural people contributing the most to emissions with inefficient vehicles for farm work(or just rednecks coal rolling), livestock, and the tendency for them to vote for conservative policies that favor non-renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Per capita is meaningless
>Only when you're trying to avoid any personal responsibility.
Both assertions are correct and wrong.
Per capita is meaningful, but it also has to be placed in a sphere of control context. A country may have an overall policy of X, hence they become more like one entity and the per-capita is less meaningful.
Businesses and individuals do have to work within a framework of a country. X resources, X policies/laws/regulations, X amount of freedom, etc. And "personal" respons
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is meaningless
Only when you're trying to avoid any personal responsibility.
Fine. I am trying to avoid personal responsibility, even if there is not a single fucking thing I can personally do other than whine and bitch about it... kinda like you.
Ask yourself this: Why are YOU telling ME that I am responsible for the actions of other people when you also deny me the ability to do anything about it?
Sure, I could find the owners of all of these corporations who are emitting all of the gasses. I could even threaten to kill them if they don't stop their shit. But I would immediately be
Re: (Score:3)
De-ends on how much co2 I use and power I put back into the system for "free", doesn't it?
If I'm generating more solar for the grid than I would otherwise be using from the power company's co2 generating power processes then I am overall generating negative co2.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
This is the entire basis of green energy and why we get tax credits for having solar at home, and buying an EV, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
So compare equally sized countries. Canada, China and the US are pretty close to the same size, they should all put out the same amount of CO2 since we're going by land mass. America should set an example and cut back to Canada's emissions to show China how to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is not about land area, dipshit. It's about population size. Or, more specifically, the number of people that live within certain political borders, regardless of the land area they encompass. Since a lot of this relates to the regulations and governance within the political borders of a country...looking at it by country, is HOW you have to do the per capita calculations.
The more mouths your country has...the more you get to dillute your "per capita" figure...but you can't escape the facts of m
Re: (Score:2)
Who is still building new coal plants like they're the pathway to eternal bliss? You know who.
The "who" you are talking about has not increased coal consumption in over a decade. They aren't the reason for CO2 increase. You're not smarter than anyone here.
Re: (Score:2)
Link, please.
That's a BOLD statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions from China and India are increasing faster than the West's decrease. The fight is not here.
Re:Reality - China? (Score:2)
No, really not reality.
China is on the US hate list - it's the new "baddie".
The USSR has gone and even though the remnants of that former superpower are waging war in Europe, the US is sizing up to the new foe.
To imply that China is almost solely responsible for the continuation of co2 emission increases is absurd.
I guess the hate speech is working - "China is the new bad guy!"
Why? Because it is daring to be a superpower on a par with the USA.
Because the USA cannot control it. It has little to no influence.
... the numbers you need to look at. (Score:2)
I stand corrected in my statement "To imply that China is almost solely responsible for the continuation of co2 emission increases is absurd."
Whilst this is somewhat correct, they are right now the biggest contributor of emissions.
However, historically, if you look at the data, the USA still "enjoys" double the cumulative emissions over time that China does.
There's no room to point fingers here, no room at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those "emerging economies again?"
Helicopters beware! (Score:2)
So begins the end...
Or whatever.
Helicopters!!! (Score:2)
Might this be the first time somebody is literally saying that the sky is falling? Now I finally understand why Jack Horkheimer kept telling me to "Keep looking up".
Cockroaches are cuter than most kids (Score:2)
So lets burn it all up and they will survive
Talking about alarming numbers... (Score:3, Insightful)
The number of humans is now more than 7 times their pre-industrial level. Do you think we can keep everything else the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Not for long.
Re:Talking about alarming numbers... (Score:5, Interesting)
You might be interested in the Kaya identity [wikipedia.org]:
This shows the different ways to reduce emissions to reach a decline compatible with +1.5 or +2 C:
- you can either divive world population by 3: hard to find volunteers for that. And betting on a huge epidemy or war to wipe out 2 thirds of the world population is hardly something to wish for
- alternatively, we could divide the GDP/capita by 4 (by 4, because either we divide everything by 3, or if we say we don't want to reduce the world population, then we need to lower the other parts of the equation even more). Unfortunately, it is hard for politicians to get electing by selling a recession vision. So let's assume we will instead get a 2% increase in GDB/capita.
- That leaves us with needing to increase the "energy intensity" or to improve the efficiency of our energy usage, by a factor of 10. In the past 40 years, we gained ~35% of energy intensity decrease. But as always, the first gains are the easiest. Let's still imagine we can still improve it by a factor of 2 by 2050, which is optimist, then it means the energy intensity would be half in 2050 of what it is today.
- The last part of the identity now tells us that in order to match the CO2 emissions reduction targets for a +2C scenario (a scenario in which we already have to deal with pretty bad consequences), the amount of CO2eq emitted by energy unit needs to be divided by 4. Knowing that in the last 40 years, it only decreased by a small 10%.
If you are interested in a better and more detailed analysis, here is a good explanation about that [translate.goog].
Re: (Score:2)
The world is not just USA and China (Score:2)
China has higher per capita emissions than much if not most of Europe.
So this is very much China bad and moving in the wrong direction and the USA very bad and moving too slowly in the right direction.
Re:The world is not just USA and China (Score:4, Informative)
So this is very much China bad and moving in the wrong direction and the USA very bad and moving too slowly in the right direction.
Latest IEA report (march 2023) [iea.org] shows that China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%. On the other side, US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt.
Let me transform your assertion with those facts. I will give you several options:
1. If looking at emissions per capita, China bad and moving too slowly in the right direction and the USA very bad and moving in the wrong direction
2. If looking at total emissions/year, China very bad and moving too slowly in the right direction and the USA bad and moving in the wrong direction
3. If looking at total emission/year AND past total emissions, China slightly bad and moving too slowly in the right direction and the USA very very bad and moving in the wrong direction
Which one do you prefer?
Who could have guessed? (Score:3)
a study of the year everything opens after covid (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd expect this. Everything shut down, then we open everything back up and expect rates to be what they where when everything shut down?
this article just seems like its trying to raise alarm over the return to pre-pandemic outputs. Could this be reduced? sure. Is it something to be alarmed about? no.
Easy fix (Score:2)
Every greenhouse owner forced by law to keep the door closed.
Look at your desk (Score:2)
Ball mice use 1/5th the power that wired optical mice use. Wireless optical mice use even more power.
We won't give up the tiniest preferences, let alone telling people they can no longer fly everywhere. Hence, I think population control (less future babies) is required go
Emissions Rose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing we do in America is going to fix those problems, and we all share the same Atmosphere.
Have you tried leading by example?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean how the west has been spending a fuck ton of money actively reducing co2 emissions while China and India and the rest have done the opposite?
Thanks for joining us in the real world of hard data and facts.
Re:China (Score:4, Informative)
Really?
IEA data says China added net renewable capacity of 134 GW in 2021. The US added only 36 GW.
China consumed 7,805 TWh of electricity in 2021
The US consumed 3,979 TWh.
So, compared to consumption, the Chinese are adding far more renewable capacity than the US.
Why do people in the US have such an inflated sense of worth? You played the biggest role in fucking up the planet with your ridiculous levels of energy consumption and are now bitching about how other countries should clean up your shit.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about adding renewable capacity.
It is about adding fucking coal plants every 8 seconds.
Helllooooooo?!
Why do you feel the need to pull some irrelevant bullshit statistic out when the real and only meaningful statistics are well,known?
China is adding more co2 every year over the year before while the west spends money reducing co2.
Did you get 50 cents for that post?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're urging China (and India, and others!) to stay undeveloped and poor so the Western population can continue to enjoy their current lifestyle, it's not going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
China is adding more co2 every year over the year before while the west spends money reducing co2.
Yes but the west is still 600lbs compared to China's 300lbs.
Re: China (Score:2)
How is the west twice as heavy as china and india on any metric?
Re: (Score:2)
And they produced the most CO2 in 2022. [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has almost 5x the population as the US and over half of them still live in poverty. The number rising out of poverty to adopt a standard of living comparable to the US grows every day so expect their consumption and pollution numbers to skyrocket.
So what you're saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to have the same lifestyle as in the US.
(because that lifestyle is incredibly wasteful, right?)
Re:China (Score:4, Informative)
If only the IEA had provided a report on global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2022 [iea.org]. And if only that report had facts like:
China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%. The European Union saw a 2.5% or 70 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions. However, US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt despite efforts to switch to renewable energy sources, as well as coal-to-gas switching.
Maybe the US should start to actually reduce its CO2 emissions, instead of just thinking it does.
Also, China has been actively building both nuclear (for baseload) and renewables (for... whatever, it's better than coal anyway). Those things take time to build, and they are just now starting to reap the benefits from it. Both in terms of actual decline, and in terms of industrial knowledge and maturity about how to build and deploy those stuffs.
US, and most of the West, is waking up a bit late to the game, and we will have to suffer the consequences for some time now.
Re: China (Score:2)
On top of that, you have massive proliferation of cheap gas scooters all over Asia using inefficient motors that pollute more than a full-sized American car.
I find that hard to believe. How did you figure that out?
Re: (Score:2)
The cheap and "polluting" scooters here in Asia: do not even make noice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find that hard to believe. How did you figure that out?
Because it's bullshit. Or more specifically, not about the topic at hand - they do pollute more in terms of particulate and other nasty stuff (2-stroke, no cats, etc), but not CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you even been to Asia? You never see a scooter in Shanghai that isn't electric. VN cracked down heavily on emissions years ago, so any two-strokes sold there are direct-injected and burn very cleanly. You're just another selfish pig - "I don't want to be inconvenienced, but you can't improve your standard of living, and I'll believe any bullshit to justify that."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go away idiot. Nuclear is the road to hell economically, besides all the other problems it has. Anybody looking at actual numbers knows that.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the only thing that gets us an actual low-carbon grid, unless you luck into a shitload of hydro or thermal.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Really not. Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You.
Re: (Score:2)
Even China, with the way they handle regulations, can't build nukes fast enough. The world needs what, 3000 nukes right now, with no path to build them in the next 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: Current nuclear energy production globally is below 10%, renewable is above 10%. We can get renewables up high enough in the next decades if we work hard at it. There is no way in hell we can do that even remotely for nuclear. And it would eat several times the money the same thing costs in renewables plus storage, which is also a massive problem.
As to all those morons thinking "SMR's will make it possible!", no, it will not. First, there are two (!) working SMR installations in the world at this
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, to ramp up the renewables enough will take so much expanded mining that it is not going to happen, which just leaves using less energy and that sure doesn't look likely.
Re: (Score:3)
"Anybody looking at actual numbers knows that."
So, where are the "actual numbers" so we can look at them?
Re: (Score:2)
You made the claim. It is your responsibility to present evidence for it, not anybody else's. I am not a lazy asshole because I won't do your work for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I really hope you will be one of those that directly and obviously get killed by climate change. You richly deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel so elevated and informed by both sides of this reasoned and intelligent debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
while China is still building Coal power plants as fast as they can
China's coal consumption and coal related emissions haven't increased in the past decade. Their coal construction are replacement projects.
But nice talking point. Did you post that from a country with far higher emissions per capita? I'm going to guess yes.
Re: (Score:2)
https://cleantechnica.com/2021... [cleantechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yet China is building more nukes then the rest of the world together. Which shows even in a country like China, where regulations don't matter, still finds coal much quicker and cheaper to build out.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course coal is faster and cheaper to build if you don't care about lung cancer and climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you do care, but want to have the lights on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
less gasoline.
Places get closer together if it's warmer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good thing (Score:2)
Gasoline engines have higher volumetric efficiency with more dense (colder) intake air. But that results in higher fuel consumption at a given RPM. So the obvious solution is to take advantage of the higher torque available but reduce the RPM by up-shifting.
Oh. You drive an automatic? Sorry to hear that. I guess it sucks to be you then.
Re: (Score:2)
https://skepticalscience.com/g... [skepticalscience.com]