Carbon Emissions Continued Increasing Last Year, Especially in China and India - But Not the US (apnews.com) 111
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Associated Press:
Even as Earth sets new heat records, humanity this year is pumping 330 million tons (300 million metric tons) more carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels than it did last year. This year the world is on track to put 41.2 billion tons (37.4 billion metric tons) of the main heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere. It's a 0.8% increase from 2023, according to Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who track emissions... This year's pollution increase isn't quite as large as last year's 1.4% jump, scientists said while presenting the data at the United Nations climate talks in Azerbaijan...
The continued rise in carbon emissions is mostly from the developing world and China. Many analysts had been hoping that China — by far the world's biggest annual carbon polluting nation with 32% of the emissions — would have peaked its carbon dioxide emissions by now. Instead China's emissions rose 0.2% from 2023, with coal pollution up 0.3%, Global Carbon Project calculated... [Although its growth rate now is "basically flat," O'Sullivan said.] That's nothing close to the increase in India, which at 8% of the globe's carbon pollution is third-largest carbon emitter. India's carbon pollution jumped 4.6% in 2024, the scientists said.
Carbon emissions fell 0.6% in the U.S. mostly from reduced coal, oil and cement use. The U.S. was responsible for 13% of the globe's carbon dioxide in 2024. Historically, it's responsible for 21% of the world's emissions since 1950... Twenty-two nations have shown steady decreases in emissions, O'Sullivan said, singling out the United States as one of those. The biggest emission drops from 2014 to 2023 were in the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Europe, which accounts for 7% of the world's carbon pollution, saw its carbon dioxide output drop 3.8% from last year — driven by a big cut in coal emissions.
Some interesting statistics from the article:
The continued rise in carbon emissions is mostly from the developing world and China. Many analysts had been hoping that China — by far the world's biggest annual carbon polluting nation with 32% of the emissions — would have peaked its carbon dioxide emissions by now. Instead China's emissions rose 0.2% from 2023, with coal pollution up 0.3%, Global Carbon Project calculated... [Although its growth rate now is "basically flat," O'Sullivan said.] That's nothing close to the increase in India, which at 8% of the globe's carbon pollution is third-largest carbon emitter. India's carbon pollution jumped 4.6% in 2024, the scientists said.
Carbon emissions fell 0.6% in the U.S. mostly from reduced coal, oil and cement use. The U.S. was responsible for 13% of the globe's carbon dioxide in 2024. Historically, it's responsible for 21% of the world's emissions since 1950... Twenty-two nations have shown steady decreases in emissions, O'Sullivan said, singling out the United States as one of those. The biggest emission drops from 2014 to 2023 were in the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Europe, which accounts for 7% of the world's carbon pollution, saw its carbon dioxide output drop 3.8% from last year — driven by a big cut in coal emissions.
Some interesting statistics from the article:
- Burning coal, oil, and natural gas is currently emitting 2.6 million pounds (1.2 million kilograms) of carbon dioxide every second..."
- In the last 10 years, emissions have gone up about 6%.
- Global carbon emissions are more than double what they were 50 years ago, and 50% more than they were in 1999.
"If the world continues burning fossil fuels at today's level, it has six years before passing 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the limit agreed to at the 2015 climate talks in Paris, said study co-author Stephen Sitch. The Earth is already at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit), according to the United Nations."
Yet "Total carbon emissions — which include fossil fuel pollution and land use changes such as deforestation — are basically flat because land emissions are declining, the scientists said."
Until people in the west... (Score:5, Insightful)
...stop buying endless throwaway crap from China then their emissions won't go down. A lot of China's emissions are outsourced from the wests former industrial capacity. People need to take a good look in the mirror at their own lifestyles if climate change is really going to be combated, otherwise its all just virtue signalling.
Re:Until people in the west... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let not kidding ourselves. It’s too late. Domino effect is already in the momentum. World population is explosive and most don’t believe in science or even care as long they follow their money and religions. Optimism is a way of telling you to keep it up with consuming, breeding, making money, and praying.
It is too late. My initial calculations were that the tipping point was some time in the mid 80's. This was reinforced when the world's shipping fleets started switching away from bunker fuel, and were spewing les SO2.
We have people telling us that world population will fall off, while India has added almost 2 entire populations of the USA since 2000.
In an ironic twist it will. We simply cannot have Western level of lifestyle for everyone for a planet that at this moment is at 8.1 billion and hardly slo
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
China was very close to coming down. Even with morons still claiming it "rising faster than ever reeeeeee"
It doesn't look like America will come down fast enough to ever be lower than China's CO2. [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Have you been to rural China? I have. Most of them are living a medieval lifestyle with essentially zero modern conveniences. Electricity, running water, etc, do not exist for most of them.
LOL
Can you PLEASE stop making it so easy to prove what a complete fucking idiot you are? Pretty please?
China's electricity rate is 100% [theglobaleconomy.com] They all get electricity.
It's no fun if it's this easy.
No it's not just 1 site that shows that they're all 100% [tradingeconomics.com]
Re: Until people in the west... (Score:2)
Following your sum total, even while 75% of US adults are now obese, Americans in total are still lightweight compared the Chinese. Keep up the munchies, you're way behind!!
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If it were merely decreasing that would be a problem.
But they have this demographic bubble created by the one child policy which has done horrible things to their population curves that have never existed in human history at large scale. No one really knows what will happen as that bubble ages up but quite likely "bad shit" is going down starting in the next 5-10 years.
There's already some effects being seen in younger people's social/dating/marriage prospects at the leading edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we did that, China is not going to stop the transition from agrarian to urban for hundreds of millions of people.
That's really what this is down to. Building, short term solutions to local energy issues. With the amount of renewables going in, it's only a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
...stop buying endless throwaway crap from China then their emissions won't go down. A lot of China's emissions are outsourced from the wests former industrial capacity. People need to take a good look in the mirror at their own lifestyles if climate change is really going to be combated, otherwise its all just virtue signalling.
The people buying endless throwaway crap, are also the same ones enjoying endless stock market returns.
Nothing like egging on a situation when you’re the crap-hoarding consumer and the investor.
Re: (Score:2)
People need to take a good look in the mirror at their own lifestyles
Before we change our lifestyle we can simply do a lot to reduce senseless waste. Lifestyle implies that living would get tougher. Not that we do stupid things like throw repairable things away, leave the AC on all day when no one is home, buy V8s instead of sensible cars, etc.
Now those people who need a lifestyle change are bitcoin miners. A good change for them would be to wake up in hospital with their knees broken.
Re:Until people in the west... (Score:4, Informative)
See that's the problem.
You cannot say that when most of the country's living paycheck to paycheck. The throwaway stuff is how many survive, and we met this issue times and times again when we wanted to get rid of plastic. It simply makes things to expensive when "get shit cheap" is entirely baked into the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but the throwaway crap would still be eye-poppingly cheap if China adhered to some eco rules.
So let's not act as if this wasn't a question of an inferior culture taking their profits from everybody's future including their own offspring.
I am done with acting like every culture was equal in quality.
Re: Until people in the west... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of China's emissions are outsourced from the wests former industrial capacity.
And China can't build renewable energy sources? It's not the rest of the world's job to manage China's energy sources.
Don't forget! (Score:2)
Blame the US somehow. Even if the numbers don't really back the argument.
Re: (Score:3)
The US is still China's biggest customer.
We are not responsible for all of the ill in the world, but we do have an outsized share
Re: Don't forget! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the US somehow. Even if the numbers don't really back the argument.
Blaming one target which at this point is the US for everything, is a wonderful salve that allows people and countries to not only continue to blame the standard target, but to carry on doing what they are doing, in a sort of fake innocence.
anyone know if we have open data for carbon emissi (Score:1)
well that will change (Score:2)
China produces more clean energy than any other .. (Score:2)
Re: China produces more clean energy than any othe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it might actually be because their buildout of skyscrapers was finally slowing down (if not crashing), but this recent source [nextmsc.com] says their construction industry is still growing rapidly.
And now some numbers in perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An American emits more CO2 than a European and a Chinese added together.
Good grief! What are you guys eating?
Re:Bu bu bu.. (Score:5, Informative)
An American emits more CO2 than a European and a Chinese added together.
Good grief! What are you guys eating?
We eat a pretty normal diet. What he's talking about is this:
US emissions per capita are about 13,8 metric tons.
EU emissions per capita are about 7,25 metric tons.
China emissions per capita are about 8 metric tons.
Sum up the per capita emissions for China and Europe their emissions are only 1,45 metric tons greater per capita combined than those for one American. He's not correct in that the per capita emissions for the US are greater than those of the EU and China summed up but he's not far off. American emissions are grotesquely disproportional to those of other major industrial powers.
Re: (Score:1)
America 14.3
Eu(28) 5.4
China 8.4
8.4+5.4 = 13.8
Which is less than 14.3
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, stop bullshitting. We (Americans) eat a ton of meat. We’re like #2 in the world, and definitely the top for big countries (population). There are just smaller rich countries near us, but not China, India, etc.
We especially love the high greenhouse gas meats (beef).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The world, and especially the US, has an insatiable hunger for Cryptocurrency and AI. The two technologies with a voracious need to consume and waste power. Recalculate those numbers after removing both technologies from the global footprint. At one time Al gore said replacing one lightbulb with a CFL would reverse global warming. Now we have houses full of LED and its not putting a dent into the problem. One step forward, two steps back. This had nothing to do with meat or farting cows and everything to do
Re: (Score:1)
Per capita is a bad metric.
Per unit of productivity is what matters.
GDP isn't the best number because it's too high level but it's easy to find.
Divide co2 by gdp and you get a measure of how much production there was per unit of co2. An efficiency rating.
If a country can have ten times the gdp with five times the total co2 of another baseline country they're doing great even if their per capita is higher because their productive output for that co2 is much higher.
Emissions for GDP rewards markup (Score:2)
Emissions per dollar GDP is stupid because it considers applying markup to be "productivity". For example:
It also causes distortion for production of basic necessities where purchasing power is different. USD1 equivalent in C
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is a bad metric.
Per unit of productivity is what matters.
GDP isn't the best number because it's too high level but it's easy to find.
Divide co2 by gdp and you get a measure of how much production there was per unit of co2. An efficiency rating.
If a country can have ten times the gdp with five times the total co2 of another baseline country they're doing great even if their per capita is higher because their productive output for that co2 is much higher.
LOL, so you think the average American worker is as productive as an EU and a Chinese worker combined?
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not denigrate efficiency. It is actually a significant part of the path to getting out of this mess.
Re: (Score:1)
China has a population greater than the US and Europe combined
Using the numbers from your chart...here are the total emissions of those regions:
US 335 million people x 14.3t/capita = 4.79 Billion Tons
China 1.4 BILLION people x 8.4t/capita = 11.76 Billion Tons
EU 449 Million people x 5.4t/capita = 2.42 Billion Tons
So, let's stop pretending like China is doing a great job....and lets stop pretending that the US is the only country that buys stuff from China. There's a few bill
Re: (Score:2)
If you get to cheat by averaging with much cleaner people
That's literally what China is doing by averaging with 500ish million impoverished rural citizens, that don't live in the 1% of land area responsible for 75% of the emissions..
Re: Bu bu bu.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Checking per capita gives a much better idea of which country pollutes more
No. It takes the entire amount of pollution produced by a country...and divides it by the number of citizens. But....in the end, the COUNTRY still produces "X" amount of pollution. Just because you average in a bunch of low carbon producing people...doesn't mean that the country isn't still generating a substantial amount of pollution.
If the US dumps a ton of plutonium in the ocean...and China dumps 3 tons....China will have a lower per capita rate of plutonium ocean dumping. But does that make it a goo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean the guy that's pumping out electric cars?...and solar roofs?....and batteries that enable green solutions tied to the grid?
Yes, that guy who's now accepted Donald Trump into his life as his personal Jesus, joined a movement that regards everything you just listed as a direct assault of their most deeply held beliefs and who's now being mocked all over the planet as America's new first lady Elonia Musk [lovingsquad.com].
Re: (Score:1)
I'll bet anything I've got more solar than you do. I use it to charge my Tesla. And I have enough batteries to run my house forever with no grid power as long as it's not permanently overcast. And then I voted for Trump/Vance.
What have -you- done to reduce your carbon footprint? And who did you vote for?
(I don't think lovingsquad.com counts as "all over the planet" outside your bubble, btw).
Yes, the painting of anyone who doesn't vote Democrat is a retread, one of the favorite memes of the far left crowd that spilled over into the rank and file Democrats was not a good idea on their part.
A scary far right acquaintance (now passed) owned and loved his Prius. You have your green setup. We have evangelical farmers in my area - the ones with the biblical quotes on signs by the road who have huge arrays of solar panels.
This election was a populist reaction by those who are increasingly left be
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, we know. The stupids are winning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But that said, only one of the two candidates was even remotely interested in being a public servant, and improving the lives of Americans, so you can stop both-sides-ing this.
Re: (Score:3)
Deficit spending doesn't promote more economic growth than it stunts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL. How many jobs do you think will be cut?
That's zero-sum thinking. The money not spent on bureaucrats will be spent elsewhere, increasing demand and generating jobs.
We can't tax-and-spend our way to prosperity.
Too little government is a problem. Too much government is a problem.
Right now, do we have too much or too little? I don't know.
Most likely, we need to cut some areas and increase others.
Corruption letting the USA down (Score:2)
Too little government is a problem. Too much government is a problem.
Right now, do we have too much or too little? I don't know.
Doesn't matter how big or small a government is if its corrupt. Corruption is not a problem at that point. It’s THE problem.
Most likely, we need to cut some areas and increase others.
We definitely need to fire a lot of people and send a message about corruption via actual prison time. Thats no longer a theory. Much like it’s no longer a theory as to why America “needs” two political parties aimed at each other at all times. Makes for one hell of a Weapon of Mass Distraction. Hell, you can turn a billionaire-hating bartender into a bill
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> The money not spent on bureaucrats will be spent elsewhere, increasing demand and generating jobs.
Or end up making billionaires even richer, which is usually what happens.
> We can't tax-and-spend our way to prosperity.
We absolutely can, though, because as you pointed out that money is spent and recycles through the economy. The key difference is that taxes pry that money out of the pockets of billionaires and force it back into the economy where it can do some good.
And the secret is to spend that ta
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to think the rich just put their money in a giant vault and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Hint: they do not.
Their money is directly invested in the economy doing things. If those things are not productive then they move move from non productive things to other things seeking productivity.
The government does not seek productivity uses for tax dollars. When they do that's just an unplanned side effect of some political decision.
Re: (Score:2)
> Their money is directly invested in the economy doing things.
"Doing things" being exploiting workers and customers to extract value for shareholders, which is in my opinion antithetical to creating prosperity. Wealth and prosperity are not the same thing, especially when the wealth comes are the cost of the public's well-being.
> The government does not seek productivity uses for tax dollars
It does, and it could be doing more. It used to do a lot more, but people like you keep electing people who tel
Re: (Score:3)
This is a lie.
While our government makes mistakes at times, the vast majority of the people serving in our government are conscientious and well-intentioned, and attempt to make each dollar provide a maximum benefit. In the case of some of the programs that are in operation right now, we have had significant growth in factory building in the US, and significant increase in manufacturing, that would not have happened without government spendin
Re: (Score:2)
taxes pry that money out of the pockets of billionaires and force it back into the economy where it can do some good.
That shifts money from investments to consumption, known as a "demand-side stimulus".
A demand-side stimulus is the correct policy when unemployment is high, inflation is low, and trade is in surplus.
That's not what we have right now. Unemployment is low, inflation is under control but above the target, and we are running massive trade deficits.
A demand-side stimulus right now will be inflationary. Imports will rise, and exports will fall, worsening our trade balance.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing that fair pay and making the upper class pay their fair share wouldn't fix
we can't have an effective economy built on a corrupt and classist foundation, can we?
Re: (Score:3)
> That shifts money from investments to consumption, known as a "demand-side stimulus".
Not necessarily; The difference is the government is the one doing the investment, and those investments are (ideally) going towards things that improve society and prosperity.
> That's not what we have right now. Unemployment is low, inflation is under control but above the target, and we are running massive trade deficits.
The US trade deficit is about 840 Billion [census.gov] so far this year, out of a GDP of just over 27 trill
Economics, redux [Re:Brandon letting the USA down] (Score:2)
I would like to agree with you, but it is simply not quite that simple.
We absolutely can, though, because as you pointed out that money is spent and recycles through the economy.
Good so far. Understanding that money recycles through the economy is a key point in understanding the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. In microeconomics, when you spend money you no longer have it. In macroeconomics, when an economy spends money, the economy does still have it (or may not have it, depending on whether it is spent inside or outside the economy).
The key difference is that taxes pry that money out of the pockets of billionaires and force it back into the economy where it can do some good.
And here you slide off the rails. Billionaires don't hav
Re: (Score:2)
zero sum economics is a pseudo-conservative fiction, there's no such thing in our economic reality, the truth is the rich are hoarding 85% of all our capital which only leaves 15% of all capital for the rest of us to manage with
how is this not classism?
Re: (Score:2)
the truth is the rich are hoarding 85% of all our capital
The top 1% own 54% of public equity and 31% of all wealth.
Stock ownership [inequality.org]
I have no idea where you got "85%". Do you have a citation?
how is this not classism?
Because it isn't true.
Re: (Score:1)
Go look up broken window theory. How much of that money goes to -productive- work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Deficit spending doesn't promote more economic growth than it stunts.
And prioritizing economic growth every time, is how we fucking got into this mess. Now imagine how we get out of it. Seriously. Specifically the option where we’re not forced to via our own demise.
This isn’t about growth anymore. Time to tell Greed to sit down and shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
> Time to tell Greed to sit down and shut the fuck up.
That and seating Usury right next to her.
"making a profit off a loan from a poor person is exploiting that person"
That's christian wording, but all Abrahamic religions have a similar concept.
Re: (Score:1)
"usury /yooZH()r/
noun
the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest."
Vs
"In the Bible, usury is the act of charging any interest on a loan:
Definition
The Bible defines usury as charging interest on a loan, regardless of whether the interest is exorbitant."
I'm an atheist. The biblical definition is both uninteresting to me in my daily life and irrelevant as a matter of public policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should stop using your nickname.
The fact that you're an atheist doesn't change anything about the fact that for centuries not charging interest was the norm in many societies.
I'm an atheist too, and it doesn't stop me from looking at these rules and think whether they're applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
As an actual economist, I can assert without reservation that the above comment is based neither on (i) economics nor (ii) factual observations.
Economics... [Re:Brandon letting the USA down] (Score:2)
Deficit spending doesn't promote more economic growth than it stunts.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It really really depends on the details of exactly what the spending goes to, and that's not just who the first recipient of the money is, but what do those recipients spend their money on, and what do those recipients spend their money on, and so on. In a brief (but still oversimplified) summary, spending that goes into the economy promotes economic growth, spending that does not (for example, money leaving the US) does not.