Carbon Dioxide Levels In the Atmosphere Are Surging 'Faster Than Ever,' Report Finds 226
Carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere are accumulating "faster than ever" and have reached unprecedented levels, with a peak of 426.9 ppm recorded at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in May 2024, said scientists from NOAA, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of California San Diego. CBS News reports: "Over the past year, we've experienced the hottest year on record, the hottest ocean temperatures on record, and a seemingly endless string of heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires and storms," NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a press release. "Now we are finding that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing faster than ever." The researchers measured carbon dioxide, or CO2, levels at the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory. They found that atmospheric levels of the gas hit a seasonal peak of just under 427 parts per million in May -- an increase of 2.9 ppm since May 2023 and the fifth-largest annual growth in 50 years of data recording.
It also made official that the past two years saw the largest jump in the May peak -- when CO2 levels are at their highest in the Northern Hemisphere. John Miller, a NOAA carbon cycle scientist, said that the jump likely stems from the continuous rampant burning of fossil fuels as well as El Nino conditions making the planet's ability to absorb CO2 more difficult. The surge of carbon dioxide levels at the measuring station surpassed even the global average set last year, which was a record high of 419.3 ppm -- 50% higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution. However, NOAA noted that their observations were taken at the observatory specifically, and do not "capture the changes of CO2 across the globe," although global measurements have proven consistent without those at Mauna Loa. "Not only is CO2 now at the highest level in millions of years, it is also rising faster than ever," Ralph Keeling, director of Scripps' CO2 program, said in the release. "Each year achieves a higher maximum due to fossil-fuel burning, which releases pollution in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel pollution just keeps building up, much like trash in a landfill."
"We are living in unprecedented times. ... This string of hottest months will be remembered as comparatively cold," Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus, added.
It also made official that the past two years saw the largest jump in the May peak -- when CO2 levels are at their highest in the Northern Hemisphere. John Miller, a NOAA carbon cycle scientist, said that the jump likely stems from the continuous rampant burning of fossil fuels as well as El Nino conditions making the planet's ability to absorb CO2 more difficult. The surge of carbon dioxide levels at the measuring station surpassed even the global average set last year, which was a record high of 419.3 ppm -- 50% higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution. However, NOAA noted that their observations were taken at the observatory specifically, and do not "capture the changes of CO2 across the globe," although global measurements have proven consistent without those at Mauna Loa. "Not only is CO2 now at the highest level in millions of years, it is also rising faster than ever," Ralph Keeling, director of Scripps' CO2 program, said in the release. "Each year achieves a higher maximum due to fossil-fuel burning, which releases pollution in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel pollution just keeps building up, much like trash in a landfill."
"We are living in unprecedented times. ... This string of hottest months will be remembered as comparatively cold," Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus, added.
High CO2 means high future costs.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The question who should bear these costs:
1. those who caused it by emitting CO2 as EU tries to do
2. everyone, especially those unlucky living on the coast, or hot areas or in huragan/cyclone paths as Big Oil/trolls/Russia/Arabs want...
Re:High CO2 means high future costs.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we have complete submerged cities far off the current coasts of Old World ports?
The Earth's polar regions are ice free at times. Are we going to try to build a 400' wall around New York or adapt?
Oh, right - we took money from Inlanders to rebuild New Orleans right where it was so that can happen again with the next Katrina and we can tax and spend again.
Everything is about protecting the bankers' investments with the wages of the lower class, not making smart moves for future humans.
I brought property at 1300' in the 90's and the other side of the mountain has sandy soils.
I don't know why I should be taxed so the people who can roll out of bed and walk on the beach don't have to spend any of their own money. They get the benefits with no costs? That's a disastrous incentive system, though it sounds lovely, but I did the responsible thing and built 90 minutes inland. Yeah, my descendants will have beach front property but not for several hundred years (and they'll have to fight off the banksters' armies).
I suppose scuba diving the ruins of the current political and industrial base will be cool, though, but it will require serious pressure gear or a robust submersible. Far too deep for an open-water certification.
Re:High CO2 means high future costs.. (Score:4, Insightful)
>The question who should bear these costs:
Right now, we ought to start taxing oil at the well head to cover the cost of sequestering twice as much carbon as that oil will ultimately release into the environment.
Good luck getting OPEC to cooperate, though.
Re: (Score:2)
US: 25%
EU: 22%
China: 13%
Russia: 10%
India: 3%
WTF does Russia have to show for its contribution? Oh right, oligarchs.
Re: (Score:2)
The right answer is:
3. those who have emitted CO2 but didn't get anything out of it (technological development).
See here https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Don't ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't ask what the planet can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for the planet.
~JFK
Then we'd better get hot ... (Score:2)
... and find and implement technological solutions.
Bloviating, and making political hay of it, doesn't seem to be working.
Good news everyone! (Score:2)
Crop yields are up! At least my garden seems to be doing a lot better this year.
It's self-perpetuating. (Score:2, Interesting)
I just did a word search on this page, and not one comment mentions "tipping point". Do people not get the concept, or is it just lost in all the chatter? We are either close to, or more likely are already past, the point where increasing warming is a self-sustaining process
One mechanism at work is that when temperatures are higher, decomposition of dead plants and animals occurs faster. That process releases more CO2, which increases temperatures further, which accelerates decomposition. I also kills plant
Re:It's self-perpetuating. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing about climate is simple. In addition to positive feedback, there is also negative feedback, for example increased evaporation leading to more cloud cover. Figuring out which dominates in any particular regime is not easy, and deciding when there is a runaway positive feedback ("tipping point") is even harder.
We crossed 400 ppm ONLY a decade ago .. (Score:2)
Until about 2012/2013, CO2 levels were less than 400 ppm.
And it is increasing by nearly 2 ppm PER YEAR ...
Yet, we have minimizers, denialists, shills, ...etc. on this web site and elsewhere ...
when (Score:2)
When has CO_2 not reached unprecedented levels?
Re: (Score:2)
Just a few years ago during COVID.
Better Ground All The Private Jets Then (Score:2)
Not surprising. (Score:2)
The summary didn't claim that this result was unexpected, and I can think of several reasons why it *should* be expected.
One of the reasons is that the solubility of CO2 in water depends on the temperature of the water, and the surface temperature of the oceans has been rising. (The ocean is where the majority of the CO2 emitted over the last few centuries has ended up.)
Another is that melting permafrost releases CO2 and methane that has been isolated since the last glaciation.
There are others.
and yet... (Score:2)
here we all are, the human race, healthier and with greater life spans than 99.99% of all the humans who have lived before us.
My point is NOT that there's nothing to think about or be concerned about, but rather that people have been pushing the "we're all gonna DIE!" style alarmism since the 1970s and NONE of the nightmarish scenarios has actually occurred. Cry wolf over and over again, with extreme predictions, in some misguided attempt to swing public opinion and you are setting yourself up for massive d
Hmmm (Score:2)
OK why with ESG and such is there no pressure on Lennar, Toll Brothers, etc to stop building these outrageous spread out single family home subdivisions where car use is mandatory rather than high density skyscrapers and public transit and 15 minute cities where car use is optional? Why is there not more effort on getting urban growth boundaries in place and removing height restrictions inside the UGB? Something is financing this boom in subdivisions that also eats into farmland and timberland which are low
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans sure are an ignorant bunch.
most efficient coal plants by country [google.com]
Oh it's China. And America isn't even close.
"But Americans don't use much coal" I hear you say?
Well you use a lot of oil instead. (and also gas)
And an American pollutes more from oil than a Chinese person does coal. (and then pollutes almost as much again from gas)
So when are you giving up oil?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing I don't get about the US is that the red states are overwhelmingly underpopulated regions that would be perfect for solar and wind in agricultural communities.
So when a silly old boomer threatens to withdraw from the Paris agreement based on the tale that climate change is a liberal conspiracy from the establishment - isn't he a billionaire who spend his entire upbringing in New Woke City? And whose beachside frontage in Florida will be under water in a century?
But you guys enjoy your election in
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
333M people produce half as much CO2 as 1.412 billion people.
Let that sink in.
Re: (Score:3)
333M people produce half as much CO2 as 1.412 billion people.
Let that sink in.
(A) You’re fixated on a point in time, but velocity and acceleration matter more in the long run. One of those countries has seen its per capita number drop 40% in the last 25 years, and remains on a steady decline. The other has seen theirs triple in that same span, and remains on a steady incline. Provided the trends continue, they’ll flip on a per capita basis within the next few years, but even without that the latter one will overwhelm anything the rest of the world is doing, just by sheer
Re: (Score:2)
333M people produce half as much CO2 as 1.412 billion people. Let that sink in.
(A) You’re fixated on a point in time, but velocity and acceleration matter more in the long run. One of those countries has seen its per capita number drop 40% in the last 25 years, and remains on a steady decline.
Phrasing that differently, the US overshot the average world CO2 emissions per person by a factor of five, but has been slowly decreasing that overshoot, and now is only a factor of 3.2 high.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but if the average remains too high to be sustainable, who cares what it is? We need to do better. And if the average is well below what we globally need to be sustainable, then why measure anyone against it? Either way, an average isn’t a particularly useful metric here.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but if the average remains too high to be sustainable, who cares what it is?
If the average is too high to be sustainable, and Americans (and Canadians) are currently more than 3.2 times that unsustainable average, they are going to have to do a lot more work to reach sustainability.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Let’s focus on sustainability, rather than an average that doesn’t actually tell us how countries measure up against that bar. Comparisons to the average are either needlessly harsh or let countries off too easily. Either way, they’re useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Let’s focus on sustainability,
I am replying to people who say, essentially, "we don't need to work on sustainability, because it's all China's fault. Let them cut their emissions, not us."
Go argue with them.
Re: (Score:2)
You replied to me, actually, and I was objecting to the false equivocation that seemed intended to let China off the hook, but by no means am I suggesting we should let the US off the hook. I also objected to the use of incorrect numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
(A): I am not. The parent was.
(B): I was just deconstructing the parent argument, in the eventuality that his data was correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you said backs up your initial claim. China’s CO2 growth is outpacing their renewable gains, so their upward trend is continuing. And while wind may be down in the US, had you read beyond the headline you’d have seen that solar as more than made up for it, so that trend continues as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't looked at a graph recently or you're full of shit or most likely both.
I actually looked at numerous graphs and tables from a variety of sources—including IEA data for 2023, which is the latest full year on record—before making any of the claims I did, so I feel very confident in their factual basis. Here’s just a handful of them:
https://www.iea.org/reports/co... [iea.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And China was starting from almost zero, of course they increased as they industrialized.
Had I been quoting statistics that started in 1950, you’d hav
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita emissions haven't fallen 40% in China OR the USA in the last 25 years.
The IEA says they have in the US, actually. Check the graph here: https://www.iea.org/reports/co... [iea.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pointless remark, see here
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not.
For the sake of an academic discussion, the Western World's medical discoveries helped make matters worse.
People with defective genes now live enough to procreate and pass those defective genes further.
People who would have lived way less now live to an advanced age.
Therefore, more people live for longer, consume more, have enough wealth to buy and own polluting items, etc.
Another argument is that the Western World outsourced much of its polluting manufacturing to countries like India, Banglad
Re: (Score:2)
I have already mentioned that, see https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org] (search for "Bill Gates").
Pollution is not a zero sum game. You can produce stuff more or less efficient. C.f., the pollution in Western Europe and the East Bloc during the Cold war.
Yes, and there is only one feasible way to prevent disaster. Fewer humans. Again, see the post I linked to above.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a false argument that detracts from the imperative that everyone reduce greenhouse gas emissions asap.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not.
I never said anyone is exempt from reducing emissions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If that's his argument that it's bullshit when China has been install more green energy than the rest of the world combine, and 4 times more than the G7 nations combined.
Re: Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
He was trying to deflect away from the fact Americans are worse than Chinese.
Claiming that being half as polluting with 1/4 the population is some kind of achievement. Instead of the proof that American are far worse.
And it was completely irrelevant to the post he replied to. Just a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
China is a worse polluter than America, and Americans are worse polluters than the Chinese.
Also America is counting their consumption of imported Chinese products as China's pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you never describe yourself as a critical thinker.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
What's heating up the atmosphere is the accumulated CO2. "China, India and other countries" will have to dump for another 80 years until they reach he amount dumped by USA, the EC (as in European Communities) and Japan. And yet, although the source of the warming is clear, some are asking to dump the costs to those, who have small contributions.
How convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If someone is bleeding to death, and some of the old wounds have been sewn up. Does it make the most sense to focus more on the treated wounds our the ones which are still spewing blood everywhere?
And in your scenario remember the American is bleeding about twice as much as the Chinese or European. [ourworldindata.org]
(And just in case you one of those morons who thinks only total per country matter, realize that America is bleeding worse than every single country but China. 2nd worse out of ~195.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pointless remark, see here
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
welcome denialist troll (Score:5, Insightful)
You are trolling.
1. It does matter as we still emit much more per capita than them
2. Both China and India are moving to renewables - sure they still build coal but the shift to renewables is very clear - just not for 2035 as EU targeted but 2050-2075
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All that matters is total tonnage going forward. That is the physics. The following are completely unimportant to the climate. They may be emotionally important to ideologues, but they have no bearing on climate policy:
-- Historical emissions
-- Per Capita emissions
-- Current and planned wind and solar production
-- Why the emissions (eg if for export)
None of this has any importance, if the physics is correct. All that drives the climate is the total tonnage emitted in future.
And so, which is also just ph
Re:welcome denialist troll (Score:4, Insightful)
You are wrong on many levels
1. physics: historical emission have impact - CO2 hangs in atmosphere from 300 to 1000 years depending on models - so emissions from past 1000 years count for sure
2. who should bear the cost is not physics and per capita emission is the best measure here, probably adjusted for population growth since 1650.
3. emission reduction is probably cheaper than going head-on to disaster... rising sea levels, rising temperatures, impacted agriculture, hurricanes, cyclones
Certainly some level of CO2 reduction is cheaper long term than the cost for full climate disaster
Re: (Score:2)
No you are wrong.
1) Physics says time travel is impossible. Past emissions are well in the past; they are only relevant if you are more concerned with assigning blame or implementing some kind of reparations scheme or something. It has exactly nothing to do with solving the problem.
2) What why? First off the earliest notions of co2 anthropomorphic c02 climate impact trace to the late 19th century. What moral justification is their form punishing people for the sins of their fathers, who themselves had no
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, we're the nation in charger largely because we didn't lose all our infrastructure in WWII and then we went on to win the cold war. That's why we're top dog. Had our entire continent been leveled to the ground, I doubt we would be where we are at today.
Re: (Score:2)
Not growing now [Re:welcome denialist troll] (Score:2)
If you are so focused on per capita, how about some responsibility for explosive population growth? China and India have created more mouths to feed, heat, cool, and transport than Europe and the United States.
Uh, you really weren't aware that China has been working on that problem [britannica.com] for nearly fifty years? China's birth rate is currently 1.16 births per woman- they are no longer having "explosive population growth"; they are having rapid population shrinkage. [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:welcome denialist troll (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very simple thinking tool, call it a philosophical map if you will, that the domain of science and the domain of ethics are entirely separate domains in the sense of their methodologies.
The methods one uses in science are quite distinct from the methods used to establish the ethics of something. And if you think about it, that makes a lot of sense, because when we ask each other about morals, there is no scientific theory that can prove morals. That's all about individuals and how they want to treat each other, and talking about that and reasoning about that.
A massive, massive, deep flaw in much of the environmental movement over most of its lifetime has been confusing ethics and science. In fact, trying to use science to prove their ethics, trying to use science to prove that we should behave and live in a particular way, that is not a scientific question. Only in the sense, perhaps, of what the outcomes might be, but not whether those outcomes are morally correct.
I think this is why so often, almost all the time, the environmental movement seems to want to ignore the numbers. The numbers are a purely scientific question. They have answers which are materially approximately correct. What you do with those numbers, how you decide human beings should treat each other, is an ethical question, and that has to be done entirely separately.
The numbers tell us, and have been telling us for a long time, that we're not going to stop this. We use humongous amounts of energy. We are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. It's the ethics which then have to come into it on a completely separate track. How do human beings want to be?
What kind of human beings do we want to be? At present in the world, for example, a child born in Somalia has completely different outlooks for life than a child born in California. There's plenty to debate around ethics and what kind of world we want to have. One does not need numbers from science to "prove" your ethics. If one feels that the vast discrepancies in the opportunities for a child across the world are ethically wrong, they're simply ethically wrong. You don't need numbers from science to prove your ethics or convince anyone of your ethics.
If we can keep the ethics out of the science, then the science can just do its job and do the numbers and tell us the numbers. Stop trying to change the numbers to suit ethics just because one is trying to prove the ethics.
I am always reminded of an environmentalist who told me that it does not matter if CO2 is not a problem or the major problem because, they said, by forcing people to cut CO2 you are forcing them to reduce their greed.
Re: (Score:3)
A massive, massive, deep flaw in much of the environmental movement over most of its lifetime has been confusing ethics and science. In fact, trying to use science to prove their ethics ...
piling up scientific evidence wasn't to force any change in ethics, but simply a way to force society at large to realize there was a problem in the first place, because denialists have been denying the evidence all along, and still do. that's why they're called, you know, denialists. big oil and friends have even been poisoning the wells by producing false evidence.
changing ethics could then come later, once the reality of the situation is established, but nobody would expect to significantly change the e
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people react to a situation using their existing ethics. The reality will more likely just result in resource wars... which we already have. If people's ethics changed on account of bad realities, war would have ended thousands of years ago. We don't actually know why and how people's ethics developed. That's the massive idiocy underlying the environmental movement's belief that climate change will cause people to wake up.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because we're way richer, and our population is much higher than those others. That enables our people to buy devices and do stupid shit like crypto mining.
In any case, we've been reducing our emissions and inventing technologies to enable others to reduce theirs, since the 50s.
But none of this matters if China triples its coal plants this year alone and literally paints its countryside green, deception instead of positive actions.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because we're way richer, and our population is much higher than those others. That enables our people to buy devices and do stupid shit like crypto mining.
In any case, we've been reducing our emissions and inventing technologies to enable others to reduce theirs, since the 50s.
But none of this matters if China triples its coal plants this year alone and literally paints its countryside green, deception instead of positive actions.
And there we go! I recall some of the infighting about CO2 reduction back in the day. As usual, the enemy was the US, and its brother, Europe. The second and third worlds cried that they needed to emit as much carbon as they liked (needed), in order to catch up, and the first world needed to understand and lower their standard of living.
So here we are. People still arguing about Carbon emissions per capita. They argue about the wrong thing.
Meanwhile, here we are at 8.1 billion people. The second and t
Re: (Score:3)
In the past 20 years, India has added almost two US populations to the number of humans in the world.
The population of India has not grown that much, according to Wikipedia:
India [wikipedia.org]: (2020) 1,353,378,000 - (2001) 1,071,374,000 = 282,004,000 (+26%)
USA [wikipedia.org]: (2020) 331,511,512 - (2001) 284,968,955 = 46,542,557 (+16%)
So population growth in India over 20 years was less than the population of the US in 2001.
You could add another 29 million [wikipedia.org] Non-Resident Indians and People of Indian Origin, if you want to include them as people India has added to "the number of humans in the world".
Re: (Score:2)
In the past 20 years, India has added almost two US populations to the number of humans in the world.
The population of India has not grown that much, according to Wikipedia:
India [wikipedia.org]: (2020) 1,353,378,000 - (2001) 1,071,374,000 = 282,004,000 (+26%)
Percentage does not equal numbers. I was off about what I posted a bit, mea culpas. But using the numbers as a percentage defense.
In 2000, the population of India was about a billion. In 2020, it was 1.38 billion Here's a nice data source. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] Another source https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info] puts 2024 population at 1 billion 441 thousand. So no big deal I suppose?
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to pollute less per capita when your people are dirt poor.
What this points to is a massive increase in CO2 emissions in the future, as they rapidly increase their coal usage. I wonder why you don't seem to be jumping on their case on that.
You're a CCP shill.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for it! Do away with globalism and you'll see a major emissions drop off from transporting stuff in circles around the world. No more buying shit form China. We should make it state side like we use to. Added bonus, we'll do it cleaner and safer because our laws insist we do.
We should probably stop letting people global trot around the world on airplanes until we can figure out that jet fuel problem as well. Pretty sure air travel is around 2%-3% of total emissions. It all adds up.
Some how, I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Also, 'in the past,' we have been reducing emissions for several decades
Except ... not really "several decades": reported US carbon emissions [statista.com] mostly increased from 1975 until around 2004-2007. Since then, they've fallen from 6 million metric tons per year to 4.8 million, about a 20% decrease over the past two decades.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, not sure where I thought I saw that.
Re: welcome denialist troll (Score:2)
Re:welcome denialist troll (Score:5, Informative)
All that drives the climate is the total tonnage emitted in future.
Nope, all that drives the climate is the currently accumulated tonnage.
Re: (Score:2)
For your arguments you need to do BOTH:
1. Invent a time machine and bring back in time all the green technologies America invented in the last 60 years.
2. Force China to go green.
Till, then, stop playing this childish game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Maybe America should pull back all it's investments, stop being world police and stop importing stuff from everyone else. We could definitely produce everything we need within our own country. It's that big and we have access to a lot of natural resources, especially since we've been letting other countries use up theirs to sell to us. We could also stop exporting stuff from USA as well. I'm not sure how many countries would starve, but hey, they shouldn't of overpopulated their land beyond it's capaci
Re: (Score:2)
China and India might not have over consumed flight travels and cars, instead they have overconsumed children. And that is worse. See here https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They at least tripling their coal usage this year alone.
LOL trolloban. You come out with a whopper of a lie like that, but the other person is the liar.
Most of their population lives in very rural areas
Oh, you're not just a liar but an ignorant one. As of 2022, approximately 65% people in China live in cities. [wikipedia.org]
We've been reducing our carbon footprint for several decades
And after those several decades of reductions... Americans are still nearly twice as bas as Chinese [ourworldindata.org]
China makes no effort other than solar, which they sell to the west, not locally.
There's that American ignorance we've all come here to see christoban. China has the 3 biggest solar farms in the world. [electrek.co]
And their coal plants are not more more efficient than everyone else's.
Well they are trolloban, it's just a fact. China has the most eficient coal plants. [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
>> China makes no effort other than solar
"China's wind farms produced over 100 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in March, the highest monthly total ever by a single country and as much as all of Europe and North America combined, data from energy think tank Ember shows.
The production total was 25% more than during the same month in 2023, and helps extend China's dominant position as by far the world's largest renewable energy producer."
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or so the CCP claims. Now check the coal claims against the reality.
Re: (Score:2)
>> check the coal claims against the reality
You check 'em and get back to us with verifiable facts. Or quit running your mouth, either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't debate with CCP shills. They are lying, and you are backing them up and repeating anti-American propaganda.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
"Made in China" and then transported to and consumed everywhere else in the world isn't powered by fairy dust and unicorn smiles. It's easy to have low emissions when you externalise production. Let's see how it goes once (if) the process of bringing manufacturing back gets under steam.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see how it goes once (if) the process of bringing manufacturing back gets under steam.
What do you mean let's see how it goes. The USA emits 1.7x the emissions per capita than China does. The way you're writing makes it seem as if America has anything right now it should be proud of, other than the arbitrary number of people encircled in its border.
Insightful message buried within the literal one (Score:5, Insightful)
it doesn't matter how much the western countries reduce their carbon out put when China, India and other countries are building coal plants far faster than us
While I can't determine whether I should interpret this message literally or in the context of satire, I'll opt for the latter, because it's far more insightful, as it best captures the problem at hand: Whataboutism. Somehow, with just the pointing of a finger, we can erase all responsibility and consequence of our actions. When Kim Kardashian flies a private jet to Paris for a slice of cheesecake [snopes.com], don't blame her for global warming, because Brazil is destroying all its rain forests [time.com]. Meanwhile, Earth doesn't care.
Earth only cares about one thing: emitting more CO2 than we sink. She doesn't care who does it, or how they do it. It is happening, everybody is contributing to the problem, and it continues to accelerate.
Just look at that NOAA graph. [cbsnewsstatic.com] It continued to accelerate as we mass-deployed nuclear energy around the globe in the 60's. It continued to accelerate as Al Gore acknowledged the problem in An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. It continued to accelerate as we transitioned all our lighting over to CFL then LED in the 2000s. It continued to accelerate as we widely adopted wind and solar energy in the 2010s. It continued to accelerate as we invented electric transportation in the 2020s. There has yet to be an inflection point in this graph. Every time we find a way to make energy production or consumption cleaner, it becomes cheaper, and we produce/consume even more of it. Jevons Paradox is a bitch. [wikipedia.org]
We're all boiling frogs, and the finger pointing will not stop the heat.
Re: (Score:2)
So we should ban crypto farms, AI, mansions, air travel, cows and gas guzzlers. I'll vote aye on that. You won't even see a Democrat push for that though. That would hurt their donors. Guess we're screwed!
Re: (Score:2)
>> doesn't matter how much the western countries reduce
Tiresome old chestnut. China is the top emitter but they are making massive investments in renewables, and the utilization factor of their coal plants is only about 50%. The US is the #2 emitter at about half of China, and India is a distant third at about half of the US. The EU has reduced emissions considerably and is now only at about 70% of 1990 levels, which is now about the same as India.
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Dogs aren't so stupid, it should be redone with people.
Not only asia (Score:2)
You might want to have a word with the catholic church too.
Plus africas population is surging - Nigeria is currently 220 million and rising fast in an area less than twice the size of france. They might not emit much CO2 per person by the enviroment is slowly being shot to bits especially with the serious oil pollution going on there that rarely gets mentioned by the enviromental lobby.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not only asia (Score:4, Insightful)
No, their environmental problems are their own. Shell and BP are active in e.g., Canada without causing any major issues because Canada has decided to regulate their business there. Nigeria has not made the same decision. That is their voluntary choice to make.
Re: (Score:2)
So because they weren't properly regulated it's perfectly fine for these companies to have created significant environmental problems? Morality means nothing huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Non-regulation is also a regulation.
Who's moral?
With the same regulations as in e.g. Canada they might not have started operating in Nigeria, and thus not employed locals, which would have missed out on salary. This missing salary might have been the straw that broke the camel's back and prevented people from starving or affording health care, causing them to die.
Considering consequences isn't one of your strong points, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Non-regulation is also a regulation.
Who's moral?
You seem to be conflating morality and legality. While the two often have a correlation they are absolutely not the same thing and do not always line up particularly when you start getting into third world countries and their laws.
Considering consequences isn't one of your strong points, is it?
Ha, what? Apparently you cant even conceive of the negative consequences at all. How about all the ruined farm land over there https://www.aljazeera.com/feat... [aljazeera.com] ? How about all of the destroyed fisheries? You dont think that doesnt destroy livelihoods and lives https://www.theguar [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No it is you who commits that mistake. You should look up Hume's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem).
None of your examples matter. It is up to the Nigerians, and this is what they decided to have. Besides, you haven't proved that they are worse off because you never included the alternative cost in your list - because you are incapable of considering consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Shortening people's life spans is bad. Destroying vast amounts of agricultural land that people depend on for a living is bad. It doesnt matter what the laws are, those are just plain bad things for a person or company to be doing.
...because you are incapable of considering consequences.
So you're accusing me of something you havent even attempted? Nigeria has the typical curse of significant resource wealth and just like other countries with this problem all the money goes to a very few and the left are left to pick over the remains. If oil wealth has really bee
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the CO2-numbers for Bangladesh, per km2. They are higher than Europe's emissions, just because of the extreme density.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved my point of sterilization. We can't reduce the numbers of humans existing but we can reduce the number of future humans. If everyone is limited to 0,5 child the problem will solve itself in a blink of an eye (from a geological perspective).
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that American (and Western consumption in general) return some useful results too, e.g., vaccine against covid, treatment for HIV, significantly reduced child mortality etc. Market economy always strive to waste less, because it is unprofitable. Compare with environmental damage in the former East bloc. Yes, USA/Western Europe also damaged the environment but it came with a benefit - development. The East bloc just wasted the nature and got nothing out of it.
How much CO2 has India rele
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Sir Fart-a-lot, is that you?
No, that would be me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And people are still dragging their heels on this. I'm hesitantly optimistic that we'll make it somehow, but the data ain't looking good.
People are not hurrying and they are not preparing to. Instead they refine their lies and their denial strategies. IMO Civilization is done for and whether there will be humans on this planet in 200 years is being decided at the moment. And the polls say it is a clear "no".
Re: (Score:2)
There will be humans. Probably significantly fewer of them, but we will adapt. That's what we do. Not saying mass die offs won't happen but some amount will still be around.
Re:600ppm means epic trouble. (Score:5, Interesting)
Humans cannot tolerate the indoor CO2 levels that those outdoor levels of CO2 would create. If we want to be able to loiter in buildings we're going to need CO2 scrubbers or massively increased air exchange rates.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure we aren't the only species in the universe to have this issue. The Fermi paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ask where is all the people and one of the resolutions to that is The Great Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . If we can't solve this climate problem, we'll be an example of why the stars aren't abundant with life.